Reposted from AAUP listserv
Ed. Duane Storti is a a UW Professor well known to many for his efforts to force the UW administration to follow the faculty code. Ana Mari Cauce, Dean of Arts and Sciences, is well respected as a wise commentator on UW affairs. She is also a member of the Presidential Search Committee. Both are contributors to THE-Ave.US.
In this letter she expresses the difficult challenge UW faculty face. How can very rational people express their real worries about the UW without being seen as self serving?
On Truths and Hypotheticals
Dear Duane,
I honestly understand everyone’s frustration at this moment. I am frustrated too. So are folks in Olympia. None of us were responsible for this fiscal mess we’re in. We know that higher education generally, and especially the UW with its huge multiplier effect because of its high profile research, is not a part of the problem. It is very much a part of the solution. So, while we can’t expect not to share in the pain that will come to all publically-funded institutions/agencies, we can and should argue as eloquently, persuasively, and effectively as possible that we should not continue to be cut disproportionately. The draconian cuts being suggested are short sighted in the very worst sense, with ripple effects that will be felt not only by our children, but by theirs.
If any of can make that point in a fashion that is clearer, more cogent, or more compelling than our administration has, please do!! But, I find it perplexing when someone who has so strongly advocated for respecting shared governance and the faculty code, then argues that the administration — when asked to give examples of what deep budget cuts would bring, and given a few weeks window to do so — should decide how exactly those cuts will be taken, going so far as to name actual programs that would be eliminated in a letter that they knew would hit the press.
If the administration were to say that if the deepest cuts considered would lead to the elimination of the College of Arts and Sciences (or fill in the name of any 2 or 3 or 4 other Colleges, Schools/departments of your choice), and those cuts came to pass, but the UW didn’t eliminate A&S, or at least didn’t VERY seriously consider it, we would lose all credibility in the future. We would be seen as crying wolf. On the other hand, if the administration were to decide, within a few weeks period with next to no faculty consultation or strategic process, that the best way to save the rest of the university was to shut down A&S, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be full scale revolt among many our faculty — and for good reason, And I’d expect you to be one of the protestors (and I’d be joining you).
We can’t have it both ways. While talking about scenarios and hypotheticals may have less punch than saying, we plan to, or we will…. I can’t see any other way that this task could have been done in a responsible manner. And, as it is, even with the big caveat that these are illustrative, the folks who were signaled out in the example, including police officers, faculty in units mentioned as potential targets for consolidation, and staff everyplace are very, very anxious. There was a cost to doing even this much.
The months ahead are going to be very, very difficult ones. I think it will be a whole lot easier if we give each other the benefit of the doubt from time to time, and take a somewhat more forgiving attitude toward each other than usual. There may well be times when it will be important to speak out, even if it makes a rocky ride, rockier.
But, this just doesn’t seem like one of them.
Ana Mari
Ana Mari Cauce
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Earl R. Carlson Professor of Psychology
Dr. Cauce, in her response, clarifies that the administration was only presenting possibilities. I fear that her response illustrates the lack of an administration at the UW able to deal with a problem of this magnitude.
In part the problem is the myth of “shared governance.” Given the problems of the last few years, I suspect faculty look up to the administration as colleagues, mush less as wise leaders. As for the faculty Senate, few faculty I know take that body with the seriousness they should.
In a university with many outstanding faculty, we lack a way to learn what would be the best response t this crisis.
The best I may be able to do is to act as a provocateur. Here are some topics I believe should be discussed:
1. Should Amazon, Amgen, Microsoft, Boeing go to states with great PRIVATE universities? . Washington State does not have any private research universities. Our administration has never managed to explain the unique value to Washington State of having a university ranked among the small group of public ivies. Unlike other states with public ivies, Crudely put, as the quality of the UW falls, what will happen to the high tech enterprises? Our competitors, California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts. North Carolina … all of these have major private colleges. .. Amazon, Amgen, Microsoft, Boeing?
2. The UW is already a very expensive school. As we have published before on the Ave, four years at the UDub cost about three times as much as four years at Princeton!
3. Should the UW close UWB and UWT? The Tacoma and Bothell campuses are very expensive and do not have the same academic standards as UW Seattle.. As campuses built mainly for undergraduate instruction, UWB and UWT must be almost totally dependent on the State.
4. What do the Huskies actually cost? I suspect that the great majority of our fans associate the team with the state of affluence of the UW. Certainly most of them believe the myth that the Huskies make money for the UW. Shouldn’t cuts go first to whatever state funds that go to support this part of our function?
5. If the major reason for state support is to preserve excellence, can the sate afford two research universities?
6. Should the UW focus on graduate education? Our state colleges rank amongst the nations best 4 year colleges. Students at Evergreen of Bellingham can get an education that may be better than they would get at the UW. The cost? Tuition at these campuses is about 20% lower than its is at the UDub!
7. Imagine Allan University of Washington playing in the Rose Bowl vs The Nike Dicks! Why doesn’t Paul Allen BUY the UW? Allen must be aware of the contrast between is collection of yachts and houses versus the heritage created by Mr. and Mrs. Gates. Allen already owns the football franchise in Seattle and the basketball franchise in Portland. Imagine the bargain if he bought the UDub!
8. Are the UW administrators competent to make decisions about these cuts? The departure of Mark Emmert made a big impression on me. In a Univeristy with a number of Nobel laureates, members of the National Academy, entrepreneurs who have founded major corporations, world class economists … we had a leader who had no record of achievement outside of academic politics. We do not know who the next President will be?
enough?
Steve
S.M. Schwartz
Professor of Pathology
Editor, THE-Ave.US
Signature powered by WiseStamp
What exactly are the true costs of the Husky sports program? I’ve always suspected it was a net loss but have never seen figures.
I wish someone would answer that question.
When the AD talks about it, they obfuscate.
WShate would be helpful is a net statement of ALL expenditures by the AD and by the UW that support the AD, including indirect costs .. e.g. what proportion of Emmert’s time did the AD pay for?
There have ebeen several national studies, all of which show that schools like the uW lose money on their pro sports efforts. If you want, I can dig some of them up from the web.
I’d like to respond to @theaveeditor’s point #3 from comment #1 in detail, as I believe that it is vague and ill-informed. Let me address it point-by-point, then overall:
“The Tacoma and Bothell campuses are very expensive” By what measure? Presumably, this is not in comparison to a typical person’s mortgage, but in comparison to some sort of per-capita cost of operation of the Seattle campus. Considering that both Bothell and Tacoma receive the same amount per student FTE as Seattle and charge the same tuition, it seems highly unlikely that one could find a reasonable metric that shows those campuses more expensive than Seattle.
“…and do not have the same academic standards as UW Seattle.” Again, by what measure? I don’t think that the admissions test scores are terribly different. The processes for academic review of degrees and curricula are entirely the same at all three campuses, as is that for faculty P&T.
“As campuses built mainly for undergraduate instruction, UWB and UWT must be almost totally dependent on the State.” Here you contradict your first point, since UWB and UWT having fewer resources than UWS would imply that they spend less per student than UWS and are therefore less expensive than UWS. I would also say that such dependence is more a function of newness and the resultant smaller endowments than anything else.
Moreover, then entire underlying assumption here is entirely misguided. As both the UWB and UWT budgets are separate from that of UWS, budget cuts are applied equally to all three campuses. Closure of either of the newer campuses would have no impact on UWS, unless you believe that the legislature would redirect the remainder of one or both of their budgets to Seattle — a belief that I would say is overly optimistic.
Michael
First, let me say that I think the faculty at these campuses are wonderful. I feel the same way about Evergreen and Belingham and often urge kids to go there RATHER than to the UW.
The UW main campus is a monstrous and intimidating machine; many students are better served at smaller campuses. I also think that there could be better opportunities, even for graduate studies, outside of Seattle if our colleges and branch campuses took better advantage of their localities.
Cost per student at the UW, regardless of campus, is a lot higher than it is at the state colleges. I know that the cost per student at the branch campuses is the same as at the UW, but the experiences can not be.
UWB or UWT students have a lot more in common with their peers at Evergreen or Bellingham than with students in Seattle.
Students attending UWB and UWT do not have the opportunities provided to their peers at the UW main campus. UWB and UWT students can not mingle with the large numbers of graduate students here, attend graduate level courses, work in labs, sit in on lectures given by visiting faculty, etc. etc.
Please do not think I am singling out UWB or UWT either. I believe the state would be best served by expanding the college system. I would love to see a Tacoma State College (or University) alongside the much talked about Cascadia College and the nascent Bellevue College.
I see no reason that these schools could not be part of a state wide UW system where students at any campus could earn credits toward a UW degree or even get a UW degree without being physically present on the Seattle campus. To facilitate this I am very much in favor of expanding the UW as a source of online education that could be offered interactively with faculty across the state. I would also like to see opportunities for faculty at ALL the state colleges to work in Seattle and for UWS faculty to work on the college campuses.
Back at costs, I believe that this would allow us to cap or decrease the number of students on the Seattle campus. While my comments about opportunities on the Seattle campus are correct, not every student needs to attend an institution ranked as one of the five or six “public ivies.” I see no reason why, for example, the UW School of Medicine would not be as eager to accept a pre med from Evergreen as from the UW itself. I have hear wonderful things about Ecology at Bellingham.
Finally, this model allows for Tacoma, Ellensberg, Bellingham, and eventually Everett to build real universities with help from Seattle .. something we already see happening at WWU. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a UW poly sci student could do her graduate degree in Olympia?
Hope I have clarified my ideas.
shock and awe tactics may catch attention and get action to fix longterm downturn in uw funding by state.
eliminating A&S or something big like that may be needed.
ps i think emmert left for losses suffered under but was not willing to say so for some reason;
Steve, I think you are still conflating a number of misconceptions and exaggerations. Let me address a few (let me also say that this format, with comments set in a narrow column on the right hand side of the page, is very annoying):
1. There is no such thing as a UW “main” campus and “branch” campuses. Read the faculty code if you don’t believe me.
2. Differences in opportunities for students. There is no doubt that the educational experience at UWB and UWT is different than at UWS. However, I wonder what fraction of UWS undergrads have any substantial interaction with graduate students beyond their overworked TAs. UWB and UWT undergrads work closely with faculty. You may also be surprised to learn that we have labs and graduate students and that undergrads can take our graduate classes.
3. Talk of “Cascadia State U” or universities in Everett are political fever dreams, not based on any rational plan for higher education in this state. That doesn’t mean that they could not happen, just that they have not been thought out and are unlikely to be good ideas.
4. Regarding online education, I think you underestimate the expense, if your intent is to provide a high-quality educational experience and you factor in the cost of maintaining online materials.
Basically, it appears that your argument is that UWS is much bigger and therefore the educational experience that is provided there is much better. I think that you might hear some disagreement from alumni of Caltech (total enrollment <2200), Stanford (undergrad enrollment < 7000), Princeton (undergrads around 5000), MIT (around 4300 undergrads), etc.
Finally, it strikes me that, if the web had existed back then, faculty at Berkeley might have expressed similar opinions of the Los Angeles branch of UC back in the day. My observation has been that the number of buildings at UCLA has increased enormously since I graduated there, while the Berkeley campus — much bigger in physical size — has scarcely changed over the last 15 years at least.
There is no such thing as a UW “main” campus and “branch” campuses. Read the faculty code if you don’t believe me.
I think this is one case where the faculty code is not very realistic.
Differences in opportunities for students. There is no doubt that the educational experience at UWB and UWT is different than at UWS. However, I wonder what fraction of UWS undergrads have any substantial interaction with graduate students beyond their overworked TAs. UWB and UWT undergrads work closely with faculty. You may also be surprised to learn that we have labs and graduate students and that undergrads can take our graduate classes.
Yes it is different and, as I said too, different is not “bad.” The questions is whether the extra cost of having UWB and UWT is worth the expense. Again, I also feel that way about the large student population in Seattle. I think a smaller UW with more students taught at state colleges would do better and cost less for everyone.
There are, of course, labs and graduate students at the state colleges too.
Talk of “Cascadia State U” or universities in Everett are political fever dreams, not based on any rational plan for higher education in this state. That doesn’t mean that they could not happen, just that they have not been thought out and are unlikely to be good ideas.
I do not think I have said we will have a “Cascadia State U” and I also think that would be foolish given how close Bothell is to Seattle.; I do think, however, that we will see a full fledged state college there and would hope UWB would be part of that rather than part of UW.
I certainly do not think we will see a university in Everett, however, assuming Boeing stays here USN Everett grows in importance as the US switches its military emphasis to high tech/Navy rather than huge land forces, I would hope we would plan for some sort of college there, possibly a polytechnic. I would certainly rather see that then our trying to force more students through the maw here.
Regarding online education, I think you underestimate the expense, if your intent is to provide a high-quality educational experience and you factor in the cost of maintaining online materials.
Actually no.
I agree with you, and have said, that the idea that online-cheap is foolish. As it happens I am a Skinnerian .. took his course from him. I KNOW the huge effort he and Hollander put in. What the teaching programs did, however, was to greatly enhance what Dr. Skinner could teach. We learned behav,. psych in 1/2 the semester .. leaving the rest for outstanding interactions with Skinner and the TAs.
I do not see online education as a replacement for what we all do now bit as a way of boosting efficiency. Let me try a specific example. We now have about 500 students n the biochem lecture. The profs are wonderful but the idea that 500 people cna learn better from a prof on a stage than one on a screen is absurd. What I would like to see is faculty recruited at the state colleges to interface with online courses so that UW faculty can be better utilized. Have you seen the Open University coursework form MIT or Carnegie?
Look again at my comments about offering distance courses as well. I would love to see us work with faculty at UWB, for example, to offer thinsg that can nto be offered there now.
Basically, it appears that your argument is that UWS is much bigger and therefore the educational experience that is provided there is much better. I think that you might hear some disagreement from alumni of Caltech (total enrollment <2200), Stanford (undergrad enrollment < 7000), Princeton (undergrads around 5000), MIT (around 4300 undergrads), etc.
Not at all. I am a Harvard grad and my son graduated as a PhD from MIT. There effectiveness is not really a matter of the size of their student bodies, rather it is the quality and depth of of their faculties combined with the small classes that makes these places great universities. The quality and depth of the UW ranks by most measures with the schools you mentioned, along with about 5 other “public ivies.” The vlaue of such places is immense, esp. here in the Northwest where we do not have a major private research university.
Finally, it strikes me that, if the web had existed back then, faculty at Berkeley might have expressed similar opinions of the Los Angeles branch of UC back in the day. My observation has been that the number of buildings at UCLA has increased enormously since I graduated there, while the Berkeley campus — much bigger in physical size — has scarcely changed over the last 15 years at least.
LA is not Tacoma. For that matter UCLA is not Berkeley either. LA is a huge city and certainly can support a great university. California is lucky to have Berkeley .. along with Stanford and Cal Tech.
a response to a post at AAUP by Yomi
All we need now is for the Regents to appoint Jeff Bezos as the new President! He could merge the UW and Amazon and create UW@Amazon,edu! Imagine the advertising rights when the Amazon Huskies defeat the Nike Ducks in the 2020 Rose bowl!
Even if you think I am joking about Mr. Bezos, it would be wrong to limit thinking about Gates’ words to high end schools like UW.
America practices a fantasy. “Equality” makes a college degree a goal unto itself. The UW, and other top tier public universities, are far different from America’s other forms of higher education. We, citizens of WA state, are incredibly fortunate to also have WSU, world class state colleges, and a highly ranked community college system.
All the stories about college for profit, faux online degrees, bible college degrees, not to mention abominations like “Glen Beck Univeristy”, illustrate the depth of our national self delusion. Persoanlly, I suspect many of our mega-state univerisities, with their top tier football teams, may be becoming a diploma mills.
That said, even here at the UW, we also participate in the fantasy. The education a student can get at UW Seattle is far different from the education at UWT or UWB. Football players at the UW have a high graduation rate but does anyone think that those kids who do not end up in the NFL have been well served by being UW students? As I understand it, 30% of UW students NOW ‘skip” our sophomore and freshman years and get their education at community colleges. 30%! If these students are being well served at a low cost, then we need to question whether the students on campus are getting the level of education appropriate for a “public ivy.”
I would go one step further and challenge many of the assumptions we make even here at this wonderful campus. Too many UW faculty, for example, blindly excoriate the use of web based educational tools and, especially, programmed instruction. The UW is also far below my personal standard in reaching out to underserved WA state minority populations or working with WA state’s public schools to optimize their performance.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Yomi Braester wrote:
The data on graduation rates and graduates’ salaries are overwhelmingly in the UW’s favor, so strategically I have no objection to Gates’s statement. It is infuriating, however, to see “efficiency” defined and measured by these standards. What about the number of graduates who stay out of jail? Or who end up working or volunteering for non-profit organizations? Or, goodness forbid, the number of graduates working to diminish the influence of business interests in education and health? Those are some of the goals by which I’d judge a college.
Yomi Braester, Comparative Literature
This has become tiresome. The idea of a “public ivy” is absurd in the extreme, as is the idea that the faculty at just a handful of prestigious schools is qualitatively different than those of a much larger number of highly ranked colleges and universities. I suspect your definition would exclude liberal arts colleges like Smith, Bryn Mawr, Harvey Mudd, etc.
FYI, when UCLA was founded (in 1881, as the southern branch of the California State Normal School), the population of LA was less than 50,000. When UCLA became the second UC campus (in 1919, over strenuous objections from folks at Berkeley and their alumni), LA’s population was less than 600,000. By comparison, today the Seattle metro area population is in excess of 3,000,000; not much smaller than the Boston metro area. But Boston has a large number of top-notch universities and colleges.
The Seattle area (and Washington State as a whole) is anomalous in the small number of quality institutions of higher learning, especially when one takes into account the area’s wealth. I suggest that such a lack leads to a rather provincial mindset among some.
I do not mind being called a rube but your own comments seems to me to demean the UW and the State. Why is the idea of a highly ranked, publicly funded school absurd?
You say that:
First, while I do not mind being called a rube, at least get your facts correct. The anomaly is not that WA has a small number of world class Universities. The anomaly is that for a small state, we do have a world class school and that school is publicly owned. We are #13 in population amongst the states. Ahead of us are Florida, Ohio, NJ, Georgia and Texas, none of which have a top ranked public, research University. I am NOT demeaning UT Southwestern, Rutgers, or University of Georgia, but surely any objective person sees the UW as in a class that is exceptional not just for a public school but as one that ranks with other major world universities. Add to that the lack of a significant private university in the region north of San Francisco (including Alaska) and east as far as Montana, and this place is remarkable.
Your post seems to suggest that I am slighting UWB and UWT. That is as much nonsense as it is to suggest that UWB and UWT can offer the kind of education UW Seattle does offer. As a parent of two very impressive UW grads, I know my own children, could never have gotten what they needed from the “branch” campuses. UWB and UWT simply are not “universities” in the same sense that UW or WSU are universities .
More worrisome in tough times is the cost issue. As a citizen, I question what a UWB or UWT education offers that can not be obtained at Evergreen or Bellingham at less cost?
As to other issues, what you “suspect” is BS is a personal canard. I have huge respect for some of the schools you list before your “etc.” My wife and brother attended Brandeis, my major mentor graduated from Amherst, I regard Reed, Smith, Dartmouth, and our local private campus Whitman, as treasures of the American system. My father was on the faculty at Northeastern, yet another flavor in America’s higher education buffet. The GREAT thing about the US system is the wealth of high quality choices.
Back at UWB and UWT, I do not like to feel that I am being forced into a polarized position. I would love to hear why UWT and UWB should not be subsumed into the state college system. The only real argument I can see is the prospect that these branch campuses will take root and grow into full research universities. In that regard, your comment about UCLA is confusing. What is your point? Surely 500,000 people in LA of 1919 is a lot more people than 200,000 Tacomans in 2011. Is there any real commitment to developing full Universities in Tacoma and Bothell?
I agree with you on one point, given the wealth here, it would be nice to have more schools of the caliber of Reed and Whitman in the private domain. However, even if we (like New Hampshire) were flush with small private schools, Whitman, Reed, Evergreen, UWT, UWB .. obviously serve a very different purpose from the one served by a major research campus.
Great blog, Just wanted to comment that i can not connect to the rss stream, you might want install the right wordpress plugin for that to workthat.
Special article – Just what I asked to get going this morning