In a recent series of articles, first in a conservative think-tank piece by Chet Finn and then in George Will's syndicated column, colleges and universities were-again-taken to task on a variety of educational and financial issues. Although the attacks are not new, having first occurred in the late 1980's, the number and tone and rhetoric in those articles are increasing.
What troubles me about the articles is not that they are being written. They should be. Vigorous debate about our educational system is welcome; however, that debate should be informed. What's bothersome is that so many critics put colleges like Union into a common mold-and I think it is important that our alumni and friends understand the fact that some of us, at least, do not fit into that mold.
One of the glories of the American higher education system is its diversity. For every college committed to the liberal arts, for instance, there is-and ought to be-a community college that serves a different audience or a large university where the liberal arts are only a small part of the mission.
At Union, our commitment is to teach young men and women how to communicate, learn, and think-broadly, effectively, and creatively. Our graduates understand not just how to do things, but the significance and meaning of what they do. The education we offer will last a lifetime, and, in a rapidly-changing world, we think ours is not just the best but also the most useful kind of education for the long haul.
Providing this kind of education is a labor-intensive undertaking. Although we could clearly lower costs by increasing class size or hiring teaching assistants, we would change the very character of Union in the process-for the worst.
With this fact in mind, let's look at some of the common themes in the broad attacks on colleges and universities. Finn, for example, argues that colleges and universities, to meet their constantly expanding need for revenue, continually expand their student body. He contends that the average post-secondary institution enrolled 535 more students in 1993 than in 1974. At Union, we have fourteen more students than we did two decades ago.
Another theme is the “disappearance” of requirements, or the notion that students can take whatever they want. That's simply not true here. Every Union freshman participates in our Freshman Preceptorial; every student takes courses in literature, history, mathematics, and natural science; and every student completes the Writing Across the Curriculum program. And nearly every student completes a thesis or senior project.
The critics claim that full-paying students “subsidize” those on financial aid. Most of our scholarship money is offset by income from other sources-earnings on endowment and Annual Fund contributions. It's also important to remember that no Union student pays the full cost of her or his education-that each is supported by the voluntary generosity of alumni and friends.
The critics also ignore the fact that it costs just as much to educate a student at a state university as it does here; the cost of buildings, books, computers, and services is no different. The difference is where the money comes from. At a state university, government provides a subsidy that covers most of the cost.
Broken down on a daily basis, Union's price next year of $27,325 amounts to $130 daily-comparable to a room and three meals at the Holiday Inn on Nott Terrace. The difference, of course, is that at Union students receive laboratory and research facilities, a library, athletic facilities, cultural events, room and board, the chance to study in countries around the world, health and counseling services, police and fire protection, the opportunity to associate and compete with other excellent students-and great teaching.
Federal largesse is called into question, too. Although we receive some support from the federal government, both in terms of scholarship support for our students and occasional support of scientific equipment for our students and faculty, that support represents less than one percent of our budget each year. Even when the state allocations are factored in, the impact on Union's budget is approximately two percent annually. Certainly, we could survive without that support, even though it does make our lives somewhat easier.
Claiming that institutions will no longer be able to expand their sizes, the critics say that colleges and universities will have to do some serious belt-tightening. Regular readers will know that we continue to closely examine our costs. For example, we have reduced the number of employees to 662, from 732, while maintaining a no-layoff policy; we continue the process by carefully examining every job that becomes open when someone retires or resigns. These and other efforts have taken $8 million out of our budget in five years.
There are some “belt-tightening” moves that we just won't take, however. Finn and Will cite institutions hiring “gypsy” faculty members and teaching assistants to reduce costs (there are no teaching assistants at Union). Arguing for “unbundling” costs, Finn says that students going only to classes should be charged for “the collegiate equivalent of a no-frills basic-transportation automobile,” while students using the gym or laboratories should be charged more.
The critics never seem to ask the very people for whom they say they speak-students. We do. Nearly ninety percent say the College enhanced their ability to “acquire skills and knowledge on my own,” and the same number praise the quality of instruction.
No one-least of all me-will argue that colleges cannot improve their performance. I find it unfortunate, however, that colleges like Union are being tarred by the broad Finn-Will brush, and I trust that our alumni and friends will give such attacks the dose of skepticism they deserve.
ROGER H. HULL