Could the Claremont Colleges eventually become one large research university?

College Search & Lists
1

<p>Hello everyone :)</p>

<p>I was just looking up when NYU bought the Polytechnic University and I found out that many great schools were formed from the merger of 2 or more school (for example Carnegie Mellon). So I thought… What if Harvey Mudd, Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Scripps, Pitzer and the graduate schools in Claremont merged?</p>

<p>At the moment:
-They are all LACs
-They all have top notch departments, and they are complementary
-They are all adjecent
-They tend to attract a similar type of student</p>

<p>If they merged:
-There would be a very wide campus, spreading across the current 5 colleges
-It would be a top notch university, likely in the top ten in most departments
-It would offer a better undergraduate focus than most university (just like Princeton and Dartmouth)
-It will have a larger name recognition
-It might attract more student and increase yield
-It will result in saving money
-It will have about 3.5 billion USD in endowment, which would put it ahead of all LACs and almost tied to Dartmouth College</p>

<p>What do think?</p>

2

<p>Could they? Sure.
Would they? Probably not.</p>

<p>A university created by the merger of these 5 colleges wouldn’t necessarily result in more name recognition or student applications/yield. These are already prestigious colleges that attract top students and have low acceptance rates, especially CMC, Pomona and Harvey Mudd. Scripps is, too - their acceptance rate is higher due to being a women’s college.</p>

<p>The campuses are already connected/coterminous, so the large campus isn’t necessarily a bonus of merging. I also don’t know that it would necessarily result in saving money, either. Transitioning to a top research university from an LAC would require an enormous outlay of money - they would have to try to attract a different kind of faculty (faculty who go to LACs don’t do as much research as faculty at R1s), create or strengthen their offices of sponsored research (to help those faculty get grants), hire a whole bunch of extra staff (to support some of the services that go on at top research universities - like grantmaking and management), probably build new research centers and labs to attract that talent, etc.</p>

3

<p>In theory, they could merge into a large LAC – but that may be a marketing disadvantage, since most people associate LACs with small size, even if the practical difference between a “merged Claremont school” and the individual Claremont schools as they are now would be minimal.</p>

4

<p>Unlike some other merged schools, the Claremont Consortium was conceived as a group of separate, but connected, colleges. Its entire identity is fused with that concept. I don’t see your scenario unfolding anytime soon.</p>

5

<p>Besides, there are already two graduate schools in the Consortium: Claremont Graduate University and the Keck Graduate Institute. I agree with the other posters, OP. There has to be a need that drives the merger, and there has to be a benefit. You haven’t done a good job articulating either. They don’t tend to attract the same kind of student, btw, as the students will be happy to point out to you.</p>

6

<p>Also, they’re likely already saving on costs by sharing what can be shared.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>And destroying the exact fabric and model that makes the consortium so special? Large research universities have a very different mission, and that mission is NOT to focus on the education of undergraduates. The greatest advantage of the Claremont school is exactly the absence of the Lecturers cum TAs model that allows the leisurely lifestyles of professors who have little to no contact with undergraduates. </p>

<p>There are no incentives for the Claremont schools to reinvent themselves in the form and shape of a USC or UCLA look-alike for the sole purpose of gaining more notoriety from the Joe SixPack and Nascar crowd. </p>

<p>The reality is quite different. If research universities were truly interested in providing the best UG education and experience, they might look at the Claremont model as a model of efficiency, and especially when the consortium functions without travel obligations. A faculty truly dedicated to the education of undergraduates is a huge bonus. </p>

<p>I had the great fortune to experience both models, and there is no doubt in my mind that each model has benefits and weaknesses. The weaknesses, however, are hardly at the UG students level. This said, the decisions to attend a LAC vs a research university remain based on individual preferences and expectations. I would have been happy to study at a large research university and enjoy the amenities that come from size and athletic budgets. It would have been a different academic experience, and I surely would NOT have enjoyed being taught by glorified peers masquerading as teachers and having to climb an ivory tower to see the facial features of the teacher. And THAT is the price one pays at a school that focuses on research. The research is not the problem per se; it is how the model works at so-called research universities! </p>

<p>There are no secrets. It is a matter of compromises. You cannot expect the faculty devoted to research to also have the drive to teach regular UG courses. After all, they did everything that was asked of them to be able to avoid … teaching! </p>

8

<p>Wow, so many responses!</p>

<p>@xiggi‌ Sorry for the bad wording in the title of the thread. What I meant was to become not a pure research university taught by TA in lectures, but instead a large university-like LAC (Somewhat like Dartmouth) with undergraduate focus and small, discussion-based, classes. Also, the large size of the university could potentially open up new opportunities for research. The large endowment could improve financial aid, facilities and programs (for example study/research abroad). What I am proposing is an hybrid model that combines LAC and university. Also, about having faculty do research and teaching at the same time, I would propose to have only a subsection of the faculty to be devoted to research only (maybe those from the Keck Graduate Institute and the Claremont Graduate University), while the majority would keep on teaching undergrads. It might be like “the Princeton of the west”!</p>

<p>@jkeil911‌ When I mean that they attract the same type of students I mean that they attract mostly students interested in studying in a LAC. I know, this is VERY broad. On the other hand, the fact that they attract different types of students might be a good thing. It would create a diversified student body, with scientists/engineers from Harvey Mudd and Economists/PoliSci Majors from Claremont McKenna in the same school, like in Stanford. Again, most department would rank in the top 10 in the nation.</p>

<p>@juillet‌ Research could be a small part of the new school, and largely manage by the 2 graduate schools in Claremont, at the beginning. New departments could be added as time goes by.</p>

<p>@ucbalumnus‌ It is worth remembering that, while the total number of students would increase, the class size would potentially stay the same. And, if it is a problem, they could adopt something along the lines of Oxbridge colleges, with the difference that students are allowed to take classes outside their major and outside their “college”.</p>

<p>@woogzmama‌ I am aware that the Claremont colleges were meant to be separate, but interconnected, colleges. However, they have an advantage compared to similar alliances, they are all located in the same town. Such a merger would not be very effective in other cases, like the alliance between Wellesley, Babson, Brandeis and Franklin W Olin. Yes, their specialties are complementary (Olin Engineering, Babson Enterprenuership, etc…), however, while they are located arond the same area, only two are located in the same town.</p>

<p>@PurpleTitan‌ Mergers ALWAYS bring economic benefifts. For example, instead of having 5 admission commitees, you can have just one, therefore you would save money.</p>

9

<p>@S2Stan: actually, no, mergers in the real world do not “ALWAYS” bring benefits. If you look at mergers in the real world, in fact (rather than some textbook case), many if not most mergers in the business world are actually value-destructive. The cost-savings are usually overstated, and the complications resulting from the merger are usually underestimated. People are not interchangeable widgets, and culture is actually important when it comes to the viability of organizations (and vital stuff for private colleges like alumni donations and the like).</p>

<p>@xiggi:
The lifestyle of tenured faculty <em>could</em> be leisurely, but you don’t know too much if you think untenured faculty lead leisurely lifestyles.</p>

10

<p>If mergers ALWAYS bring economic benefits, then our economic ideal would be all companies merged into one giant conglomerate of monopolies - which history has shown as being a bad idea for many reasons. No sane businessperson sees that as a good way to run anything.</p>

<p>As mentioned above, the Claremont schools were founded as a cooperative model of independent schools, that, as far as I know, has proven to be very successful. Why would you want to mess with that?</p>

11

<p>@PurpleTitan‌ My bad. Sorry, I’m not an expert on the topic (to my defence I don’t take IB B&M/Economics at my school lol). I just assumed that, by closing redundant departments and substute them with more useful ones, it would be possible to increase the overall efficency and productivity of the school.</p>

12

<p>They are already connected: I suppose that you might think of them as subsidiaries under a corporate umbrella. These subsidiaries have unique brands, but the synergy among them is part of the value for each. An engineer at Mudd might enjoy living in a Pitzer dorm, and taking a Humanities elective at Scripps, simply because they are so different. The Consortium seems to be doing well enough on its own, for now. I’m sure that officials at Pitzer occasionally salivate at the prospect of getting some of CMC or Harvey Mudd’s endowment, but they’d lose some autonomy (not to mention their jobs, quite possibly) if they did. My son and I toured Pitzer and CMC last summer. He didn’t have the stats for Pomona or Mudd (he’s not STEM-focused, either), and his y-chromosome disqualified him for Scripps.He liked both a lot, but liked each better for the relationship with the consortium. Pitzer might have been oppressively “hippie,” and CMC oppressively careerist, if they did not have the consortium, and each would lose its character with a merger.</p>

13

<p>@woogzmama‌ In order to avoid losing character something along the lines of Oxbridge could be done
For example, under an hypothetical “Claremont College” there would be:
-Harvey Mudd College, with a techy culture
-Pitzer College, hippie
-Scripps College, women-only
-Claremont McKenna: Slightly conservative, Jocks
-Pomona: Elitist (NOT MY WORDS, I love Pomona)
After some time, 5 to 10 years, those cultures will be blended, and those colleges could potentially become only dorms, each one charaterized by its own personal characterisics (like in most universities)</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>Why is it almost always necessary to respond with a “you don’t know too much if you think …?” Why is there an assumption that people do not know nor understand the differences between tenured and untenured professors, or the difference between tenured professors and adjuncts? People who actually KNOW from having experienced the differences lately would have no problems evaluating my comments about what makes the “researcher” model work, and what objectives in contains in terms of providing the academic diva the “leisurely” life I hinted at. </p>

<p>Fwiw, one of the biggest hurdles in bridging the opinions from outsiders and the opinions of the employed educators is what constitutes a life of leisure. Heck, I have a couple of tenure-tracked family members who constantly complain about the exigences related to teach 3 courses a semester and having to do it almost every year. </p>

<p>Regardless of the above, my point was that it would be a huge step backward for the Claremont schools to morph into something that drastically different! </p>

15

<p>@xiggi‌: the assumption was made because you did not differentiate between the lifestyles of the tenured and non-tenured faculty. You say you know tenure-track faculty, so would you say the non-tenured faculty lead a leisurely lifestyle? Compared to whom? From the folks I know (tenure-track faculty and many more in the business world), the tenure-track folks do not seem to lead a leisurely life. Yes, their evaluation only comes at the end of 4 years, but most who want to be tenured have to bust their behinds to get a shot at doing so.</p>

<p>@S2Stan‌:</p>

<p>OK, but why would they <em>want</em> to merge. You’ve already admitted that you’re no expert about the benefits and drawbacks of mergers, so if you can not justify that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, why would they want to dilute their cultures? </p>

16

<p>Titan, feel free to continue making assumptions and engaging in strawmen arguments. That will not change much to what I wrote in the first place:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You made a distinction I did not make and was not necessary as I clearly defined the professors as those … who have little to no contact with undergraduates. The further distinction of tenured or non-tenured professor is trivial and irrelevant to my point. Debating the perils and demands of seeking tenure is well beyond a discussion about the different models of undergraduate education. Don’t you think? </p>

17

<p>@xiggi: Actually, if there’s anyone setting up strawmen, it’s you.</p>

<p>When it comes to how leisurely a lifestyle is, being tenured or not actually does matter. A tenure-track professor can have zero teaching responsibilities at all and not have a leisurely life in the least. Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that the first and foremost responsibility of a tenure-track professor at a research university is producing publishable research? Are you trying to argue that you can produce enough research while living a leisurely lifestyle? Are you trying to argue that any job which is not teaching undergrads is by definition “leisurely”? Mind you, I am not arguing that that is good for undergraduate instruction, but your use of the word “leisurely” as well as stating that the distinction between tenured and nontenured does not matter belies ignorance of how a research university operates.</p>

18

<p>Make them residential colleges maybe?</p>

<p>New name: Claremont University</p>

<p>Arts/Humanities and some Science majors are part of Pomona-Pitzer-Scripps College. </p>

<p>STEM (hard sciences, math, CS and Engineering) majors are part of Mudd College.</p>

<p>And Business/Econ/Poli Sci majors are part of the McKenna College of Leadership.</p>

19

<p>lordylordy, we’ve got another college president from the MBA ranks on our hands. A Big Vision man. Who still hasn’t provided a rationale for doing any of this. You’d fit right in at a number of colleges today who are looking for new presidents. Send in your resume with the draft of a new 5-year plan for college that you can powerpoint at your interview with the board of trustees, themselves businessmen and -women who know little to nothing about running a college. Won’t matter, in 5 years, probably more like 3, you’ll take your vision upstream for a higher salary. </p>

20

<p>I could see some advantages in just making the various websites work a little more cohesively. Right now, if you want to survey all the English courses available at Claremont (and there are a lot) you have to visit at least three different websites, and even then you have to stop and wonder aloud whether CMC has an English department, or whether Harvey Mudd does? The situation is even more complicated if you want to check out the graduate level offerings in a certain department. At Yale, for example, you would just look at that department’s course catalogue and the graduate courses would be easy to spot by their numerical designation. At Claremont, there’s no clear connection between any of the five undergraduate colleges and the work being done at Keck or CGU. You have to go to the Keck or CGU websites to learn about something as basic as the accelerated masters degree program, something even a large LAC like Wesleyan would highlight pretty prominently.</p>