The Missouri Department of Higher Education’s decision in February to eliminate 119 academic programs statewide has left some educators scratching their heads.
Inside Higher Ed compiled a list of five myths surrounding program cuts, ranging from the belief that cutting programs with low enrollment is a “no-brainer” to the notion that the faculty has no say in program cuts.
“Some institutions are actually in dire straits, and for them, a declaration of financial exigency and program cuts may be unavoidable and appropriate,” the article stated. “But the vast majority of public universities are experiencing increases in revenues and reserves.”
Stephen Montgomery-Smith, vice president of MU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, believes this list to be spot on.
“We didn’t think the cuts were very sensible,” Montgomery-Smith said. “They seemed to give the impression of saving money, without actually doing so. It didn’t make sense to get rid of some programs because they were pretty important.”
At MU, 19 programs were eliminated. Six new programs are being proposed because of the report, which includes the merging of a few former programs. Some program eliminations were simply the removal of a doctorate degree program, Montgomery-Smith said.
“The faculty you need for the master’s program are oftentimes the exact same faculty you need for the Ph.D program,” Montgomery-Smith said. “So what you’re really getting rid of is a piece of paper that allows you to get a Ph.D degree. Some of the programs weren’t really doing anything. But again, it was saving no money. If you have a program that’s doing nothing, then it doesn’t cost any money to maintain it.”
Such was the case with the elimination of the Natural Resources master’s degree, School of Natural Resources Director Mark Ryan said.
“Cutting it will save no money,” Ryan said in November.
Faculty members met throughout the fall semester to fight for the continued presence of many programs. From these meetings, 50 programs were salvaged. Thirteen of these are being recommended for follow-up in three years. But these discussions seemed to contradict what faculty members’ main duty at MU is, Montgomery-Smith said.
“If you think about it, you waste a lot of people’s time when they are trying to find justification as to why to keep a program,” he said. “They could have spent that time doing what they are supposed to do — teaching and research.”
Montgomery-Smith said he believes MU shouldn’t immediately look to program cuts to save money in the future. Instead, he said the university should stop “actively wasting money.”
For instance, he cited the removal of engineering professor Greg Engel from a project that helped secure a $2 million federal earmark.
“I’d call that an example of actively wasting money,” Montgomery-Smith said. “You’re taking this money, which has the opportunity to produce something really good, and giving it to people who don’t really know what they’re doing,” he said.
The final list of program cuts is awaiting approval from the state.