In her article, Financial Pain Should Focus Universities, Diane Auer Jones presents her argument that cutbacks of revenue for Universities are not punishments, and that they will in fact make colleges become more productive. She projects how the past few years of prosperous grants and funding have “shifted the focus of formerly teaching-intensive institutions away from their undergraduate-education mission” (Jones). In this sense, she says that many colleges have placed too much emphasis on gaining extra money for their research departments and have let many other segments of their institutions slip by the wayside. Even thought there is an increased emphasis in the research realm, it is not on making actual discoveries or constructing revolutionary new procedures. Drafting proposals and securing grants for the costly research facilities receive the brunt of the focus. As researchers and teachers compete for the revenue, their dedication to teaching declines; leading to a “devolution of academic quality for the large majority” (Jones). Jones leads this point into how reducing funds could force more unity in scientific research programs. Professors burdened by the ever-enticing prospect of extra grants will no longer be dedicated to pursuing them, but rather on the true issue of teaching. Overall, colleges across the United States will once again come to a balance between teaching and research that had been skewed strongly in favor of the later department. Jones ends her relation by pressing that these positives will prove much more important than the ‘short-term’ drawbacks that budget cutting will have.
In my opinion though, these ‘short-term’ drawbacks will prove tthemselves anything but minor in their impact on restrictions surrounding student’s educational freedom. My most direct recourse about the limitations that will occur through federal budget cuts is that it greatly damages the ability students have to experience the “frustration of failed experiments, followed by successes leading to new knowledge” (Morford). I know that this applies whole-heartily to me as a collegiate student, in that I have learned valuable lessons in being able to pursue outside-the-box research. This broad avenue of learning would be considerably narrowed however if research funding is severed. The flow of free thought and expanse of the students future will be reigned in as universities are forced to lessen or even halt many special student related projects and services. And as specialty services and opportunities are let go, so are certain majors that had previously been available to students. When a major cannot be eliminated, such as the powerhouses that are Biology and Chemistry, many previously required criteria are done away with. This includes lowering classes needed to earn a major in the subject, to “dropping the laboratory requirements for non-science majors taking science courses” (Pope). I know it’s weird to think that a college student would be upset that he would have to take fewer courses to earn his major, but I truly feel that having to eliminate classes, and even entire subjects, because of a lack of money is an injustice to education.
Further, as Ms. Jones describes how the elimination of some of these “unnecessary” research facilities and subjects will improve efficiency in American universities, I cannot help but
get a bitter taste in my mouth. While some projects may not be the most practical, I do not believe that taking chunks out of a universities wallet will make efficiency rise. In fact, since the budget cuts will not target research departments singularly, many other aspects of colleges will be affected as well; leading to an imposed inefficiency that is rather contradictory to the scene painted by those who portray the cuts as a good thing. As subjects and classes are targeted and eliminated, students that were in them have to scurry into other rooms and fields. This leads to stuffed classes and students having to take courses in subjects that hold little to no interest to them. In Delgado Community College, classes that shouldn’t hold more that twenty-five students are being packed with up to thirty-three; which, as Professor Pat Roux stated, “is not conductive to good learning.”
In a full double-edged sword manner, even with students sardined into classes like never before, universities have to eliminate staff members because they can no longer pay their salary. It is not hard to see how the enlarged classes and cut staff go hand in hand with the erosion or educational efficiency, with a prime example occurring at Berkeley university in California. Here from 2008 to 2010 eight hundred million dollars were subtracted from their budget; resulting in the “recruitment of only ten faculty members this year instead of the usual one hundred” (Ricci). More impending forms of inefficiency lie in the increased reliance on electronic devices to provide education. Without professors, many courses can only be taken through online methods, which in many areas are notorious for their difficulty and lack of personal contact to educate the student. Aside from this method, course selection becomes increasingly sparse as they are quickly packed with students or eliminated all together. This leads to the figurehead for a loss in efficiency: longer time required to graduate.
Sure, college years can be some of the best years of your life, but it would be a hard goal to find a student on campus one day that would say they would want to stay for a few years longer than the standard four that it takes to graduate. The reason for this can be summed up in a simple phrase that business men have lived by for a long time; ‘Time is money.’ While this is usually a Wall Street mantra, few places is it truer than in the world of higher education. With relation to a loss of efficiency, when students cannot get into the classes needed for their major they simply cannot graduate on time. At the University of San Francisco, some students have only been able to enroll in two courses, and are seeing that their plans of a four year graduation are being erased. Such is the case with senior Michael Redogliaa, who found his chances at graduating pushed back a full year; he simply stated that the setback of limited courses was “killing me financially.”
As universities see their loss of funding occurring they must find money from other sources to continue to be academically relevant. Unfortunately for students like you and me, one source of this revenue comes from increases in tuition charges and educational fees. These increases are twice as impactful on admitted students because admissions numbers are dropping as well. This is because universities are unable to accommodate the number of students they could when they had funding to support more classes. Another aspect of cost that concerns me on a personal level is that prospect of the elimination of certain financial aid programs. I am a Covenant Scholar here at UNC and without the aid I receive from the university there is a good chance that I would not be attending college at all. Knowing that because of budget cuts that many people like me are now living in a limbo realm; iwhere they cannot be sure they will be able to continue their education since their respective universities have not promised a renewal of their aid, seriously riles me.
There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Jones presents her optimistic outlook from a well educated standpoint. But for me it seems all too much like she has detached herself from the true impacts that budget cuts will have on the students, teachers and overall opportunities that college is all about. Without the ability to pursue, fail, learn and eventually succeed that is available in the research departments of many universities, students miss a key part of the educational process. This loss is made further tragic by the increase in inefficiency and increased cost to the funds of the students themselves. When the senior vice president for finance and administration at the University of Georgia, Tim Burgess, says that because of the budget cuts that he is having to “think about the prospect of literally tearing the university apart;” it shows that cutting research funding causes quakes far beyond merely the “unproductive” facilities that the cuts are claimed to highlight. The advocates can claim cuts will refocus colleges all they want, but until they have to sit outside a stuffed class and try to hear a lecture, or have to wonder every night if they will be able to get the money they need to continue their education; I say that it is the voice of the students that should carry the most weight. And as a student, I say that we should take some of the spirit we show at home games and apply it in showing that we are against budget cuts that erode our education!
Budget Cuts Will ‘Reap’ Education If We Let Them
Sources:
Jones, Diane. "Financial Pain Should Focus Univeristies." Nature 465.7294 (2010): 32-33. Web. 25 Sep 2010.
Ricci, Sabrina. "Opinion and Editorial." Associatedcontent.com. Associated Content, 12 nov 2009. Web. 25 Sep 2010.
Pope, John. "New Orleans Metro Educational News." NOLA. NOLA, 30 Jan 2010. Web. 25 Sep 2010.
Ensley, Mimi. "Administration News." Red and Black. Red and Black, 01 Mar 2010. Web. 25 Sep 2010.
Picture:
http://balmung6.deviantart.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment