EDUCATION IS A BATTLEGROUND. GOOD TEACHERS ARE WARRIORS. THESE ARE THE FRONTLINES.
Home   Columns   Commentaries   Grants & Graduate Students
Curriculum Vitae
  Speeches   Publications  
China
 

KS School Naturalist

Contact
 

 

Release: April 5, 2009
Wordcount: 569

Efficiency or Quality?

Is Kansas getting our money’s worth when it comes to state universities? Just how "efficient" are our various Kansas schools at delivering student-credit-hours per dollars spent? That is a question that is supposedly being addressed by a legislative post-audit committee. And in this recent era of rising tuition costs and desperate economic times, that could be an important question to answer if it was done correctly. Sadly, it appears to be shallow beancounting that will cause a "race to the bottom": hiring cheap faculty to teach cheap courses and turn out cheap popular degrees.

Unlike a bank "audit" where inspectors come on-site to check if the paperwork actually matches what is in the bank safe, this "audit" is conducted in Topeka and therefore can only focus on numbers. All quantity. No quality. The result is not something the Legislature should accept for many reasons.

First, the way to get the highest "efficiency" is to crowd hundreds or even a thousand students into one big lecture hall or auditorium. That is indeed being done at some schools for some courses. Triple class size and you reduce cost to one-third. It generates a lower cost-per-student figure. It also provides lousy education. Any time class size rises much beyond 24-30 students, the student becomes another number and is mostly on his or her own to struggle through. Forget the faculty member’s open door policy that provides the extra help and attention that has helped so many Kansas students succeed and enter graduate school or the professions.

Second, ignoring research and service and focusing on just faculty teaching—is a bad idea. Nationwide, university "CEOs" are moving toward hiring part time adjuncts to teach courses as piecework, and shed the costs of healthcare and retirement. This is not a good idea either, although to the university-as-a-business folks, it provides great "fiscal flexibility." Cheap faculty are a real problem because Kansas wants and needs faculty who are current and active in their field, participating in the academic community, and bringing that expertise to students who can begin their research at the undergraduate and graduate level. On a per-capita basis, Kansas once had the largest number of listings in the Who’s Who in Science of any state. Kansas needs to continue having our best faculty minds working with our best student minds. To push for discount-store "efficiency" will end that.

Finally, public universities need to operate for the public good. The number of physics and chemistry and foreign language teachers has never been enough to maintain numbers that alone, would support those departments on a business-model basis. But we desperately need every physics and chemistry and foreign language teacher we do produce—for the good of the state. To eliminate low-enrollment programs completely in response to the "efficiency" mandate, completely eliminates the few graduates we produce and so desperately need. And since the faculty and courses are still needed to support other programs, this shortsighted surgery does not save any resources at all.

State legislators from rural Kansas know the value of "quality." Look at the green and yellow machinery sitting in their fields. They could buy cheaper equipment. It would be more "efficient" for a year or two. But cheap equipment doesn’t do the job—not for long. They know that over the long haul, "cheap" turns out to be more expensive.

-30-

John Richard Schrock lives in Emporia.

 
  Home | Columns | Commentaries | Contact  
  © 2009 John Richard Schrock