| |
| |
 |
|
Arizona State University
Hispanic students crowded the
Tempe campus in 2008.
|
|
|
ASU
has Lost its Focus to Provide
Undergraduate Education for Arizona
Residents
TEMPE, Ariz. (By
Tamar Lewin, NYT) — When Michael
Crow became president of Arizona
State University seven years ago, he
promised to make it “The New
American University,” with 100,000
students by 2020. It would break
down the musty old boundaries
between disciplines, encourage
cutting-edge research and
entrepreneurship to drive the new
economy, and draw in students from
under-served sectors of the state.
He quickly made a name for himself,
increasing enrollment by nearly a
third to 67,000 students, luring
big-name professors and starting
interdisciplinary schools in areas
like sustainability, projects with
partners like the Mayo Clinic and
Sichuan University in China, and
dozens of new degree programs
But this year, Mr. Crow’s plans have
crashed into new budget realities,
raising questions about how many
public research universities the
nation needs and whether
universities like Arizona State, in
their drive to become prominent
research institutions, have lost
focus on their public mission to
provide solid undergraduate
education for state residents.
These days, the headlines about
Arizona State describe its enormous
cuts.
The university has slashed more than
500 jobs, including deans,
department chairs and hundreds of
teaching assistants. Last month, Mr.
Crow announced the university would
close 48 programs, cap enrollment
and move up the freshman application
deadline by five months. Every
employee, from Mr. Crow down, will
have 10 to 15 unpaid furlough days
this spring.
“The New American University has
died; welcome to the Neutered
American University,” the student
newspaper editorialized last month
the morning after the latest cuts
were announced.
While Arizona’s economic problems
have been particularly dramatic,
layoffs and salary freezes are
becoming common at public
universities across the nation; the
University of Florida recently
eliminated 430 faculty and staff
positions, the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas, laid off about 100
employees, and the University of
Vermont froze salaries, left open 22
faculty positions and laid off 16
workers.
“What’s happening, everywhere, is
what’s happening to Michael Crow,”
said Jane Wellman, executive
director of the Delta Project on
Postsecondary Costs, Productivity
and Accountability, an organization
that studies spending by colleges
and universities. “The trend line is
states disinvesting in higher
education.”
The picture varies from state to
state. Dozens of states, hit hard by
the recession, made midyear cuts in
their financing for higher
education. And yet, budgets are
largely intact at some leading
research universities, like the
University of Michigan.
Public universities everywhere are
bracing for steep cuts in next
year’s budgets, but the federal
stimulus package, providing billions
for education and billions more for
research, should ease the problem
somewhat.
Despite the cuts, Mr. Crow said he
was sticking to his priorities,
protecting his new programs and his
tenured and tenure-track faculty.
And he is hoping to expand research,
with, for example, renewable-energy
funds from the stimulus package.
“I don’t retreat very easily,” he
said. “The economy is shifting
faster than the university can
adjust, but we’re trying to protect
students from the hurricane. We’re
protecting the core of the core.”
But not everyone is convinced the
Arizona State model makes sense.
“It may be the idea of a
100,000-student research university
was never very sustainable,” said
Patrick M. Callan, president of the
National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education, which promotes
access to higher education. “In this
economy, the places that have been
trying to claw their way up the
ladder, the ones whose aspirations
have exceeded their financial
vision, are going to have the
toughest time. They can’t be all
things to all people.”
But Mr. Crow thinks he can
simultaneously broaden access for
Arizonans, improve academic quality
and increase research.
His university, he said, is an
inclusive institution where there
are 7,000 students with no family
income at all and a growing
population of American Indian
students. Tuition in most programs
is under $6,000 a year for state
residents, in part because of a
State Constitution provision that it
be as “nearly free” as possible,
which courts have interpreted to
mean that it must be in the bottom
third of public universities
nationwide.
Mr. Crow’s record for raising
quality is impressive, too. He has
hired more than 600 tenured or
tenure-track faculty members, and
last year, for the first time, won a
spot on the National Science
Foundation’s list of the top 20
research universities without a
medical school, along with
powerhouses like M.I.T. and the
University of California, Berkeley.
But not every university can be in
the top 20. And in a time of
shrinking state budgets,
undergraduates at public
universities will likely pay the
price in higher tuition, larger
classes and less interaction with
tenured professors. So it is a real
question how many public research
universities the nation can afford,
and what share of resources should
go to less expensive forms of
education, like community colleges.
“Universities aspire to prestige,”
Ms. Wellman said, “and that is
achieved by increasing selectivity,
getting a research mission and
having faculty do as little teaching
as possible, not by teaching and
learning, and taking students from
point A to point B.”
Mark G. Yudof, president of the
University of California, laments it
has become an article of faith every
depressed area needs a research
university.
“Research universities are very
expensive, and you can’t have one in
every county and every state,” he
said. “Your first obligation as a
public university is to treat the
undergraduates right. That’s going
to need a national attitude
adjustment from leadership and
boards of regents.”
California’s three-tier
higher-education system, which
serves 3.3 million students, almost
20 percent of the nation’s college
population, is among the hardest hit
by the current recession. This year,
with hundreds of millions of dollars
slashed from their budgets, both the
California State University system
and the University of California are
being forced to shrink their
enrollment.
“We’re trying as hard as we can to
preserve the instructional program,”
Mr. Yudof said. “But with the
economy shrinking, and less money
allocated to public universities,
can I guarantee the class would have
been 40 won’t be 45? I can’t.”
Finding the right balance between
ratcheting up academic quality and
serving state residents is not easy.
Case in point: merit scholarships.
Arizona State University recruits
National Merit Scholars nationwide
with a four-year $90,000
scholarship, a package so generous
it enrolls 600 National Merit
Scholars, more than Yale or
Stanford. Through the cuts, Mr. Crow
has kept that program, even while
proposing to cut a scholarship for
Arizona residents with high scores
on state tests, a proposal the state
regents turned down.
And even as his plans for expanding
the university have slowed, Mr. Crow
is trying to increase the enrollment
of out-of-state students — who pay
triple tuition — to as high as 40
percent next year.
When the latest cuts were announced,
many Arizona State students said
they believed Mr. Crow was doing his
best to protect them, but that
ultimately, the quality of their
education could suffer.
“My African-American history
professor said he thinks classes
will be bigger next semester, and
that’s too bad,” said Tierra
Jenkins, a sophomore civil
engineering student.
Many blame the legislature for
short-sightedness in failing to
support the university when it plays
such a key role in the state’s
economy and residents’ upward
mobility.
“It really takes a lot of wind out
of the sails of this university,”
said Kyle Whitman, a senior and an
economics major who works part-time
in Mr. Crow’s office. “It’s been on
such a strong trajectory."
|
|
|
|
|