I will respond to my friend and humanist engineer Jim Hiestand. Having
shared conferences and book discussion seminars with him, including a week
long general educationathon in Asheville -- I still have the T-shirt, but
the UTC action plan gathered dust -- I confirm his claim to be an engineer
whose vision bridges the gap between the humanities and science identified
by Snow in his famous 1959 "Two Cultures" lecture at Oxford.

Therefore, Jim's call for an open discussion of the challenging and
disturbing THEC Master Plan (Master, when are you going to fix my neck?) is
worthy of respect and response.

Many of us in the Senate have expressed amazement, puzzlement, and even
distress over the implications of the plan. It is almost insulting to have
to defend the economic, cultural, and social benefits of a traditional
four-year college experience, because the plan is correct in one way: we
are in a knowledge economy. It is not correct in defining knowledge as
narrow job skills, not that society does not need those skills. That is why
we have a vocational education system throughout the state. There will
always be a need for hair dressers and welders as they cannot be outsourced.

Jim is being realistic in asking how we can continue to provide something
valuable to the community with flat or declining budgets, and money rushing
into non-academic endeavors. I have a few ideas we might want to consider,
although I do not necessarily advocate these potential solutions.

First, Jim suggests that we think about becoming a specialist university,
leaving general education to the cheaper community colleges, which seems to
be the path THEC is taking with the legislature. Some states already do
this, including California and our neighboring North Carolina. The problem
here is that some professional programs such as engineering require
introductory classes right at the start of college. Perhaps that can be
surmounted. Another is numbers; do we have enough students in upper
division classes to justify our present faculty size, given the attrition
due to rather open admissions compared to Knoxville? Perhaps we can make an
argument about lower FTE loads for the last two years. We presently make
that case for those teaching at the graduate level.

Interestingly enough, although our student numbers have grown, the number
of tenure-track faculty has declined a bit; this could be accelerated as we
rely more and more on one year appointments, adjuncts, and graduate
assistants. This is a cheaper delivery system that should have great appeal
to the legislature. It doesn't speak to quality, but neither does the
Master Plan.

Second, we could restructure campus buildings to include large lecture
halls so that we can have introductory classes in the 150-200 student
range, taught by professors and evaluated by grading assistants. When I
taught at Knoxville the Western Civilization classes were 250 students with
five graduates assistants to lead discussions and grade. I much prefer the
class sizes at UTC, but our student/faculty ratio and small classrooms make
for an expensive system. Harvard undergraduate courses are also in the 200
plus student range, so there is not a correlation with quality, provided
you have students bright enough to learn on their own. By the way, this is
how you fund expensive graduate programs; you milk the undergraduates.

Third, we should look to low cost high volume programs like the new EDD
degree program. With only three new modestly salaried (probably under
$100,000) new graduate faculty and limited library costs, we will probably
have a lot of graduate students and their tuition. This contrasts with the
new Computational Engineering program outlined yesterday by Dean Bailey,
which carries a very high per student cost. Still, maybe some will stick
around to enjoy the quality of life in Chattanooga and make this the new
Silicon Valley where shadows creep. As I said yesterday, they are now part
of the UTC team, and we should all pray for their success. If they fail in
attracting grants to become self-funding -- according to Harry McDonald
they are ahead of projections now -- we will all feel the pinch at the end
of the day.

Jim is right, the THEC plan reflects the low priority of higher education.
Thank you, overpaid and famously profligate leaders for taking the whole
institution down this path. So I join him in asking all of you to think
seriously about how we can survive this plan.

Meanwhile, be prepared for the next UTC faculty crisis of the month.

Richard Rice,
Speaking as a concerned faculty member, not as Senate President


At 03:43 PM 11/8/2004 -0500, Jim Hiestand wrote:
>"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