• September 5, 2015

In Cutting Programs, Universities Try to Swing the Ax Gently

At the University of Iowa, multiple committees appointed by the provost are examining the institution to help chart a new course for its future in the wake of steep budget cuts.

But the work of one panel in particular—a group charged with scrutinizing the caliber of the university's 100 or so graduate programs—has triggered angst among some faculty members, alumni, and students who wonder if the process will result in their programs' being eliminated.

"Even if their recommendations are preliminary, it's a provost-level task force, so you've got to take it seriously," said Russell S. Valentino, a professor in the department of cinema and comparative literature. "I don't think people are overreacting in feeling threatened."

Professors at Iowa have publicly chafed at the criteria by which their programs are being measured, and one faculty member, in an e-mail message to his colleagues, accused the panel of racism after it expressed concern about a lack of domestic students in a graduate program in Chinese.

The 19-member task force has a February 8 deadline for releasing a final report on its conclusions, and discussions among deans and department chairs will then begin in a process that continues through September.

As next week's deadline looms, the task force has tried to temper such emotions. For instance, the group had initially ranked 14 graduate programs as "weak." But last week, the panel switched to the softer-sounding "additional evaluation required"—a nod to the extensive discussions that will inevitably take place.

While the lower-ranked programs have not been officially named, faculty members say most of them are in the humanities. Among them are a Ph.D. program in film studies, a Ph.D. program and a master's program in comparative literature, and graduate programs in American history, Japanese, and Chinese.

Inevitable Outcry

The rough patches in the process at Iowa are indicative of what can lie ahead when colleges seek to winnow down the number of programs they offer. To be sure, cutting programs isn't impossible, but it's the kind of task that draws the watchful—and often skeptical—eyes of faculty members who don't always buy into the motives behind paring back. And according to some institutions whose undergraduate and graduate programs are now leaner, a move to cut programs can easily be derailed by misinformation and rumors about the process, faculty and alumni outcry, and failure to link such cuts to a bigger plan for the college.

"There's nothing easy about doing this at all," says Bruce J. Cochrane, dean of graduate studies at Miami University, in Ohio. "This is not something you want to see happen, and I think however one does it, you're going to be criticized until the end for not being consultative enough."

Mr. Cochrane led a yearlong review of Miami's graduate programs that began in early 2008 as a way for the institution to take a closer look at how it used its resources on the graduate level and deciding whether ineffective or low-enrollment programs should be scaled back. The committee, largely made up of associate deans of the college's five academic units, surveyed the institution's graduate programs to learn general information about them, then sought more-specific data about each—faculty productivity, quality of applicants, and number of students enrolled, among them, Mr. Cochrane said.

Programs were then ranked, with doctoral, master's, professional, and education programs measured among members of their own group. And although programs fell into tiers, their ranking wasn't the only factor in deciding their fate, Mr. Cochrane said. "If a program served a local need, that was taken into consideration."

What wasn't taken into consideration at Miami was how its graduate programs measured up against others in that discipline across the country, Mr. Cochrane said. "Conveying that to people is hard. When you're doing a review like this, that's not what you're trying to do. You're looking at how they measure up at your institution. The program might not be a strong one at our school," he said.

In the end, Miami cut graduate assistantships for five programs: its master's degree programs in communication, Spanish and Portuguese, and environmental sciences, and its doctoral programs in history and political science. The move effectively shuts those programs down (although environmental sciences is making a switch to a self-sustaining financial model) because they won't be able to recruit students. But taking the steps to formally eliminate the programs isn't on the horizon.

"That has a real level of finality that we're not ready to take," Mr. Cochrane said.

Fostering Widespread Involvement

At the University of Idaho, program cuts in 2009 followed about four years of work on a strategic plan. After shunning the idea of closing or merging departments, a committee that included deans, a vice provost, and directors turned to reducing the number of programs offered at the institution.

Forty-one graduate and undergraduate programs were slated for closure at the outset. Ultimately, 35 program cuts were approved by the Faculty Senate and the State Board of Education last spring.

Douglas D. Baker, provost at Idaho, says constant—and consistent—communication with stakeholders along the way was critical.

"The way we got through this was by working through the Faculty Senate and the president's cabinet and students up front," Mr. Baker said. "We talked about how the process would work. And we worked with them on the criteria we were going to be using and made it clear that they were a starting place for discussion, not the ending place."

Mr. Baker said that in-person talks to colleges and departments, phone calls, e-mail messages, and letters about the process became the norm for him because "you have to lay out what you're doing and why. It's incredibly time-consuming, but it's a necessary investment."

Although shared governance played a big role in the program reductions at Idaho, Mr. Baker is convinced that the institution's move to recreate itself at the same time has made the cuts more palatable.

"I don't think many people will just sacrifice and cut unless they have a sense that there's going to be a new and better future afterward," Mr. Baker said.

A Second Chance

Sometimes faculty input makes a difference for programs in the cross hairs, as it did for a handful at Idaho when the Faculty Senate voted against their elimination. But an outcry from alumni and friends can also help, as directors of the program in women's studies at Florida Atlantic University found out.

Florida Atlantic had announced that after this year it would commit no more money for teaching assistants in the master's-level part of the program, which it said was underenrolled. However, what would normally be an effective shutdown turned into a second chance after alumni and friends spoke up. The newly renamed Center for Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies has been allowed to fund-raise itself back into existence.

"Our expectation and our hope is that they'll raise enough money from the public around us to sustain the activities of the center and the master's program," said Manjunath Pendakur, dean of the College of Arts and Letters.

Back at Iowa, David R. Drake, a professor of microbiology who is president of the university's Faculty Senate, says he has had his share of conversations with concerned colleagues who aren't certain that what the task force has done so far is preliminary. Indeed, the director of film studies at Iowa, Corey Creekmur, wrote an open letter to alumni asking them to help the department "articulate the importance of the excellence of our programs to those who will be deciding on the future of our programs."

Mr. Drake said he has reminded professors that what the task force has said and done so far isn't final.

"Shared governance is pretty strong here at the University of Iowa," Mr. Drake said. Before the Board of Regents acts on any recommendations in the fall, he said, faculty members will have plenty of opportunity to weigh in, along with deans and department chairs and other members of the campus community. "There won't be any rash decision making here."


1. chgok9dad - February 01, 2010 at 04:26 pm

This revisits the inequities in our university programs and how they are funded. Should chemistry or biology programs be exempt from cuts because they bring in federal funding (or overhead) whereas a humanities, english, or history course does not? The answer is clearly no, but how can you justify it in terms of a bottom line in the university budget? I'm one of the "lucky" ones who was faced with a 10% cut in operations costs for my department, and we weathered the cut by using funds out of indirect cost recovery from million dollar grants; other departments in arts and sciences aren't that lucky. We pay for space and resources because we can while my A&S colleagues don't (because they can't). Is that fair? The university needs to decide what is important, in terms of curriculum, on a long-term basis, and move in that direction. That means not having an expert in every field and having every department. Some leading institutions focus on a few areas and do it exceedingly well by hiring several faculty in one area. These are hard decisions, but can also be fair decisions. Decide on a real vision for your department and university.

2. systeme_d - February 02, 2010 at 03:47 am

Since this article was written, another graduate program in the humanities at Miami University was de-funded. Comparative Religion, recognized as one of the strongest terminal MA programs in our discipline across the country, has had its teaching assistantships revoked.

We are the oldest secular department of Religion in Ohio. Our record of successes, our "outcomes," which have been nothing short of remarkable, will stop short as we are constrained by a policy that prevents us from funding our applicants, our graduate students in the humanities, who serve the department so well while they gain valuable research experience and build formidable pedagogical and linguistic skills.

No one with half a brain self-funds graduate study in the humanities - particularly in this economy. As I tell my own MA students when they are applying to PhD programs, "Follow the money."

Yet the university chooses to de-fund a program of remarkable rigor and quality, with a deep history of accomplishment, and with a record of unflagging dedication to preparing students for the rigors of the PhD.

This is a loss to all of us.

Read your newspaper to get a glimpse of what we already know: On a global scale, the study of religion has never been more important than it is today.

3. jffoster - February 02, 2010 at 06:37 am

The "study of religion" is indeed important but the study of religion through "Religious Studies" and "Comparative Religion" is of questionable importance, significance, or serious intellectual content. If more provosts in public universities were to read such materials as Timothy Fitzgerald's "The Ideology of Religious Studies" or Russell McCutcheon's "Manufacturing Religion: the Discours of Sui Generis Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia", there might suddenly be a lot fewer "Religious Studies" or "Comparative Religion" departments, especially in public universities. Miami should have killed the undergraduate program too. Students can study religion through sociology, anthropology, and the like.

4. jffoster - February 02, 2010 at 07:40 am

In (3), I withdraw my phrase "or serious intellectual content". That's too harsh and probably not true. I substitute for it "and doubtful significant analytic or explanatory capability".

5. seiu615 - February 02, 2010 at 07:55 am

I also wonder whether the task forces also looked at the problem of layoffs in hard times: laying off dining hall or custodial employees, who are the lowest-paid employees (read, most vulnerable to homelessness, health care problems, etc.). It seems that a lot of colleges have tried to solve part of their endowment-fall problems as corporations would -- i.e., such layoffs -- and not as educational communities should. I haven't seen much innovative or socially conscious thinking about this issue from our highly educated administrators of our hopefully socially responsible institutions.

6. jcn8139 - February 02, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Reading through the various approaches taken by "provosti" and academic committees across the spectrum presented in this article, none of the affronts detailed measure up to the chicanery going on for the past few years at Radford University in Virginia.

Ill-timed and poorly executed program reviews and the near total destruction of the basic university curriculum finally enraged the faculty sufficiently that a vote of no confidence against the provost passed the faculty senate last semester. The provost resigned, and now an incredible amount of energy is now required to get the school back on track.

The Radford lesson is two-fold--1) pay attention to the doings of those upper-level administrators and boards of trustees/visitors, etc. (idle hands and vacant minds...) and 2) when you determine just how misguided your administrative complex may be, take back control of your university! After all without the faculty there is no education or research or NCAA football--nothing to administer, no fun.

7. relevantreligion - February 02, 2010 at 02:04 pm


You should withdraw your entire comment. A large number of students took religious studies courses at the state university I attended. Thankfully, we never read the books you mentioned or allowed the study of religion to be forced into some dark corner of a sociology or anthropology department.

8. jffoster - February 02, 2010 at 02:45 pm

[Ir]relevantreligion (7) says: "Thankfully, we never read the books you mentioned...".

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

9. ll824 - February 04, 2010 at 02:12 am

hmm, it seems jffoster may not have read McCutcheon very closely; one sees in his work an element of what one might construe as a "religious" clinging to this only apparently "secular" model, in a somewhat unscientific fashion, along the lines of what Foucault dubs the "false sciences" (here referring to Marxism and psychoanalysis) in his Hermeuneutics of the Subject.

10. jffoster - February 05, 2010 at 11:40 pm

So you found his Hermann Goreing?

11. profmomof1 - February 17, 2010 at 03:58 pm

As many public universities are going into the corporate model, it really doesn't matter what the quality of a program is -- what matters is how much money it brings in, is the administration interested in that field, and is it nationally-known among the crowd that the administration is interested in attracting? If not, it could be endangered.

Here our administration contracted with a private firm to study "quality" of departments and programs, resulting in a ranking, with the lower-ranked units potentially endangered. The academic units were not allowed to have any input into what the metrics were or to provide or even check accuracy of the data. The metrics were not revealed to us, as we are told those are trade secrets of the company. From the few details we can discern, the data are in fact inaccurate -- incorrect number of publications, number of faculty, amount of research dollars, etc. From the rankings list, it certainly appears that these "quality rankings" done by unrevealed datasets and unrevealed metrics were constructed to match what the administration wanted to have as results -- their favorite units were highly ranked and the ones they've never been interested in were lower ranked.

12. sgmleland - February 20, 2010 at 07:31 pm

The cuts at Florida State were not so subtle - they axed one of the better oceanography programs in the US. This included laying off senior tenured faculty as well as recently recruited assistant professors. I am surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article.

Add Your Comment

Commenting is closed.

  • 1255 Twenty-Third St., N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.