<p>Good article on UC Berkeley’s struggles to avoid the fate of other large public universities across the nation. University educators want greater support for the humanities - philosophy, history and language study - fields which traditionally fail to bring in the large donations and federal funding common in the sciences and engineering.</p>
<p>Only in the bizzaro think world of college profs could the federal government giving money to a school be considered “a problem”. The problem is with the State of California and the Cal students both of whom have resisted higher funding for the school through taxes and tuition.</p>
<p>And maybe if Cal would quit stealing profs from midwest schools by paying huge salaries they would have more $$$ to spend on the poor history dept.</p>
<p>In the so-called “bizarro” world of the public modern research university, the whole point is to attain and maintain high educational quality, national recognition, and a steady flow of federal funding aimed to keep tuition and taxes down. The mission of the University of California, clearly emphasizes its aim to serve society by being able to offer the best in all disciplines of study and that means a need for balance between research and teaching in the professional fields and natural sciences on the one hand, and the social sciences, humanities and the arts on the other. This problem is not at all limited to Berkeley, or the UC system these days, since there is a trend for publics to look to private, corporate funding options to ensure their academic mission. </p>
<p>From the office of the President on Federal Governmental Relations: The UC - Federal Government Partnership:</p>
<p>I still don’t see where it says the Federal Gov is on the hook to fund the humanities. By helping fund the very expensive science and engineering areas they (the Feds) actually free up some university money to spend on the humanities. Otherwise they would either have both crappy science and humanities or have to come up with piles more of cash from the state and students. Where is the problem that is the Feds problem? Universities are still basically a function of the states. Whether or not Cal can offer more classes in art history is really not the Feds problem.</p>
<p>Interesting article in Inside Higher Ed touches on part of what the “problem” is about - public higher education and its relationship to corporate and private entities. The problem has to with the shape of public ed in the future, a future in which the strategic partnerships forged during post-world war II - that relies on state and federal funding strategies - is losing ground to corporate sponsorship. The same trend is taking place in New York and elsewhere. Truth is, these days universities are now increasingly dependent upon a flow of money from the private sector. The last bit of the OP article is a tip off to the crux of the problem:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wells Fargo, Coke, etc., many academics and public policy experts are worried, and have been for quite some time now, that colleges and universities these days are turning into training grounds for corporate America, rather than fulfill their mission as a public good - a "place for students to explore a variety of perspectives and learn to think critically for themselves as John W. Curtis, director of research and public policy for the American Association of University Professors, puts it. The perennial debate over how much money the humanities vs. science and tech departments get is very much part of it all.</p>
<p>Your point, if there is one, is more slippery than a greased pig. First the problem is the Federal Government funds the sciences but no the humanities. OK but I see that as a positive as it frees up institutional funds for the humanities is they wish to make that a priority. Now the “problem” is private money funding public education.</p>
<p>The real problem is that states are underfunding higher education and that higher education itself is engaged in an expensive battle to upgrade buildings and salaries to far higher than previous levels.</p>
<p>“Wells Fargo, Coke, etc., many academics and public policy experts are worried, and have been for quite some time now, that colleges and universities these days are turning into training grounds for corporate America, rather than fulfill their mission as a public good…”</p>
<p>I’m sure Wells Fargo and Coke are shivering in their boots…;)</p>
<p>They are more likely dancing a jig. Science vs. the Humanities - now this is slippery - is it panhandling for the humanities and not for the sciences? Federal funding has long been recognized to act as a catalyst to leverage additional dollars, especially in higher ed., so why wouldn’t and shouldn’t humanities departments want to reap the benefits of a long-standing and mutually profitable partnership?</p>
<p>Because they have little to offer the Federal Government. Do we need another book analyzing the meaning of some novel or poem? Maybe we do but is it a priority in our national interests? Not to the same extent as science and engineering apparently. </p>
<p>What EXACTLY is your point–that the Fed Gov. should provide more funding to universities for the humanities? They can want all they want but it is not likely to happen unless we have a sudden shortage of trained English majors.</p>
<p>Your argument or objection to the UC’s complaint then, is that the direction and impetus shaping American higher ed should be solely based on national interest. Public universities these days are in an interesting position precisely because public funding - whether state or federal - is and has been critical to financing and promoting higher education. This is especially true for the UC system which is based on a long-standing partnership with the federal government. We would all love to be in the situation in which there is ample money to go around for all. If public funds are not forthcoming then new financial strategies are needed. The shift from public to private funding is the point and this is exactly where the connection between any lack of or wealth of or disparity in funding for the sciences and humanities comes into play. The key word is public and it is important to remember that despite significant strains on the budget, the federal government, through the NEH , does give indeed give considerable importance and considerable amounts of funds to support the humanities and social sciences that include research and education programs. Faced with looming budget cuts, the humanities invariably take a back seat to the more lucrative scientific fields. So the point is how public universities find a way to reconcile private sponsorship with a public mission. (New York’s FIRE and ICE is a case in point). As to your question, do we need more English or for that matter, history majors? Perhaps not in your estimation, but last time I checked, the mission of our public universities, and private ones for that matter, is to educate students at all levels, in all disciplines “to expand fundamental knowledge of human nature, society, and the natural world” and that does imply a balance between the sciences and humanities so that students can actually think critically and deal with complex issues related to politics, society, economics, and yes, even science and maybe even do it all in more than one language.</p>
<p>My objection is complaining that a non-state entity (federal in this case) is helping one portion of the school leads them to conclude that the entire university is somehow entitled to federal funding. They should count themselves lucky that a portion of the school is receiving funding from other sources thus freeing up some funding for them. (not to mention the money the school skims off the top of most research grants for “overhead”).
Let them go out and compete for private donations/funding and make their case with the state and the students for additional funding. The Federal government has no interest in funding colleges except in certain circumstances as determined by the greater public interest. That level of public interest is reflected in the relatively low funding for the NEH versus the NSF and NIH.</p>