Commentary

More Process than Change

It is customary that at the dawn of a new century people get this peculiar need for new priorities, responses to new challenges, renewed commitments and improvements of all sorts. What most of these end up being is nothing more than silly plans in response to a false dramatic atmosphere.

In that tradition, the University of Oregon initiated in October 1997 the Process for Change (PfC). According to John Moseley, university provost and head of the PfC operation, PfC is "a way that UO, students, faculty, staff, students have tried to look into the future and see what changes the University can make to improve education." A good idea, but the problem is that it is just a very good idea (at least up until now.) The truth of the matter is that the situation in education is not falsely dramatic - it is dramatic, but the PfC treats it as if it were falsely so.

In Jan. 7, 1998 university president Dave Frohnmayer tried to convey the seriousness of the situation. As he talked about a projected $5 million shortfall for 1999, he also asked, "Would you send your child to the University of Oregon? If your answer is not unequivocally, immediately and enthusiastically 'Yes!' then we must do better."

Since then many things changed. There was a change in the distribution of money among the Oregon universities that greatly benefited the UO. There was (and is) the continuance of economic growth which made the donations roll in, and finally a recent increase of spending by the legislature for higher education of $100 million. As it is to be expected, good times retard asking the hard questions. Nevertheless, the changes that are about to happen in higher education are more than dramatic.

There are two main causes of change. One is that by most projections the number of students in the future will decline. Thus, in the future universities will be in tougher competition with each other.

The other change is that a bachelor's degree will not pay as highly as it used to. As a result, students as customers of the universities will be more cost-conscious. Perhaps this is why we have an increase in the number of in-state students and a decrease in the number of out-of-state students at the UO.

Of course, the people of PfC concern themselves, neither directly nor indirectly with such questions. Any improvement in education that they "try" to achieve would make the University's product better, but the bitter truth is that the changes proposed in PfC will at best improve the quality of the education only marginally. PfC, after all these years, still looks like a huge unorganized brainstorm of wishes, ideas, plans, and sheer contradictions. Let me give you some examples. The reform neophytes of PfC want to simultaneously increase the research grants that the faculty gets, and increase the presence of the faculty in classes and their involvement with students. p> The problem is that increasing the number of research grants means increasing the number of faculty who receive them. That means the faculty must spend a considerable amount of time in order to receive the grants and use them.

Thomas Dyke, vice-provost for research, said that the difficulty with research is that "you have to write proposals, you have to run a laboratory, or run a research group. It takes a lot of time." Karen Sprague, biology professor and leader of the PfC task force for undergraduate education, said, "It's tough."

So, how is this supposed to occur at the same time involvement with students is increasing? Thomas Dyke sees "synergies." For instance, students could be involved in the research too. But how many? Could it be enough so as to offset the loss in involvement of faculty with students in regular settings? No way.

Even if there could be such an accommodation, it does not take into account what university research really is. Most of university research, not just here but nationwide, is at best a rearrangement of existing knowledge with minor and insignificant modifications. Even if students had the opportunity to participate in that kind of research would they benefit more from it than traditional ways of teaching? Again, no.

Let us address the Pathways. "A pathway is a coordinated collection of courses designed to meet group requirements in a coherent way and provide personal contact between beginning students and faculty members."

In some respects Pathways is one of those ideas that benefits students. First of all, it is a very efficient way of meeting the general education requirements. Secondly, it brings faculty and new students closer together. Freshmen get a better first experience with the University and hopefully increasing retention.

As of now, it seems that both faculty and students who participate in Pathways are satisfied. Another positive characteristic of Pathways is that it will always remain as an option for students. On the negative side, it does costs more for the University. Even worse is that it fails to accomplish its main mission, which includes improving the quality, not just the organization, of undergraduate education.

A report mentioned over and over again by the Boyer commission in the initial stages of PfC found that research universities like ours are "shortchanging undergraduates" because the are "lacking a coherent body of knowledge" and barely know "how to think logically, write clearly, or speak coherently."

Even though, a student who participates in the Pathways will end up having more knowledge of a subject plus some skills (i.e. how to organize a portfolio), it is extremely doubtful that at the end he will have significantly improved his abilities to "think logically, write clearly, or speak coherently." Just because students take a lot of courses all around the same subject doesn't mean that they gain a coherent body of knowledge.

PfC contains many good ideas. The problem with PfC is that it fails to make the distinction between good ideas and good decisions. Many of the good ideas, as stated before, contradict each other. In the end, the costs are greater than the benefits.

I suppose that it is very encouraging to think that we are all doing fine and dandy, that the only thing we need are a few minor changes and that we do not have to do anything but create a sense of community and a sense of certifiable vigilance.

Of course, some people tried to make the best of the matter. Thus, the University Senate, the professors club, thought that at the dawn of the new century the University should make the following changes: "remove competitive basis for internal funding," "Free up faculty to do what they do best," "Institute tuition breaks for children of faculty and stuff," and finally, "Reduce the cost of athletic events to faculty."

Right on, gentlemen. Those kinds of reforms are probably the only ones PfC people would like to consider. Some of the faculty, who participated in the PfC and wanted to remain anonymous, expressed the feeling that PfC is a public relations operation for internal and external use. It gives the impression to students, faculty and stuff that they participate in the important decisions, and to the greater public the idea that UO really prepares students for the challenges of a new era. Some on the other hand are really excited about PfC. When I talked to Thomas Dyke and Karen Sprague both seemed animated about its prospects.

Whatever the true motives behind the PfC, a number of things remain clear. Judging from the history of PfC, there is no clarity of purpose nor of execution. To that, we can add something even more distressing. Hundreds of days were spent, dozens of issues raised, solutions proposed, implementation teams, task forces, more than 200 faculty, staff, administrators and students involved - one little problem: no one ever asked the hard questions.

Napoleon Linardatos, a senior majoring in Economics, is a staff writer for the Oregon Commentator