Why are the liberal arts so subject to budget cuts?
I’m throwing out a question as the University of Minnesota’s Board of Regents hears from the public later today about the proposed 2010-11 $3.4 billion overall budget.
Why is it that universities increasingly turn to their colleges of liberal arts to cut? I know that may sound naïve and idealistic, but bear with me.
The U’s College of Liberal Arts, the largest at the Twin Cities campus, is expected to lose 52 faculty members — about 10 percent of its tenured and tenure-track faculty. The college also will eliminate 145 class sections, according to a rundown in the Star Tribune.
Of course, the college is not the only academic entity subject to cuts. For example, the medical school plans to cut adjunct positions. A $191 million reduction in state appropriations is said to be driving a lot of the cuts as well as a 4.4 percent tuition hike.
In April I wrote about a CLA committee’s report suggesting a smaller, nimbler college was in order in these times. It acknowledged the need to face the budget landscape, but also appealed for a focus.
“I think the core working belief of the committee we held fast to is that we need to do things for academic and scholarly reasons,” committee co-chair Christopher Uggen said at the time. “Yes, we’re looking at finances, and we need a sustainable economic model, but it is in service of our academic mission and our scholarly vision. That is a much different orientation than pulling up a spreadsheet and saying, ‘Where can we cut?’ ”
Share your thoughts in Comments below.
More like this
- 2015 Committee lays out goals for a smaller, nimbler College of Liberal Arts at U of M
- 10 questions for the U of M presidential candidates
- All in a day’s work: from bad-news U of M regents meeting to Showboat show
- Provost's hiring sends strong signal that U of M will protect liberal arts
- U of M inducts 15 profs into Academy of Distinguished Teachers
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
40 comments
-
24 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
17 comments
Comments (8)
Willy Sutton robbed banks because that is where the money was. There is SOME money in CLA, AND they don't have the political clout to protect themselves. Easy pickings for the Morrill Hall Gang? CLA does not bring in a lot of grant money and overhead, ergo: "Off with their heads."
Fortunately, a dialog of sorts may have started between some of the faculty at the U and some members of the State legislature. From the FRPE site ( http://umnfaculty.blogspot.com )
"We brought up the differential budgetary allocations among colleges, the effects (practical and ideological) of rising tuition, the U's budget model, and the deployment of resources for new initiatives that putatively have economic promise at the expense of parts of the U that putatively don't; in this way disciplines that are most easily instrumentalized get supported while disciplines that are inherently non-instrumental are starved, despite their being essential to the U's core mission. Cohen [Senate Finance Committee Chair] received these ideas and data readily, disavowing the utilitarian notion of education (in particular higher education), and he expressed consternation at realizing that, through their tuition, students in the College of Liberal arts in effect subsidize the rest of the U."
And of course there is always the question of priorities. Casey points out that the med school is cutting out (some) adjuncts. But there is plenty of money flying out the door at the Academic Health Center.
To wit: new biomedical research buildings and attendant spending
"The project will cost the University $109 million from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2019 over and above the cost of construction."
"Of this, $40 million will be for startup costs,$18 million for facility operations and overhead, and $51 million on programs and faculty."
"Forty new faculty principal investigators will be hired to work in the Center for Magnetic Resonance Research and the Cancer/Cardiovascular facility. The administration claims that $31 million of this will be paid for with grants. Aside from the risk of counting chickens before they hatch, the assertion that grants cover the cost of new faculty lines is simply false."
"Vice President for Research Mulcahy observed at a recent presentation to the Senate Committee on Research that grants do not cover their costs."
[From the FRPE website: http://umnfaculty.blogspot.com/ ]
It should also be noted that the U of M is on the hook for a significant fraction of the construction costs, these are not funded 100% by the state backing of so-called "university" bonds.
This financial profligacy is inappropriate for an institution that has declared itself under conditions of "financial stringency" and where faculty, staff, student services and programs are being severely cut.
Specialization. I have read that liberal arts colleges are shifting from traditional roles to the role of a "Professional" college where the focus is placed on an industry.
This was written about in 1990 by David Breneman and the trend seems to continue.
Here's the original story "Are we losing our liberal arts colleges?"
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000...
Big universities work like big government, often nonsensically, driven by special interests with the power of the $.
It might have something to do with the glut of Lib Arts majors on the WalMart greeter market.
Learning for learning's sake is always a worthy goal.
But when the taxpaying public is battling to maintain roofs over their heads, publicly financed institutions of higher learning are wise to focus on educations that provide a more tangible return on that investment.
The Liberal Arts are foundation of an education. As an Engineering student I thought the Liberal Arts were for those not willing to work hard. That fuzzy stuff was fun, but real life had to be built on the hard stuff: math and science. And it's true: Engineers will attend Liberal Arts classes but Liberal Arts student will not attend engineering classes.
But as an adult, actually a very senior adult, I know better. Engineering is for doing; Liberal Arts are for living.
It's good to know things.
Probably because of two words, "liberal" and "arts". Few are willing to take a long-term view of the benefits to individuals and society. It's kind of like asking a publicly traded company to take a long-term view when all they're worried is quarterly and yearly revenues.
The liberal arts used to suggest a well rounded education that included the classics, writing, literature, a foreign language, and yes - math and the hard sciences. A graduate with such a degree was highly valued by industry and the economy - this person was trainable and literate in rigorous areas of study. Even if the degree focus didn't fit the title, the employer was getting someone who was highly employable/trainable in nearly any field.
Today's liberal art student is highly specialized in a narrow social science and probably did scheduling backflips to avoid math and hard sciences. A graduate of that degree has the ability to do a long paper on an obscure subject - which shows some level of perseverance, but little else is guaranteed to an employer.
Worse still, the subject focus of the liberal arts are in areas where no economic rational exists (here's looking at you women's studies), are sharply declining (sorry journalism), or becoming irrelevant.
If a student is pursuing a degree in a field that doesn't provide a solid footing for employment (bio-sciences, engineering or the classical liberal arts degree, not the post-modern type given out today), eventually demand for that field will go away. The U, to my surprise, realizes this.
Ultimately Education has to have an economic benefit. Learning for learning's sake is a hobby of the rich and well to do. It is a luxury. It is not a reasonable pursuit for a 22-year old looking towards a career and a future off the public dole.
Eloquently put, Bill.