UT's first steps in revamping itself

by Joe Sullivan

A blue-ribbon committee of UT faculty members has just issued a clarion call for a comprehensive reappraisal of the university's academic programs and course offerings.

"Business as usual—incremental budgeting while maintaining the current program mix and delivery methods—is a sure recipe for frustration and mediocrity," warns the report of a 12-member Academic Program Evaluation Committee (APEC) that was appointed last April by UTK Chancellor Bill Snyder.

The report recognizes that, "Change is painful, and nowhere more than at academic institutions, whose deliberative culture serves to maintain the status quo." But the APEC goes on to conclude that, "There are times in the life of institutions, just as in the lives of individuals, when the kind of change is required that can cause discomfort and even pain. We judge this to be such a time."

This admonition comes on the heels of the already considerable pain resulting from state funding cuts over the past two years that have forced elimination by attrition of nearly 100 faculty positions (from 1300 to 1200) in more or less random fashion. While the state budgetary outlook now appears temporarily brighter, there's widespread recognition on the campus that not even Don Quixote, let alone Don Sundquist, can come up with the funding needed to keep higher education viable in this revenue-deficient state on anything like its present footing.

Doing fewer things better has become the catch phrase among UT's administrators; and the faculty buy-in reflected in the APEC report would appear to represent a significant step toward acceptance of that mandate. It remains to be seen, however, whether the call for revamping UT's curriculum will amount to anything more than rhetoric.

The APEC report sets forth criteria for determining whether each and every UT academic offering should be augmented, maintained, or subjected to termination, reduction, or consolidation. But a recent, prototypical attempt at terminating a program underscores the difficulty of converting verbiage into action.

Last April, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, John Peters, recommended shutting down UT's Graduate School of Planning. "Despite its distinguished history, the Graduate School of Planning has in recent times received a series of low evaluations from accreditors and from academic program reviewers, and the small number of graduates indicates a program that is barely sustainable. These were the primary factors that led to my decision to propose it for closure," Peters informed the school's acting director, David Patterson.

But the recommendation unloosed a torrent of protest from alumni and from planning commissions and consulting firms around the state who look to the school for trained recruits. Patterson managed to establish, moreover, that low graduation rates (less than 50 percent of the 20 plus students in each class) have been due primarily to strong job market demand that has lured the school's students away after completing their course work but before writing the thesis required for a degree.

Waggling a six-inch thick file folder full of protest letters, Snyder now proclaims that, "This university has an obligation to meet the need for planners so the degree program will continue." It probably won't be on a stand-alone basis, though. One possibility being explored is to consolidate the school with a public administration program now in the Political Science Department, and perhaps others via creation of a new Institute for Public Policy and Analysis.

Several of the college heads who comprise UT's Council of Deans are known to be skeptical of the university's ability to reshape itself. "Every program on this campus has its own constituency, and the chancellor has got to be willing to take an enormous amount of flak in order to get anything done," says one. While they all hold Snyder in high personal esteem, some also question his use of a faculty committee (namely APEC) as the agent of change. "The faculty members involved are all for change in principle as long as it doesn't affect them," says this same dean on condition of anonymity. And at least one member of APEC worries that the evaluation process the committee is undertaking could do more harm than good. "I'm afraid that we may end up tarnishing the reputations of programs we single out for contraction or termination if our recommendations don't get carried out," he says.

Snyder, for his part, says he's totally committed to the evaluation process and that he's looking to the deans to be catalysts for change within their respective colleges. "I haven't spent three years trying to get this process set in motion with blinders on. I know there's going to be a lot of flak, and I'm prepared to deal with it," he asserts.

Indeed, he expects to get an initial set of decisions on reductions and restructuring made in time to be included in the university's budget for the 1998-99 school year. "I see that as a real test of whether we have the will to prioritize or, to use Gov. Sundquist's phrase, to distinguish between what's necessary and what's nice."

The talk is right. And we wish Snyder well in walking the gauntlet that lies ahead.