"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, and naval
architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their
children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary,
tapestry, and porcelain."  John Adams, 1780



            I want to make a few comments in defense of the THEC Master
Plan.  I have read it through twice, read the statements about it on RAVEN,
and participated in the UTC Faculty Senate discussion of it last week.
Though I am sympathetic to some of what has been said so far I believe
certain realities are being overlooked.  These should be brought into the
debate.



            I am not a particular fan of THEC, going back to 1999 when Dr.
Rhoda, in response to concerns I expressed to him about the possible
decrease in curriculum hours wrote that "curricular decisions are the
responsibility of the [UT] Board" the implication being not THEC, and "I am
not aware of any movement to limit the requirements of engineering majors."
We know that THEC mandated such reductions last year, a situation I deplore.
But I think they were forced to.



            I also think there is enough educational and public relations
jargon in the document to provide material for a couple conference
presentations by our Rose of Cimarron Distinguished Chair of  Excellent
Edu-Babble.  Also, I am quite amused by their statement at the top of p. 4
that unlike previous documents this one is based on realistic assumptions.



            But THEC does not work for us.  It works for the legislature and
the legislature is limited in what it provides for education by the ability
and willingness of Tennesseans to pay taxes.  Consider the following
expressed in the document, with which most of us probably agree:

(1)      Funding in inflation-adjusted dollars is not likely to increase in
the near future.

(2)      The percentage of Tennesseans who begin and then complete higher
education programs is too low.

If we can't change the first but want to change the second we have to do
something differently.  Education delivery must be made more efficient.
Non-governmental support will help.



            If the new students are the first of their families to attend
college it is both likely and reasonable that many will pursue professional
(note: not vocational) studies.   (See Adams, above.)  I am first-generation
college myself.   Such education is likely to be welcomed by business and
industry within our state.  And we are a tax-supported institution so
addressing their needs is reasonable.  The document also stressed the
formation of "partnerships," a wish whose fulfillment surely remains to be
seen.  But the people with the money will support such arrangements only if
we provide the skills needed.



            Is relying more on community colleges to teach the first and
second years a good idea?  I don't know but I suspect it is cheaper.  Do
professors without terminal degrees provide poorer foundational education?
I don't know that either but given the financial plight of education in
Tennessee all avenues must be explored.  Senior colleges may become more
specialized in the future.



            Those of you who know me know I value general education highly.
Much of my recreational time is spent reading outside of engineering.  My
remarks are not directed against any discipline.  But given (1) and (2)
above we cannot continue business as usual.  If you have other ways to
address these concerns now is the time to bring them up.  Merely bewailing
what THEC has said is not enough.



            Thank you for your attention.





            James W. Hiestand

            Engineering