by Dr. David A. Patterson
It is good management practice to regularly review the activities of any organization, especially a large taxpayer-funded organization insulated from the market rigors normally expected to prune inefficient activities. Sometimes, however, those review responsibilities don't receive serous attention until funding problems surface. That can be unfortunate as management may be tempted make cuts to show quick results for external stakeholders.
After reading Joe Sullivan's [Insights column] two weeks ago, I was afraid those important and necessary program reviews at the University of Tennessee were going to fit that negative model, especially as applied to the graduate planning program in which I retain some emotional interest, having served as interim director from l995 to 2000. The meeting with the Review Committee headed by Dr. Anne Mayhew, the planning faculty, and a variety of planning's supporters, disabused me of that fear. The committee was clearly well prepared with good, penetrating questions and opportunities to respond for all the interested supporters of planning's continued ability to contribute. Assuming from this first hearing that urban and regional planning at UT has a reasonable chance to continue as a graduate program, I would like to present some thoughts on why and how this program can be revitalized.
For a variety of reasons, the Department of Regional and Urban Planning (originally called the Graduate School of Planning) has seen its ups and downs. Yet, students have continued to enroll in planning at UT. Most of these students graduated after two or three years and moved on to rewarding public and private sector service. There they meet a growing need for a coherent and sustainable approach to urban and regional land use, transportation and environmental planning, and economic and community development. More than 200 of these serve all over the state, primarily in public sector or non-profit positions, but in total, they are working all over the world, helping to meet critical public and private service responsibilities.
Planning now has only two full-time teaching faculty, relying on part-time help from other university faculty and local professional planners to meet curriculum needs. Those two fulltime faculty have compiled an impressive research and publication record in the past three years, have involved the students in their research, and have placed and supervised student interns in positions with local agencies and with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The Community Partnership Center has matured to the point where it has been merged with the Department of Planning and is bringing in research grants that provide additional experience for student interns. But recruiting a first-year class for next year has been forestalled by the administration, pending a decision by the chancellor about the program's continuation, and the search for a new department head was stopped for the same reason.
The existing budget for the department is adequate for survival the rest of this year and the next. Salaries in planning, whether for graduates or for faculty, are not enormous. Thus, within the existing budget or perhaps a little more, it would be possible to add two full-time faculty and a department head who also taught. These steps would likely convince the Planning Accreditation Board that UT has a viable program with the backing of the top university administration.
By the time a positive decision is made by the Program Review Committee, it may be too late to recruit a full class for the 2004-05 academic year. This raises the cost-per-credit-hour to normally unacceptable levels but, given the circumstances, that may be an advantage in terms of reduced load for new faculty adjustment. With this minimum support for a year or two, planning will be able to get back on its feet and actively recruit a decent-sized class, thus lowering per capita cost.
The research performance of the existing faculty, as well as the contribution of the students and faculty to public service in Knoxville and surrounding communities, will provide a behavioral model for incoming faculty yielding even greater benefits over time. This in turn may even help the university reward planning with larger budgets because of its contribution to the public service mission, as well as to education and research.
I strongly believe the planning program at UT should be preserved and even expanded, that it can grow and become even more of a contributor to the region and state than it has in the past. Of course, I have a strong bias. During my tenure as president of the Tennessee Technology Foundation responsible for the Technology Corridor, I was blessed with two interns a year from planning. These were all outstanding people and have all gone on to achieve considerable success locally and elsewhere. When I assumed the role of interim director of the Department of Planning in l995, I was pleased to have wonderful opportunities for contact with students. They came from all possible academic and cultural backgrounds, but after a year of classwork and interaction they somehow all became planners in their thinking and ability to work together and with communities. It has been quite rewarding to read letters and emails from students I recruited and taught describing their successes and pleading for the university to allow others to have the same opportunity.
I hope the university can see fit to maintain the graduate planning program. I know it will be a great success and source of future pride for a small amount of resources.
Dr. David A. Patterson is associate professor emeritus at UT.
November 27, 2003 * Vol. 13, No. 48
© 2003 Metro Pulse
| 
