Michigan State University has proposed a series of program cuts to cope with declining state support, according to reports in the Lansing State Journal and The State News. The proposed cuts include closing at least nine departments and more than a dozen degree programs, among them the classics, veterinary technology, retailing, and American studies.
The state’s 2009-10 budget, signed on Friday, provides no money for the merit-based Michigan Promise Scholarship but retains $31.7-million in need-based grants for students at private colleges, the Detroit Free Press reported. The budget also spares Michigan State’s agricultural extension services.
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
7 Responses to Michigan State U. May Cut at Least 9 Academic Departments
marchman - November 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm
If people, other than those involved with administration, in higher education are anything they are territorial and protectionist. They always want to protect “me.” Administrators continue to be caught between some type of board (and, if state-supported, government and bureaucratic budget legislation) on one hand, and self-centered faculty and student interests on the other. A program, such as music therapy, with only 34 students–less than .01% of the total enrollment at MSU–is an unjustifiable expense there. The other cuts are probably equally well thought out. Often universities during times of plenty add curriculum and degree programs with little or no merit for the particular institution. A true benefit of tough economic times is those programs can be and are exorcised. Ever since the 60s when the inmates–students and faculty–took over the asylum, higher education has continued to demonstrate selfish, narcissistic views of adding unnecessary aspects to the curriculum without considering long-term value. (Remember the abuse of the term “relevant” for which we are still suffering.) The number of university-supported programs that are not cost-effective or required for society to function well are unbelievable. Schools, especially tax-supported ones, are not required and should not offer programs that are not supported by public demand. To stay in the arts area, how many theatre, art, and music majors (other than those serving in the education field) have a degree they will never use for genuine economic gain? How often have the value of projects funded by the National Endowment for the Arts been questioned even by people in the arts? University budgets would probably be more than adequate if institutions focused on degrees that are necessary and viable for the particular institution. Congratulations to MSU on making wise decisions. Hopefully, there will be more to come, not only from MSU, but from many other institutions.
blackbart - November 2, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Marchman: The perspective on the reasons and goals of education you espouse are hardly laudable.Music therapy is a science, not an “art.” Its students have to study human development, psychology, and other “non-art” fields. And if the music therapy department is so small, then how big a dent in the budget shortfall would really be made by eliminating it? Is department size really the best criteria by which to select departments for elimination? “The more students, the more indispensable the department?” I didn’t know that college budgeting was so akin to selecting a prom queen.I also didn’t realize that college was exclusively a means to a vocational end. So I major in art history and go on to coordinate a visiting scholars program at another university for thirty years–does this mean my art history degree was worthless? Did it not contribute to my “economic gain?” And even if it didn’t (a premise I find faulty), doesn’t such a degree indicate experience thinking about the intangible elements of being human? So I don’t become the next Mozart–does that mean my music degree was a waste of time? (And do we really want FEWER people studying the arts in a culture where Michael Jackson is the most worshiped artist in recent memory?)Higher education has NEVER been cost-effective. Higher education is incredibly expensive, and always has been. No education worth obtaining is cheap.Higher education’s role is NOT to furnish programs that are “required for society to function well.” Nor should higher education’s programs be subject to “public demand.” A great many things paid for by our society’s taxes would never pass line-item public muster–tanks and Congress come to mind–but that doesn’t mean that we don’t need those things. I’d argue that research and education–yes, even into academic areas that don’t turn a quick buck or cure cancer–are among such things.If we’re not willing to expend resources into exploring what makes us human, and the human condition itself, then we don’t deserve to be human any longer.
mfogg - November 2, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Blackbart- bravo for your comments here. Once again the idea of a souless society that only prepares its members to be acquainted with what is profitable and saleable rears its ugly head. I attended MSU and received a music degree (which I am currently using, as a matter of fact) and have joined the student-led campaign to save the music therapy degree. Heaven forbid that marchman or anyone else ever has an autistic child that needs music therapy! To say that there is no need for that in society shows marchman is behind on his research. As for American Studies, I guess universities should just replace it with Chinese Studies, since nearly everything we consume is made there anyway. Note intended sarcasm, please!
newyorkyankees - November 2, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Come on, marchman. To use that logic is to suggest that every person who doesn’t use his degree in his current pursuit is wasting his degree. For example, there are many attorneys, myself included, who have other careers outside of the law. How about CPA’s who arent practicing anymore but teach? The point is that there are any number of people who do something they enjoy and are passionate about. Getting a degree isn’t always about “genuine economic gain”. What exactly is “genuine”, anyway?
rabidhusky - November 3, 2009 at 1:02 am
After reading these comments, I notice two extremes that are equally disturbing. The first, Marchman’s position, clearly leaves out the human factor when deciding policy (in this case cutting departments based on a myopic cost/benefit scale). Disgusting, inhuman, and poorly researched (he clearly confused Music Therapy with “something going on in the music department”.)Yet, when one looks at the responses to him, it quickly becomes obvious that many folks are downplaying the reality of the ethics of knowingly offering an education that is nearly unmarketable. Universities knowingly produce far more Am Studies, Classics, Music(the list could go on and on)degrees than there are jobs available. Far too few professors let prospective students who are entering into these programs know the job market realities that they will face. It’s fine that some of you managed to get an alternative job and your arts degree helped out. The fact is, a Ph.D. TRAINS the individual to become an expert in a particular field. That student ends up spending 7+ years focusing on mastering such specialization, and often goes into significant debt doing this. They don’t do this so they can get a job that has little to do with their specialization (ie administration) or that undermines the labor market (scabs/adjuncts, guest lectures, etc.) It is genuinely unethical for universities – backed by faculty support – to train so many more people than there are positions available. Both groups need to find a workable balance, because its the poor graduate students who are paying a dear social and economic price for this.
marchman - November 3, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Initial responses to the first comment were pretty much expected. Rabidhusky is correct with the things he says for the most part. Yes, cuts can seem “disgusting, inhuman, and poorly researched,” but they can also be necessitated by bad judgments during prosperous times. Many professors encourage students to choose a major that makes no sense. Many music education majors were talked into switching to a performance major, graduated, and now can not find a position having anything to do with music. Yet, if they had stayed in music education they could have continued taking lessons and practicing and could have been prepared for either possibility.Universities do have to be more cost efficient or face ever-growing public condemnation for their operations–especially in tight budget times when tax monies are not being generated resulting in forced state budget cuts. No one ever likes to see cuts but reality is confronting higher education. Money does not grow on trees. When funds are minimized cuts follow. Would everyone on campus agree that the “disgusting, inhuman, poorly researched” cuts are unacceptable and be willing to take a 15% salary reduction? One reason for being very judicious when adding courses that are not absolutely necessary in prosperous times is that tough times are coming when the economy cycles.Comments supporting the elimination of music therapy at MSU were not suggesting it is an invalid major at universities where the demand for the curriculum makes it cost effective. Another issue confronting music therapy is where it fits into the curriculum–many musicians would agree it is a science and not an art, believing that therapy is the focus and music just a tool. There are schools that have considered adding music therapy chose not to because they do not know where it belongs. Blackbart is correct in citing the need for “human development, psychological, and other non-arts fields” are significant for music therapy students, Many would argue music therapy does not belong in the music curriculum and is expendable in that setting.Many people want to believe majors do not need to apply to where one is going to spend their career, and certainly instances can be found where that has worked out to be true. Still, the vast, vast majority of students (and their tax-paying parents) expect an expensive education (for the students and parents, even if not being concerned about the state’s finances) to result in preparation for employment in the major field after graduation.The ivy towered idealism of higher education is admirable, but occasionally a heavy dose of reality has to be confronted. Often, that service is provided by financial hard times. Higher education is not cost effective, but there is no reason it can not become more so.
rabidhusky - November 4, 2009 at 3:34 am
I have a few questions concerning Michigan’s public financial situation. State funding for education is being cut. It is claimed that reduced funding revenues due to the current economic downturn is the cause. Two ways to make up for this alleged shortfall: 1)Reduce state funding for the penal system (removing political prisoners such as those arrested for marijuana use alone would do the trick). 2) Reduce (and cap) higher administrator’s salaries. When a CEO’s business model fails, he/she is typically responsible for this. This logic should also be applied to higher adminstration, whose salaries are too high for the bs work they supposedly do.