I understand that. Most Boards of Trustees for public universities are political appointees. It used to be the case that governors or legislators would appoint people with some expertise or vested interest in higher education. These days, such appointments are often (in some states, not all) based on ideological grounds, and it’s not uncommon for boards of trustees to be made up of people who are actually hostile to public higher education. Politicizing university management and higher education might be great for politicians, but it’s generally terrible for universities and the people they serve.
4 Likes
Perhaps, but in CA I think the Gov’s appointments the the University (and the gazillions of State commissions) are just payback fore cronies & big donors. They just happen to have similar idealogical grounds. Yes, I understand that you can’t separate the two.
1 Like
Assuming you meant the same type of experts @Shelby_Balik was referring to, your claim is emphatically not true.
I do, however, agree that we should start calling higher education administration experts like Gee and the folks he brought on board “so-called experts”, because it is clear that their methods don’t work.
1 Like
You may not like him or agree with him, but based upon his resume of experience at other schools, he indeed qualifies as an expert. Just because you disagree with his position does not make him less of an expert.
1 Like
From context I’m guessing that you mean that boards of trustees appointed by a representative of the Democratic establishment (since that’s the dominant party in California) are more likely to match university administration and faculty ideologically? Yes, but only so much—while it’s certainly the case (given repeated polling results) that university faculty and to a lesser extent administrators are closer to the Democratic establishment than the Republican establishment, it isn’t necessarily all that close of a match either way.
Fair. So can we go with really, really bad expert, then?
3 Likes
More to the point wrt WVU, people who knew the university, including faculty, knew that Gee’s plan made no sense and would be catastrophic. There were strongly worded opinions, letters, and protests. So, no, they’re not responsible for either of those things.
Universities function like nonprofits. They have to remain sustainable but repeated funding cuts and a building spree aren’t going to help them become more sustainable nor make their departments evolve to serve their state better, and then unconscionable cuts run counter to their mission (kind of like a hospital that would amputate instead of operate with scalpels in an OR - wouldn’t surgeons have legitimate reasons to object &wouldn’t random people saying “amputations save money over surgeries” sound wildly off mark to them?)
Other universities are making cuts too. Among those, which simply follow the same model by the same consulting group? Which actually differ in execution? And which decisions have been applied to other states’ flagships/with r1 status? Is there a way for WVU to review their process and use a system that makes more sense, rather than the senseless one that was used? When do we know what will be targeted in the 2nd round of cuts?
Finally, and most importantly, what was/is Arkansas doing that WV isn’t/wasn’t ?
1 Like
I don’t know – Gee has left a lot of wreckage in his wake (controversial departures at Brown, Ohio State, and eventually at WVU). He has, over the years, developed a reputation for reckless spending and has been labeled (not even recently) as the “dark heart of higher education” and a “megalomaniac.” I think we can place Gee back in the “so-called” pile.
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/06/22617/ohio-state-good-riddance-to-e-gordon-gee
2 Likes
Arkansas used to, and maybe still does, offer in-state tuition to Texans, many of whom can not attend their own state’s measly 2 flagships. Arkansas can take advantage of its large and growing state neighbor to siphon off applicants.
It apears Miami of Ohio used the same standard for determining cuts. If any other alternative standards were suggested by faculty or students, it isn’t well known.
There is an entire category of “discredited experts” if you will.
The physician that claimed the measles vaccine causes autism. The economists and politicians who claimed that tax cuts for the rich benefit the poor. The politicians who believed that calling ketchup a vegetable would improve the health of children who got free or subsidized lunch at school.
4 Likes
I guarantee that alternatives were proposed by faculty, at least (and maybe students) – but the time-honored principle of shared governance is now a farce at most colleges and universities.
Were they publicized? Lobbied for? Presented to newspapers or state politicians as viable alternatives?
So if that’s all it takes, where we have Arkansas and Texas, they could replace those with respectively West Virginia and Virginia (or heck, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Ohio, though the growth curves are shallower there)?
But instead, WVU administrators made dumb decisions that were called out at the time as at the very least speculative, and now students, staff, and faculty are left to suffer for them.
2 Likes
I really can’t answer that question, because it all depends upon context and how decisions are made in a given institution.
1 Like
Actually, Arkansas offers in state tuition for residents of 7 nearby states. That is one way to keep applicant numbers high
3 Likes
Nope, don’t mean anything more than what I posted. I was making no connection to the leanings of college faculty and the Gov’s appointees. I was just pointing out that the democraticly-elected Governor of states like CA and WV appoint, and the Legislatures approve, the University Trustees, so folks should direct their ire to their politicians if they don’t like the fact that their state Uni. Trustees have little/no experience in higher education and/or then hire a campus President who they don’t agree with.
(Just a quick scan of the UC Regents shows only a few are/were involved in education.)
2 Likes
All this arguing over foreign language at WVU? I mean it was an unpopular major and enrollment is down…it doesn’t take much to realize not everything is going to survive.
WV residents can still go to Marshall to get foreign languages if they really want. Will 10-20 people transfe?..if that’s it then they’re justified to cut. A public school cannot maintain niche majors-and at this point the modern languages are niche.
Cuts are happening other places and I think will continue at the student population declines. In NY SUNY Potsdam and Fredonia announced cuts are coming. I’m sure others will follow. I agree their might be mismanagement at some schools but I think the real problem is baked into schools like WVU’s status
Colleges have to figure out if their goal is to serve their local students or to chase prestige via scholarships to oos students. Not sure the less elite state schools can do both.
1 Like
Two thoughts: WVU is not just “a state school,” it is the state’s “flagship” school (unlike Potsdam, Fredonia, Miami (O), etc.). Historically people have argued that states could make it possible for their residents to study the full range of human knowledge at a public school in that state. Maybe that’s breaking down now. But that’s behind a lot of dismay about WVU. Regional comprehensives historically play a very different role.
And second - foreign languages are, at every school that I’ve been a part of throughout my life, massively important as service departments to a wide range of other majors, from international business, to political science, to history, etc., etc., and as a key component of many schools gen ed curriculum - and linguistics is integral to the development of AI, and to cognitive science … Number of majors does not illustrate their importance, or how many students take their courses.
5 Likes
Everything that @kaslew pointed out, and also the fact (that word, BTW, is chosen very carefully, this was the explicit rationale) that WVU’s administration justified cutting majors due to a fiscal shortfall, but WVU’s foreign languages program actually turned an actual net profit every year.
So part of the issue is the duplicity, really.
4 Likes
While I understand why you see it that way, I am reasonably sure Pres. Gee and the trustees truly were motivated by the need to cut costs, and consultants and their own analysis led them to believe this was the most efficient way. The foreign languages were just some of the courses cut; there were others as well. Apparently those cut were unable to justify their continued existence or prove they added much value, compared to all the other departments at risk.
I haven’t seen any suggestions of which other departments should have been cut instead using alternative criteria. Lots of outrage over a few languages evident here but other departments were cut as well. I assume the lack of commentary means posters are more accepting of cuts in undergraduate biometric systems engineering, jazz studies, community and environment planning, and parks and recreation.
Most of the cuts were to graduate programs, in any event. Those seem long overdue and some were questionable from inception.