| OCR Text |
Show Maxwell States Education Views tion" economically and educationally! educa-tionally! If one were to prepare a sample list of "minimum demands" on the part of several constituent groups with direct concerns in higher education, edu-cation, it might look something like this: University Students: a. Students ought to be able to have equal educational opportunities opportuni-ties in Utah so that birth here does not deprive them of this chance. b. Students should be able to expect sufficient academic variety in educational offerings even though, for instance, not all graduate grad-uate specialities can be offered at each institution, and a handful may not be offered at all is Utah. c. Students should be able to expect to encounter a faculty which is sufficiently student-oriented that the educational process is not simply a "toll-gate" through which the multitudes must pass but one in which some significant, interpersonal in-terpersonal contacts occur. d. Students should be able to expect quality in the out-of-class-room learning experiences so that we do not follow blind and naive assumptions that ignore where and how much learning really occurs. Faculty: a. A faculty should be able to be assured that the institution is "going "go-ing somewhere." b. A fuculty is entitled to expect sufficient public awareness about what, quality in higher education means and requires, so that they do not find themselves without a cadre-sized constituency off-campus who understand that "quality in higher education is almost all that matters." c. A faculty is entitled to feel that the regents and administration administra-tion are focusing on the things that matter rather than being caught up with trivia including a wise prioritization in the expenditure of funds. d. A faculty is entitled to expect a climate in which there is freedom with responsibility. Taxpayers: a. Taxpayers in Utah are entitled en-titled to see (soon) the development develop-ment of a wise master plan which includes a realistic allocation of roles and goals for each institution institu-tion in order to maximize the impact im-pact of the revenues being devoted to higher education. The "savings" here lie not in reducing duplication, duplica-tion, but in planning and sharing. b. Taxpayers should be able to be assured that investing more money in higher education will, in fact, improve the quality students receive. c. Taxpayers are entitled to ask institutions to perform some key public services that are mutually beneficial to the state and he institution. in-stitution. d. Taxpayers, vhile needing to allow for the presence of reasonable reason-able numbers of non-residents to enhance the quality and variety of the educational process, are entitled en-titled to emphasize the need for institutions to care for their own citizens. Balancewheel Obviously, in the midst of these important, but often contradictory expectations, the administration and regents must serve as a balancewheel. bal-ancewheel. About all an administration admini-stration can hope for in its difficult diffi-cult and delicate task is that the demands expressed by those who influence decisions be discerning demands not simply narrow, single-issue concerns. For instance, if students were to worry only about tuition levels, this could cause a permanent tragedy in the loss of quality in an institution in budget-making where dollars are impossibly short. If taxpayers press too hard in economy measures, this could have the same net effect. If the state pressed heavy demands for services the same results would follow. In each case, of course, the single concern, by itself, is entirely legitimate. But pressed, by itself, it can create a kind of simplistic decision-making which fails to discern dis-cern the complexity of the challenge chal-lenge higher education faces. While the arguments presented in the 10th Federalist about the virtues of letting vested interests clash in search of a solution have had much historical vindication, a clash of single-concern groups does not always al-ways produce a wise consensus. Develop Cadre The hope is that a cadre of concerned con-cerned individuals who are aware of the conflicting "claims" on the University can be developed on and off our campuses who will help to see higher education through its difficult passage to a bright and assured future. Is there such a cadre of concern? con-cern? My own impression is that it has begun to form though very slowly -' and there is some hope, but nevertheless, no guarantees. It will take a great deal of honest, candid sharing between all the groups involved to avoid costly and needless conflicts and most of all to guard against slipping quietly quiet-ly into1 mediocrity from which this institution might never recover. . It is,. laudable that the Chronicle would - devote some attention to this kind of an issue. We have all, in the words of Thomas Merton, "fallen into history" his-tory" and are not likely to be able to stand apart from the sweeping forces which now churn and toss the people on this planet. This is important because there are still a few who feel, or perhaps hope, that Utahns can proceed in splendid splen-did isolation' to solve problems which are national and world-wide in character. We must not be intimidated in-timidated by the future, however, for as one man has observed, ours is the first generation to be able to "invent the future." Against this necessary backdrop, back-drop, one can then focus on higher education in Utah. Any educational education-al system that is adequate and truly tru-ly effective must include the qualitative quali-tative development of the toal system sys-tem from kindergarten on through post-graduate work and regular renewal and though this statement focuses on higher education, educa-tion, how we support Utah's public pub-lic schools is an equally vital matter mat-ter of public policy. In Utah, we are somewhat trapped by our slogans slo-gans and shibboleths concerning higher education which prevent some from seeing that we are threatened by converging forces. First, to develop and maintain adequate quality in a non-affluent state in the midst of "nationalized" costs is going to be very difficult. Objective measurements of where we stand are not nearly as encouraging encour-aging as-some of us would believe. The data show the following: In over-all public support for higher education, Utah ranked 48th in 50 states in 1964-65, and the University Univer-sity of Utah 11th among eleven western state university in appro-priations-per-student. The University Univer-sity of Utah is better than this support sup-port indicates, but it is difficult for an institution indefinitely to, rise above its dollar dilemma. Second, to maintain the tradition . of accessible public education beyond be-yond the high school in the midst of spiraling costs will be just as difficult. Resident tuition at the University of Utah in 1966-67 was reportedly the highest of any state university in the eleven western states. Knowledge Explosion Third, to cope with the consequences conse-quences of the knowledge explosion explo-sion we must maintain truly current cur-rent curricula and yet not lose hold of our historical role as the custodians cus-todians of the wisdom the tides of history have washed at our feet. A faculty which balances the teaching teach-ing and research functions is very necessary yet how shall such a division of labor be accomplished? Fourth, the additional an intensified inten-sified complications of asking universities uni-versities to render greater and wider public service is yet another converging force which can result in higher costs an din the dispersion disper-sion of scarce institutional dollars and talent. The nationalization of higher education ed-ucation in terms of Federal funds and the market-place in which talented faculty must be sought only adds to the dilemma. In the midst of this, it is important im-portant for us to ask ourselves basic questions because hard choices will have to be made: Shall we limit enrollment in terms of academic potential freezing out "late-bloomers" and other students who may need to achieve? Should we raise tuition significantly freezing out hundreds of students from marginal or low income groups? Should we discontinue certain cer-tain public services denying the state the help it desperately needs to grow economically which could, in turn, permit the state to be more generous in its public support? sup-port? Or shall we lo none of these and simply settle for institutional mediocrity some of the effects of which do not show for a generation? genera-tion? A Way Station The risks are real, and in trying to do too many things simultaneously, simultan-eously, we may miss "all the way around" and find a few years hence that Utah is simply a "way sta- |
