A Report to the Chancellor : an assessment of the University System of Georgia (1989)

A REPORT TO THE CHANCELLOR:
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA
(1989)

Submitted to the Board ofRegents of the Univ~rsitySystem of Georgia

..

December 13, 1989

A REPORT TO THE CHANCELLOR:
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA
(1989)

A REPORT TO THE CHANCELLOR: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA
(1989)
by
The Honorable W. Lee Burge Retired Chairman-Equifax, Inc. Chairman-Board of Regents of the University System
of Georgia (1973-1975) Member-Board of Regents of the University System
of Georgia (1968-1976)
Dr. Cameron Fincher Regents Professor and Director Institute ofHigher Education The University of Georgia
Dr. John W. Hooper Former Vice Chancellor-Vniversity System of Georgia Past Director-Microelectronics Research Center
Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. Noah Langdale Past President-Georgia State University Distinguished University Research Professor Georgia State University
Presented to the Board ofRegents of the University System of Georgia by Dr. Noah Langdale on December 13,1989.

p. 10, para. 4, line 8 p. 17, para. 3, line 3 p. 18, para. 5, line 2 p. 20, para. 2, line 3 p. 31, para. 4, line 1 p. 48, para. 2, line 4
p. 57, para. 1, line 2 p. 59, para. 4, (side heading) p. 101, para. 3, line 1 p. 101, para. 3, line 3 p. 125, para. 3, line 5 p. 127, para. 3, line 5 p. 161, para. 4, line 6 p. 170, para. 7, line 2
p. 205, para. 2, line 2 p. 244, quote by Dr. Gould
p. 252, para. 2, line 2 p. 256, para. 1, line 1 p. 299, para. 3, line 1 p. 420, para. 2, line 12
p. 474, para. 5, line 4

ERRATA
"sere" should be "serve" "is" should be "are" "sere" should be "serve" "sere" should be "serve" "Earnest" should be "Ernest" no period after "(Policy 201.0303)"
should be comma "derives" should be "derive" Constitutional Status "agree" should be "agreed" "past" should be "pass" "emphasoze" should be "emphasize" "today" should be "today's" "states" should be "state's" "overaccomodated" should be "over-
accom modated" "requires" should be "require" "Natural History Magazine" should be
underlined "are" should be "is" "it's" should be "its" "Clendenun" should be "Clendenin" "intro-departmental" should be "intra-
departmental" "a" should be "an"

I. II.
III.

TABlE OF 00Nl'ENI'S

Preface - SCope arxl Philosophy
RefereIlCeS. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .1 . . 5

Executive SUmmary.

6

'!he Constitutional Authority of the Board of Regents..

.6

Historical Developnent of the University System

7

National, Regional, arxl state Perspectives.

. 8

Institutes arxl centers.

.9

Drivi.rg Forces.



~oox~

.

.10 . . 23

Observations..

......

. . . . . . . .31

Executive Conclusions..

49

Constitutional Authority of the Board of Regents . .

. . .57

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

.. . . . . . 63

Retrospective View of the University System's Organization arxl Development. . . . . . . .

. . . 64

Reorganization arxl Coordination: 1932-1950. Growth arxl Expansion: 1950-1964. Expansion arxl Consolidation: 1964-1980. Review arxl Re-Direction: 1980-1986 .. Appendix A: landmark Years: 1932-1986. Annotated Bibliography. . . . . . . . . .

. . 65 . . 77 . . . . . .82
.92
102 103

National Perspectives on the Improvement of Undergraduate Education . . . . . . . . . .

107

Assessment of Educational OUtcomes.

108

Standards arxl Requirements.

....

. 110

Student Involvement . . . .

. . . . . . . . . 110

Reclaiming the Hurnanities . .

.....

. . . . . 112

Evaluation and Implications . . . . . . . . . . .

. 113

Regional and State Perspectives .

. 115

Policy Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . 117

other Perspectives and Criticisms

. . . 119

College and University Faculty. . . . . .

. . . . . 120

. ~f~~~. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . 121

i

IV.

summary of Responses from University System Preisdents

on Issu.es 125

University System Presidents' Replies to Nationally
Recognized Questions to Higher Education . . . . . . . 129 Federal law 1992 Eliminatin1 Mamatmy :Retirement . . . . . 130
~ . . 132
Declining Pool of High SChool Graduates 135
Faculty Tenure. . . . . . 137
Dearth of Allied Health Persormel . . 139 WOrsening Student/Faculty Ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 IJ.braI:Y' Cost Inflation. . . 142 Mministration salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Faculty salaries. . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Enrollment of Mature Adults . . . 148
surplus Educational capacity. . . . . . . . 150 CUrricula with Non-APPlicable Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Enrollment of Minorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Employment of Minorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Federal Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Poorly Prepared Freshmen. . . . . . 160 Intercollegiate Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Equipment and Instl:umentation Replacement . . . . . . . . 166 Maintaining and Replacing !hysical Plant. . . . . . . . . . 168 Declining Academic Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Administrative Staff Replacement. . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Faculty Replacements in selected Disciplines. . . . . . . . 174 Increasing Median Age of Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Effectiveness of Affinnative Action Hiring. . . . . . . . . 176 Public Perception of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . 178

v.

'!he Driving Forces . . . . . . .

180

National Purpose.

183

Ageing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185

Integration and Equality. . . . . . . . . . . .

187

O1allenge of Privatization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Indifference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

194

Externally caused Obsolescence. .

. . 200

Basics, Classics, and Ethics. . . . . . . . . . .

202

Disparity of Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

External Influ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eo.

212

Business Education and Business Management. . . .

216

Positive O1ange and leadership Power. . .

224

Exterrled Specialization and Trivialization. . . . . . Enrollment NUmbers. .

228 233

References. . . . . .

236

ii

VI. VII.

'Itle Paradoxes. . . . . . .

238

Data vs. Infonnation.

240

Pragmatism vs. Liberal Arts Education

244

Partial SUcx::ess



247

Intrinsic vs. EXtrinsic Rewan:ls

249

PUblic Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

253

Efficiency vs. Proficiency.

.

259

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

262

Observations . .

263

Increasing Minority Participation. . .

. .. 264

Ag'eing Fornula. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 270

Evaluation of Progress of the University System . . . . . . 274

Role of Leadership.

277

Business lJeInanj for Higher Productivity in Higher Education 280

Performance Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Predicting Future Graduate am Professional Nlnnbers 294

Developmental studies . . . . . . .
"Tracking" of Student am Graduates

. . . 298
301

Improving the Student Equation. . . . . .

. . . 304

'Itle Worst Scenario for Higher Education

. . . . . . . 306

Elements of Effectiveness . . .

. . . . . . 309

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . 316

Apperxlices: Contributed Reports fram Practicing Professionals . 317

A. Teacher Education

1. Dean Jerry Robbins . 2. Dr. Werner Rogers.
3. Dr. Alton crews. . .

318
332 336

B. Infonnation Technology

1. Dr. James B. Mathews

. . . . . . . . . . 345

C. Technological Research am Development

1. Dr. TOm Stelson. . . . . . . .
2. Dr. Ahmed T. Abdelal
D. Agriculture and Forestry-Renewal Resources

357 371

1. Dr. William Flatt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

E. Business Management Education and Development

1. Dr. TOm Clark.

. . . . . . . 377

iii

F. Nursin;J Shortage

1.

~.~E.~y

.

2. ~. Olarlotte J. Warren. .

385 . . 398

G. Public service, Extension ani outreach

1. ~. Eug"ene Younts.

. . . . . . . 403

H. Centers ani Institutes
1. ~. cameron Findher. . . . . . . 422

I. Public service ani outreach

1. ~. Steve I..an3Ston

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

J. Legal Issues

1. ~. John Marshall. . . . . . . 435

K. Minority Access

1. ~. ~ Arm Hickman 2. Ms. Arm smith. . .

439 . . 456

L. Institutional Effectiveness

1. ~. Joe Szutz.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458

M. Student Life

1. ~. Ernest Beale 2. Chief James E. Dearin;J . 3 Mr Jerry MCI'ier

460 469
471

N. Libra:ry

1. ~. Ralph Russell. . . . . . 475

O. Developmental Studies

1. ~. Joan Elifson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481

P. Tuition vs. Taxes

1. Ms. Glynton smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492

Q. Core eurricultnn

1. ~. John Teel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503

Imex . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511

iv

''What can be measured easily is considered important by educators; What is difficult to measure is considered unimportant (arxl is ignored) " address by Dr. Clark Kerr, Harvard university August 6, 1989
Dr. H. Dean Propst, Olancellor of the university System of Georgia, requested President Noah Iangdale to urrlertake a two-year assessment of the
University System, starting in september, 1987, umer the auspices of the
O1ancellor's office. Analyses were initiated regarding the magnitude of this intention which in tun1 would require dedicated effort from a number of persons arxl sources.
The record of previous assessments of the University System in 1933, 1943, arxl 1949, in::ticated that the utilization of substantial resources were necessary to enable relatively large m.nnbers of scholars to complete their assessment tasks. I.eanring fran the research of these past assessment experiences, the Olail:person, on leave to umertake this service, invited scholarly arxl experienced personnel to join the assessment team; all accepted as volunteers.
Vice President John HooPer, outstarrling Georgia Tech official (fonner Executive Vice Chancellor of the University System) arxl the veteran arxl able Director of the Institute of Higher Education of the University of Georgia, Dr. cameron Fincher, volunteered to join this working group at the OlairPerSQn's request. In addition, the dist:in;uished corporate executive, Mr Lee Burge, a fonner Regent arxl Olainnan of the Board of Regents, agreed to serve as a member of the group.
The aforementioned System analyses, comprising the three previous studies knovm as the Works Report, 1933 circa, the Works Report 1943, arxl the strayer Report, 1949, were studied in detail. These reports were developed by personnel external to the System arxl emphasiZed the general practices and plans of the university System then ongoing in each of their specific time frames.
O1ancellor Propst expressed the expectation for an assessment which possessed certain characteristics. '!he work was to emphasize the "reality" of operations arxl the basic nature of the problems atterx3ant thereto and Chancellor Propst specified twenty-five items of concern affecting the University System's progress. The list of these ingredients in the environments of higher education is set forth below:
1. Federal law 1992 change in marrlatory retirement solely due to the age factor.
1

2 . FUn:lin:J
3. Decli.nin;J lXlOl of high sdlool graduates 4 Faculty tenure
5. Future dearth of Allied Health (technicians am nurses)
6. WOrsening student/faculty ratios 7. Librcu:y cost inflation 8. Administrative salaries 9. Faculty salaries 10. Enrollment of mature adults 11. Sw:plus educational "capacity" 12 curricula with non-applicable studies or over-load of non-relevant
subject matter. 13. Enrollment of minorities 14. Employment of minorities 15. Federal regulation 16. Poorly prepared freshmen 17. Intercollegiate athletics
18. Equipment am instrumentation replacerent
19. Maintenance & replacement of physical plant 20. Decli.nin;J academic st.an:1al:ds 21. Administrative staff replacement 22. Faculty replacerent in selected disciplines 23. Increasing median age of faculty 24. Effectiveness of affinnative action hiring 25. Public perception of public higher education.
secondly, the objectives are linri.ted to the Georgia system of publicly supported higher education directly under the control and authority of the Board of Regents. 'Iherefore general issues found in higher education are treated only as such relate to the University System. other factors, nCM beginning to appear on the Georgia higher education scene, also are not reflected in these analyses Le., the present state of the development plans for additional state Universities. '!he severely linri.ted number of personnel involved in this assessment is another factor limiting the areas of interests and subject matter treated.
In writing this report, the major tlu:ust of the assessment team has been to analyze the causes of difficulties in higher education, to predict the
course of its optimal development, am to avoid educational cliches or
simplicistic solutions.
The review of the large mass of material comprising and surrounding the
subj ect of higher education was undertaken am continued at length. In many
areas, full treatment previOUSly had been accorded the subject which was the main tlu:ust of the reviewed material. It is emphasized that the authors did not seek to replicate such completed works now in print and available for use. In like manner, materials on record with relative facility of inspection, were not assessed unless specific reference was in order. '!he strategy of this assessment was designed to conserve time and to direct emphases toward problems and areas of concern directly affecting the University System. '!he System records were not duplicated; annual reports, and similar materials, were not reproduced as they are already available.
2

'!his assessment further noted that the period of the late 1980's is an
era in which divergent views about colleges am universities generally were (am are) being debated. A natural consequence, am one of the assessment's findings, is the general lessening of the state of optimism am well-being attaching to the entity of higher education. strongly stated am written
viewpoints emerged on occasion fran these debates about educational values
am st:an:ial::ds in the fonn of sincere but adversarial postures. '!herefore
attempted reconciliation of viewpoints, as derived from the general study of the subject of higher education, did not develop easily or quickly. '!he analyst, working with the themes surroun:ling these higher education data, fims it necessa:ry to discover (or approximate) first the "perspective" of the data's source; secon:lly, the "perception" employed in the analyses of secondary data by the source.
To focus this assessment for maxi.Im.nn benefit, twenty-five problems and issues listed ~ were targeted in the insb:uction from Olancellor Propst. One fact became evident to the assessors: the general nature of all of these
educational problems am issues requires executive comprehension, planning, execution, am judgement through assessment. Dr. Clark Kerr's study, "'!he
President Makes a Difference" redirected national attention to the role of inescapable responsibility carried by each institution's chief executive, not only for the positive results, but for the failures. '!he executive power of the unit is the instrument for all change affecting the unit.
'!he presidents of the University System thus were addressed on their direct practitioner's role in jUdging the areas of confrontation of problems, and in the decision-making process leading to specific action to halt forces negative to the best interests of academia. '!his assessment did not choose the national scene for presidential treatment of educational issues and philosophies. Instead, items were scheduled for personal consideration by the System's presidents through the medium of anonymous authorship. Such presidential analyses comprise one segment of the assessments, and the subjects are dealt with in a local campus context; these "hands-on" responses fonn an :ilIlportant aspect of this work.
'!he authors sought to minimize subjective data and opinions as expressed in 9 priori sw:veys, and opted to utilize a more naturalistic approach to the targeted subject. '!he capabilities for attaining these objectives by these members are multiplied by personal managerial and scholarly experiences. Together, the four source persons have combined sel:Vice records in the active operations and scholarly fields of the University System of Georgia approximating 100 years of professional contributions. '!heir personal histories reflect strong conunitment to the System.
Higher education in the united states encounters very few surprises in its examinations by its supporters and critics. Most issues are very evident, and since nearly all Americans have had some educational experiences, a very large percentage of them feel competent to make judgments regarding the subject. '!he authors targeted some of these concerns of the several constituencies comprising the publicly supported higher education environment in Georgia. 'Ihe assessment made is designed to be pragmatic and realistic, emphases being placed on the problems, challenges, and questions
3

of nx:>rale as they impinge on the personalities curl institutions of the System.
In addition, in:lirect curl sec:orrlary influences on the System are assessed very seriously. One very learned scholar related, "No matter what you plan or how carefully you set in IlDtion the educational machineI:y to achieve a prEHietennined goal, there canes a 'ex>nf1uence' of forces which, unless checked or neutralized, dominates the outcame" '!here are many executive goals set forth in the armual exercises of campus decision-making. Why they are sua:::essful, or not, is a subject for the nx:>st profourrl research.
Not all disciplinary fields curl areas of academic interest were assessed in their present states of developrent. 'Ib list all of the academic offerings of the University System requires encyclopedic ernnneration curl bulk. All authorized courses of study are on file, curl each curricula experience is recorded by the units in their armual reports.
certain disciplines curl activities were chosen to be reviewed based on the effect of changes on their developments now in progress. '!he conversations with the System's presidents indicated the areas which should be assessed curl which, from the perception of the authors, would sel::Ve the iImnedi.ate objective of maximizing the benefits to be derived by the Office of the Chancellor and the executives of the System generally.
Teacher Education is a nx:>st analyzed subject curl, to sel::Ve adequately the forces of change and public concerns, Dr. weD1er Rogers, state SUperin-
tendent of Education, Dr. Alton crews, SUperintendent of the Gwinnett County
System, curl Dr. Jeny Robbins, Dean of the College of Education, Georgia state University, were all invited to give their individual treatments to this much discussed subject. All three contributed their personal analysis and vision on this professional education subject.
Many other professionals have contributed to these assessments of higher education. '!heir analysis of working corrlitions and their accompanying reactions to the challenges confronting higher education are invaluable contributions. Appended to this document are several contributions which are based on the personal educational experiences of professionals who have expressed personal feelings, ideas, curl beliefs. Personal experience constitutes the best source of infonnation about the assessment discussed at length in this report. Unfortunately, same contributions to this assessment did not meet the schedule established for submission of its findings and obsel::Vations and it is regretted that same areas of educational experience were not available in time.
with the proxilnity of the Georgia state University's professional personnel to the work situs, a rnmiber of Georgia State personnel rendered their analYses about their profession's status curl the general developments
of their disciplines. Georgia Tech am the University of Georgia profes-
sionals also presented individual assessments befitting their areas of
knowledge am subject matter concern. All of these contributions related the authorship employed am the authors I acknowledgment of obligation for these
4

additions from all of these scholars is exterxied with ~ressions of gratitude.
'Dle tiIoo lilnits am the fcx::using on the main challen;Jes at han:i did not
provide the opportunity to assess all of the elerents in the University System's picture. strong attention was given to the executive function, to the causes of failure of educational intention, to the hidden factors of sec::orrlary consequence, to the lack of conscious awareness concerning vital
issues, am to the ideals of professional camnitment.
Not since the strayer Report (1949) has a team reviewed the University
System of GeOl:gia's general operations am activities in a silnilar manner.
'Dle irrlividuals comprising the assessment group, along with their fellow-
contributors, have put into this report their genuine affection am conce:m
for the University System of Georgia.
'Dle assessment group am the contributors from the University System's
corps of professionals all are ''volunteers.'' 'Dlese personnel gave freely of tiIoo, intellect, and energy without the status othel:wise accorded to external consultants. Whatever the merits of these assessments shall be, the motiva-
tions of the assessment team am contributors deserve recognition as a
significant contribution to the University System. In this document quotation marks are often used for emphasis, and not
necessarily for direct quotation of others. In the many cases in which
public documents have been cited, those documents am related materials of
public record have not been duplicated because of: (a) their bulk, and (2) their ready retrieval from available files and records.
Kerr, Clark. Presidents Make a Difference: Strengthening leadership in Colleaes and Universities. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1984. strayer, George D. (Director). A Report of a survey of the University System of Georgia. Atlanta: USGA, 1943.
5

EXEXlJl'IVE SlHW
'mE a:H3"I'I'IVnamr. AlfllU<rlY OF 'mE IDARD OF REX;ENl'S
In 1943 the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia was granted constitutional authority by ratification of a c::x>nstitutional amerrlment
sul::mitted to Georgia citizens. '!he Hoose am senate bills provicli.n;J for a
c::x>nstitutional amerrlment were passed without a sin:Jle d;ssentin:J vote within eleven days of the new Governor's oath of office. In 1945 the Board's c::x>nstitutional authority was reaffinned in a new state COnstitution which had
been written by a state Conunission am approved by the voters of the state.
'!he events leacli.n;J to such decisive action were: (a) charges of political interference by the Governor of the state, (b) disaccreditation of University
System institutions by the Southern Association of SChools am COlleges, and
(c) election in 1942 of a gubernatorial camidate promisin:J to restore accreditation. By grantin:J c::x>nstitutional status to a governin:J board of 15 members, Georgia citizens endorsed the Regents' responsibilities as public leaders and the role of higher education within the state's social, ec::x>nomic, and cultural life.
A new state COnstitution, adopted in 1982, has modified slightly the Board's authority in the creation of new institutions of higher learning, but all other pov.rers and responsibilities remain intact. '!hus the Regents are empowered by the constitution: (a) to make roles and regulations necessary for the perfonnance of their duties, (b) to elect or appoint professors, educators, stewards, or any other officers necessary for the institutions of the University System, and (c) to establish and organize institutions in ways likely to attain the ends desired. With its constitutional authority the Regents gained further pov.rers and duties as may be provided by law.
Officers of the Board, as provided in Regents Bylaws, are Chainnan, Vice Chainnan, Chancellor, Executive Vice O1ancellor, Executive Secretary, and Treasurer. '!he Procedural Policies of the Board provide for monthly meetings and nine standing committees consisting of not less than three, nor more than five members.
In contrast to most other statewide systems of public higher education, the Board of Regents is a centralized governin:J board with explicit constitutional authority for institutional persormel, policies, and operations. By virtue of its constitutional authority, the Board of Regents is widely regarded as a consolidated governin:J board with exemplary authority and autonany.
6

'!he University System of Georgia was officially created on August 28, 1931 when GovenlOr Richard B. Russell, Jr. signed legislation designed to siIrplify the executive branch of state govennnent. '!he Board of Regents was officially organized on JanuaI:y 1, 1932 when the eleven original members met, elected officers, and approved operational policies. '!he establishment of the University System as a statewide system of higher education, however, has been an evolving process that has taken place throughout the Board of Regents' sixty-seven-year history.
Fran 1932 to 1950 the Board of Regents was actively engaged in the reorganization and coordination of the twenty-five separate units inherited from previous boards of tnlstees. With fun:ls from the General Education Board, the first Board of Regents initiated a comprehensive survey of institutions and programs for purposes of educational and economic efficiency. 'Ihree separate institutions in Athens were integrated into one, several A&M schools were closed or reorganized as colleges, and budgetary adjustments (in keeping with the state's economy) were made. Further authority was granted in matters of armual appropriations and their institutional use. with their additional powers the Regents established an iIrproved system of senior and junior colleges.
In 1940 and in 1949 the Regents again authorized systemwide surveys by outside experts. '!he first study addressed the progress made during the depression years, and the second dealt with institutional needs in the postWWII era. Both surveys resulted in mnnerous recannnendations concerning the separate institutions and their coordination as a statewide system. '!he strayer Report (1949) was particularly effective in delineating institutional missions and thereby setting the stage for :many advances made in later years.
'!he 1950s through the 1970s were years of rapid growth and development. '!he University System became a three-tier system of universities, senior colleges, and junior colleges that placed a public institution of higher learning within corranuting distance of 90 percent of the state's population. IIrq;>ressive benefits were derived from statewide planning studies by systemwide conunittees and public conunissions. '!he GovenlOr's Conunission To IIrq;>rove Education (1963) provided excellent guidance and direction for iIrproved access and expanded opportunities. '!he GovenlOr's Conunittee on Postsecondary Education (1980) defined statewide goals and objectives for the continued development of higher education within the state.
'!he 1980s have been years of continuous study and review. Revisions in systemwide funding policies have fostered institutional and program improvements and encouraged more efficient institutional management. Institutional missions have been reviewed, and changes in institutional status have been effected. c:han;Jes in public, systemwide, and institutional policies have resulted in iIrproved access and equity for minorities, better
7

methods of institutional accountability, arrl other inlications of continued
growth am develq::ment.
EXEXI1I'IVE SlHW
NATIQIAL, mx;IQIAL, AND S".I2nE H:RSJ:lIiCl'IVES
'!he continued develq::ment of higher education in Georgia will J:e infll.le'D:rl
significantly by national am regional trems in the iInproverrent of u.rxler-
graduate education. At least six national organizations have issued reports on the status of u.rxlergraduate education, arrl each calls for national efforts to st.ren;then programs of instruction in American colleges arrl universities. '!he gist of all six reports is widespread J:elief that the quality of u.rxler-
graduate instruction has declined over the past two decades am Im.ISt J:e
restored by concerted attention to general education amjor the liberal arts.
'!he major recamrnerx3ations of these reports may be surmnarized as follows:
(1) the American Association of state Colleges am Universities calls for a reordering of national priorities to make a full am unequivocal
cammibnent to learning;
(2) the Association of American Colleges seeks a redefinition of the meaning arrl purpose of baccalaureate degree programs;
(3) the carnegie Foundation encourages the iInprovement of u.rxlergraduate education in virtually all aspects;
(4) the Education Commission of the states reconnnends the development of comprehensive state strategies for educational iInprovement;
(5) the National Endowment for the lhnnanities advocates restoratim of the humanities to their (previous) central position in college curricula;
arrl
(6) the National Institute of Education suggests ways in which students can be more actively involved in their own learning.
On regiOnal arrl state levels the National Governors' Association, the Southern Governors' Association, the Southern Growth Policies Board, arrl others advocate a more active role for higher education in promoting economic growth. '!he assistance of colleges arrl universities is needed in training technical manpower arrl in developing new teclmologies for export in highly ~titive international markets. Involved in such reconunendations are innovative partnerships between universities arrl corporate business, between state goverrnnent arrl i.mustry, arrl between higher education arrl goverrnnent. In response a1roc>st one-half of the separate states have conducted maj or policy studies in which the organization arrl governance of higher erlu::ati.a1 is critically reviewed. Virtually all of these studies focus closely on the
8

relative merits of goven'ling or coordinating boards am the urgent need for
state-level leadership. Also of "major concern. are the rising costs of higher
education am the quality of i.nstnlction, qpJrtunities am choices OPen to qualified citizens, am the general public's urx:lerstarrlin of educational
p.u:poses.
other criticisms of higher education include "national assessments" of
the kr10wledge am ~tence of high school am CX)llege students. High school juniors (am CX)llege seniors) are not well informed a}:x)ut their nation's histo:ry am literature. Not only do they lack basic skills of literacy but they are ignorant of many essential facts am traditions. To CX)rrect such
disparities, critics reccmnend further assessment of educational outcomes,
intensive refonn in CX)llege curricula, am major ~es in i.nstnlctional objectives am methods.
Regents policies provide for the establishment am operation of instib.Ites am centers as extra-departmental agencies of institutions within the
University System. centers may be organized as a base for research in a given academic area or closely related areas. '!hey often provide a means by which
interdisciplina.:ry research. can involve faculty am students from different
administrative or budgeta:ry units. centers may also be involved in CX)ntinuing
education activities that are related to particular areas of interest. By am
lazge, centers facilitate institutional efforts to attract extramural funding
am serve as a fonnal link between the academic conmmity am the professi.a1a1
conmmity in particular areas of focus. As a rule, centers are not involved in the independent offering of credit courses or degree programs. In <nIttast,
institutes are a more fonnalized stnlcture am may be equivalent to an
autonc:m:JUS unit within the intemal structure of the institution. In addition to the advantages provided by centers, institutes may be involved in the
offering of credit courses am may offer degree programs.
'!he organization of institutes am centers for research, public service,
or training p.u:poses is a matter of institutional initiative. 'llE estab1ishtelt. of an institute or center is an administrative decision that may involve either the aCXIUisition of external furrls or the intemal re-distribution of institutional resources in staff, facilities, or equipment. '!hus the majority
of institutes am centers within the University System are located at Geo:rgia state (n=15), the University of GeoJ:gia (n=17) , am GeoJ:gia Tech (n=5). At
the latter institution the major administrative unit is the GIT Technology
Research Institute, an agency involving a staff of 456.88 EFT am a total
budget over 35 million dollars. Nine other institutions have centers of various kiOOs. '!he lazgest (in EFT staff) is the coastal GeoJ:gia center for
Continuing Education in savannah. '!he total staff for centers at n:::n-uni.versity
institutions is 45.9 EFT am their combined budgets are approximately 1. 9
million dollars.
9

Regents policies am criteria for the establishment of institutes am centers do not prevent needless confusion about the mission am role of such units. Clarification is needed in usage of the two terns am additional criteria are needed for organization, maintenance, am periodic review. critical to both proposal am review procedures are: (1) staterrents of purposes am functions, (2) canpatibility with institutional mission, (3) resources that are cormnensurate with stated purposes, (4) staff capabilities am resources, (5) contribution to the haDe institution, am (6) methods of
assessinq staff productivity.
EXEXlJl'IVE stHmRY
IIm7llC EtR:E:)
Ev~ organization thrives or falters according to how it meets the
challenges of its time am circumstance. '!he university System must respom to the challenges of Georgia's citizens' wants, needs, desires, am motives for
their educational fulfillments. In experiencinq dramatic changes in volatile times, the University System must not only achieve realized successes in educatinq its population, but the System must also be perceived as doinq so
in a positive am lastinq fashion.
Trerrls are forces which drive the System fonvards or backwards, or serve to preserve the status gyQ. Each of these forces can be rebutted or utilized.
'!hey are dynamic in nature am early vision, followed by appropriate System
reaction, must be applied. Unchecked or unnoticed driving forces introduce
hannful effects into the system's policy planning am execution.
EXEXlJl'IVE ~ 'lHE rJUVING FORCE OF 'lHE NATIOOAL :mRREE
'!he two most onmipresent driving forces in the United states' purpose,
planning, am fiscal programs are:
(a) '!he national purpose since 1931-1939 is directed to ensuring that
never again will degrading PerSOl'la1 experiences of being homeless,
workless, Penniless, am hopeless be suffered by large numbers of the
population as a result of a Great Depression; (b) '!he national purpose after 1941 is directed to ensuring that never
again will this countl:y pennit defensive unpreparedness to sere as an
invitation to unreasonable appeasement, treach~, am surprise
attack.
10

Higher Education has been a beneficicuy of the long-~ national pw:poses. For example, research for defense pw:poses is but one source of :fur'x3s for Georgia Tech. Many other programs, ranging from making our citizens more literate to space-age technology, have their roots in the national pw:poses.
'!he sel:Ving of the national purpose must presel:Ve a balance between
academic in:leperrl.ence am supporting c:x:Il'{>liance with the government's goals. All relationships between the sources of :fur'x3s am authority am the System
must be monitored by appropriate System officials.
As one observer states: "Institutions age. As they age, institutions gather critics. In time, the critics beccane c:x:Il'{>etitors." Time is change. '!he
University System is ageing. Age is an external am internal driving force, am some of its characteristics are: '!he ageing organization becomes a victim of its own success, am past achievement stimulates its critics to expect continuing am greater success "next time; " '!he ageing institution avoids "self-discovery," perpetuates the status gyQ, am protects its "turf;"
'!he ageing institution tends to lose "conscious awareness," Le., vision of what can happen; 'Ihe ageing institution tends to forget that "every organization lives or dies according to its ability to meet the challenge of its enviromnent;" '!he ageing institution tends to pennit self-assurance to become
complacency; am the ageing institution tends to multiply am to confuse its tenninology used in its deliberation am statement of pw:poses.
Most profound is John Gardner's observation that this centm:y is the first period in modern history in which ''Inankirrl has been at war with its institutions."
'!he University System is meeting the challenges, both internally and externally, with vision and conceptual successes. within the limits of
available financial support, the O1ancellor's office am staff are confront-
ing the nany forces at work.
'IHE IIUVING FORCE OF :INrEX;RATICN AND EXPALITY
'!he American dream will become an American nightmare unless integration of all the population is completed. "One from nany" is the most ilnportant goal entertained by this assessment team with "equal opportunity for all" being the most needed presence in higher education.
11

With respect to integration, "time is not on our side." '!he problem lies in a wise quotation: "'!he problems in higher education stem from the confusion developing fram trying to analyze the problem's elements while management is trying to fonnulate that problem's solution" (attributed to Peter Drucker)
Dropouts in minority enrollments are a major problem. Boyer's solution to the attrition of minority students (Boyer, COUffiE, 1987, p. 39) categorically states: "... it is the college that is crucially important to advancing
prospects for blacks an:l Hispanic students. we st.ron:]ly urge that colleges give priority to need-based awards." Priority means extraordinary furrli.ng of
qualified minority students at the uniergraduate an:l graduate levels. SCholarly attrition is l1Dre affected by econc:mi.cs than any other force.
A secon:l an:l different driving force is the growing integration of curricula. '!he basic questions confronting eam student in the University System are: "Am I being educated to be a certain kirrl of person? Or, "Am I being educated to do something?" '!he personal issues for the student's decisions about life's goals are: "Is it the way we live that matters?" Or, "Is it what we accomplish that's important?" Eam student's life-decision depends on the choice of the answer. '!he University System must assist the student in making this personal moice an:l curricula integration is man-
dato:ry.
EXEXDI'IVE EDH\RY
':mE I:'RIVllG FORCE OF ':mE ~ OF mIVA'lE INS'lTlUl'ICR) AND mIVATIZATICE
'Ihe University System recognizes an:l cooperates with Geo:rgia's private educational institutions, twenty-seven of whim are regionally-accredited, independent colleges and universities. Under the Georgia Proprietcuy School Act: GA. CODE 20-4-60, and under the Postsecondal:y Education Authorization Act: GA. Code 20-3-100, l1Dre than 100 private units are operating.
'!he healthy private competition to the University System at the college and university levels is a driving force an:l ''Marketability'' is the element which manifests this competition. A secom element of competition is "accountability for getting interned results." Students go to college, in l1DSt cases, to acquire skills, knowledge, and cultural advantages to enable them to acquire professions, occupations, and vocations. Private educational entities are sensitive to the market factors.
Schooling for profit is a rapidly expanding concept. Entrepreneurial schools and "in house" company training programs are proliferating. '!he theme is "accountability. " '!he public institutions are ncM accountable to the student for his or her investment in time, l1Dney, and other personal commitments. Although the University System's units will continue to be measured against private education, the University System must maintain public awareness that public education is not designed to facilitate eve:ry educational goal and that tax-supported budgets function within specific constraints.
12

Another external force is "Privatization." Private contractors offer the specialized functions which operate auxiliary to academic processes. '!his Iilencmenon is growing on public canplSeS. Nationally, auxiliary seJ:Vices providing food, housing, 1:x:x::>ks, supplies, entertaimnent, insurance, clothing,
am clerical seJ:Vices to students continues to expan:l. '!he next step has
eanleSt speculation that the internal management of p.Jblic canplS operations will be privatized.
A negative driving force chal.lerging education is irrlifference. Indif-
ference is an attitude, am attitude detennines a person's outlook. Conse-
quently, a person's outlook detennines that person's future!
General indifference am general apathy have won many battles against
human progress. Special emphasis is placed on defeating attitudes of canplS
indifference because students then will enter college more readily am not
withdraw, if they have a self-recogniZed, credible, beneficent experience inside or outside the classroom! 'Ibis principle requires the institution's personnel to ext.eni personalized assistance to the student. SUch personalization of professional effort is the opposite of indifference.
Indifference to higher education's long-tenn requirements for the perfecting of its potential can thwart its goals for the 1990's. In the short-run, indifference to declining rn.nnbers of minority graduates (as a percentage of the population) reduces the attention required to reverse the
dropout trend. Indifference to AIa> am chemical habituation with their
tragic consequences is being confronted more successfully by conscious
awareness stimulated by strong national p.Jblicity am canplS concerns.
Indifference on canplSeS creates leadership ''vacmnns'' which will be
filled by either helpful or hannfu1. substitutes. Official indifference
detaches the responsible authorities from their duties am weakens the
institution. Indifference, if such occurs within the administrative structure, promotes the "delegation upward" of problems.
Negative driving forces, especially personal am official indifference,
are mostly disguised. ExaInple: One direct cause of indifference to the official decision-making responsibility within higher education derives from
the publicized record of litigation brought against college am university
officials.
Narrow professional interests can limit the institution's capacity to make the best decisions under the circumstances. Living on the edge of knowledge through self-restricting scholarly interests allows the narrow academic mind to reject responsibility for the bulk of general educational problems.
13

Conscious awareness is the antidote to in:lifference.
EXEXIJI'lVE ~
I:RIVI:R; FORCE OF ~ CNEED 0IE0lE)CENCE
Forces exten1al to the organization (the University System) can ren:ler that organization, or its in:lividual elements obsolete. Technological inventiveness stimulates change which directly or in:lirectly damages the in-place
system am can cause it to become redurrlant. Higher education is vulnerable to new IOOdes of teac.l1irx3' am delive:ry of educational services.
Futuristic ideas abJut education in the year 2000 abourrl: Students will be taught at home through electronic, two-way instnIction techniques i video
lectures am examinations will become the nonni infonnation fram a central library source will be received directly am almost instantaneously in literary or pictorial fonni am class "dialogue", emanating from electroni-
cally arranged atterrlance, to name only a few possible changes in postsecc>I'rlary education.
Potential hannful forces affecting higher education in Georgia can derive from political changes as evidenced by the "age- limit" law of 1959 am the "school-closing" law of 1951. '!he fonner would have produced a fonn of institutional obsolescence with negative effects on System units with large enrollments of 21-am-over adults.
Asbestos' dangers, once unheard of, are external forces directly closing System college am university buildings am producing negative secondary budget reallocations at odds with furxiing that is nnlch needed elsewhere. Closed buildings upset schedules am displace scholars, am the costs of removing asbestos fragment the budget.
'!he driving force of external obsolescence exhibits two characteristics: (a) negative secondary consequences occur which cannot be predictedi (b) the foms of external obsolescence are slow am usually disguised. In both cases, that which is not recognized quickly cannot be easily prevented or
used.
EXEXIJI'lVE smM\RY
'!HE I:RIVI:R; RH:E OF '!HE BASIa), <::rA$Ia) AND ElHIa)
Public awareness of the claim that 60,000,000 Americans are functionally illiterate is widespread. '!he "basics" used in education are designed to ensure the educating of the population for meeting life's experiences with creative imagination. In addition, basics assist in preseI:Ving language as the essential tool of reason.
14

"Classics" preserve the past am provide humanity with cultural roots. Classical lan;JUages am the teaching of granunar are the foun::lation for the
m:>st effective leanrl.ng experience. SCholars must use the classics to classify
am criticize data am to foster scholarly attai.nne1ts. Erudition is a highly prized am socially recognized attribute. '!he classics give meaning to the present am future.
"Ethics" provides help in achievin;J personal goals with social balance ina society evidencin;J a variety of conflictin;J interests. Dr. Clark Kerr states, "At one time ethics was rigorously anitted by the teacher from every course because ethics was considered a private IOOralS subject; today nonsectarian ethics should be stressed in every course."
l'What to teach?" '!his question is dividin;J American scholarship. Bloom
asks for structure am closin;J out randcm course selection by students.
Professional teachers whose courses may not fit the d1an;Jin;J curriculum do not agree with Bloom.
'!he challenge for the University System is to detennine whether or not its educational fonna.t and education resources are bein;J allocated to the positive driving forces presently affecting curricular subject matter. '!Wo goals are immediate: assisting the student to acquire useful knowledge and scholarly skills, and advancin;J the student's cultural awareness of a plural-
istic society in which the graduated student possesses am uses her or his
abilities to make rational use of acquired knowledge.
Identifying the iInportance of classics, basics, am ethics does not dilninish scientific research, experimentation, am discovery. Geo:rgia must fully support both areas of study am teaching. Bio-tech, bio-genetics, and
high tech applications are but a few endeavors deserving of increased state furrling.
Ethics appears in action every day in affirnative action am desegre-
gation administration. Basics appear every day in the struggle for a more
literate population. Classics brin;J the past into the present am make
cultural literacy a reality.
C. P. Snow's '!HE 'Iw::> aJL'IURES (1965) P.2 de.nnnstrates that cultural distinctions divide societies through the intervention of differin;J cultural orientations. He states, "one movin;J between two groups who almost cease to communicate at all ... who ... had so little in ccmnon one might have crossed an ocean. II
15

Ted Koppel, T.V. analyst, in his ccmnencement address, D.lke University, IXJKE MAGAZINE, 73-5 (1987) states: "sixty percent or m::>re of the American public, roughly 140 million people, get IOOSt or all of their news from television. Presumably sane of these people can read, but approximately 60
million of our fellow citizens cannot. '!hey are functional illiterates."
Disparity in the QI:P:>rtunity to learn fosters cultural vaCUUl'lS creatinJ feel:inJs of alienation on the part of the less educated.
SUccessful education is the only means to c::c:mpate economically, thus
increasinJ the means for preservinJ dc:m:stic tranpility am for the proIOC)tion of international peace keepinJ. Divergent or disruptive national am
international emnities result from the drivinJ force of disparity of educational opportunity. Disparity in human preparation for livinJ in a highly
scientific irrlustrial am specialized society lilnits, even cuts off, avail-
able opportunities for iItprovinJ personal life styles.
One southern state legislator, disgusted with his state's low state appropriations for education, denounced his citizenry with his description
that "all they (his state's people) want is two shot guns am a pickup truck," TIMES-PICAYUNE STATES ITEM, June 19,85, p. 19a. '!his legislator's
judgment recognized that votinJ down taxes for iItprovinJ that state's educa-
tional opportunities was hannful in fact am that the popular will of his
constituents penni.tted the resultinJ disparities in educational opportunities. '!he crux of the matter is: will the tax support be forthcoming to ft.1rrl the means for education to insure that all eligible personnel experience equal
learning opportunities? QBE is a sound beginning, am Governor Harris am the
legislature are to be connnended for executinJ this program.
Education is the only resource to prevent fragmentation of the national purpose as well as to assure that the united states' citizens can resporrl successfully to future national dangers. Knowledge gained through education
provides the hope that ecological damage to the ozone am from the risinJ
cartx>n dioxide threat can be slowed or halted. '!hese two profourrl reasons justify advanced learning: ''Will this knowledge help me survive in a world of change?" ''Will this knowledge help protect the natural quality of life for all livinJ creatures?"
Historically, disparity of educational opportunity was overcome draroatically, as evidenced by the nation's experience of absorbinJ 40 million
inunigrants in the last 150 years. '!he public school am college played a major role in reconcilinJ cultural differences "am in preventinJ etlmic
fragmentation while acknowledginJ the values of etlmic pluralism.
'!he worst aspect of this negative drivinJ force is the teclmical am
scientific "knowledge explosion." '!he faster the knowledge base expands, the farther Mr. Koppel's 60 million fall behirrl.
16

'I1IE IIUVlKi :J.ilR:'E OF ~ INFJllIi2ICE, ~ AND FINIlDiG>
Goverrnte1t (state and federal) provides the main thn1sts in the fonns of this driving force. How these and other agencies i.rrpinge on the University System is as iInportant as the facts justifying their presences. Accountability of higher education for results triggers sane of these forces which can be very helpful. On occasion, the opposite can be the case, and the extenla1 presence becanes partially negative.
All University System administrators are ooncerned about the growing extenla1 demarxl for infonnation - the same infonnation or slightly altered infonnation. large staffs must be employed to "stand by" in readiness to discharge this function originating fran sources extenla1 to campus oontrol. In turn, the University System receives requests for infonnation fram non-system entities, and the units help originate appropriate responses.
New agency regulations, changing auditing procedures, and arnerrled oonditions precedent to qualifying for funjs prove that such decision-making, extenla1 to the System, is of profound iInportance. Positive reactions to extenla1 decision-making forces are exemplified by the FAMILY RIGHTS AND
PRIVACY Acr of 1974 and fram the "sunshine" laws which affect applications
for academic positions.
student aid and loan funjs can be cut off at the institutional level, and tightened. financial loan repayment rules oonfront a lcrrge mnnber of institutions whose repayment default rate is more than 20 percent.
External standards also oorrlition eligibility patterns affecting the System's units. '!he marmer of choosing of the institutions for generous research funding is described in the National Research Council's NEW REroRI', May, 1989, p. 6., which designates that "only the best people fram the best universities" are eligible for the Federal Lab's prestigious program for post-doctoral associates.
'!he NCAA's adoption of new student athletic eligibility rules governing matriculation and academic progress toward meeting the institution's degree standards forced some institutions to raise their academic requirements. laws ooncerning chemical substances, abortion, and military service requirements can affect the campus directly and often suddenly.
'!he suggested role for the University System is to maintain especially close oontact with federal funding and policy sources to publicize the System's needs and accomplishments to Georgia's leadership and to assume the posture of oonscious awareness of the System's vulnerabilities to external forces affecting its future.
17

EXEXlJI'IVE SlMWff
FtR:m ~ HElHESS EDJCATICII AND HElHESS ~
In addition to teacher education, business education programs are the IlDSt challenged of the subjects canprisirg the System's curricula. '!he IlDSt
profoun:i source of this drivirg force aff~ fonrer college am university
level business education is the "passirg of the world's frontiers." Exploita-
tion of cheap am plentiful resources between 1944-1980 in the united states
am the world is errled. CCInpounj.ed with these ready am cheap assets, 1:usiness
successes were based on the strength of the dollar, dani.nance over international markets, predictably low, IOn:J-tenn business interest :rates, avoi.dan::e
of foreign competition, absence of labor disruptions, am freedom from
destructive inflation in the cost of labor am raw materials. Business was
''honored,'' its leaders were respected, am business ethics raised few if any
questions. Now, "business as usual" is over.
Business schools will be judged on the success of their graduates in gettirg jobs fittirg their personal preferences. In addition graduates attainirg managerial positions must be equipped by the institution with
appropriate management am operatirg skills am be able to demonstrate the leadership am imagination to make optinn.nn managerial decisions.
'!he national ratirg of business schools am business administration
programs is a drivirg force for curriculum change. A secorrl element effectirg curriculum change is the present arrl growirg scarcity of raw materials arrl higher costs of doirg business. A third curriculum element derives from technological innovation, automation, data processirg, arrl the info:nnation
~losion.
'!he "global village" concept does not recognize national or international descriptives. In addition, the Club of Renne's "Project on the Predicament of Mankin::l," entitled THE LIMITS 'IO GRCMnI, universe Books, 1972, Meadows, Rarxlers, Meadows, arrl Behrens, directs COncen1. to the problem caused by an ~nentially growirg population that dePerrls on limited supplies of fuel, fcx:xi, arrl fiber. Business decision makers must now "do more with less." Finite resources cannot be ~ed in quantity sufficient for infinite utility.
Ethics in business will be a growirg subject for classroom instruction,
am its influence should sere to protect the opportunity for small business
competition. Above all, the business student must realize that glol:al. scarcity
of resources causes disparity between the richer arrl poorer societies, am if
business leadership cannot share natural wealth more equitably, the results can produce a world crisis.
'!he business curriculum will downplay the reliance on data quantification for solvirg management problems arrl reemphasize personal proficiency in managerial con:hlct. Tam Peters states that "authority does not build organizations; confidence does."
18

Dean Tam Clark, who contributes his own article to this assessment, illustrates the concepts of marketability am how the business graduate can canpete in a global economy. '!he biggest obstacle to neeting the driving forces of c.han:1e affecting the business school's curricula is analyzed in Porter am McKibbin's MANAGEMENT EIUCATION OF DEVEI.D:EMENI': DRIFT OR 'IHRUsr
mro '!HE 21ST CEN'IURY, McGraw-Hill, 1988, p. 80. '!hey ~e that there "is
little perceived need for major changes " in current managemant training am curricula. '!he status .QYQ seems to impede needed c.han:1es.
If Georgia workers lose their jobs to global ~tion, they cannot pay taxes am thus cannot support the university System. One goal of business educators must be to prepare our state's citizens to becane IlDre canpetitive in skills am management eJq)ertise. Each System unit should canvass its own irrlustrial am carmnercial neighbortloods to determine each enterprise's situation. Direct assistance to local businesses will integrate the objeetives of the entrepreneur am the academic professional.
Without urrlerstancling the economic principles at work in our society, Georgia's citizens will be at a disadvantage. Econamic principles must be made available through the teaching of these vital subjects. '!he business schools in the System are improving this successful i.nstnlction about the world economic systems. Many workshops am seminars operate for training other professionals. '!here are 13 Centers for Economic Education assisting hurrlreds of classroom teachers in economic workshops and providing them with economic learning. '!he University System is a stron;J presaxe in this aDeavar.
RHR - '!HE KR:E OF lUil'I'IVE (]W;E
What one honors, one cultivates. What one cultivates, one enj oys the fruits thereof. Without honor, nothing grows.
'!his axiom answers the question heard publicly in Georgia in recent years: ''Why can't Georgia develop am maintain an M.I.T.- caliber institution within its borders?" In this example, a single institution is presumed to set the st:arrlard for excellence within the categories of its offerings. Unless Georgians first honor such a concept as being a desirable objective, no impetus for the concept's realization will emerge. If am when world-class institutions are honored by Georgians with sufficient conunitrnent, resPect, am financial support, the entire population will receive the benefits.
'!he absence of publicly-displayed institutional honor promotes the perception of the colle:Je's partial loss of importance. Attention to the unit's ccmnon interests dissipates aIron;J campus groups, and leadership vacuums surface. Unless a unit's objectives are honored by the appropriate PersOnnel, that institution's goals will not be attained.
19

'!he drivi.n:J force of honor builds "confidence", and confidence builds organizations (Tom Peters). '!he force of honori.n:J academic and personal objectives makes possible the adlievement of "long-tenn goals". A scum example of this process is the original QBE's conception and execution. Short tenn goals tern to fall into the routine of operations. Long-tenn goals require a present and continuing use of institutional resources and ti1ne based on expectations of future adlievements. Without honori.n:J the goal, dedication is lacking.
'!he constitutional powers of the Board of Regents IlIJSt be honored and the Board's constitutional irrleperrlence preserved in the organic laws' contexts. It is a great honor to sere as a Regent of the University System of Georgia, and that honor is maintained by just and diligent dedication. '!he record of the Regents' actions testifies to the sincerity of their devotion to duty.
EXEX:IJI'IVE ~
IInV:IlC R:R.:::E OF ~mrn!NIE) SPEX::IALIZATICIf AND 'lRIVIAI.JZATICIf
"By the ti1ne a problem rises through the academic ranks to my level the substance of the problem is foum to be either trivial or irnp::)ssible." So states a fonner Vice Olancellor of the University System (Dr. John Hooper) .
Professional educators seek recognition in the publish or perish enviromnent, and they perceive their work as possessi.n:J singular importance. self-interest stimulates the drive to exparrl the scholar's career objective, and the professional tends to create novel areas of specialization; new tenninologies are bo:rn and classifications further divided. In such manner exterrled academic specialization tends to bloom and, on occasion, fade away.
Specialization is academically vital, but the educational management question, especially for a state-operated, tax-funded System with large umergraduate enrollments is: Does the academic specialization reinforce the learning process for the System's students within the college or university?
can a balanced synthesis of college and university scholarly purposes derive
from the particular exterrled specialization?
It is errphasized that science research and scientific classification of phenomena. are not to be considered as trivial or impossible, and all readers are infonned by the assessment team of this category's exclusion from this chapter. Institutes and centers located on System campuses are academic vehicles authoriZed for specific pw:poses, and their programs are described elsewhere in this assessment. '!he study of this problem of over-exterrled specialization focuses rather on the umergraduate level.
Certain professional disciplines in the past urged that the institution's core curriculum be specialiZed for these disciplines only and taught separately for these umergraduate majors. currently in the University System some
20

scholars are critical of the present Developnental Studies program as an over-specializated field.
Exterrled specialization also can be stiInulated by "outside" special agencies. Accreditin; bodies ani special groups of professionals pronote their special interests through specific validation procedures. SPecial accredi.tin; groups may stipulate their fonnal recognitions of institutional practices on the latter's further specialization.
Trivialization occurs when official activities sperrl nv::>re time on the activity's "process" than on the activity's "product." CO-minglin; the important with the unimportant insures the perception of trivialization. Immersion in process is important to iIrprove the productivity of that duty station; only when the process beccmes self-sustainin; does it become trivializin;.
OVeruse of tenns and definitions without universal acceptance of their meanings by most of the SYstem's personnel leads to trivialization of the
subject bein; defined. '!he term "url:lan" exemplifies the kind of nomenclature
which the SYstem should control specifically. In the 1960's ani 1970's, the
SYstem units supported "url:lan" programs (so described) which, in their
number, prevented in part the effective concentration of the System's resources. ''Waste management" science ani business analysis is the modern (1989) subject area which deIrtaIXls SYstem direction ani supe:rvision. '!he term "special" should be saved for that which, in fact, is special.
'!he serious need for higher edUcation's "intervention" in 5th and 6th grade students' careers must not be trivialized. Intervention of appropriate college ani university personnel through personally apPearin; on 5th and 6th grade locations, with detailed explanation of postsecondary requirements, must be a complete long-term conunitment.
'!he worst source of trivializin; that all edUcation now faces in the diminishment of illiteracy, dropouts, lack of skills, etc., is the "siIrplistic" reply or solution. Inevitably the siIrple answer ignores the elements and histo:ry of the problem, and the claimed siIrplicity of the problem is trivilization ~ see
IEIVING FORCE OF ENROUMENl' NUMBE&S
Student enrollment mnnbers engerrler allocations of funds from state sources originatin; through the process of legislative appropriations. Although many elements make up the System's budget, students' tuition produced by student matriculation fees is a substantial contributor to the whole.
California's assessment of its system in 1987 was reported to the effect that academic standards had been lowered to influence larger enrollments.
21

Making the budget dominates academic t:hi.nkin:J, am student numbers constitute
a driving force affecting leadership decision-making.
summer school budgets, separated fram the nine-IrOnth traditional budgets, are required to ''make'' their budget goals a reality. '!his practice favors
senior faculty who have priority in their options for sunnner teaching schedules. If class enrollments are less than budgeted, such imividual
classes so lacki.n; in rn.nnbers can be c:1l:q:pad fram the summer schedule along
with the cancelled class's instnlctor. Junior am less-experienced. faculty
would benefit fram a Il'Ore equitable fourth quarter schedule system not so rigorously corxtitioned on student rn.nnbers.
Numbers influence many facets of the University System. '!he m.nnbers of
dollars acceptable for academic chairs, professorships, am other gifts to
System campuses are specified by the Board of Regents' minimum scales for
such emowments.
Population figures change. Nor.v, neighboring institutions can reduce a System unit's potential for attracting the student rn.nnbers sufficient for the present program offered by that unit. Irxtividual programs of study are driven to prosPerity or poverty by the enrollment counts such a program can experience over the years.
Without specified student body minimums being maintained historically at a specific campus, that campus may not be classified as eligible for R.O.T.e. courses on site even though its academic offerings are OPerating at the required levels. Likewise, the NCAA will not expand its athletic competition eligibility minimums for changing an institution's classification to a higher one if the institution in question is short of the required athletically-
related numbers. Other programs am potential sources of aid can use size of
student body to classify potential recipients.
Big schools are often Perceived as being "better" than smaller institu-
tions, am big graduate, doctoral, am research institutions sometimes are
PerceiVed as the "best" of all academic entities. It is heard that the
leadership of a big institution "can get away with rebutting or changing System policies."
'!he rn.nnbers of dollars for federal funding for higher education support is a crucial factor for the University System. Here lies the Il'OSt important rn.nnbers question: Extraordinary funding must be increased, especially from
federal sources to em illiteracy am to increase minority presence in higher
education.
'!he rn.nnbers of federal dollars for higher education asSl.llIlErl enlarged paradoxical importance in the Johnson-Nixon eras. Numbers of dollars were used to initiate urban assistance programs in a wide variety of specificallytargeted objectives. Experts were trained, am commitment by the University
System was given in IrOney, persormel, time, am equipment. Where no longer
politically exPedient, the programs were allor.ved to wither away. '!he mnnbers
became less, both in dollars am the number of students being educated am
served. Academicians dislike these practices which are entitled "stop-am-go"
22

academic financing. '!he sudden begirming am the unprepared, sudden conclusions
of a part, or the whole program of study denies the already committed student. '!he state's invesbnent is unable to bear satisfactory results in its employment as the sole support to the now defunct operation.
Most educational issues are not problems; they are paradoxes. Problems
can be solved. Paradoxes defy simplistic solution am must be resolved. '!he key to analyzing the issues am difficulties affecting higher education is the carrprehension of the contrasts between problems am paradoxes. Problem
solving employs simplification of the problem through the elimination of extraneous elements surrounding the main issue, thereby developing a structured cause and effect. The problem can be attacked, and the process, if successful, justifies the authority of the solution's decision maker.
In contrast the paradox must firrl resolution. Paradoxes confound expedient executive decision-making due to the "problem's" qualities. Its elements present a predicament to management in the fonn of a set of multiple facts, each of which rejects carrpatibility with the others. '!he presences of these multiple "truths" defy simplistic solution. Application of authority becomes slowed and the situation tenuous. No solution apPearS to be available which is caPable of satisfying carrpletely all of the parties to the issue at hand.
Personal proficiency of administrative corrluct, rather than efficiency of institutional oPerations, is the first requirement of the resolution of the
dilenma. '!he second requirement is time, am the timing needs to change the
issue's environment nurturing the creation of the dilenma ~ se. Resolving the paradox, thus, is a slow process to the direct use of authority.
Educational problems Pennit relatively simple administrative treatment because the process of solution separates the right from the less right (or wrong) by the act of jUdgment. With multiple truths which cannot be harIrOniZed in one time and place, the value of conferential leadership takes precedence over executive immediacy.
'!he university System leadership must distinguish between paradoxes and
problems. Until educators know am recognize the far IrOre serious paradox
threat, optim..nn oPerational results will not obtain.
Paradoxes surface in social, religious, political, am economic environ-
ments. Higher education abounds with paradoxes. For example, the very success enjoyed over the years by the University System can, paradoxically, make the University System a ''victim of its own success."
23

Gratuitous advice is appreciated by educators, but paradoxes are not
problems. '!hus the secomary consequences to education, if the sinplistic
advisement were to be taken literally, could be extremely negative. '!hese sincere advocates, unaware of the professional educator's intention to go
slowly am :reconcile academic differences, often suggest the Japanese analysis
of American marketing tec::hni.ques: READY, FIRE, AIM!
Paradoxes can be defined in educational presences as "the truth al::surtll.y
put." Time am resources will be wasted if the recx:gni.tion of the paradox is overlooked, am the sinple am negative administrative response is to call
the confused issue a contradiction unresolvable.
EXEXl1rIVE ~
PARAIX>X OF DNm VS. IN:FURMATICfi
"In the place of truth we have discovered facts. For moral absolutes, we
have substituted morale ambiguity. We now connm.micate with everyone am say
absolutely nothing." - Ted Koppel IXJKE MAGAZINE 73, 5 (July-Aug 1987) p. 35-36.
'!his assessment's use of the tenn, "research", in the contexts of these analyses, means data research am infonnation gathering am usage. scientific am laboratot:y research, experiments, am discovery are not intended subjects for these assessment purposes am thus are excepted by definition.
Mr. Koppel's declaration that "now we connm.micate with everyone am say
absolutely nothing" represents the feeling of loss experienced by many who have attempted to solve higher education's many problems. One veteran data researcher told the authors: "It is becoming very difficult to secure cx:nplete
am worthwhile data, am once the requested data is forthcoming, it is almost
ilnpossible to secure from the data's source exactly what the researd1 received actually means."
one educational paradox related to Koppel's conclusions is that the more
campus authorities need current "feedback" the greater the increase is in its volume - thus negating same of the infonnation system's planra:i effa::i.vere:;s.
Data produced am forwarded at rarrlam can confuse the educational
process. Validated infonnation is capable of providing reliability to the
further use of its detenninations. Raw data has to be assessed, analyzed am
organized before its productive values become worthwhile. statistics don't explain; statistics have to be explained.
Another senior system scholar reflected on the paradox of data am
infonnation problems by revealing that "you must live with infonnation systems which give you more than enough data but fails to separate the significant from the irrelevant".
24

At Harvard University on August 6, 1989, lecturing to the Institute of Educational Manage.m:mt, Dr. Clark Kerr remarked that (in higher education)
"that which is easy to measure is CX)nsidered :inp::>rtant am gets measured; that which is CX)nsidered difficult to measure is considered unimportant am
does not get measured."
Information gathering am data production is assessed as having been
perceiVed as being difficult for the practitioners. Dita researchers enCCllll1ter many difficulties: the a1Ioost certain challerge to their data by others as to the ''methodology'' used to establish their firrlings; the need to annotate or supply briefs which are tiIre consuming; being assigned data research subjects which are either too broad to allow focus or which lack the
necessa:ry base materials; am being unable to secure the information due to
others' reluctance to make available the material. 'n1e ll'OSt seriously inhibiting factors affecting the postures of data researchers are (a) IDt kn:::Mi.rg, in sane cases, how the source person's data research will be used, (b) the
data researcher's need for more recognition am for the assurance that "their" research is used am not shelved.
'!he e::x::xtpUter science revolution, data am wo:rd processing, am informa-
tion networking offer a1Ioost unlimited growth to the System by the developrrent of its "knowledge."
In '!HE EI:Ua::M REVIEW (Vol 24, No.2, summer 1989) Michael Roberts, fore-
casts the earning National Education Network, supp::>rted by senator Gore, and
the Federal Coordinating Council on SCience, Engineering am Technology. '!he
Act, S. 1097 (May 1989), will revolutionize the availability of data. '!he Roberts' article poses this question to Georgia's academic leadership: "Has a strategic priority for a 'universally' accessible campus-wide network with
connections to regional am national networks been adopted by your president am governing boa:rd?"
'!he foregoing question's response is a virtually profound decision for all educational CX)nstituencies. '!he world's great in::lustry is going to be the
"knowledge" in::lustry, am computer science developrent appears to have no
present limits.
PARAOOX OF ~ vs. ~ ARI'S EnJCATICN
(ARIS'IUI'I.E vs. PIA'ID)
scientific am technological studies cx::xnpete with traditional academic subjects, am the state of California, in 1987, assessed its "huge system of higher education (am) found that the quality of teaching has diminished
because of an overerrphasis on faculty research," (ATlANTA CDNS'ITIUTION, August 4, 1987, p. 6-A.) '!his has not been the case in the University System. To the
25

contrary, many observers IX>int out that Georgia 1l1l1St produce increase:l furrli.ng in support of scientific research.
ste{Xlen Jay Gould, Ha:r:vard professor, in the June, 1989 issue of NA'IURAL HISIDRY quotes lacepede's honorin;J of lavoisier's meroory by errphasizin;J the
gram design of higher education: "to unite the liberal arts... with the
sciences am useful arts without which the celestial light of reason will
dj sappear." lacepede declared " ...we can stave off that final degradation"
(the total destru.ction of human pc:pllation) with the right union of arts am
sciences.
''What counts" in higher education can chan;Je with the tines am through
the drivin;J forces influencin;J the national purposes. Expediency in educa-
tional delivery am job oriented course work in college curricula fulfill
many students' aspirations. 'Ih.is paradox is created by competin;J academic values: pragmatism in education versus tradition.
'!he dilenuna's issues are focused by Dr. Edward Rosenberry's am Dr.
Allan Bloem's positions. In :Rri Beta Kappa's KEY REFORI'ER, Vol. 54, No.3, issue, Dr. Rosenberry analyzes Dr. Bloem's view' that "the heart of a liberal
education is (or should be) Plato's RERJBLIC . " am that traditional
education should be opposed to "every wamering woo (of academic subjects rarrlamly selected) as to compoun:l the very ignorance they ProPOSe to dispel." Rosenberry's acceptance of such structurin;J of course curricula is lacking because he states, ''what troubles me (Rosenberry) about Bloem and his cohorts is that they are Platonists in an Aristotelian world." '!his last analysis is one of the most profourxl observations to explain in part the origination of many of higher education's unsettled issues.
Rosenberry states the paradox in positive tenns. '!here are dual 0bjectives at work: "holdin;J fast to that which is good" but he adds "it (education) does require aCCOllUOCldation of that which is to be leaTI1ed to the min:l of the prosPective lecu:ner." Rosenberry ilnplies that the horns of this paradox's dilenuna are in fact closer together than realized when he states: "'!he stance called Aristotelian, while admittedly pragmatic, is not a denial of idealism."
Most units seek additional course offerin;Js, and the tenn "comprehensive," designatin;J wide ranges of course opIX>rtunities, is an attractive realization. More technical and science subject natter, and practical courses to produce SPecialiZed application of acquired skills will receive curriculum consideration.
Extraordinary furrli.ng is required for science and nathematics research if Georgia is to participate fully in the high-tech future. '!he goal is becoming an integration of and a balance of all student experiences with the
full SPeCtnnn of available knowledge. '!his requires that the elements in the SPeCtnnn should "touch" one another.
26

R. G. Kraft in aJANGE, June/July, 1987 issue poses the higher education dilemma in his example of the teacher who clailns she or he is a "good teacher if (she or he) suc:x:essfully reaches 10% of the students." Author Kraft questions whether or not a medical doctor is a success if he heals only 10% of his patients or if an auto mechanic can claim suc:x:ess if only 10% of the autos atterrled. are repaired campletely. However, 10% is better than 5%.
Partial suc:x:ess patte:rns in academia can be caused by the lack of vital
support, am the personnel so deprived. will be forced to "do the best they can" with that which is available. Frostration am overload can result. If
the state of the scarcity of resources persists partial success in goal
achieverrent tends to became first a worki..rg };i1ilosophy, am secoOOly, a
justification for the 10Vl percentage perfonnance. '!he paradox is in full bloan when the 10Vl suc:x:ess rate becares attractive as a positive proof of satisfactory progress.
'!he business executives state that regardless of the present effic:i.en::i.es
of resources utilization, academia am the System ''must operate with :in:.:r'e'3serl
production retunls. " From the st.an:3point of these business teachers an academic success rate should scale in the high percentages in the graduation numbers. '!he output (1ean1ed. graduates) must relate positively to input (financial support of higher education).
'!he worst aspect of partial success experiences is seen in the high
numbers of dropouts at all education levels. '!he information age am hicjl-ta::h applications are lJIX)n society, am the nation cannot prosper am progress
with only partial success in rebutting student attrition.
Partial success satisfaction is the enemy of high expectations. 'IWo goals challenge Georgia: (a) setting high expectations for the University
System. '!hese in turn stimulate personal am professional commitment to take responsibility for higher education, am (b) the personal adoption by educa-
tional professionals to accept visible leadership roles designed. to prarrote quality.
Incidents of partial success, though sane is better than none, allOVl the
educator to feel a detadlInent from the bulk of knowledge. Apathy am in:lif-
ference influence the educator's inunediate goals. Partial success ~, no matter hOVl these situations oc:curred., must not became an acceptable educational philosophy nor a justification for lacking greater successes in the profession.
27

EXEXI1I'IVE SlMW
'IHE PARAOOX OF ~C VS. INmINSIC REJWm
One review of this assessment opened the view that the use of the designation "paradox" was not necessary in that the subjects presenting the dilennnas were in fact "differences of personal opinions." In:leed the personal
"feelings" of irrlividual educators am their Iilysical exten1al.ization are the
dlief sources originating behavior producing paradoxical issues on canp1S.
Many faculty who "only starrl am teach" feel that their gifts of long am PersOnal service to their college or mriversity are not appreciated. '!hey point out that their professional contributions were made physically am visibly in the classrcx:m am that their careers were student-oriented.
on the other harrl, many faculty sought the worthwhile career goals of
PersOnal research am writing professional paPers. '!his road led to prc::m:ireroa am state, regional am national recognitions in their fields of scholarship. Prestige, promotion, am pay increases are the visible "yardsticks" recording
the progress in pursuit of career goals.
Both career patterns are needed presences in the faculties. However, administrative preference for academic professionals of national stature
based on published research runs head-long into the institution's need am
affection for the case of the consistently active classrcxJm Perfonner. '!he dilennna arises when these two categories of professional service unavoidably
compete for finite resources, recognitions, am other prefennents (offices,
SPeCial equipment, etc.).
In the SREB ranking (1989), the University System, in comparison with the other 14 Southeasten1 states, was placed in the first (highest) position
in 1982. Today, the SYstem occupies the sixth place, am evidence exists that
the System's position may slip to eighth in the region.
'!he veteran classrcxJm teacher may not enjoy ready ''marketability. " Competition for positions similar to the one held by such a professor may be Imlch greater, due to an over supply of instnlctors in that discipline. comparing salary scales with sister institutions may show no advantage in market con::litions affecting similar teaching experience.
'!hese two faculty examples are the products of the "rewards" system employed by each discipline in the University System am each addresses the
problem differently. Each canpt1S, likewise, sets salary levels in:lividually.
All salaries, however, are reviewed, am market conditions, indirectly or
directly, pay a role.
'!he rewards system reflecting marketability factors can result in low percentage annual raises. '!he result is "salary COI'l'pressibility." For many
instnlctors, assistant professors, am graduate student teachers, a low
beginning base with small annual percentage increases COIl'presses the salary values.
28

Many administrators claim that all teachers should canbine the best attributes as exemplified by these two previously described teachers. 'Ibis ideal scholar would produce all such versatilities through personal action arrl achievement.
'!he university System needs both tyPes of scholars. '!HE ATIANI'A JaJRNAL O)NS'ITIUI'ION, April 30, 1989, 6-D, editorialized on illiteracy in Georgia, reportinJ that 1,700,000 were not functionally literate. '!he experienced classrcxm i.nstnlctor is needed, arrl a rewani system is needed to recognize
good teachers who are able to teach others in the stnlggle against illitezac.
Although there are many causes of student attrition, one of the causes is student experiences in school that are tmSUCCeSSful, unpleasant, un::hal.l.~, arrl unfillinJ. Good teachers create positive experiences in the educational process, arrl the student is motivated to stay in school. since Georgia also needs the scientist, researcher, arrl academic di.sc:::overer, Georgia must pay for both of these categories of professionals. "Psychic" income is not I1OW' a sufficient reward for successful teachinJ.
'!he paradoxes of higher education's furxli.n;J are si.Irple in explanation but are also caPable of producing difficulties arrl disappointments. '!he history of federal furxli.n;J has been a positive factor in the emergence of strong educational infrastructures I1OW' necessary for the support of the national purposes.
'!he paradox appears with significant furxli.n;J of System institutions. '!HE ATIANI'A JaJRNAL CDNSITIUITON, July 2, 1989, p. 15-A, 1, reported that Georgia Tech's overall research furxli.n;J amounted to 120 million with 88 million representing Pentagon research furxli.n;J. New regulations have been ProPOSed that will necessitate Georgia Tech's having to submit competitive ProPOSals for federal research contracts. Tech officials were reported as noting that the expense of maintaining research staff salaries under the new rules would not be possible. '!he fonner system provided enough contract income to naintain the staff personnel.
nlrinJ the Johnson years, SPeCific neighborhood and general tu:ban programs were offered to higher education to develop academic-based solutions to a wide range of national concerns. '!he System units involved added personnel, equipnent, arrl assigned resources in support of these federally funded projects. In the Nixon era the funds dried up arrl the programs were cancelled. '!he national attention had changed. A dilemna results in the desire for these enrichinJ funds for System units in which desires are incompatible with the realities of changing social, political, arrl economic eInJ;hases. '!hese "stop-and-go" furxli.n;J experiences should be avoided. Academia is not a "short-tenn" envirornnent.
Another paradox: If illiteracy is wiPed out, the in:tigent, otherwise i.Irpoverished through lack of learning and marketable skills, can became productive. '!hereafter the monies I1OW' directed to saving the tu:ban or rural in:tigent can be made available for higher education in part. '!he paradox lies in the priorities' being simultaneously incompatible - even inp:>ssible. To stop helping those in need to help education is not realistic nor socially acceptable.
29

EXEXlJI'IVE SlHmRY
EFFICI:EHCY VS. IroFICI:EHCY
'!he University system is sensitive to the national postures and problems affectin:J IOOSt imustrial, cammercial and financial enterprises. Efficiency stands out as the profClUI'Xl global dlallen;e to the America's present and future and to the cot1l1tzy's canpetitive position. Business leadership has been responsive to the dargers of inefficiencies in creatin:J and distributin:J goods and services to constnners.
'!he progress made by business in stayin:J canpetitive and increasin:J efficiency has been attractive to critics of higher education. Elsewhere in this a.ssessnent the nore objective sources of business leadership are analyzed.
Attempts at efficiency mean cuttin:J costs. euttin:J costs means elbninati.n;J academic teaching and auxiliary positions because of the high level of labor intensity in higher education. In non-personnel areas, same institutions cut costs with te1.Tporary housin:J, novable (te1.Tporary) classrooms, foregoi.n;J pennanent buildings, rentin:J alternative "space", and doi.n;J away with all "frills."
'!he fonnula for organizational efficiency is the accountability of all items of expense and investment weighed against the test: "Is it costeffective?"
'!he contrasts with business efficiency st:.arrlards are best captured by the business use of the accounti.n;J tenninology: "cost-productive." '!he academic usage is "cost-effective." '!hese differences focus attention on how business efficiencies are effected.
'!he increasin:J appearance of efficiency solutions can be exPeCted and
institutions have been closed when outgo exceeded income whatever the situation. '!he DIGEST OF EDJCATIONAL srATISITCS, 1988, indicates that, in the period 1961 through 1986, 37 publicly controlled postsecondary institutions have been closed, one a four-year institution (this figure excludes branch operations) .
Business leaders as creditors, trustees, and Regents cannot help but apply their own standards of operational efficiency to education's domain. Private operators of risk enterprises consider that should the efficiency ratios be pushed to the maximum, educational financial troubles would cease. One business executive said, "Education's bosses are goi.n;J to have to get with it."
'!he response must recall that colleges and university values have long-starxling identities. Historically, the "person-to-person equation" between instnlctor and student is the daninant consideration. '!he objective is the creation of "a beneficent experience" for the student's enrichments. '!his experience hopefully will last the student's lifetime and will develop flexibility of intellect, acceptance of cultural differences, understandi.n;J
30

of the ethical bases supporting the society in which the student resides, ani which will maxilnize ani fulfill the personal aspirations of the student.
If larger classes, mass examinations through means of multiple answer examinations, overload of teachers' contact time, divided time usage for library, computer, ani laboratory student practices, ani reduction in the counseling funjg are ac:::conplished, college ani tmiversity budgets can be reduced. student life patten'lS enhanced by proficiency through personal inspiration flowing fran the canp.1S envi.rornnent are IOC>:re i.np:>rtant than the
"rnnnbers" game designed to show a savings here ani there. '!he institution's
i.Irpact on neophyte students is in direct :relationship to the complete abso:rption of the student in the course as taught ani in the personality of the institution.
'IWo tnrths are in contrast: efficiency of operations versus the deliberate nature of academia.
Dr. Earnest Boyer, in COUE:;E, 1987, P. 276 urged the identification of minority students who are carrlidates for graduate ani professional schools ani the increase in graduate student financial aid made especially available to their degrees' completion. '!he observations assess the situation to read that unless the same procedure is adopted to eligible urrlergraduate ranks, there will not be a significant response to this problem. Dr. Boyer states (p. 39, ibid.) that "by the year 2000, 30% or IOC>:re of all students in the public schools will be from minority groups .. ani at the federal level, we also strongly recomrnerrl that, to meet this need, the Pell Grant Program is ~ed, not diminished."
'!hese quotations are believed to represent the best answer to the problem of attrition and/or non-atterx1ance of minority students in postsecorXlary ani graduate education. Economic factors are of major i.np:>rtance in potential students' considerations about education choices.
'!he second COncen1 is about the "strangeness" experienced on entering college ani study experiences. '!hese assessments submit that a prosPective student, "knowing what to expect", will not be distracted from the goals in the degree program. Dr. Boyer states (p. 40, ibid), that the "first step ... is to help the student move from school to higher education. It is not 'new' marketing procedures. Rather the goal must be to provide IOC>:re helpful info:rmation ani make it possible for students to begin with confidence an educational journey that will lead them ... far beyond the college years." '!he fostering of "self-assurance" is necesscrry in helping students adapt to campus life.
31

Receptivity am direct personal assistance to the minority student must be
increased.
Receptivity, at the earliest practical point, has brought "Intervention" fo:rward. '!he O1ancellor, Dr. Dean Propst, initiated six "early intervention"
programs in Georgia, am these pilot programs will explore the potentials for
increasing minority student enrollments. Intervention is the presence at the
5th am 6th grade levels by competent college am university personnel. '!hese on-the-scene contracts will provide tilysical am visual stimulation to the school children to knc:M about am to prepare themselves, for college-level experiences. YOI.JD;J, future scholars can have their goals defined, am specific
academic directives can be explained.
Intervention does not allow the student to feel "cut off" or alienated by the apparently difficult tasks associated with acquiring of knowledge. One positive asset from this experience will be the "inclusion" of all educational
effort. College am university personnel will not feel detached from K-12 school problems am achievements. General concern for all scholarship should
increase.
"Participation am identification" of the staffs of the middle school with
their visitors will result.
Minority participation in education starts with "access." North carolina's
system proposes direct am specifically enumerated aids to increasing minority
access. SCholarships, cooperative work-study programs, sophisticated publicity about the program, etc., are part of the strategies urrlenvay. '!hese techniques
am programs require extraordinal:y firrling as observed by the assessment
team.
Dropouts are part of the attrition problem. '!he assessment team notes that North carolina's system proposes that each dropout would be infonned of an official-designated "contact" on the staff of the two-year or four-year
college located nearest the dropout's residence, am "tumed-down" students
with potential will receive referral to alternatives if available.
EXEX:IJI'IVE SOtH\RY
OBSERVATIQIS
'IHE AGl}I; R:llMJIA
'!he fonnula used to solicit :funjs from the branches of state goverrnnent generates some uncertainty among the various campus leaderships. '!he EFT total student enrollment of the System for the IrOst recently-completed fiscal
year engerrlers the basis for solicitation of the budget, am the EFT enroll-
ment figures for the irrlividual college or university are part of the total. '!he System fonnula is not devised to respom directly to the specific unit's student numbers.
32

SUbjective consideration is given the fonnula question by campus leaders seeking to receive their l.mit's budget allocation directly in proportion to their respective EFT enrollment mnnbers. 'n1is si.nt>le solution overloads the possibility of serious short falls in revenue, the affect of a rise in inflation generally, or tuition increases large enough to deter enrollment.
Tuition figures are part of the budget ''mix'' am can deIronstrate immediate
effect upon the institution's cash flow.
'!he fonnula strictly designed for financin3' an entire system carmot react swiftly. In the recent past the University System was shocked by: (a) the precipitous rise in campus energy costs with the traumatic experiences with all fonns of institutional energy usage, (b) the explosive jump in the
direct costs necessary to increase campus security measures am personnel as
a result of growth. in student mnnbers am student protest m::wements, am (c)
the sudden demarrl for COI'lpletely neW' am expensive cx:xnputer capacity and
mcxlerni.zation of campus info:nnation systems.
'!he University System's furrli.ng fonnula is its age. '!he year 1982 was designated as the base year for computin3' the fonnula on the average salary of faculty employed at that SPeCific tiIne. '!he 1982 base for salaries and its subsequent additions are not sufficient to support favorable comparison with the national averages in salary and to neet all other current needs of the System. '!he SREB records indicate that the University System was in first place in 1982 average salary COI'lparisons with fourteen other Southeastern states. In 1989 the GeOl:gia System's position dropped to sixth place by SREB
starrlards
'!he fonnula, though agin3', was adopted. because the years preceding its inauguration recorded large annual student increases. '!he University System
was forced to approach the executive am legislative branches with a rational
strategy possessin3' characteristics that were able to connnunicate its integrity of purpose and its accountability. Finite budget data from provable facts
were necessary. since increasin3' student numbers solely do not add to budget
costs, the fonnula had to account for program expansion, increasing numbers
of discipline, new campus locations, am i.nt>rovements in quality levels of
instruction, connnunity sel:Vices, research, am salaries.
One strong criticism of fonnula furrli.ng is the anission to fund business
school am teacher education programs' enrollments in the same manner as
other disciplines enjoyed. Although another criticism is that the fonnula
naturally can be "behind" or "ahead," it does act as a balance-wheel during
economic swings.
'!he fonnula's chief attraction for its supporters in the System is that it pennits the Board of Regents and the O1ancellor and System's staff, along with the l.mits in the System, to avoid the need for line-item-budgeting. External control of a college's budget makes executive action on the operatin3' level very difficult.
''Marketability'' is the risin3' force daninatin3' academic salary questions
for college and l.miversity personnel. A recognition of the "peer" institution
am "peer" faculty position comparison problem is the reality. Comparable pay
33

however matched l'lCM is a salary factor, am unless the System's colleges am
universities stay canpetitive, the present sixth place SREB ranking will decline further. Worki.nJ out aa:::ept:able peer relationships for comparing
salary figures for equivalent personal am positioned situations is needed
l'lCM.
'!he salary additions which. are based on annual. percentage growth a:np.Iterl on the previous year's rennmeration p.m.ish those who began with lOCldest
initial contract salaries am low percentage increases. '!his Fhenamenon leads
to "salary canpressibility," the phrase explaining the grid-lock effect on the lorg se:tVing with the afore-described experience.
'!he fonnula must be anexled to pennit extraordinary :Eums. F\mting for minority scholars is but one area needing this special financing. Teaching,
research am lab assistants, part-time :instructors, am insb:uctors in the
Liberal Arts need increased salary "bases" in the fonn of a "one-time"
correction. '!he present fonnula carmot ac::c:c:moodate these minimum salary situations.
EXEXlJl'IVE ~
<mERVATI<m
EJ::DHm) IN EVAII:IAT1IC 'DIE ~ SYSTIiJI
Drs. Folger am Berdahl, nationally recognized authorities on the
assessment of state postsecomary systems of higher education list four
prilnary assessment procedures:
1. self-evaluation
2. Perfonnance Audit/SUnset Reviews
3. Special study Groups on Connnissions
4 Comprehensive Reviews am Assessments
(see source below)
'!he abject of all such. system assessments is to see "how well our large,
important am expensive higher education systeIrs are worki.nJ."
'!he cause of the growing concerns about how well systems are doing is the call for refonn. Since the call originates in IOOSt cases by authorities
external to the targeted system, Folger am Berdahl entitled their analyses
with the ch.allerging "PA'ITERNS IN EVAIlJATING HIGHER ErlJCATION SYSTEM: MAKING
A VIRIUE aJI' OF NECESSITY".
'!he assessment of higher education systems att.enpts to detennine "how well we are doing" as measured by the discovery of "evidence of the system's
34

effectiveness" (p. 11, ibid). Most especially, the authors stress that the
ern product of this process is "the neasurement of how effective is the
governance" (of the system)
visitations to Alabama's am North carolina's Systems irxticated great
advantages accrued to Georgia's system of higher education. Georgia has used, with the present assessment experience, a self-evaluation assessment. '!he O1ancel.lor chose these means for its uniertaking. other states have not been as forbmate.
"Stmset" Reviews are legislative time limits set in the language of the
act of original authorization (am its aR;l:ropriation) of a state board or
agency, whose continuance is deperrlent on a pre-detenni.ned audit date. Unless the legislature acts positively to continue the board or agency the latter goes out of business autanatica1ly. Forbmate1y the university System is not
so affected. Educators are not time-conscious, am they prefer open-en:ied
considerations with probable change in same of the factors affecting their considerations. Stmset Reviews would vitiate their professional worth.
other fonos of academic analysis deperrl on "quantifying" all the infonnation. For many decades, measurements of higher education dealt with what
''went into the project," am material resources, m::>ney am personnel were
figured as "input." Today, it is the "outcane" which is weighted as being
i.np::>rtant. But in either case when one starts out in education in only one
direction, the process becomes both constricted am narrow in all dimensions.
Folger am Berdahl relate how original "<XlIl1prehensive program audits" begun
in two states to measure perfo:rmance each concluded "as a m::>re narrow management audit... "
Folger am Berdahl's studies of other state's assessment experiences
build credibility of the assessment team that the constitutional Board of
Regents enjoys great respect am success with all its constituencies. '!he
Board of Regents are able to proceed without the burden of continuous review
am interpositions of simplistic solution.
"Ihnnan consciousness, it seems, is able to create or to discover aJ..nost
any reality if focused on loI'XJ enough. we make the world in the image of what fascinates am terrifies us". FACES OF '!HE ENEMY, sam Keen, Harper am Roe,
1986, p. 24.
since higher education does not terrify the majority of the population, it remains to be seen if the subject can fascinate its constituents. If the capacity to improve the starnards of htnnan life lies in higher education's
35

h.anjs, educators can not silTlply starxi by am hope for "reactions" by the public to cl1an3'e the national values for the better. Both fascination am terrifyirg stimuli produce an attitude of acceptance, am the "hmnan con-
sciousness is (thus) able to discover a.1Ioost any reality "
'Ih.e posture for cl1an3'e, therefore, is vitali its presence or absence is
profOUl')j in either case. Education challen:Jes the :mi..rrl with flexibility am
self-conscious creativity. Even on the IOOSt limited scale rational cl1an3'e is considered education's subject.
C1anJe in academia is difficult. 'Ih.e status gyQ is familiar am builds
its acceptance through reconcilirg its differences. '!he stro~est opponent of cl1an3'e for innovation is the "in:tirect approach." Boyer in <DUffiE, Hal::per
am Row, 1987, p. 89 quotes a professor of science who resporxied to a faculty
debate about the possibility of "adding a foreign language" to the institution's curricula with the connnent, "'!here is too much disagreement around here about what the f01J1'Xlations of knowledge should be to 5UI=POrt that which is (so) tightly stnlctured." '!he professor's quoted statement avoided addressirg the issue as to the need or justification for the foreign language inclusion as a course offerirg. '!he substantive issue was avoided by challen:Jirg the "fonu" of the total curriculum. '!he "process" took academic preference over the question of academic "productivity."
'!he objective assessments of campus perfonnance cannot operate when the
process is dominant am the "in:tirect approach" strategy prevails. Innovators
in education when defeated continually by such non-substantive in:tirection will become ineffective unless their academic leadership possesses the posture for cl1an3'e. It must be noted that these opponents to innovation act
with sincere motivations, am "if it is not broke, don't fix it" is the
principle governing their considerations.
'Ih.e lack of posture for cl1an3'e encourages "tacit assumptions." '!he state of california's system assessment as reported in 'mE ATIANI'A-<X>NSTI'IUI'ION, August 4, 1987, 6-A, revealed stro~ negative f:irxii.n;r-; by that state's assessment team. Obviously that state's system tacitly assumed all was well,
am the challen:Je confrontirg the 27 years' passage was not met.
In academia awareness of what "can" happen is to be preferred to tacit assumptions about what ''will'' take place. '!he posture for cl1an3'e must also be identified clearly. '!his assessment team fourxi that same System personnel viewed this assessment effort with responses that irxlicated widespread variations in their conceptions. '!he posture of cl1an3'e requires that System canmuni.cations should strive to reduce the potential for misumerstarrling of
its policies am practices. same presidents believe "that big institutions in
the System can get around (onerous) policy by usirg their own interpretation of that policy." Even if this claim is mythological, the myth is a fact.
status gyQ tacit assumptions am resistance to early analysis am
productive action are best illustrated by the student campus protests between
1965-1975. Non-awareness stifled tiJnely discussion, am academia reacted too
late.
36

static corrlitions affectin;J institutions reflect the "plateau" pericxi in the history of those organizations. At tines the university System is given Irore support arrl consideration than is the case at other t.ines. crises cause the levels of concern to affect the System's public ilnage. If the System is taken for granted, efforts to visualize means to mJVe fran the plateau to an ascerrli.rg arrl for:ward mJVement are essential.
"Academic management must increase its return on its investment" is a challerge fran the investment risktakers, arrl blsiness successes in meetin;J global ~tition in America over the PaSt few years stimulate these challen;es to academia. '!hese blsiness managers have been forced to "get Irore out of arrl fran less," arrl it is noted that reduced taxation resources arrl the spreadin;J of public Ironies aIron;J Irore mnnerous public service functions will force educational leaders to do the same.
Academia is believed to be unable to adopt POStures for change arrl to
execute these business-like changes. '!he basis for this criticism is that academics do not ''have to compete." '!he assessment team found that each unit competes with other educational entities, arrl each System unit is ''marketin;J'' its educational attractions.
Another criticism is that academics announce changes arrl innovations, but the means of checking on such planned educational ilnprovements do not exist. Institutional Effectiveness programs r'DiI goin;J into their third year of System operation will accanplish this goal. Also, business leadership claims that academia has no "uniVersal" measurin;J stan::lards by which worthwhile judgments are concluded. SUch standards exist arrl they dominate re;P.cral. arrl disciplines' accreditin;J arrl self-study efforts.
'!he business world's drive for efficiency can not be adopted by academia in large part. '!he layin;J off of PersOnnel, the use of automation, the droppin;J of services or closin;J out lines of gocxis arrl services due to present but lessening demarrl, the curtailment of custcaner acx:x:mrodation, the steady raisin;J of prices, the passin;J of expense items to the customer, etc. cannot be duplicated on campus. '!he college can not furlough or dismiss PersOnnel when the student enrollments are increasin;J. More services, not less, are needed to ease the transition of students into the college environment. '!he knowledge explosion drives many educational costs directly, arrl the increasin;J campus' services must be exterrled in diverse patterns.
It is true that academia loses potential efficiency of operation when the leadership must sperrl valuable time to "keep the house in order." Educational powers are "PersUaSive" not authoritative. Reconcilin;J divergent scholarly views is a main element of the administrator's job. Consensus, not confonnity is the goal of college arrl university leadership.
'!he blsiness leadership challen;es the leadership positions in higher education arrl asks, "Ibes education build leaders?" Colleges of teacher education specialize in this erneavor arrl in-house System errphases on managerial efficiency are successfully completed.
37

'!his assessment observes that there are irrlications of academic managerial iIrprovement that should require the president to be "responsible" arrl each head of administration to be "acc::omrt:able"; plan arrl execute Ironthly management in-house seminars on real life subjects arrl problem-solving exercises; design the regular review of all projects urrle:rway with SPeCific auditors leading the review process; arrl recxJgnize leadership arrl officials with proven leadership records with substantial Ironetary rewards.
EXEXlJl'IVE sutM\RY
OBSERVATICtiS
PERF'ORMANCE J::EX;RAI)ATICN
Perfo:nnance degradation ocx::urs in business operations when the old arrl tried product line becomes neglected because management chooses to redirect interest to a new service or product. '!his phenomenon does not autonatically follow the introduction of the new item of production. However, the possibility that in::lustries can initiate a new offering arrl forget the senior items, which had served the enterprise in the PaSt does exist. '!he example demonstrates managerial tacit assurrptions in operation with the driving force of irrlifference at work.
Every day the University System has the opportunity to tmdertake something new or to invest in innovative technology. To assume that the regular delivery of educational services will not be affected is to ignore the need to nurture these long-standing practices.
califo:rnia's assessment reported in '!HE ATI.AN'I'A CDNSTI'IUI'ION, Aug. 4 , 1987, p. 6-A, declared that "general education" had been neglected due "to emphasis on research." Other SPeCific patterns of negative educational assessment results were described. It is noted IroSt enq:>hatically that in GeorgiaI s System research in all categories needs Irore, not less support, arrl if the System is called upon to weigh this balance, the need is on the side of additional funding for scientific research, discovery, arrl experi1nentation.
'!he question of Perfo:nnance degradation arises in the academic fields of the basics, classics arrl ethics, arrl the last subject egpecially has need for Irore educational acknowledgment. '!he two-year institutions were COncen1ed about their status, arrl institutional name changes are designed to increase the iIrpacts of their presences on their geographic areasI citizens.
Other academic scenes have witnessed questions about possible Performance degradation: intercollegiate athletic practices concerned with standards for matriculation arrl academic progress toward graduation tmder the aegis of the NCAA; grade inflation starrlards; displacement of full-time
38

faculty by part-tilne an:i graduate student instructors, weakening of the core curricula stnlcture, an:i the lessenin:J of COncen1 for effective student advisement.
In the University System, it is to the Olancellor's credit that all of these issues are fully recognized locally an:i are controlled or bein;J changed. It is a possibility, however, that tacit assunptions, imifference, an:i the lack of conscious awareness will beccme c:pmltive. Perfo:rmance degradation is never interrled. To the contra1:y, its presence, once recognized, will be challerged.
'!he three m::>st effective counter-agents to possible degradation of academic SEUVices are (a) the institutional self-study with acknowledged urxierstarrling at work among the study's personnel, (b) the accreditin;J agencies "institutional effectiveness" st:arx3ards, an:i (c) the Systems' operation known as the "institutional effectiveness" exercises.
one perfo:rmance degradation caused principally by the knowledge ~losion
is the diminishment of "reinforced leamin;J." An example of this weakening of "touching" curriculum elements is the hypothetical student who schedules one French language course but thereafter is not offered the opportunity of academically bein;J required to use this subject. To reinforce leamin;J is to prevent the loss of leamin;J.
'!he student loan repayment crJ.SJ.S has seen the diminishment of timely loan repayment. A large number of loans are reported as bein;J delinquent. '!he possibilities of Penalty to the institution related to loan delinquency are growin;J greater, an:i this negative record must be guarded against by all System units.
'10 SERVE 'mE 1990'S
For years Georgia's teacher education needs have been met by educational can:iidates from outside the state. Dr. Joe Vail, state Depart:lrent of Education states that between 2, 000 an:i 2,500 new teachers must be recruited annually from states other than Georgia.
Georgia institutions, reports Dr. Vail, are deeply involved in the develop:nent of teaching professionals able to SEUVe the growin;J needs in the number of practitioners. His report states that the number of teachers prepared annually by state institutions are:
39

14 Board of Regents Institutions 20 Private Institutions
Total

2,445 616
3,061

In addition, summer institutes at University System campus locations
furnished 75 specialists teachers.
One measure of a System's effectiveness is whether or not the conunitment by the state's population to the postsec:orrjary system is effective in securing
the rnnnbers of graduates desired am in the supplying of the professional, vocational, am occupational needs of its constituencies.
OVerproduction of college-trained graduates was a reality in the energy crisis 1970's. '!he institutions face a nnral dilemma when education programs become education for future unemployment. '!he University System has an
official am nnral obligation to discontinue the course or to discourage
interest in academic areas which do not rerrler the "keeping of their promises to their enrollees." If the course's expectation is jab-oriented, students will
become frustrated graduates if am when the job does not materialize.
Meeting these "rnnnbers" of needed am prepared individuals requires that
System flexibility to shift organizational errphasis be available. Dr. cameron
Fincher, dealing with the question of "how many" am "in what fields of
service," reflected on the "teIrporary nature" of these kinds of academic graduate numbers policies.
'!he best sources for grasping the concepts of the year 2000' s employment numbers' needs are IDRKFORCE 2000 Hudson Institute, 1987 and the Coca Cola Company's reproduction of National Alliance of Business' EMPIDYMENT roLICIES: lOOKING 'ID '!HE YEAR 2000 (1986). Both have short but corroborative experiences of their general future employment predictions. '!he main element is higher
education's contribution. Both employer am employee base their relationships on the learned skills am cultural sophistication POSSessed by each. Without
the educational corxlition precedent in hard, the would-be employee will not be eligible to attempt to qualify as a job carxlidate in nnst instances. '!he two studies warn that "high-eanti..ng occupations" are becoming a larger Percentage of employment totals. The umer educated will compete for fewer unskilled j cbs in 1990's.
'!he University System will soon be confronted with the need to replace nearly all faculty hired in the System during the 1940'S - 1970's Period. '!his same aging working population problem was analyzed by the National Alliance of Business study, stating, (ibid, p.3) "Figures projected for the rest of the century (up to 2000) for the entire econany point to a disruption
in the labor market many times nnre severe than previously." Further analysis
by NAB (ibid p. 3-4) stresses that "23,000,000 Americans are functionally illiterate" .

40

'Ihe added challenge in the fonn of di.mi.n.ishin:J rnnnbers of trained
employees is multiplied by the early retirement factor. Life styles are demarrli.ng earlier retirement. By "2000, 15 million manufacturing jabs will be restnlctured," arxl though "15 million service jabs will became obsolete, 16 million jabs will be created, nine out of ten of which will be in the service sector" (p. 3-4, ibid).
'Ihe NAB's ideas of solving these caning shortages in the skilled arxl learned employment areas is to organize councils "to coordinate all training, education arxl economic development arxl placement activities in the state" (p. 10, ibid). 'Ibis aggressive approach is a challenge for the University System to IlDVe aggressively to increase employment q:porbmities for its constituents. 'Ibis ccmnitment will require the closest attention to trerrls in future labor requ.iren'ents. Most certainly new partnerships will emerge in the fonn of coalitions between education, business arxl labor. Private employers will expan:i in-house training arxl education.
Developmental studies arouses strong feeling for arxl against its presence on college arxl university campuses. 'Ihough its gradual extinction has been suggested by COl'l'petent analysts in the University System, this assessment discovered strong indications for its survival arxl progress. One parent interviewed volunteered, "Ibn't tell me Developmental studies don't work. It
saved arxl help make my child's career."
Only if the complete need for this program disappears, which result is not presently foreseeable, could its tennination be justified. Developmental studies has withstood concentrated criticism both as an idea arxl as an educational achievement.
BellSouth's em, John Clerrlenin, addressed the serious problem of
education. He was CO:nceJ:l1ed about the ''millions of kids across the nation who quit school every year." His assessment is. quoted from the AMERICAN THOUGHI' lEADER, winter 1989 Vol 5, No.1, p. 9, arxl defines the problem in economic tenns by his projection that, "in fact, each year's crop of American dropouts costs this country an estimated 240 billion dollars of lost earnings arxl taxes over their lifetimes".
'Ihe problem will ilnpact so fiercely on this nation that specific analyses must be acx:::omplished successfully in order that a reasonable remedy can be urrlertaken. In a free society, it is unreasonable to anticipate the halting of this projected flood of dropouts. It is logical to attempt to stimulate their academic returrl. If the reentry to school or college cx::curs at an age not compatible with the traditional age-grouping fitted to the returnee's
41

academic ranking, a sense of alienation can develop am the effort to retmn
thwarted. In addition, the loss of familiarity with scholastic subject matter
am canp.1S environments must be made up.
Would-be scholars also are missirq their preparations for life because of the lack of the fOlIl'X3ation knowledge which was ignored or rejected in their pre-college experience. Uncanfortable in sec::orx3ary school in tryirq to
keep up, these enterirq students are in need of "assistance am assurance." I..earni.rxJ disabled students cases can be helped by Develq:mental studies' tutors, am this harxis-on approach builds the student' s sense of institutiaBl.
acceptance.
'!he reentry into this program is less complicated than are the require-
ments of the full degree-track. Age is no detriJ:nent, am long absence from
the classroan is not marked as unusual.
'!he teachi.rq of Developmental Students is special am some of its
characteristics are:
(a) '!he teachi.rq of English, readirq am mathematics in close c0m-
Panionship, each course in tamem with the others, reduces the "compartmentalization" mentality. Several leadirq American e::hratars reference the fact that courses should "touch one another."
(b) "Access" to college is made easier.
(c) Basic learning skills are taught as well as the basic knowledge divisions. Artificial barriers are rerooved in order to facilitate learning.
(d) '!he student is helped to firrl her or his way into the subject's mysteries through the silnplest approach.
(e) Transfer of skills from course to course is encouraged and promoted through intention.
(f) '!he learning is "reinforced." Reinforced learning tends to remain within the student's control.
(g) Each Develq:mental studies unit is designated by the Desegregation Plan Ame.njment, 1978, to operate a "learning laboratory" to prove the efficiency of educational processes. Each laboratory provides special tutors who provide irrlividual assistance.
(h) Students with learning disabilities have an opportunity for the learning disability to be analyzed and sensitive ass:istan::e protJidErl.
One provision is lacki.rq: the effective "tracki.rq" of exited students. Once this step is in place, these operations will add to their growirq cost-benefit record.
42

NEX:::ESSI'IY 'IO IEVEIDP ']HE ~.. OF S'lULDnS
Accountability deIran::ls proof. Whether the university System is costprcx:luctive or proves its efforts are "cost-beneficial" depenjs on how well its product perfonns. Reasonable analyses of the entirety of educational effectiveness deperxl on some fonn of proofirg the autcame engernerirg the
costs of the process.
Should the number of graduates as a percentage of enterirg freshmen and in-transfer students be the measure? Should numbers daninate the answer to "how well are we doirg?" Or, should the added values of improved erudition be called upon to sustain the proof?
Notwithst.anling the contrasts between these possible methods designed to uncover the realities of institutional effectiveness, academia must chart the results of the uses of its resources in order to justify its present status and further growth. As this assessment points out in several of its segments, the total problem of "proof" begins with urrlefi.ned tenninology. Cost-benefit, cost-prcx:luctive, assessment, measurement, acx:::ountability, effectiveness, efficiency, and value are expressions which can mislead. '!he most discussed concept listed in the foregoirg sentence is the tenn, ''value.'' Until ''value'' is given almost universal cognitive recognition by the professional practitioners as an identifiable and reliable concept in use, other accountability-see.Jdn;J methods are required.
'!he most reasonable concept is based on "reality" g:g se, and the graduated student's life results tend to create a usable real-life pe.rfonTan:E.
SUch perfo:nnance in life after college is the SOUJ'Xlest of test options. '!he objective discovay of the student's life after college requires tracking the graduate or former student. '!he results of the campus experience will not be designed to embarrass teacher or alumnus, but the process will become the surest way of detennining if Alma Mater is keepirg her promises to the enrollee and if she is livirg up to her noble purposes as publicized to society.
Specifically, Developmental studies programs need to confinn their teachirg methodology, their overall objectives, their discovay of their programs's images, and their input versus outaJme costs. '!he University System Desegregation Plan calls for the institution to detennine reasons for student attrition and for "student follow-up, student exit intel:views, and other necessary research studies." OCR Director, W. H. '!homas' letter from the Office of civil Rights to the Governor, January 31, 1983, emphasizes the need to "follow-up" students.
Conscious awareness appears in tracking experiences, and the urprailcti.ve
course or instructional source will be identified. campus involvements in
43

~ive auxiliary services will receive the verdicts of the fonner user, and "feedback" will help save the System and the canp.1S from entropic decline and unproductive costs.
EXEXDl'IVE SlMW
~
IMERNIR; 'lHE Sl\DiNl' EQlATIaI
'Ihese assessment Cll::lsavations put stress on the wisdom of urrlerstanding that in academia ''what is inp::>rtant is that which is easy to measure." It is difficult, not easy, to measure the nest effective practices and instnnnents through which students are led through to a cognitive recognition of the good and the potentially bad elements in the canp.1S environment. campuses can be the settin;J for experiencing alternatives which can IX>SSe5S lifetime perseverance. Some alternative life styles are dan;Jerous: alcohol addiction, chemical deperrlence, venereal diseases, AIIS, and fonns of htnnan behavior disruptive to educational and beneficial social values.
students on canp.1S will refrain from these personally dan;Jerous choices if their credibility in their infonnation source is sufficiently strong. 'Ihis assessment is concerned about the effectiveness of the University System's units in building stronger, more lasting, institutional-student relationships. '!he forces which are able to corrlition the irrlividual student's wants, needs, desires, and self-motivation are present in the conununication media techniques. Anti-sroc>ki.ng campaigns, using direct stimulation impact, have had positive influence in reducing this habituation in the population.
'!he System's units must adopt positive irnpact stimulations in continual application to protect student safety and personal health and to prevent possible crilninal activity. 'Ihis assessment notes that videos, lectures and "hand-outs" are not ncM sufficient to meet the need to build the student's recognition and urrlerstanding of potentially life-eOOangering experiences. New methods are required to further ann the student against illicit, even deadly activities.
'!he student or staff personnel subject to exposure to societal dan;Jers should receive one-on-one advisement and the experience should include the role-ena.ct.nv:mt necessary to reject life-threatening irrlucements. '!he actual language to be used by the student in repelling injurious sex, drug, and other negative "real world" opportunities should be rehearsed. What is now required (1989) is "hands-on" leadership in action to establish "what to say" to te.rrptation.
Many seminars serving small numbers of student and staff personnel should openly rehearse in these drama.tic exarrples. separation of the sexes is reconnnenjed unless this practice's inteIpretation is considered illegal.
44

sensitivity of faculty an::l staff personnel to the freshman's plight in not bein:J at "ease" in the confrontation with the college's or university's apparently massive presence is absolutely essential. Beginning students have fears about mathematics, a problem sucx::essfully analyzed in Sheila Tobias' a,wroach, quoted from the COllege Board's Office of Academic Affairs publication ACADEMIC <nNNECl'IONS, writer issue, 1988. '!he author stresses equalization of opporb.mity for females an::l minorities an::l that "students at ease" make Il)re rapid progress. '!he chief solution lies in the methods designed to ac::x::e:t'lUOOdte students' concerns an::l the detennina.tion of ''what students are havin:J trouble with an::l why."
'!he university System unit can control whether enrollees' anxieties are heightened or, to the contrary, the student is at "ease" by the corrani:brent an::l practices described alxwe.
'!he worst scenario for higher education an::l the Systems' units can be assessed. wariness on the part of the System leadership is in order an::l all the possibilities weighed with vision. sane negative possibilities capable of affectin:J the health an::l progress of the University System are listed as they can occur in combination in the 1990's.
(a) A year in which the college-age population (18-25) is lower in number than in comparison to the higher number predicted an::l for wham a :ftmting conunitJnent has been budgeted based on such original expectations;
(b) A year in which the admission starrlards are raised by the unit or by the entire system thus negatiVely affectin:J the numbers of qualifiers for admission to the unit (or to the entire System, if all the units employ the higher starrlards) ;
(c) A year in which all tuition charges are raised in an amount sufficient to cause a consequential, drop in student enrollment potential;
(d) A year in which price-inflation rises to the level that "c" alxwe is activated in conjunction with sudden jumps in costs of campus electricity, gas, water, air-corxlitionin:J, heatin:J, transportation, food, equipment replacements, insurance, repairs, an::l major b1;1d.iI'g renovations already urrlerway, an::l of all other goods an::l services required for the units' operations;
45

(e) A year in which the federal furdin;J of l:x:>th higher education an:i of financial aid programs servin;] student's needs declines or is tenninated. '!hese national budget reductions, as hypothesized, will in all probability originate with the national drivin;] force for a balanced federal budget. Federal furdin;J, in general, is essential to the University System.
(f) If the System's units experience student loan defaults exceedin;] their mininn.nn allowable repaymant starx:1ards loss of certification results an:i this impact will cripple the institution's budget.
'!he Rotary Club of Atlanta's club bulletin reported the July 17, 1989,
address to its membership by the U. s. eatpt:roller General, Charles A.
Bowsher, on the subject "'!he Deficit crisis". '!he eatpt:roller General revealed that the budget deficit was much worse than publicized. His reported errphasis as listed in the club's bulletin was on items noN requirin;] additional federal spenli.n;J. '!he list reported:
a. Rebuildin;] the nation's nuclear weapons complex
b. Modernizin;] air traffic control systems
c. Replacin;] 240, 000 deficient bridges
d. '!he war on dn1gs
e. Global wanning
f. Iong-tenn nursin;] care for senior citizens.
It should be noted, this list does not include reference to the needs of higher education even though the listed objectives are corx:litioned for their successful completions on a highly developed educational infrastructure.
In all educational considerations, the problem of "secorrlary consequences" of any decisions, actions, an:i omissions can dominate the situation's ultimate outcome. In order to manage one problem area, :ilnmedi.ate decisions, when initiated, can generate later consequences fatal to the intent of the original. '!herefore, the scenario's elements set forth above are not only potentially dangerous ~ ~, but the consequences fran reactions to their hypothesized occurrences are also potentially dangerous.
'IWo postures are assessed to be best for the University System: Monitorin;] of each area of concern on a continual basis, an:i since all possibilities are not foreseeable, a.ssurce the posture of wariness to secorrlary consequences. 5ecorrlly, avoid the pressure to "do sorret.hin;]." overreactions in 1932-1934 to the lack of public support for Georgia's public colleges resulted in closin;] units an:i tenninatin;] disciplines which were sorely needed just a few years later.
46

Assessment, effectiveness, accountability, an::l responsibility are subjects receivirq higher educations' attention. '!he drivirq force behind these subjects' analyses is the force of "educational refonn". '!his tenn, refonn, is not as irxticative of the substance of the situation as is the basic need to develop a process to :reasure the, scholarly :results of the lOOnies invested in state-financed postsecoOOar'y education. '!he alleged deterioration of college-level leanring pranpted econanic forces an::l academic concerns to join in the search for funling "reality."
Responsibility, as a managerial concept, is practiced by campus executives but its elements are seldom examined in detail. Its definition usually is noted in its limitations, not in its function. '!he latter include the presence of official authority, fulfillment of duties, an::l responsibility on "how" the process is done and respect if "thi.rqs get done".
Accountability needs "proof" of what has been accamplished and how well the discharge of directly designated duties ensues. '!he accountable official
supervises directly am evaluations of accountability are SPecific am
fonnalized.
'!he president is responsible. '!hose officials reportirq to the president (or to aIr:f office) are accountable. '!he president IlUlSt defend his responsibility if the latter is in conflict. '!he accountable official IlUlSt energize OPerations and preserve her or his accountability area.
'!he principle guidirq academia is consensus, not confonnity. Responsible
am accountable officials should maintain an objective center for rational decision rnaki.n:J coupled with sensitive "touch" in the preservation of all the
rights, privileges and traditions connected to the Parties involved, i.e. "duties" are not the sole subject of concern.
'!he responsible president must insure that all due-process affinnative
action, am desegregation steps are in place and carried out with visible
support of these processes. '!he Budget's security and its applications denand
flexibility and fairness in action am responsibility for the financial
well-beirq of the unit has no exception.
'!he chief problem of the presence of responsibility is to maintain efficiency of operations when challenged by administrative "delegation upward". '!his phenomenon occurs when no decision (on which a fonnal appeal can be taken) is forthcoming from the hypothetical officer of administration. Without appeal status the ''matter'' rises up the ladder of consideration to be develoPed at any level of administration which assuIl3S its problem or issue contents.
47

Delegation upward is a fonn of abarrlornnent of authority stimulating the participants' concerns about the fail:ness of the process and the intelligence of the unit's administrators. Each duty station PersOnnel must feel personal concern with the bulk of knc:Jwledge and the entirety of the System.
Umer Cfumcellor Propst's wise leadership, the System's Advisory Council surveyed executive problems on october 10, 1986. Topics analyzed were (a) the duties of the Office of the O1ancel.lor as they relate to the Presidents (Policy 201.0303). (b) status, authority and responsibilities of the Presidents (Policy 203.0204) and administrative officers serving "at the pleasure of the President" (Policy 203.0302). The Council noted "tbat conunittees (in the units) are not action units" but are "reporting" agencies. Next to the budget, due-process, and affinnative action functions the presidential responsibility is the avoidance of the loss of a rational consensus position. 'Ihis responsibility reflects the fact tbat responsible officials invariably "set the tone" for the organization.
System effectiveness is being increased by special efforts of both extraordinary furxling and specialization of purPOSe and PersOnnel. Centers for special academic effort, located on a mnnber of the System's campuses, are improving the educational process un:ler their aegis. The "SPecial Funding Initiatives", FY 89 are designed for "quality improvement" and seven areas of higher education's concerns are receiving support.
Teacher assessment and course evaluations encounter opposition. It is said tbat grade inflation follows when teacher and course assessments begin. All units attempt to practice these course evaluations and personnel assessments. HCMever, until the tenninologies utilized are generally accepted, these campus practices will vary so as to prevent complete and unifonn analysis. "Effectiveness" results frc:an the "assessment" of the input-outcome ratio. Or, another definition is offered tbat the assessment of the total process involved dePen:ls on the accounting for the discharge of the academic responsibilities for tbat specific process. The problem grows because the tenns are continually expanded to include so many new, or differing concepts, tbat the procedure loses its rational claim to academia's attention.
HCM well responsibility accounts for results by way of their measured assessment creates the state of effectiveness.
The assessment team stresses that the most important measuring concept is "productivity". The University System has continued to change for the better and today ranks as a outstan:ling state system of higher education. Its "productivity level" is at an all-time high and full productivity of teaching, research, and service for Georgians is its goal. The University is on a high plateau of public appreciation and daily renews its conunitments to its many constituencies.
48

'!he University System of Georgia has achieved national prominence in the developnent of its systems for the delivay of educational savices to its
many constituencies. '!he assessment team's summary cxmclusions include
factors for the System's consideration an:i suggestions to advance the System's present attai.rnnents:

1. '!he state of Georgia requires a QJIE (Quality Higher Education) carmni.t:ment directly involv~ all segments of the population and the cooperation of all segments of state govenunent. '!he plan must
be nnl1.ti-year in both preparation an:i ilnplementation. '!hese once-
in-a-centul:y carmni.t:ments by the Board of :Regents will require an innovative tax-base an:i sustained, increased financ~ from the citizens of the state of Georgia.

2. '!he assessment research notes that the Georgia citizem.y has been more supportive of the University System at some points of time in history than dur~ other time frames. One response from System PersOnnel develOPed generally in the research process: "if we (the System) could find a more effective way of gett~ our story (the objectives an:i needs of the System) across to the public, our needs would be sufficed." '!his assessment recormnenjs a system-wide "creation of urgency" through the adoption of a nnl1.ti-year, foI:Ward Quality Higher Education thrust. '!he various fOlll'rlations and alumni resources of the many units should be invited to help supply and maintain this climate of urgency as a unified effort.
r
3. '!he use of enrollment mnnbers to engen:ler the budget should be subject to review. '!he System's 1982 budget fonnula is out of date as a basis for equitable computations for the University System's
financial needs. "Peer" institutional comparisons nationally with
respect to salary are in order, and the actual experience in compet~ for scholars should be the test, not enrollment numbers.

4. Extraordinary fun:ting, beyorrl the nonnal budget based on the 1982

fonnula, is necessary if Georgia is to achieve its minimum goals.

Increas~ the number of minority faculty in the University System

requires fun:ting of urrlergraduate scholarships at the earliest

possible date in the college career of the minority scholar.

SCholarships for health care professionals' are necessary to

increase their number. Extra fun:ting is required to support

advanced scientific research. '!hese are but a few examples of

L

fun:ting needs that cannot be satisfied through the 1982 fun:ting

fonnula.

5. Responsibility, Assessment, Measurement, Effectiveness, and Accountability are dominat~ terns in higher education. '!he optimum reality of the employment of these terns for the Board of
:Regents is urged as follows: '!he administrator is responsible for

49

measuri.n;J educational results to detennine the aCCOlll1tabilities of each level of effort ani each office's productivity. From such accountability effectiveness can be assessed with regards to the institution's total perfonnance. "Effectiveness" is an outcome, not a process.
6. Higher education is criticized for its "order-taking" attitude, which leads to in:li.fference thra1ghout the organization. '!he Board of Regents is urged to cultivate the honori.n;J of the System's objectives in order that this drivi.n;J force will stinnllate professional pride ani team effort. Honori.n;J of the objective develops the organizational outlook ani personal attitudes that produce positive results.
7. In higher education, ''what can be measured is measured and consequently is considered inp:>rtant by educators. What cannot be measured easily is considered uninp:>rtant ani therefore does not get measured. " '!he Board of Regents is urged to measure the previously urnneasurable, overcaning the difficulties, for the inclusion of such assessments is necessal:Y in detennining the System's total effectiveness level. In particular, it is urged that student "anxieties" be measured in order to discover the level of the "stay-in-college attitude. " unless student attitudes are detennined, the institution is in a "blirrl" situation.
8. '!he teacher who says, "if I :reach 10% of my students, I am a successful teacher," is an example of partial success. "Partial success" cannot be allowed to deter University System PersOnnel from their pursuits of excellence, and the partial success syndrome should be rejected as the measuri.n;J starx3ard for system operations or as a self-justification of mediocrity.
9. '!his a.ssessnent team fOUI'Xi no autanatic "p:>sture for change"
existent in the University System. one solution is to include in
the job descriptions of all administrative ani academic personnel a provision that the job routine should include an awareness of the need to innovate ani the need to cultivate acceptance of change for the new ani the better in educational processes.
10. '!he a.ssessnent team urges the Board of Regents to avoid excesses in relati.n;J to the Drivi.n;J Force of Educational Refonn which often takes the fonn of simplistic solutions described as ":ready, fire, aim". Obsessive and carp1lsive :reactions prarote "outside" assessment. '!he irrleperrlence of the University System, within the framework of compatible state govennnent envirornnents, can be lost to "total solutions." Self-assessment in the System has proven to be the best a.ssessnent. An investigati.n;J outside agency can give back only what it has already received from the unit being assessed. Exceptions in favor of the outside investigati.n;J agency arise when the subject academic climate lacks objectivity.
50

11. Higher education must be prepared to wit:hstarrl am to answer
criticism fran the nation's leadership. One criticism is that
higher education premises refoDlLS am corrections in its behavior
patterns but does not take the time later to prove the success or failure of such corrective urrlertaki.rgs. '!he Board of Regents is urged to be sure that the p.lblic is aware of their limited
objectives for corrections am inprovement am that the success or
failure of the innovated operations are fully reported to the p.lblic. '!he :reason that this is so inp:>rtant as a management principle for the Board of Regents is the maxim: "authority does not build organizations, confidence in the organization is the builder of the organization." Measured results, properly p.lblicized, will create confidence in the work of the System.
12. '!he university System of Georgia is an "ageirg institution. '!he assessment team describes the c::onlitions att:e.rmnt to this process
am in:licate the active System POSture required to offset negative
asPeCts of institutional agei.rg, the JOOSt inportant beirg regular
fonnalized institutional self-assessment.
13. '!his assessment's responses given by past am present System executives am by other experienced educators in:licate that all
academic errleavors are affected by "drivirg forces" which inpinge
on the institution's Ul'rlertaki.n3s. SUm forces, or tren::3s, affect
the envirornnents in which scholarship is ftmctioning. '!hese forces,
or tren::3s, can be utilized by intelligent canp.1S am System
management. If ignored, these forces, which can be external or internal to the organization, can produce institutional failure.
Two of these forces, 'f'OIl picking up SPeed am power, are (a) the drive for "educational reform" am (b) the drive for balancing the
national budget. '!he latter force affects all federal fun:iin:; of higher education directly which presently is below the level now so sorely needed.
14. '!his assessment notes the growing chall~e to p.lblic higher education by the c::cxrpetition of private education. In addition,
''privatization'' of state am goverrnnent ftmctions is increasing.
Turning over to private contractors the operation of non-academic
operations has been profitable for both the operator am the
college or university. However, the responsibility for the operation will rema.in always with the institution. Private companies are enlarging their own invesbnents in academic-related
training am special education for employees. "SChooling-for-
profit" continues to chall~e the p.lblic education danain.
15. 'nle assessment team E!11PlaSized that JOOSt serious educational ''prablens'' are actually paradoxes whim require resolution rather
than solution. Time am patience are required to rerocwe the c::onlitions producing the paradox's dilenuna am the Board of Regents
should continue its conscious awareness of the certain occurrence of this phenomenon in all matters Pertaining to the University System. Educators must resolve the professional issues which divide
51

them instead of conti.nuin;J personalized challerges that "keep the problem goin;".
16. '!he Board of Regents is urged to take a stron;J interest in urrlergraduate education. '!he battle for the Ini.rrls of future American citizens is bein; fought in the earliest years of the urrlergraduate experience.
17. '!he Board of Regents is urged to preserve the educational basics
am classics, am to pratDte ethics, classics am basics in as many
educational avenues in the System as will be fOllI'rl to be practical.
18. '!he Board of Regents is urged to avoid over-<::c:l1pirtmtalization of the curricultnn leadin; to trivialization of academic subject matter.
19. '!he assessment team in analyzin; national persPectives in higher education confronted the curricultnn question of ''what should be taught?" Bloom's thesis for a stnlctured curricultnn encounters
critics am the author of '!he Closirn of the American Mind is
rebutted as "a Platonist in an Aristotelian 'WOrld." (Rosenberry). '!he Board of Regents is challerged by these concepts of pragmatism
versus the liberal arts. Both are i.np:>rtant am it is suggested
that their reconciliation in a balanced umergraduate education be the Board's conti.nuin;J goal.
20. '!he predictions of future nmnbers for the professions, vocations
am occupations needed in the year 2000 am beyom should concern
the Board of Regents. Approximately 15 million jobs in
manufacturin; will be lost am 16 million new jobs will be added,
ninety percent of whim are predicted to be in the service fields. '!he awareness, therefore, of the eIIJi1asis upon PerSOnal services
irrlustries am businesses must concern the Board of Regents am the
curricultnn to be provided for the student of tcm>rrow.
21. aIsiness Education am Teamer Education are bein; challerged by
the greatest curricular d1.an;]es in the inunediate future. aIsiness education must PrePare graduates to cx::Il'Ipete ethically in a global
econany while protectin; am preservin; the envirornnent. '!he "frontier" economic envirornnent is lost am the exploitive
management nentality is no lOnJer awlicable or acceptable in business. Teacher Education faces the drive to further professionalization, increased umergraduate eIIJi1asis on subject
matter courses, am increased effectiveness in adlievin; learning objectives. Drs. Werner Rogers, Alton Crews, am Jeny Robbins dramatize the issues am problerrs in their analYSes fOllI'rl in the
awenlices.
22. '!he academic dropout problem is bein; challerged by the System through the initiation of "intervention, i.e., requirin; University
System PersOnnel to make regular visits to 5th am 6th grade students in the public sdlool sector to infonn am to corrlition
52

these yO\.ID3' students to urrlertake an early ccmnitInent to college
preparatozoy fulfillment. IJanjs-on contact of college am university
educators likewise will corxiition the latter to feel a responsibility to the K-12 sector. '!he University System must becane decidedly IlDre involved with the entire public education sector.
23. '!he assessment team sul:mi.ts that the reason dropouts fran the educational ladder are so rnnnerous can also serve to explain in large part, why so many college-age citizens reject college altogether: the college or university ove.t:Whelms the would-be
student. student anxieties abaIt mathematics am science deter
matriculation. Helping the student to make the transition, says Dr. Boyer, is the great need tcrlay. A ''hands-on'' concept, as opposed to the otherwise "order-t:.akin1" collegiate practice, justifies the Developnental studies Programs which are Pers011alized to a high
degree by SPeCial teachers am by tutorial opportunities. Entzy is easier, the courses "touch each other" am the lack. of course
canpart:mentalization all work to the student's advantage. It is
suggested that Developnental studies be continued am iITp:roved.
24. '!he University System is urged to adc: Pers011alized orientation procedures to rebut student fears abaIt collegiate experiences. In
educating the YO\.ID3' am vulnerable against the exposures to AILS, venereal disease, am potential criminal situations, one-on-one
instruction with dem:mstrated role-enacbnent techniques are emorsed. Personalized help on a direct contact basis is preferable
to mass instructional procedures am to the mass orientation of
inexperienced students.
25. '!he assessment team fO\.1OO. that "a beneficent experience" enjoyed by the student as a result of contact with the teacher, in or out of the classroom, is the best insurance against the dropout phenanenon. '!he mnnber of students nationally who drop out of school each year are projected to cost our society 250 billion
dollars over their lifetiIoos in lost productivity, PersOnal income,
am taxes paid. '!he achieving of the student's "beneficent
experience" must becane a prilne objective of the future for the System's leadership.
26. '!he assessment notes the current national concern about academic "Accountability" is justified but accountability is difficult unless the present student, or graduate, can be "tracked" into future Perfonnance patterns. Tracking of a college's student will be expensive but without it, institutional effectiveness lacks certainty. Desegregation directives incltxle the tracking requirement urrler certain situations.
27. Academic am professional proficiency through htnnan contact can
conflict with efficiency of educational operations. '!he student will renember the proficiency of the teacher IOD;J after the efficiency of the campus operation is forgotten. Whenever
53

proficiency of educational corrluct, in personal tenns, is threatened by the drive for monetary efficiency, the System must act to preserve the fOnIer whenever practicable.
28. '!he System must adequately recognize am reward faculty whose
prilnary contribution is mainly in effective teaching. Alternate methods of payment should be devised to insure that steady classroom Perfo:nnance can be maintained by skilled personnel who
~ize student-teadler professional contact. 'Ihe researchin:Jpilili.shin;J professional must likewise be rewarded, am this
academician's remuneration should not be less than the best peer c:x:I'lplrison.
29. 'Ihe assessment reveals anxieties on the part of the System's
faculties am staffs about "salary compressibility" am the annual
professional evaluation based on the "going market rate" for faculty in SPeCific areas of SPeCialization. '!he assessment defines these negative corrlitions. It is suggested that the Board of Regents review these phenomena affecting its System. "CeJrrpressibility" is caused by low initial System salaries advanced thereafter by limited percentage increments. If competitiveness with the ''market rate" is an i.nterrled salary scale element, it is suggested that the Board of Regents fonnally adopt this criterion by whidl salaries are to be detennined. otherwise, the System
should be prepared to lose its most prominent am prcx:1uctive
faculty to institutions whidl will compensate them in accordance with their market value.
30. Responsibility is charged to the President of eadl unit. EsPecially is the President responsible for: (a) the budget, its protection,
am sound application of its furx1si am (b) the hiring and
evaluating of all personnel directly or by the President's deputies. '!he operating functionary of eadl office charged with duty in the University System unit is accountable for the full completion of the scope of the duties of the said office. '!he Board of Regents is urged to make a stronger definition of all administrative responsibilities, faculty responsibilities, and committee responsibilities in the working of the System.
31. SUbordinate administrators create confusion when they "delegate upward" issues for their decision to the higher administrative levels thereby creating problems without ready solutions. "Delegation upward" destroys the opportunity for applying clear-cut due process Perfo:nnance in the ultimate decision procedure.
32. Ambiguous tenninology am semantic differences of words and tenns
of educational employment create trivialization, in:tifference, and praoote failure of accountability of functioning areas. Care should
be taken over the use of any am every word employed in the
instructions of the Regents regulations and policies. SPecificity of tenns should be insured by the highest possible precision in the
employment of technical words am meaning. Loosely used tenns
54

("w:ban", "special", "aCCOlmtability", etc.) confuse ani can hirrler the building of organizational confidence.
33. '!he assessment team's f:irrlin::Js en10rse the iIrportance of the leadership of the college ani university president. "Hands-on" daily operations develop the experience to analyze ani solve academic prableI'llS ani to recognize the structure of campus paradoxes. '!his assessment provided the System's cor:ps of presidents with twenty-five (25) major issues ani concerns presently confronting higher education. '!he presidents' carrlid ani perceptive reactions, given anonyIl'OUSly on each subject, are documented ani prove enlightening.
34. '!he earlier reports on the University System of Georgia resulted fram assessnents completed in 1933, 1943, ani 1949. '!he reports en'I};fulsized that the Board of Rfgents, to be successful, must guard the quality of the "absoluteness of the Board of Rfgents Wependence. " '!he secorrl order of emphasis dealt with the assessment teams' concerns about the place of junior (two-year) colleges in the System. '!he other emphases rested on the practical development of a state-supported, comprehensive, lani-grant university system. '!he present University System has fulfilled these goals. '!he two-year college presidents sotn"rl concerns for
their institutions' futures. '!he state of Califo:rnia, in its own
assessment of 1987, considered bringing their 106 two-year ani community colleges into a nore competitive posture.
35. '!he assessment team's serious review of the writings ani canunentaries on the probleI'llS of higher education points out that evidence of educational "planning" is aburrlanti educational "execution" results are scarce. '!he Board of Rfgents is encouraged to require that all "plans" for illlprovernent within the System be accorrpanied by complete pro fo:rna specifications for the plan's execution.
36. External accrediting agencies, athletic associations, goverrnnent regulato:ry bodies, ani sources of grants ani aids affect both institutions ani students. '!his assessment urges their close abseJ:vation ani the fullest participation of System personnel in conferring with ani guiding these ani other external sources of influence.
37. '!he assessment team noted that System personnel considered that data gathering systeI'llS could not as yet separate the mass of irrelevant material from that which was considered significant. On the other bani the sources of data were discouraged by not knowing if, or hOW', the data they supplied were being utilized. '!hese fimings suggest greater recognition should be awarded to data ani info:rnation source personnel. Most iIrportant to the University System's data capabilities is the federally funded National Education Network SfX)nsored by the Federal Coordinating Council on SCience, Engineering ani Tedmology (U. S. senate Bill 1097) which
55

will revolutionize the availability of intercollegiate info:rmation
potentials. '!he University System must be preparej to (a) join the
NebJork, (b) predetermine the System units' priorities of entry
into the System, am (c) develq> the optinum dlarge-for-use policy regarding the network utilization by its units am their
depart:Itents
38. When negative situations develq> simJltaneaJsly, injmy to higher education's entities escalates. '!he assessment team's analysis poses one of these acamulatirg, negative possibilities. '!he worst scenario develq>s t:hrc:ugh focusirg of negative factors in one time frame: A rise in tuition inhibitirg enrollment resulti.rg in campus incane over-budgeti.rg, a drq;> in the rn.mi:ler of the 18-25 age group thereby further limiti.rg enrollment, a rise in admission starrlards further limiti.rg atterrjanoe, a rise in general in the price-
inflation of all CXAIUILXlities am services required to operate the
institution (or System), a drq;> in federal fuming of higher education, a rise in student defaults on student loans' repayment schedules costi.rg the institution its eligibility to participate in the loan program. '!hese factors canbined could injure the affected
institution or System IOOSt seriously, am it is reco.mrne.njed that
the Board of Regents contirnle to be aware of this "law of secondary consequences" when making their decisions.
39. '!he University System is founi to be in good con:lition, well led by
its <llancellor, am with its interests, hopes, am promises well-
guarded by its Regents. A high plateau of public appreciation has
been attained am the citizens of Georgia are justified in their
pride in the System's operations am in their hopes for future
academic am scholarly greatness.
'!his prospective am retrospective System assessment confinns the need
for Georgia's educational leaders to exercise their vision to recognize am
meet the challenges of the future. serious questions persist am acute
actions are necessary to insure a positive course toward excellence by the University System. It is hoped that this assessment in some small way will serve as a stimJlus to the appropriate authorities to make the challenge to the state's population in the fonn of a Quality Higher Education conunitment. 'll1at there is great urgency for such conunitment is the prime firrling of this assessment. Urgent financial steps are needed to increase minority participation in the System's faculty ranks, to insure an adequate rn.mi:ler of
practici.rg health care professionals, am to acx::elerate the fuming of
advanced scientific am technological research. '!hese few objectives listed
~ do not begin to note the vast mnnber of krlow'ledge subjects required by
this advanci.rg imustrialized am specialiZed society. All require a long-
tenn Quality Higher Education conunitIle1t.
56

~I
'JHE a:teI'I'lUtlCfiAL ADlHRI:.lY OF 'JHE IIlARD OF ~
'!he authority am responsibilities of the University System of Georgia
Board of Regents derives fran the constitution of the state of Georgia, as
revised am approved in the 1982 general election. '!he authority am p::lWers
granted by the state constitution are as follows:
Paragrapt 1. University System of Georgia; Board of Regents. (a) '!here shall be a Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia which shall consist of one nenber fran each c::on;r.ressional district in the
state am five additional members fran the state at large, appointed by the Governor am confinned by the senate. '!he Governor shall not be a
nenber of said board. '!he members in office on June 30, 1983, shall serve out the remain:ler of their respective tenns. As each tenn of office expires, the Governor shall a};P)int a sucx::essor as herein provided. All such tenns of members shall be for seven years. Members
shall serve until their successors are a};P)inted am qualified. In the event of a vacancy on the board by death, resignation, rem:JVa1., or any
reason other than the expiration of a nenber's tenn, the Governor shall
fill such vacancy; am the person so appointed shall serve until confinned by the senate am, upon confinnation, shall serve for the
unexpired tenn of office.
"\
(b) '!he board of regents shall have the exclusive authority to create
nE!W' public colleges, junior colleges, am universities in the state of
Georgia, subject to approval by majority vote in the House of Repre-
sentatives am the senate. SUch vote shall not be required to change
the status of a college, institution or university existing on the
effective date of this COnstitution. '!he goverrnnent, control, am management of the University System of Georgia am all of the
institutions in said system shall be vested in the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.
(c) All appropriations made for the use of any or all institutions in the university system shall be paid to the board of regents in a 1tlI'l'p
sum, with the power am authority in said board to allocate am dis-
tribute the same among the institutions urrler its control in such way
am manner am in such amounts as will further an efficient am
econcmical administration of the university system.
(d) '!he board of regents may hold, p.JrChase, lease, sell, corwey, or
othez:wise d.isp:>se of public property, execute corweyances thereon, am
utilize the prcx::eeds arising therefran; may exercise the power of
eminent domain in the manner provided by law; am shall have such other powers am duties as provided by law.
57

(e) '!he board of regents may acx::ept bequests, donations, grants, arxl transfers of larxl, buildin;Js, arxl other property for the use of the University System of Georgia.
(f) '!he qualifications, <:x:IrlpeIlSation, arxl reooval frcm office of the nenbers of the board of regents shall be as provided by law (Constitution of the state of Georgia, Article VIII, section IV)
'!he authority arxl responsibilities of the Board of Regents have evolved
over a sixty-five-year period. '!he Constitution of 1877 (adqJted in the lX'St-
civil War era arxl influenced greatly by Senator Robert Tcx::Inbs) provided for schoolirg in the "elements of an En:Jlish education only" arxl for "donations" by the general assembly to the University of Georgia. As a result of this short-sightedness, the developnent of education within the state was greatly iIrpaired. No provision for state supported high schools was made until the early years of the 20th centmy when amen::hnents to the 1877 Constitution allowed the general assembly to delegate the levy of taxes for "educational purposes" to counties (Orr, History of Education in Georgia, 1950).
'!he origin of a centralized governing board for all public institutions of higher education was part of a lOOVement for the reorganization of state government that began in the 1920s. Specific :rrention of a state Board of Regents was made as early as 1919 when Goven1or Hugh I:brsey (1917-1921), as Olainnan of the state Budget arxl Investigatirg cemnittee, stated:
we are decidedly of the opinion that it YJOUld be in the best interest of our higher institutions of learni.rJ if a small Board of
Control or state Board of Regents should displace the anny of trustees now appointed largely by reason of political support (Report of Budget arxl Investigatirg Ccmnittee, 1919, p. 15).
In 1922 Governor '!harnas W. Hardwick (1927-1931) cx:mnissioned a study of state govenunent with specific :rrention that the state was "board-ridden, cx:mnission-ridden, arxl trustee-ridden." '!he General Assembly took no action on the rec:x:::amneI'rtions of the consultants hired by Governor Hardman, but public support for siInplification arxl reorganization gained rromentum five years later. In 1927 the Georgia League of Women Voters, the Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Georgia, arxl the Institute of citizenship at Emol:Y actively supported reduction of the state's ninety-plus agencies to twelve or fourteen departments. At that tiJne, the University of Georgia had 331 trustees for its various branches (Gosnell, Govenunent arxl Politics, 1936, pp.97-98).
In 1925 the report of a state smvey cx:mnittee, appointed by Governor Clifford Walker (1923-1927) arxl chaired by C. MlJrI:hey Carxller, stated that "possible friction or rivall:Y between the higher institutions arxl some duplication of work could be elilninated, arxl much better results for all obtained, if there were one Board of Trustees or Regents " (Report of state survey Ccmnittee, p.8). '!he cx:mnittee added that proper safeguards should be involved in appointments, arxl the alumni of no one institution should dominate.
58

In 1929 the Georgia Conunission To Sinplify am Coordinate the Operations
of Govennnental Depart:lrents was appointed by Governor L.G. Hardman (1927-
1931) am chaired by Ivan Allen, Sr. '!he cemnission recxmnerrled a depart:lrent
of state Govennnent to be kr10wn as the "Board of Regents of the University
System of Georgia" (Plan of Sinplification am Coordination, p.23). '!he University System should consist of the University of Georgia am all its
branches. '!he plan for reorganization was drawn up by Clainnan Allen, HOOPer
Alexamer, am CUllen Gosnell am an ac:x:x:l1pUlYiD} legislative bill was
drafted by a cc:mnittee of the Atlanta lawyers' Club (Gosnell, Govennnent and Politics, 1936).
'!he bill for reorganization was defeated in the House by a vote of 109 to 81, but the essential features of the bill were revised by a legislative
cormnittee appointed by Speaker Ridlard B. Russell, Jr. am chaired by Hugh
Peterson who has been a member of the Allen cemnission.
When Russell was elected Governor (1931-1933), he rePeated his pledge to reorganize state govennnent. '!he Reorganization Act of 1931 quickly followed
am with the abolishment of 53 state boards, cc:mnissions, am bureaus the
powers previously vested in 27 boards of trustees was consolidated under a siD}le Board of Regents. (saye, A constitutional Histo+y, 1948).
cansibItiCXla1 status
'!he first Board of Regents thus consisted of eleven members, one each
from the ten COngressional districts am one member at large who served at
the pleasure of the Governor. Members of the Board were appointed by the Governor (with consent of the senate) for four tenns. '!hey elected their own
chainnan am were authorized to select a secretary.
with subsequent mxli.fications, such as an increase in membership and inclusion of the governor as an ex officio member, the Board of Regents operated under statuto:ry authority tmtil August 3, 1943, when the citizens of Georgia ratified a constitutional amenjment establishiD} the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia as a constitutional body. Two years later the ratified amendment was incorporated into the state constitution of 1945. '!he membership of the Board was increased to fifteen, one each from
the ten congressiOnal districts am five fran the state at large; the
Governor was excluded as an ex officio member.
'!he events leadiD} to the Board of Regents' consitutional status were: (1) "political interference" in 1941 on the part of the governor in the dismissal of several administrative official within the University System, (2) dis-acx::reclitation of University System institutions in 1942 by the
Southern Association of COlleges am Schools, am (3) the winning of the
1942 gubernatorial election by a carrlidate pranisiD} to restore acx::reclitation
iImnedi.ately upon taking office. '!he House am senate bills for the
constitutional amendment were PasSed without a dissentiD} vote within eleven
days of the new Governor's oath of office. Upon PasSage of the House and senate bills, the Governor appointed a new Board of Regents, reinstatiD} several members who had been resigned under partisan political pressure.
59

'!he decisiveness of the gubernatorial election, legislative cooperation, arrl voter ratification was irrlicative of the Regents' status as public leaders arrl the place of higher education within the state's social, economic, arrl cultural life. It is altogether possible that Georgians have never taken quicker, m:::>re decisive action on a public issue of crucial i:rrp:>rtance.
'!he CCIlstituti.cn of 1945
In March 1943 the General Assembly passed a resolution providing for a canunission to revise the state's Constitution. '!he canunission, consisti.n;J of 26 members arrl led by Governor Ellis Arnold (1943-1947), submitted its revision to the General Assembly in January 1945, arrl on August 7, 1945 the new Constitution was approved by the voters of the state. More than 90 percent of its provisions were drawn fran the amerrled Constitution of 1877.
'!he constitutiOnal authority of the Board of Regents was unaltered. Article VIII, section IV provided for the "the govennnent, control, arrl managenent" of the University System arrl "all of its institutions" by a fifteen-member Board that was representative of the ten Congressional Districts arrl the state at large. Appointments to the Board were for tenns of seven years each. In the event of vacancies caused by resignation, death, or from other causes other than the expiration of tenn, the Board of Regents were authorized to elect a successor who would hold office until the errl of the next session of the General Assembly (this provision was altered in the revision of 1982).
other differences between the 1982 Constitution arrl the 1945 Constitution include "approval by majority vote in the House of Representatives arrl the Senate" of new public colleges, junior colleges, arrl universities created in the Board's exercise of its "exclusive authority" to create such institutions. Approval by the General Assembly was not required in Board decisions to chan;Je the status of any institution existi.n;J prior to the 1982 Constitution.
Powers am. Rllicies of the Regents
'!he Board of Regents executes its Constitutional Responsibilities in two primary ways: (a) by adopti.n;J policies to provide general guidelines for govenU.rg the University System, arrl (b) by electi.n;J a O1ancellor of the System arrl, urrler his supex:vision, presidents of the institutions who are given the responsibility arrl the authority for the administration of the System in accord with the adopted policies (Rllicy Manual, Board of Regents [2nd ed.], 1982, p.1.).
Powers of the Board: '!he Board of Regents shall have power: (1) to make such reasonable rules arrl regulations as are necessary for the perfonnance of its duties; (2) to elect or appoint professors, educators, stewards, or any other officers necessary for all of the schools in the University System, as may be authorized by the General Assembly, to discontinue or remove them as the good of the System or any of its schools or institutions may require, arrl to fix their compensations; (3) to establish
60

all such schools of learning or art as may be useful to the state, and to organize the same in the way nx>st likely to attain the erx:ls desired; (4) to exercise any power usually granted to such cx:)]:poration, necessary to its usefulness, which is not in conflict with the constitution and laws of this state. (Acts 1931, pp.7, 24)
'!he Board of Regents shall have such other and further powers and duties as may nt:M or hereafter be provided by law or the state constitution.
Officers of the Board: Officers of the Board of Regents shall be Olainnan, Vice Olainnan, Olancellor, Executive Vice Olancellor, Executive
secretary, and Treasurer. (bylaws, Article IV, section 1; BR Minutes, 1950-
51, pp. 67-68)
01ainnan: '!he Olainnan shall be a member of the Board, shall preside at the meeti.n;Js of the Board with the authority to vote, shall appoint
members of all camnittees, am shall designate the chainnan of each
cxmnittee. He shall be an ex officio member of all camnittees with the authority to vote. '!he Olainnan of the Board, upon the authority of the
Board am in the name of Board of Regents of the University System of
Georgia, may execute all notes, l:x:>rrls, deeds, contracts, and other documents requiri.n;J the seal. '!he Olainnan shall submit the annual report of the Board of Regents to the Governor. (Bylaws, Article IV, section 5)
Vice Olainnan: '!he Vice Olainnan shall be a member of the Board am
shall perfonn the duties and have the powers of the Olainnan duri.n;J the absence or disability of the Olainnan. (Bylaws, Article IV, section 6)
Olancellor: '!he Board of Regents shall elect the Olancellor who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board. In case of any vacancy in the chancellorship, the Board shall narne an Acti.n;J Olancellor who shall serve until the office of the Olancellor shall be filled.
'!he Olancellor shall be the chief administrative officer of the University System. He shall be the chief executive officer of the Board
of Regents am, as such, shall perfonn all of those duties that are
prescribed by the Board. He shall be resp::>nsible to the Board for the
pranpt am effective execution of all resolutions, policies, am rules am regulations adopted by the Board for the orderi.n;J and the operation of the entire University System am for the government of any and all of
its institutions. His discretionary powers shall be broad enough to enable hint to discharge these responsibilities ... (BR Minutes, 19801981, p.241)
Executive Vice Olancellor: '!he Executive Vice Olancellor shall be
elected by the Board, upon the recanunenjation of the Olancellor, am
shall not be a member thereof. the Executive Vice Olancellor will act
as deputy and in the Olancellor's absence will SPeak for hint. All members of the staff of the Olancellor's office will report to the
Executive Vice Olancellor and he will be resp::>nsible for organizi.n;J the work of the staff and for its oversight. '!he Executive Vice Olancellor
61

will review all appoin'bnents am budget anexhnents in the University
System. He will arranJe for the preparation of budgets, building Board
of Regents. While the presidents nust always have direct am ilmnediate
access to the O1ancellor on any matter, the Executive Vice O1ancellor will earlY on the day-to-day operations with the presidents as deputy to the O1ancellor. (BR Minutes, 1970-71, W. 24-25)
Executive secretary: '!he Executive secretary shall be elected by the
Board, upon the recammendation of the chancellor, am shall not be a
member thereof. He shall be placed urrler borrl in an arrount to be detenni.ned by the board. He shall be present at all meetings of the
Board am of cannnittees except as otherwise detenni.ned by the Board. He
shall keep an accurate record of the prcx::eedi.n3s of the meetings of the
Board am of committees am shall be responsible for maintaining the
Policy Manual. He shall receive am process all applications for
reviews am other appeals sul::mitted to the Board in accordance with the
By-laws am this Policy Manual '!he Executive secretary shall keep in
safe custody the seal of the Board. He shall affix the seal to those dc:x::uments requiring it. When it is affixed to a dc:x::ument, it shall be
attested by his signature. He shall be the custodian of all deeds am
evidence of title to the tangible property of the University System. He
shall act as general counsel for the Board am Shall advise am consult
with the O1ancellor am the several institutions of the Board on all
legal matters; he shall sez:ve as the principal liaison between the Board
am the Atto:rney~'s office. He shall perfonn such other duties
am have such other powers as the Board may authorize or as may be
assigned to him by the O1ancellor. (By-laws, Article IV, section 8)
Treasurer: '!he Treasurer shall be elected by the Board, upon the recammendation of the O1ancellor; he shall not be a member thereof. He shall be present at all meetings of the Board except as otherwise detenni.ned by the Board. He shall be placed urrler borrl in an amount to be d.etennined by the Board (BR Minutes, 1980-81, p. 241)
Procedural. Policies
'!he Board of Regents, under its bylaws, meets nonthly on the secorrl Wednesday. Special meetings may be called by the C1ainnan upon written request to the Executive secretary, or by the Executive secretary upon written requests from four or nore members of the Board. All meetings are held in the Board Room of the Regents unless otherwise detenni.ned by the
Board. Meetings begin at 10:00 a.m. with eight members of the Board
constituting a quorum. Parliamentary rules of the state Senate are followed in corrlucting the business of the Board.
starrling Committees of the Board are: (1) Executive Committee, consisting of the C1ainnan, the ilmnediate past C1ainnan, the Vice C1ainnan,
am the O1ancellor ex officio non-voting; (2) Connnittee on Buildings am
Groun::ls; (3) Connnittee on Desegregation; (4) Connnittee on Education; (5)
Committee on Finance am Business; (6) Connnittee on Health Profession; (7)
Connnittee on Visitation. Each stan:ling committee consists of not less than three, noz:. nore than five members. (Policy Manual, 1982, pp. 14-22).
62

RefelOences
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. '!he PoliCY Manual (2m ed.). Atlanta: USGA, 1982.
Gosnell, CUllen B. Govennnent ani Politics of Georoia. New York: '!homas Nelson ani Sons, 1936.
saye, Albert Beny. A Constitutional History of Georoia. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1948.
Orr, Dorothy. A History of Education in Georoia. C11apel Hill : University of North carolina Press.
63

aJAPIm II
A ~ VIEli OF 'DIE UNIVER>I'lY SYSTEH'S
aG\NIZATIQ{ AND IEVEIOIMENr
"He who considers things in their first growth am origin
will obtain the clearest view of them." (Aristotle, Politics)
'!he university System of Georgia became a reality on August 28, 1931 when Governor Ridlard B. Russell, Jr. signed an act of the General Assembly "To siInplify the Operations of the Executive Branch of state Goverrnnent." '!he Board of Regents was officially organized on January 1, 1932, the first day
of its existence, am consisted of eleven members appointed by the Goven1or
who served as an ex officio member. Prominent members of the first Board were cason callaway, Martha Berry, Ridlard B. Russell, Sr., George C. Woodnlff,
am Rrilip weltner. '!he first elected chainnan of the Board of Regents was W. D. Anierson of Macon am the first appointed chancellor was O1arles M.
Snelling, fo:rmer president of the University of Georgia. Rrilip Weltner was
elected vice-chainnan am Earle Cocke, Sr. was appointed secretary-treasurer.
'!he institutions am agencies for which the new Board was responsible
were specified as:
(a) School of Tedmology, Atlanta (b) COllege of Agriculture, Athens (c) South Georgia Teachers COllege, statesboro (d) Georgia state COllege for Men, Tifton
(e) state Agricultural am Nonral COllege, Americus
(f) Fourth District A&M School, carrollton
(g) Georgia vocational am Trades School, Monroe
(h) Georgia Irrlustrial COllege, Barnesville (i) Seventh District A&M School, J?a.rler Springs (j) Eighth District A&M School, Madison (k) Ninth District A&M School, Clarkesville (1) Tenth District A&M School, Granite Hill (m) South Georgia state COllege, DJuglas (n) Middle Georgia COllege, Cochran
(0) ~on state Nonral am Irrlustrial COllege
(p) Georgia state Women's COllege, Valdosta (q) state Teachers COllege, Athens (r) state Medical COllege, Augusta (s) North Georgia COllege, Dahlonega
(t) School of Agriculture am Mechanical Arts, Forsyth
(u) Georgia Irrlustrial and Nonral COllege, Albany (v) Georgia Irrlustrial and Nonral COllege, savannah (w) Georgia Experiment Station, Griffin (x) COastal Plans Experiment Station, Tifton (y) Georgia state COllege for Women, Milledgeville
64

IeaI:gani..zat: and <b:mlinat.:icn: 1932-1950
'!he new Board menibers elected their own officers ani established their own policies. '!he Regents inherited fran their several preceding boards of trustees financial difficulties. For the years 1929-1931, the Regents inherited outstan:iin;J debts of $1,074,415 ani 26 institutions whose locations were "known only to a few" ani whose qlerations were "known to no one person or group" (1932 Annual Report).
'!he first Board of Regents lOOVed quickly to obtain $20,000 from the General Education Board for a CCIl'prehensive smvey by "disinterested system educators ani econanists." '!heir objective was to make the University ''nDre efficient fran an educational viewpoint ani llDre econanical fran a taxpayer's point of view" (1932 Annual Report). '!he furrled smvey began in May, 1932 ani was corx:::luded in February, 1933. Members of the survey committee were: George F. Zook, president of the University of Akron; L.D. Coffman, president of the University of Minnesota; Olarles H. Judd, dean of education at the University of Chicago; Edward C. Elliott, president of Purdue University; ani George A. Works, professor of higher education at the University of Chicago (ani dlainnan). '!his "smvey" group had great effect on actions of the Board of Regents for years to come.
Anong the Board's many acx:::omplishments in its first year were the requirement of surety borns for institutional dePOSits in local banks, the consolidation of all insurance for the separate institutions, the discontinuance of institution-owned autaoc>biles, ani CCIl'pletion of its first year without borrowing llDney. Despite receiving only 86 percent of its state appropriations for 1932, the Board reduced its in:lebtedness to $702,502.
Constructive measures were taken to integrate the three separate Athens institutions into one. Fanns and dairies were c::anbined, ani all dining halls ani donnitories were placed l.mder one management. Policies were established whereby faculty salaries would be decreased proportionately to reductions in state appropriations. For 1932 this IOOallt a 14 percent reduction in faculty salaries which was in addition to other reductions imposed to balance institutional budgets. '!he total reduction in institutional operations for the year was $507,739.
Policies were established whereby heads of institutions would harrlle all personnel grievances ani settle other internal difficulties. '!he Regents would hear canplaints only when other remedies had been exhausted ani when appeals were "reduced to writing." '!he Regents heard only two appeals in 1932, both of which resulted in sustai.rnnent of the president's decision.
one institution, the 10th District A&M SChool at Granite Hill, was
closed in 1932. Foremost among the Regents' ~tions to the Governor was authority to "consolidate institutions, susperrl arrl/or discontinue their operation, merge departments, inaugurate or discontinue courses, abolish or add degrees." '!he re-organization of institutions would be less drastic if done by the Regents instead of the General Assembly. Given such authority, the Regents would eliminate institutions offering only high school work ani
65

rem:we secorrlary schoolwork from other institutions (with the exception of the three black institutions) .
Also sought by the new Board was a siIgle awropriation from the state arrl the authority to allocate amjor distrib.Ite such furrls as the Regents saw
fit. sane institutions had furrls in excess of their necessities while others
were in want. rrhe state legislature did not have time to ascertain insti-
tutional needs, but the Regents did. In ~ a reduction of state awropriations in 1933 (fran 1.9 million to 1.5 million dollars) the Regents deIIDnstrated awareness of the state's financial depression but added that they could not operate on the lesser OOdget without the requested authority to re-organize.
other rec::amroernations made by the Regents were: (1) a fiscal year begirming on July 1st arrl en:lirg the followiIg Jtme 30th; (2) annual awropriations accx:>rding to the new fiscal year; arrl (3) a special appropriation of $100,000 for repairs to buildllgs. rrhe special appropriation for repairs was the only recarrmenjation not honored by the state legislature.
In closiIg its first annual report, the Regents stated their cormnitment to an "Educational System, in fact, as well as in name" arrl their encouragement of "diversity of educational effort because of the diversity of human needs." '!he Regents, however, did not "subscribe to the idea of multiplyiIg courses arrl takiIg on new fangled educational ideas because some great university, with millions of dollars of en::lowment furrls, is exper:i1nentiIg in these fields." '!he Board did subscribe to "a sense of obligation to their state" on the part of students arrl the necessity of local pride giviIg way to the best educational interests of the whole state (1932 Annual Report).
A New University Syst:an
with the additional powers authorized by the state arrl the new recommemations of its prestigious SUl:vey cemnittee, the Board of Regents created in 1933 a strengthened system of senior arrl junior colleges. Relinquishing their previous responsibility for secorrlary schoolwork, the Regents closed A&M schools in carrollton, PovJder SpriIgs, Madison, arrl Clarkesville, plus the vocational & Trade SChool at Monroe. '!hey discontinued high school coursework at South Georgia Teachers' College in statesboro, North Georgia, Georgia Southwestern, Middle Georgia, arrl South Georgia colleges but
continued such work at the institutions in savannah, Albany, arrl Forsyth.
'!he ~en state Nonna! & Irrlustrial College was discontinued arrl a junior college (West Georgia College) established in carrollton. Similarly, the Georgia state College for Men in Tifton was abolished arrl established in its place was Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College. senior college work was also eliminated at North Georgia, giviIg the state a total of eight two-year colleges (six for whites arrl two for blacks).
seven institutions were classified as four-year institutions arrl included the newly rrerged University of Georgia (includiIg the agricultural college arrl the nonna! school all in Athens), Georgia Tech, Georgia state
College for waren (Milledgeville), Georgia state wanans College (Valdosta),
66

South Georgia Teachers College, UGA SChool of Medicine (Augusta), am Georgia
state Irrlustrial College (savannah). Creatin;J the Evenir:q SChool of Commerce (or Division of Adult Education of the university System of Georgia), the
Regents added an eighth four-year institution am, with the two agricultural
experiment stations, brought the total rn.nnber of university System units to eighteen (1933 Annual RePOrt).
In his 1936 annual report, Cl1ancel.lor S.V. sanford announced that the
reorganization of the university System had been cx:rrpleted am added that "no
further c.harges are considered necessary." 'n1e 1936 annual report was the
fifth fran the Regents, the first to Goven1or E.D. Rivers, am the secorrl to
be written by Chancellor sanford. It was also the first annual report to include P'lotogra.];ils of buildings on the various campuses. Chancellor sanford sid~ the question of the New Deal's role in the university System's
"econanic recovery" am addressed the IlDre pressin;J educational issues facin;J
the state's system of ~lic higher education. Arron;)' the many educational
needs recognized were: (a) IlDre attention to guidance am counselin;J, (b) a
graduate school of "high standing," (c) graduate work for teachers, (d) the
deman:i for trained men am women in social service (or rural sociology), am
(e) IlDre adequate libraries (including the best library of Georgia history
am literature in the country) .
'Ihe First Works ~
'!he reorganization of higher education in Georgia was significantly influenced by the survey Committee report submitted in 1933. Arron;)' the rec::arranerx3ations not follC1Ned by the Regents, however, were several concenring the canposition of the Board. '!he membership of the Board of Regents, accordin;J to the survey Committee, should consist of ten or twelve members
appointed to lOn;)'er terms (either ten or twelve years) am should not include
the Gov'en1Or as an ex officio member. Regents appointed to the Board should represent the state's economic arrl cultural interests but not its con;JreSSional districts. '!he reasonin;J of the consultants was explicit: the chief executive should not appoint a majority of the Regents or exercise urrlue influence. Citin;J the National Association of state Universities, the survey Committee pointed out that "the theory (of ex officio membership) is thoroughly UIlSClllrrl, the practice is even 'WOrse."
'!he Regents did follC1N (eventually) the rec::arranerx3ation that the Chancellor, arrl not the C1ainnan of the Board, should be the chief executive officer. '!hey were IlDre reluctant, however, in appointin;J an executive secretary "properly trained in educational arrl statistical techniques, (arrl) charged with the necessary duty of assemblin;J, analyzin;J, arrl inter-
pretin;J the regular am special reports of the operations of the several
branches of the University System" (1933 Annual RePOrt)
Also followed was the reconnnendation that "responsibility for work at the high-school level" be placed on local school authorities. Ignored was a similar rec::arranerx3ation that the "local character of the junior college arrl the functions which it has in the program of education point to the desirability of the transfer of the junior college to local aJImtll.U1ities"
67

(p.29). Referring to a cx:mnission report in califonria, the SUrvey committee acknowledged. a national trerrl for jl.llli.or ex>lleges as "the last stage of the
UJ;Per or sec::ornary school Period of c:x::mtDl1 schooling" am stated that as jl.llli.or ex>lleges became an integral Part of sec::ornary education, they should
be placed umer the state Board of F.ducation.
Although the 1933 smvey report rec::cmnerrled the reduction of the University System of Georgia to no IlDre than nine or ten l.llli.ts, the CXJluposition of the System became six senior institutions, six jl.llli.or
ex>lleges, three historically black institutions, am tTNo experiment stations.
Yielding to local pressures, the Regents resorted to such actions as closing Georgia state COllege for Men in Tifton (a four-year institution) but opening Abraham Baldwin Agricultural COllege (a bJo-year ex>llege)
In similar manner, the Regents transferred General University Extension
fran the University of Georgia am the Evening SChool of Corrnnerce from
Georgia Tech to an irxleperrlent l.llli.t that became the University System of Georgia center.
'!he secan l'>I:ks Report
In 1940 the Board of Regents obtained :furrls again from the General Education Board for "a re-study" of ex>n::litions in the University System.
Dr. George A. Works was employed as director of the smvey, am his report,
delayed l.mtil 1943, gave an overview of higher education in Georgia on the eve of World War II. Drawing heavily fran his earlier report, Works' seex>rrl report dOCl.IIOOl1ted the limited support given ~lic higher education in the
depression years am defined the prablens am issues that would ex>nfront the
University System when the national emergency was over. No notice appeared
in the projections of the future issues of desegregation am the coming
affinnative action.
'!he limited support given public higher education was shown by a reex>rd of ten ex>nsecutive years in which the state :furrls receiVed by the University System fell short of the :funjg appropriated by the General Assembly. Not until 1940 did the University System receive its full state appropriation of $1. 75 million. Failure to implement the recamnerrlations of the earlier Works Report was shown by rePeated recamnerrlations: (a) to st.rerl3then the Olancellor's professional staff through the appoin'bnent of a vice chancellor
responsible for fiscal am budgetal:y matters; (b) to adopt unifonn budgetal:y fonns am procedures for the separate l.llli.ts am a complete, ex>nsolidated
budget for the University System; (c) to separate purchasing for the
University System fram the office of the state purchasing agent; am (d) to
develop a IlDre serviceable cormnittee structure to assist the O1ancellor in his systemwide administrative duties.
In reviewing the status am support of the three state-supported
ex>lleges for blacks, Works reaffirmed the earlier recamnerrlation that "a IlDre liberal policy of support" was needed. '!he need for better support was shown
by the low faculty salaries in the black ex>lleges - am the smvey committee
asked that ''Irore ample state support" be ];Xlt as "the first am rrost ilnportant
recamnerrlation of this section" of their report. Significantly, the 8ecorrl
68

Works Report :rec::cmterXied: (a) the material ~ of undergraduate, general education programs at the three institutions; (b) the strengthening
of professional trai.ninJ in agriculture, hane econanics, arrl teacher
education; arrl (c) the provision of scholarships for graduate arrl professional study. Within these rec:cmnernations the report noted that Atlanta university "is in a position to Ireet the needs of students in certain fields of graduate arrl professional study" arrl asked the O1ancellor, alorg with the three presidents of the black institutions, to prepare a list of such institutions acceptable to the Board of Regents.
In the area of student services, the Works Report suggested that progress had been made - but again, significant progress had not been made. To meet such lack of progress, the survey staff recx:mnerxied the a~intJnent of "a coordinator of student personnel services" but hastened to add that "an Assistant to the O1ancellor arrl a D.lsi.ness Manager" should be given precedence. Notirg that the University System had aR?Ointed a University Examiner to develop "through tests arrl rreasurements a c:anpetent program of student personnel arrl guidance" (p. 92), the survey staff errlorsed the need for ":inquiry arrl experimentation" in student personnel work arrl specifically pointed out the i.Irp)rtance of diagnosirg readirg disabilities, poor study habits, arrl other leanri.ng difficulties that students may have had. Further rec::anmerrlations included: (a) the developnent of a statewide testirg program in the high school, (b) a special study of student financial aid, (c) the "cooperative intel:pretation" of the University System through better p.lblicity arrl conferences of high school principals arrl CXJUIlSe1ors, (c) better housirg for students, (e) arrl a unifonn system of application blanks, student record fonns, etc.
Graduate education arrl research were treated in the second Works Report in a chapter entitled ''Miscellaneous Problems." Graduate instruction was offered exclusively at the University of Georgia arrl Georgia Tech. Discussed at greater lergth in the same chapter were the problems of the University System of Georgia center, the only unit of the University System not accredited by the Souther.n Association of Colleges arrl Schools. Am:lrg the problems discussed by the Works survey Cormnittee were: (a) the dubious offerirg of three years of coursework in the liberal arts at the center, (b) the heavy reliance on part-time instructors drawn from the business ccmnunity, (c) excessive teachirg loads, arrl (d) the institution's sole dependence on student fees for incane.
'!he concludirg chapter of the second Works Report dealt with the finances of the University System arrl depicted in detail the financial support given p.lblic higher education in Georgia. Virtually all data were for 1940-41, the last year of operations before the nation's entry into World War II.
'!he figures told a discouragirg stozy. With a per capita incane of only $297, Georgians could look only to Mississippians, Arkansans, Alabamians, and South carolinians as makirg less. Yet, Georgians spent only 39 cents each on higher education while their four sister states spent at least 53 cents (Mississippi) arrl as nnlch as 84 cents (AlabaIra). As the largest unit of the university System, the University of Georgia enrolled the full-time
69

equivalent of 3,901 students but had only $1.08 million to spen:l on their education. west Georgia, the smallest unit, had only $70,582 to spen:l.
'!he total cost per student-credit-hour in the University System ran;red fran $6.15 at the University to $2.25 at the University System Center. From the University's per-student-credit-hour cost, 49 cents was spent on administration ani general overhead; $1.13 was spent on plant operation ani nai.ntenance; 43 cents was spent on the librcu:y; leaving $4.10 for instruction. Eadl of 'the junior colleges spent less than $2.00 per studentcredit-hour.
F\1ll-ti.me-student expentitures ran;red fran $277 at UGA to $101 at the University System Center. Only the University, Georgia Teadlers, ani Georgia state WcInen's COllege in Valdosta, aIlDrg the senior institutions, spent as mud1 as $10 per student for books. within the University of Georgia, instructional costs ran;red fran $17.50 per student-credit-hour in education to $2.28 in journalism.
'!he SUI:vey staff strove to dem:>nstrate the merits of unit costs in financing ani budgeting. '!hey :reconunemed that eadl institution submit its annual budget to the Regents in terns of unit costs, using the full-timestudent equivalent as the basis. '!hey make a particularly strong case for increased support by pointing out that the actual appropriation to higher education had decreased since the University System was created, having been reduced 40 percent in a single year (1938-1939). Appropriations were reduced despite an increase of 70 percent in student enrollment (from 8,035 students in 1933-1934 to 13,736 in 1940-1941).
'!he final rec::omrnerrlations made by the c::amni.ttee called for increased salaries for administrators, faculty, ani staff; increased support for graduate instruction; m:::>re liberal support for the Division of General Extension ani the University System of Georgia Center; ''mudl m:::>re ample facilities ani provision for instruction" for the higher education of blacks; ani the addition of $50,000 to furrls for miscellaneous pm:poses. If granted, the suggested budgetary increases would come to $600,000 ani have raised the University System's then current income to a total of $2.5 million.
Recurrent'IheDe; ani Issnes in the ~tia1, Planrti.rg, ani GcJvel:naIre of the University System of Georgia
'!he early years of the Board of Regents ani the two Works reports are reviewed. at length because: (1) they depict the difficulties of establishing a statewide system of public higher education urrler extremely adverse corx:litions, ani (2) they identify many recurring problems, issues, and concerns in public higher education. Eadl of these problems, issues, and/or concerns were considered by later Boards ani survey c::amni.ttees - ani eadl was dealt with in terns of the corx:litions ani situations prevailing at the
time.
Recurring educational issues were fOlJI'rl in: (1) agriculture, (2) ergineering, (3) business, (4) teadler education, (5) minority access, and (6)
70

general education. Organizational arrl governance problerrs were fourrl in: (7) the geograprlcal distribution of institutions arrl programs, (8) financing arrl :funiing, (9) student services, (10) the mission of bIo-year colleges, (11) programs for part-tiIre, adult students, arrl (12) the training of Iilysicians arrl nurses. Each of these issues or problerrs had a direct bearing on the quality of postsecorx3ary education arrl on the p.1blic's charging expectations for education beyom the high school.
(1) Agriculture: '!he collective WOrks Reports noted the University System's need to integrate resident instruction, extension services, arrl applied research in agriculture. '!he need for integration of these functions was identified as the lOOSt important issue faced by the Board of Regents in the field of agriculture. As for veterinary medicine, it was recx::mne.nied that its professional curriculum at the University of Georgia be discontinued. 'Ihis recantne1'}jation for such tmification was eventually resolved in 1951, but the role arrl scx:>pe of agricultural programs continued to be a recurrent theme.
(2) Engineerim: In 1940 the lOOSt pressing problem in ergineering education was the inadequacy of its :funiing. Georgia Tech's annual experxtitures were barely 1.0 million dollars arrl the Per-Student i.nstru.ctional cost of $270 was regarded by experts as ''wholly inadequate." '!he institution's role as something lOOre than a local or state institution was noted, arrl the state's failure to provide adequate facilities was deene:l contrary to the state's desire to exercise control. SPecifically noted in the Works Report was the question of presidential lorgevity arrl the adequacy of the succeeding profile for the interrled, future replacement. a replacement by saneone ''widely recognized for his starxiing in science or ergineering as well as for his qualification as an administrator arrl leader" (p.76).
(3) Business: '!he Board of Regents' reasons for closing Georgia Tech's School of Cornroorce arrl transferring its Evening Sd100l to an imePenient Deparbnent of Adult Education were: (1) the state could not afford two campeting schools of commerce, arrl (2) strorg schools of commerce could not be develOPed imePeniently of "high-grade work in economics, history, arrl government" (p. 11). '!he Regents thought it advisable to develop "a real center of adult education in Atlanta" by transferring the University of Georgia's Deparbnent of General University Extension to Atlanta to work in conjunction with the newly fanned Evening School
of camnerce. Silnilar rea.sonirg would be used in later years in the
establishment of Georgia state University.
(4) Teacher Education: '!he preparation of p.1blic school teachers as a responsibility of institutions of higher education arrl the difficulties of cooperation aIOC>n:J acx::rediting agencies, schools of education, state 00ards of education, arrl governing boards were a sore Perennial issue in education. By 1943 the University System was ''well equipped with buildirgs arrl equipnent" to train teachers for p.1blic schools, but adequate :funjs were not yet available "to hold or to attract the type of teachers needed in our tmiversity system arrl our p.1blic school system" (C11ancellor Sanford, 1943-44 Annual Report, p. 43).
71

(5) Minority Access: In his 1943-1944 armual report, Chancellor sanford did not address the recornmenjations of the secorrl Works Report conc::ernirg
the status am support of the state's historically black institutions. In the midst of World War II, he discussed the difficulties am benefits
of specialized trainirx} prograns for milital:y personnel, the decreases
in civilian students, am the prospects of the GI Bill am other dlanges
on postwar education.
(6) General Education: '!he influence of World War lIon higher education was seen in the nd:>ilization of college campuses to assist in the war effort. Chancellor sanford, in 1944, was convinced that "technical
education on the college level will have a pennanent, am not a
subsidicny place in the educational program" (p. 47). Neither the nation nor the cxmnunity could afford the "tragedy of un:ieveloped talent."
(7) Geographical Distribution: Despite war-time :restrictions, the excessive
duplication of prograns am courses was a matter of concern in
Chancellor sanford's 1943-1944 armual report. '!he university of Georgia,
according to its president, offered too many courses am the faculty was urged to study curricular offeri.n;Js am to eliminate courses of dubious
value. Chancellor sanford rejected the "ancient idol" that the best colleges were those that offered "the greatest mnnber of subjects or the greatest variety of courses" (p.38).
(8) Financing am Furxiing: student ~ capita experxlitures at the University
of Georgia were $116, the lowest within state universities of the region. At Georgia Tech, ~ capita experxlitures were $90, as compared
to $148 at North Carolina state, $100 at Aubunl, am $227 at Louisiana Tech. Cost cc:anparisons for teachers colleges am colleges for women told the same sto:ry am prompted Olainnan Marion Smith of the Board of
Regents to ask if the state of Georgia could afford to do less than the average of other southeastern states?
(9) student 8el:Vices: '!he secorrl Works Report devoted an entire chapter to
student PersOnnel seJ:Vices in the University SYstem. '!here was an urgent need to correct substarrlard corrlitions in residence halls am to adjust donnito:ry fees to the quality of facilities am seJ:Vices. Better
provisions were to be made for the coordination of PersOnnel seJ:Vices,
health seJ:Vices were to be ilTIproved am exterrled, am the ilTIportance of
diagnostic seJ:Vices for special student problems was to be recognized. A100ng the recornmenjations were a statewide .testi.n;J program in the high
schools, 'WOrkshops for PersOnnel officers, am a unifonn system of
student records-keepi.n;J.
(10) 'IWo-Year COlleges: In studyi.n;J the state's junior colleges, the secorrl Works Report turned up rnnnerous problems. '!here were difficulties in reconcili.n;J two years of general education with advanced or specialiZed
traini.n;J, such as engineeri.n;J, am a five-year program for junior
college transfers might be the preferred solution. O1ancellor sanford, in his armual report, was convinced that at least two junior colleges should be dlanged into engineeri.n;J schools that would prePare students
72

to enter the senior elivision of Georgia Tech or any other silnilar technological institution.
(11) Adult Frlucation: '!he 1943 survey staff fClllI'rl many problens at the
University System of Georgia center. No useful educational purPOSe was
served by offeri.rg three years of liberal arts, am :resources at the
center were not concentrated sufficiently on strorg programs in business. '!he center was too deperrlent on part-time instnlctors, student
fees, am excessive teachi.rg loads for its programs am services. '!he
center was also the only unit of the University System that was not
accredited by the SOUthern Association of Colleges am SChools.
(12) Fhysicians am Nurses: To help meet "a c:ryi.rg demarrl for physicians am
nurses in Georgia, " the Regents authorized in september 1944 a deparbnent of nursi.rg at the Medical College. In a five-year nursi.rg program, students CX>U1d take their first blo years at the University of Georgia, their next two years in Augusta or another awroved hospital,
am retunl. to Athens for their fifth year. In a graduate nurses program,
students CX>U1d be given one year's academic credit for their traini.rg in
a hospital school of nursi.rg am earn a Bachelor of science degree in
nursi.rg (or nursi.rg education) through three additional years of work at the University of Georgia. Related to the traini.rg of physicians and nurses was the organization of public health districts, as opposed to ca.mty health departments that existed in only half of Georgia's 159 counties.
'!he strayer Report
In 1949 the Board of Regents again fourxi :furrls for a statewide survey by
out-of-state experts am SPeCialists. '!he survey began in september of that
year am was concluded on December 15th in time for ex>nsideration am action
by the General Assembly ex>nveni.rg in January 1950. '!he director of the survey was George D. Strayer, fonnerly director of the Division of Field studies at Teachers College, Coll.mlbia University. Although submitted as "a staff report," the published report has always been krlown as the "Strayer Report." Like its predecessors, the Works reports, the strayer Report was simply entitled "A Report of a survey of the University System of Georgia."
More extensive in scope am nore intensive in its analyses than the
Works reports, the Strayer Report was a canprehensive study of the University
System of Georgia in the years followi.rg WOrld War II am the closest thi.rg
to a ''blueprint for system wide develq;:ment" the Regents had until the Gov'en1Or's (carl san:Iers) cemnission To Int>rove Frlucation in the 1960s. '!he strayer Report addressed each of the issues identified in the seex>rrl Works
report am arrived at many rec:::xmnerrlations that were c::orrpatible with the
earlier surveys but made some rec:::xmnerrlations that were ex>ntral:y.
'!he strayer Report began by meeti.rg head-on one of the University System's ITOSt irritati.rg problens. '!he first lines in the report read, "'!he competitive ambitions of irrlividual institutions must be subordinated to the responsibilities of the state-wide system of higher education" (p. 1). '!he report then restated the Regents' responsibilities, their delegation of
73

specific activities am functions to the separate institutions, am their
maintenance of authority through. "supervisory officers." To strayer, the JOOSt
i..Irportant contribution that any institution could make to the social am
econanic developnent of the state was the preparation of professional
personnel for seJ:Vice in the state's colleges am schools. Explicit
recognition was given the University System's responsibility to prepare
college am university teadlers am administrators.
'n1e report stressed that to prepare professionally trained teadlers for the p,lblic schools, the University System should recognize a minimum starrlard
of four years of college trai.ni..rg am m:JVe fran there to higher starrlards. Facilities ~ to be in'proved am increased for such. p.rrposes, with "a broad general education" as "a necessary portion of any program" (p. 11). Evidently to settle territorial squabbles, the survey staff rea::mnerrled the fonn am level of programs that eadl institution should develop. Georgia Tech am the
state's junior colleges were to enter no field of teadler education while the University of Georgia was to be the state's one canprehensive teadler preparatory institution. '!he "special fields" of education (agriculture, horre
econanics, physical education, business education, fine am irrlustrial arts) ~ then "allocated" to the other institutions on the basis of faculties am
facilities. Academic subjects (Erglish, science, history, mathema.tics, etc.) were not similarly allocated but assumed to be a function of four-year colleges preparing high school teachers for specific fields.
In addition to laboratory schools for practice teadling, the University System needed programs for the inservice trai.ni..rg of teadlers already employed in the public schools. A need that could not "be too strongly
emphasiZed" was in the areas of research, graduate work, am professional
education. 'n1e University System's paucity of resources in these areas was dlaritably treated by the survey staff, but the sad state of affairs was
nonetheless evident. Recamnen::ied as "the one great center for graduate am professional education am for research" was the University of Georgia. '!he
Georgia Institute of Technology was to be pennitted to add a doctoral degree
in mathema.tics to the already authorized Fh. D. ' s in physics am dlemistry while the Medical College was to remain an irxiepen:ient unit am offer the master's degree in the clinical am tedmolCXJical fields of medicine.
Noting that in March 1949 the Regents had at last merged the Agricultural ExperiInent stations and the Cooperative Extension service with the UGA College of Agriculture, the survey staff errlorsed the Regents' authority in
matters of internal organization for the College of Agriculture am
recamrnerxied the establishment of an Agricultural Research Council. '!hey then
suggested that the organization am procedures of agricultural research might
seJ:Ve as a pattern for other organized research units within the University System.
'n1e strayer Report strongly emphasiZed the linkage of research with
graduate education am errlorsed the organization of graduate schools with a
right to designate graduate faculty nanbers who were qualified for graduate i.nst.nlction. SUdl a school was also given the right to approve any course to be taken for graduate credit and have its own budgeted :furrls to encourage
research am thereby tie research more finnly to graduate instruction.
74

In considering the diverse extension services offered within the University System, the SUJ:vey staff concluded that an "institutional division" of extension services alorg geograprical or functional lines was
inpractical am recc:mnerrled the ''volmrt:al:y or e::atpl1sory CXlOrdination" of
extension services to fonn one statewide agency. COOrdination was to be a responsibility of a system officer on the <llance1lor's staff who would be assisted by an Extension Council representative of the various institutions. '!he general extension service of the University of Georgia had many elements whidl the SUJ:vey staff believed awlicable to the statewide effort.
Instituti.alal. FmrtialS
'!he mission or role of each unit of the University System was carefully delineated in the strayer Report. Georgia Tech, the Medical College, North
Georgia, Georgia state College for waren, am Georgia Teachers College were assigned distinctive missions in keeping with their titles am their
historical development. Valdosta state was to be developed as a c0educational college of arts an:l sciences, with a program for preParing elementary school teachers. '!he University of Georgia, was to continue as the major institution in the University System with a full rarge of urrler-
graduate, graduate, am professional programs an:l with broad applications of its research am extension services.
'!he delineation of roles for the historically black institutions was quite explicit. Fort Valley state was to be the state's college for e.rrphasizing agriculture an:l home econanics, with JX)SSibilities for granting master's degrees in those fields. savannah state was to be developed in
irrlustrial am business fields, with secorrlary ~ on elementary teacher education am programs in the arts an:l sciences. Albany state was to be the
state's college of arts an:l sciences, with a larger e.rrphasis on elementary teacher education than the other two historically black institutions.
'!he problem child for the SUJ:vey staff was the Atlanta Division of the University of Georgia. Although recamnerxting irrleperrlent status for the institution, the SUJ:vey staff confined their rec:cmnenjation to the awarding of badlelor's degrees in business administration. Only two years of academic work were to be given in arts an:l sciences but "perxling the establishment of a junior college by the City of Atlanta," the institution was to continue offering two-year diploma programs in business. '!hese recornmerm.tions were inplemented six years later when the Atlanta Division became the Georgia state College of Business Administration.
In a separate chapter the Strayer Report fully delineated the role an:l functions of the state's junior colleges but recamnerrled their disassociation fran the University System. '!he junior college "l1JVement" was depicted as the addition of ~ division work to a state's <Xll'lI[[Dn school system. Providing two-year vocatiOnal programs for students uninterested in a collegiate education, junior colleges nonetheless offered general education as a strong component of tenninal or career curricula an:l served also to prepare students for transfer to four-year colleges, if they so desired. As "a local institution" a junior college also provided a program of adult education. '!hus, they were to be administered by local school boards, or by another
75

board representative of a larger area. that was to constitute a junior college
district. Junior colleges would be, of course, un::ler the general supervision
of the state Board of Education, am the state was to continue to support
them, ale>n;J with fur:rls raised through local taxation. Although eloquent in
persuasion am fifteen pages in 1eD;Jth, this particular dlapter contained not
one sirgle recx::mne:rrlation fNer inplemented by the Board of Regents.
R:stwar Adjusbleuts
'!he strayer Report was a milestone in the university System's dfNel~ for many reasons. It depicted in great detail the status of public
higher education in the years followiI'g World War II am denonstrated the
cllan3es in institutional CC'I'l'p)Sition that had taken place since the university System's creation SfNenteen years earlier. When the strayer Report was received by the Board of Regents, they were :responsible for fifteen institutions of higher education, an appreciable reduction from the twenty-
six units they inherited. If the Evening SChool am Tedmical Institute of
Georgia Tech were counted separately, the total number was seventeen. 'Ihree of these units remained colleges for blacks; five were two-year or junior
colleges; am at least seven were senior institutions.
only irxlirectly did the strayer Report reveal the inplementation or ignorance of recomnerxlations fourrl in the earlier Works reports. Middle
Georgia am South Georgia colleges were still intact; North Georgia was a four-year college; am the Atlanta Division was accredited only by virtue of
its designation as a division of the University of Georgia. Per-student instructional costs were still lower at the Atlanta Division ($195) than
anywhere else am student fees still accounted for the vast majority of
institutional income. Georgians still paid a higher proportion (34.2%) of their educational costs than other Southerners (21.8%) or Americans (18.6%) did. Arxi yet, the University System had grown significantly and was, by most measures, a stronger, Irore mature system of public higher education. Not
unrelated to its growth am dfNelopnent was its weatherirg of disaccreditation by the Southern Association of COlleges am SChools in the early 1940s because of political interference am its later inclusion as a constitutional
body in the new state constitution adopted in 1945.
'!he strayer Report may be read, nonetheless, as an irrlictInent of educational quality followirg the unplanned growth of the postwar years. Returning veterans overcrov.ded classroans as they took advantage of the G.1.
Bill am student housirg, food sel:Vices, am student personnel programs could only be judged as deplorable for m::>st canp.1Se5. I:Onnitory facilities am
sel:Vices were frequently inadequate because of "deferred maintenance" durirg
the war am their excessive use in the years i1nmediately followirg.
OvercroYJdi.ng created, in many cases, what the SUrvey staff regarded as "a
serious health hazard" am the obsolescence of sare buildings was "a grave menace" to student safety.
To solve its "deferred maintenance problems" the University System would
need, according to SUrvey staff estimates, a1.Ioost $1.4 million - over
$600,000 at Georgia Tech alone. with a1m::>st no exceptions, dor)llitories on the
76

separate canp.1SeS were operated at an appreciable profit. seldom had the need for planning been lOOre clearly dennnstrated.
FinaIx::in.J the Future
'!he strayer Report gave close attention to the administration arrl gove:rnance of the University System; its b.ldgetin;J, accountin:J, arrl reportin:J needs; arrl its organizational structure arrl procedures. '!he report then addressed the University System's need for adequate financin:J in its efforts to meet increased dernarx3s for education beyon:i the high school. Enrollments in the University System were shown as a1Ioost dooblin:J (81.4%) in the decade of the 1940s arrl projected enrollments were given up to 1964-1965. Veterans were expected to have :received all educational benefits by the mid-1950s, but the projected enrollments were necessarily 10lrl because of educational trerrls arrl develcpnents that the smvey staff could not take into consideration. '!he estiInated demarrl for the services of the University System showed a decline until 1954-1955 arrl a slOlrl, gradual increase until 1964-1965 when enrollments were expected to exceed 44,000 students.
In retrosPect, the recommen::1ations of the smvey staff were UIXlerst:an:1ably cautious. Faculty salaries were to be raised an average of 12.5 percent; at least $250,000 was needed for various irnp:rovements within the
System arrl the st.rer3thenin:J of graduate education; arrl the Atlanta Division
was to :receive another $250,000 for needed irnp:rovements there. '!he sum of $80,000 would pennit the Regents to add needed SPecialists to their central office staff.
To meet its financial needs, the University System was to seek support fram the state on the basis of "COIl'prehensive plans looking to the future." Aid fram philanthropy was also to be sought but not to the extent that it might reduce state support. Tuition was to be reduced to about 25 percent so that students paid a smaller proportion of their educational expenses. Housin:J, food, arrl other student services were to be irnp:roved but offered to students at a figure much closer to actual cost. Arrl finally, if state support for current operations arrl capital outlay could be increased immediately to $13.2 million (an absolute increase of $7.7 million), the annual appropriation at this level should suffice until about 1958.
Gr:cwt:h and Expansiat: 1950-1964
In sperrling lOOney for the expansion arrl irnp:rovement of the institutions of the System, it is essential that the experrlitures be made for the attainment of clearly defined institutional objectives arrl that they be made in accordance with a wellfonnulated long-ran;Je plan of develcpnent. (Olancel.lor Hanoon W. Caldwell, 1951 Annual RePOrt)
'!he first eighteen years (1932-1950) of the University System should be viewed retrosPectively as years in which Georgia's institutions of public higher education were re-organized arrl constructive steps taken toward a statewide system of education beyon:i the high school. No institution fully
77

d~ed status as a tmiversity, however, am despite the advocacy of statewide policies am plaI'll"liDJ by outside educators, the University System was not yet a well-coordinated system of colleges am tmiversities sel:Ving the educational needs of Georgia citizens am residents. Georgia, like all
sout:hen1 states, was greatly depenjent upon other states for much of its
scientific am professional talent am ~. '!he genuinely ill'Ipressive
ac:x:::cJTPlishments of the University System of Georgia in its first ~ of develq;:ment were: (1) its sw::vival during the depression, (2) its rea::wery
fran political interference am disaccreditation, am (3) the centralization
of its governing authority urrler a single Board of Regents recognized as a constitutional body.
If the years 1950-1964 are regarded as the University System's secord ~ of developnent, they can be interpreted as a Period in which the Board
of Regents was actiVely concerned with the System's grcMt:h am expansion,
canp.lS plaI'll"liDJ am developnent, adequate furrling, am the internal ill'Iprovement of institutional programs am sel:Vices. Policy making was not
highly centralized, hC7Never, am IOOSt policy decisions were made on an ad hoc
basis or in a piecemeal manner. Many decisions were based on info:rrnal studies
am the recamrnerDations of particular councils or connnittees who dealt with
SPecific issues am problems.
In the early 1950s the Board of Regents was obviously concerned with the ill'Iplementation of the major rec:amnerx3ations of the strayer Report. '!he
Georgia state Womans College in Valdosta opened its doors to males am its
title was changed to Valdosta state College. '!he University of Georgia .School
of Medicine became the Medical College of Georgia am was authorized to offer
the master's degree in selected fields. '!he re-organization of agricultural
programs in i.nst:ruction, research, am cooperative extension was completed,
am the functions of the state's three colleges for blacks were re-defined.
Albany state College was designated as the state's liberal arts college for
blacks, am the curricula at Albany state am savannah state were altered to
confonn to the re-defined missions of the three institutions.
'!he size am status of the University System in 1950 are irrlicated by
its 1,095 faculty members, a ctnnUlative enrollment of 29,011 students, am
5,309 awarded degrees. '!he University of Georgia did not confer a Fh.D. in 1950, but Georgia Tech conferred one, along with 108 masters. '!he Atlanta Division of the University of Georgia conferred 72 Bachelor of Business
Administration degrees am 242 Bachelors of camnercial SCience. WWII
veterans, taking advantage of the GI Bill, constituted 40 percent of the ctnnUlative enrollment in 1949-1950.
Dlring the next academic year, the ilnpact of the GI Bill on University System enrollments was severely felt when the ctnnUlative enrollment declined
14.3 percent am a SPecial allocation of $92,000 was necessa:ry to CXNer the
deficits resulting fran departing veterans. For 1951-1952, hC7Never, state appropriations were raised to $12.3 million, rrore than twice the am::>Unt received in previous years. In ill'Iplementing the recamrnerDations of the strayer Report, the borrC7Ning lllnit of the University System Building Authority was increased fran $12 million to $20 million, thereby enabling the
78

Board of Regents to continue its l::W.ldirg program. lDrg-rarge development studies were initiated durirg 1950-1951 ani c::arpleted for nine institutions.
'!he rnnnber of University System faculty mentlers declined in the early 1950s, but significant increases were 00served in faculty members holdirg the Ih.D. ani a significant reduction in the mnnber of those holdirg only a
badlel.or's de:Jree. In 1951-1952 the University of Georgia in 1951 conferred
three Ih. D. ' s while Georgia Tech conferred UNo.
Clmulative enrol1lrents within the System were down 17.7 percent, ani the enroll1nent of veterans declined fran 7,204 the previous year to 3,792 in FY52. '!he decline of non-veteran students was attributed, in part, to the addition of a twelfth grade by many Georgia high schools. When the number fell to 999 FI'E faculty members in FY52, the Board of Regents took steps to stren:Jthen faculties by armual salaries that were 20 percent higher ani by the adoption of unifonn policies for: (a) appointment ani prorrotion, (b) tenure, ani (c) <::X:ItPl1so:ry retirement at the age of 67 instead of 70 as in previous years.
student enrollments continued to decline until 1954 when the beginnirg of an upward tren:i was noted by the O1ancellor in his armual report. New degree programs were authorized at the doctoral level, research programs were inproved, ani significant changes in unjergraduate programs were made.
In 1955 the House of Representatives appointed a sub-committee to study the operations ani needs of the University System. Members of the sub-
cammi.ttee were: J. Ebb nmcan, chairman; Mac Barber; Braswell Deen, Jr.; w.c.
Massee; ani Jack Murr. '!his study canmi.ttee visited all units of the University System, intel:viewed canp.1S officials, ani prepared a report setting forth the corxtitions ani needs of the various units. '!he committee recanunerrled an armual appropriation of $23.7 million.
DJrirg 1955 the University System's inadequate financial support received extensive publicity in the Atlanta newspapers ani a special session of the General Assembly was called for the purpose of raisirg additional revenue. '!he additional furrls allocated to the Board of Regents in FY56 were $3.1 million.
Related to the state' s increased support of higher education was the separation (september 1, 1955) of the Atlanta Division fran the University of Georgia ani the change of its title to the Georgia state Colleg'e of Business Administration. Olarges in institutional status had been recanunerrled in the secorrl Works Report ani the strayer Report but needed the spur of new accreditation requirements adopted by the SOUthern Association in 1954.
other Significant IUlicy Decisions
'!he conversion of the Atlanta Division to Georgia state Colleg'e was the first major change in institutional status durirg the 1950s. '!he Board of Regents noved (in 1956) their central offices fran Georgia state to 244
79

Wash.i.n:Jton street. Dr. Josetil E. Moore of Georgia Tech was teIrporarily
~inted director of testing am guidance for the University System in 1956 am corrlucted a systenMide study of testing am guidance needs in public
higher education. At its september 1956 meeting the Board adopted the College Board SCholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) as an admi ssion requirem:mt to units of the University System. Uses of the test by institutional officials were expected to ''profoun:Uy influence the institution's instnlctional program" (1956 Annual Report, p. 33).
'!he National Defense Education Act of 1958 rekin:lled national interest
in ~ am COlD'lSe1ing as it addressed the JOOSt pressing educational issues of identifying am training scientific, tedmical, am professional
manpc::IWer. '!he Georgia Nuclear Advisory Ccmnission, aJ;.tX>inted by Gov'en1Or Ernest Varxliver to study the iIrpact of nuclear energy on the state's economic
developnent, created four task forces to study: (a) testing, COlD'lSe1ing, am guidance; (b) vocational education; (c) teacher education; am (d) educational television. Each task force prepared am published a :report making reccmnerx:1ations to the camnittee on M'ar1poWer am Education, chaired by
William M. suttles, dean of students at Georgia state. '!he staff director of these studies was Dr. Imk campbell, by then president emeritus of FSU.
'!he Task Force on Testing, Counseling, am Guidance included repre-
sentation from the state's leading institutions of higher education, business
am financial finns, am the state Health Department. '!he published :report of
the Task Force pointed to an expected college enrollment of 72, 000 students in 1965, an increase of 71 percent over the recorded enrollment of students
in 1955. To provide testing, COlD'lSe1ing, am guidance for over 40, 000
college students there were fewer than 30 professionally trained. faculty or staff members in the entire state. An important reccmnerx:1ation, therefore,
asked for a study of present facilities am programs for training COlD'lSe1ors,
one of the major provisions of the National Defense Education Act. Programs
to be developed should contain adequate coursework in testing am statistics
as part of a mini.Im.nn core for all teachers.
Anticipated by this particular task force was an increased use in educational achievement tests, as well as aptitude tests, for college admissions. At least four institutions in 1959 already required College Board achievement tests, as well as the SAT. Also anticipated was widespread use of
''high-speed electronic c::onp.lters" for admission am placement decisions. Forthccming at the time were data from the Office of Testing am Guidance of
the University System that would pennit the prediction of academic grades in units of the University System. '!he prediction of grades would be facilitated, the Task Force noted, if high schools in the state would adopt a unifonn grading system.
'!he :reports on vocational am teacher education stressed the need for
nore extensive, improved programs that would meet the dlanging de.man::is and expectations of society, but the :report on educational television received the JOOSt attention from the public. Educational television was a far nore
appealing topic to the public am one that offered considerable promise for
the future of education.
80

Expansicn of Georgia's Junior Colleges
In 1957 a special cxmnittee of the General Assembly studied the state's need for additional juni.or colleges an:l recc:mnerrled the passage of legislation that TNOUld pennit local govennnent agencies to establish an:l operate new juni.or colleges. '!he ensui.rg Juni.or COllege Act of 1958 provided for a system of juni.or colleges that TNOUld be established an:l operated by local authority - an:l not as uni.ts of the university System. '!he Board of Regents, h.c7Never, was authorized to adqrt: roles an:l regulations by which the local operatirg authorities TNOUld receive state aid (Georgia laws, 1958 session, pp. 47-50). DeKalb cemmmity COllege, the only college established urrler the Juni.or COllege Act of 1958, received in its first years of operation a stipern of $300 for each student enrolled.
'!he enactment of the 1958 Juni.or COllege Act was a sharp spur to the Board of Regents in their cxmnitments to the expansion of educational opp:>rbmity. Followin:} studies of educational needs in Augusta, sava.rmah, an:l COll.1IIlbJs the Regents negotiated with: (a) the RichIoorn COUnty Board of Education for the transfer of its juni.or college to the University System, (b) the City of sava.rmah for the transfer of Annst::rorg COllege, an:l (c) the ~ee COUnty School District for the creation of a new juni.or college. '!hus Augusta COllege an:l Annst::rorg COllege, two previously established (am locally controlled) institutions, became uni.ts of the University System an:l a third uni.t, COlumbus COllege, became the first newly established institution since the creation of the University System center. '!he operation of the new colleges required a special allocation of $400,000 to the Board of Regents, an:l each entered the University System ''by virtue of the authority of the Board of Regents" (1958 Annual Report, p. 5) an:l not as instnnnents of the Juni.or COllege Act.
As the decade of the 1950s drew to a close, the institutional CXJI[PJSition of the University System was: (a) four "canprehensive" institutions, (b) five senior colleges enrollirg whites, (c) three senior colleges enrollirg blacks, an:l (d) seven juni.or colleges. '!he addition of three juni.or colleges had brought the total to nineteen uni.ts an:l the geograprlcal distribution of institutions thereby increased educational opportunity.
'!he ClnTIU1ative enrollment of 32,853 students had been restricted, however, by the passage of the Age-Limit law of 1959. '!he law, passed without consultation with academic leaders, placed restrictions on the enrollment of urrlergraduates over 21 years of age an:l the admission of graduate students over twenty-five. Fortunately, these arl:>i1:ral:y restrictions were later reseWed.
'!he number of University System faculty members in 1960 was 1,512, an increase of 46 over the previous year. '!he average salary paid to teachirg faculty on a nine-roc>nths contract was $5,973 - an increase of 64.1 percent fran the $3,639 paid in the academic year of 1949-1950. '!he University of Georgia, havirg conferred no Fh.D.'s in 1950, conferred 12 in 1960, alorg with 8 Ed.D. 's; Georgia Tech conferred 12 Fh.D.'s that year.
81

C1laD]es in Instituticmal. status
No additional colleges were awroved by the Board of Regents until 1962 when a junior college in the Brunswick area was authorized. Proposals for other junior colleges were in various stages of consideration, nonetheless, ani their authorization was anticipated in the Chancellor's 1962 annual
report.
In December 1961 Georgia state was penni.tted to d:I:'q> the prepositional
prrase "of Business Administration" fran its title ani offer Master of Arts
degrees in Er'glish, history, ani political science. Also authorized at that time were a Master of Arts degree for teachers ani a Master of Business Education degree.
In 1963 new junior colleges were awroved for Albany-DJugherty County,
Lalton-whitefield County, ani Marietta-cabb County. Awroval of these three colleges was followed in 1964 by authorization of a fourth new college in
Gainesville-Hall County. Beginni.rg in 1963 the Regents considered the upgradi.rg of several junior colleges into senior institutions. Augusta College was granted pennission to offer senior-division lNOrk in 1965, ani Annstrong College would offer similar lNOrk in 1966. Both colleges were penni.tted to add additional years of academic c:::oursework as an entering freshman class progressed in its studies. In this way, the junior year was added one year prior to the addition of the senior year. In early 1964 Georgia southwesten1 was accorded the same privilege ani was scheduled to offer upper-division work in 1966. D..1ring the 1964-1965 academic year Columbus College received pennission to upgrade its status beginni.rg in 1968 ani conferring its first bachelor's degrees in 1970.
'!he status of the University System in the 1963-1964 academic year is significant because of the rn.nnerous ~es that institutions of higher
education experienced in the fall of 1964 ani the years thereafter. on June
30, 1964 the institutional composition of the University System was the same it had been since the opening of Columbus College. Brunswick College would open its doors in september ani four additional junior colleges, as shown previously, were in varying stages of developnent.
D..1ring the academic year of 1963-1964 a total of 1,826 faculty members taught the full-ti.me-equivalent of 30,575 students enrolled in nineteen institutions. For their teaching, University System faculty members receiVed an average salary of $7,589, an increase of only $217 over the previous year. '!he University of GeOrgia conferred 35 fh.D.'s ani 16 Ed.D.'s while Georgia Tech conferred 25 fh.D.'s in various fields of ergineering.
Expansial ani <D1solidat.i.cn: 1964-1980
Georgians today, whether or not they realize it, are fighting the
educational battles of the 1970's. '!he outcane will depeni largely upon their actions during the next two or three years. '!he outcane of the battles of the 1960's is already detennined by the actions ani inactions of the past. (Goven1Or's COmmission 'Ib Improve Education, 1963)
82

'!he dramatic increase in university System enrollments in 1964 was not ~ , but it was not p:r'q)erly anticipated. Georgians did not participate in higher education at the satre rate as residents of other states
am although it was evident fran high school graduation rates that lOOre
students were c:::CIll>letinl high school, it was not anticipated that a higher prcp:>rtion of those graduates TNOUld enroll in college. In a two-year Period (1964-65) the number of high school graduates increased alnnst 40 percent.
Program Pl.arninJ am Devel.q:maut
In 1961 the University System of Georgia agreed to co-sponsor with the
Georgia state Depart::roont of Education am the Georgia Depart::roont of Public Health a study of the state's need for nurses am other paramedical personnel. WOrk on a statewide smvey began in October 1961 am was concluded
the followinl year in the satre lOOIlth. Included in the smvey were twelve occupations regarded as essential to adequate health care for Georgia residents; (1) dietitian, (2) hospital administrator, (3) laboratory technician, (4) licensed practical nurse, (5) medical assistant, (6) medical records librarian, (7) medical social TNOrker, (8) medical technologist, (9) occupational therapist, (10) {Xlysical therapist, (11) registered nurse,
am (12) X-ray technician. '!he intent of the survey was to detennine present am :future needs for such personnel am to evaluate the adequacy of educational am traininJ programs for meetinJ those needs (Fincher, 1962).
'!he smvey succeeded well in dc:x:::unv:mtinl the state's need for health
care PerSOnnel. '!he demani for health am medical sezvices was increasinl am there were critical shortages in nursinl am paramedical ocx::upations. Educational am traininl programs were inadequate to meet present needs and
certainly could not meet future needs. Nowhere in Georgia were there programs for preparinl dietitians, medical assistants, medical social workers, occupational therapists, or physical therapists. Personnel for the remaininl occupations were variously prepared for their duties by an array of hospital schools, vocational schools, and p.lblic or private colleges.
Recx:Jnrnenjations to the sponsorinl agencies included the establishment of accredited programs where there were none, the inprovement of inadequate or
weak programs, am the fullest possible coordination of existinl and future
educational and traininl programs. To provide adequate health ani medical care to its residents, the state needed an effective statewide system of recruitment and placement, better advisement and counselinl sezvices in its
schools am colleges, and lOOre effective policies of utilization of the
nursinl ani paramedical personnel the state did have.
'!he nursinl am paramedical smvey was favorably received. Directly
related to sw:vey fimings was the establishment of the state SCholarship carmission as a means of providinJ financial aid to students enrollinl in critical-need professional programs. Instead of resporrling merely to the nursinl ani paramedical needs documented for twelve specific occupations, the sponsorinl agencies recommerxled to the General Assembly legislation that TNOUld provide a general canopy for state assistance. Also related was the developnent of the SChool of Allied Health services at Georgia state and intensified efforts on the part of the allied health fields, as they quickly
83

became known, in recruitment am public :relations. A later develcpnent was
the roodification of state laws pennittirg the licensi..rq of graduates from two-year collegiate schools of nursi..rq. '!his charge enabled University System
junior colleges to establish nursi..rq programs am contribute to the supply of
professional nurses.
Regents stmy of Higher Wucatiat
In April 1963 the Board of Regents authorized a statewide study of higher education in Georgia. Dr. S. walter Martin, vice chancellor of the
University System, was designated director of the study am chainnan of a
nine-member steeri..rq camni.ttee. '!hanas W. Mahler, associate director of the Georgia center for Continuing Education, was selected as associate director
of the study. six task forces were organized to consider: (1) the scope am functions of post-high school education; (2) junior colleges am area trade
schools; (3) <ieIoograplic forces affecti..rq the clemarrl for higher education;
(4) the planning am coordination of junior colleges; (5) estilnated costs am finances; am (6) educational programs for science, professions, am
tedmology.
'!he task force on educational programs was asked to consider present am
future needs for d~i..rq programs. Its original charge was then
broadened to include the state's resources am needs for institutional research am to maintain close liaison with the task force on scope am
functions. Judson C. Ward, Jr., vice president of Elrory University, was appointed chainnan.
An early announcement by Vice Olancel.lor Martin to the task force on
educational programs was the news that Elrory, Georgia Tech, am the
University of Georgia would confer, in 1963, a canbined total of 100 Fh.D. 'so
'!he University of Georgia conferred 20 Fh.D. 's am 14 Ed.D. 's but its
cumulative total of conferred doctoral degrees had not yet reached a huOOred. Also aIOOng the initial findings was an urgent need for cooperation aIOOng the state's three doctoral-granti..rq institutions but a recognition that cooperation was not highly probable.
'!he Regent study of Higher Education was discontinued in the summer of 1963 when Governor carl Sarrlers camni.ssioned the Governor's commission To Inprove Education. When :relevant, the work of the Regents task forces was absorbed by the larger, Il'Ore extensive, better-fun:led study. '!homas W. Mahler was appointed associate director of the professional staff assembled for the
Governor's Commission's purposes am would continue his study of higher
education, as launched by the Regents. James L. Miller, Jr., director of
research at SREB, was granted leave to serve as director am Woc::x:lraw W. Brelam, professor of education at Georgia state, was appointed associate
director for elementary am secorx:lary education.
GcNen'xn:"'s Qmnj ssiat To IDprcNe ahlcatiat
'!he Commission study authorized by Governor Sarrlers was the first
CCI'lprehensive study of elementary, secorx:lary, am higher education in
Georgia. An excellent professional staff was appointed am resources were
84

made available for consideration am study of educational issues at all
levels. Governor sarn.ers served as chainnan of the Governor's cemnission am
placed the major ~is of his administration on the improvement of
education am the closiIg of educational gaps that embarrassed the state.
'!he cemnission adopted the goals stated by the SREB cemnission on Goals
am worked within the context of ten oojectives specifically related to
Georgia's educational needs. Representation on the camnission was
awreciative of social, econc:mic, am cultural forces within the state. on the cemnission was a future governor of Georgia am a future president of the
united states; a future lieutenant governor; several highly-visible opinion
leaders; am several future members of the Board of Regents itself. Although politics am race were often factors, the cemnission, much to its credit,
kept its sights on educational targets.
'!he stron;Jest wo~ in the report dealt with planl'li.n;J. '!he Conunission stated unequivocally that the ''Ioost important siIgle prerequisite for educational improvement in Georgia [was] effective lon:.;-rarge planl'li.n;J" (p.
18). SUch planl'li.n;J should be continuous am could not be the work of siIgle
cxmnission. For the Board of Regents, the report ~izes a "top priority
need" for a research am planl'li.n;J unit to identify am define "lon:.;-rarge
problems am needs" (p. 49). For the separate units of the University System
there was a need for institutional research offices. For the University System as a whole there was a need for "carprehensive ccmnunity junior
college(s) by which local am c:::a.mm.mity needs should be met." 'Ihese
colleges "should be established on the basis of a statewide survey usiIg the
best criteria known [am] on a priority schedule over a Period of years"
(p. 52).
'!he Cctmnission noted as one of its IOOSt difficult problems the
relationships between ccmnunity colleges am vocational-tedmical schools.
'!he cemnission recx:mnerrled continued jurisdiction by the Regents in areas
where there were junior colleges am no vocational-tedmical schools but
''mem:>rarrla of agreement" with the state Board of Education in areas where both tyPes of institutions existed. NotiIg that junior colleges had already
been awroved for Albany, Brunswick, Dalton, am Marietta, the Commission
recx:mnerrled joint experimentation with carprehensive ccmnunity colleges in areas where neither vocational-tedmical schools nor junior colleges existed.
'!he major eIIPJasis, as would be expected, was on elementary am
secorrlary education am the adequacy of their financiIg. '!he title, Educating
Georgia's People: Invesbnent in the FUture, is irrlicative of the emphasis
given education as an investment am the retum-on-investment to society.
SUch as invesbnent ''will require full financial support from both state am
local sources" am "every dollar's worth of wealth in Georgia should pay its
fair share " (p. 72). '!he challen:.;e called for "leadership of the highest
order" am "educational innovation am experimentation." Finally, if Georgia
was serious about attractiIg space age imustry, it must have "university
research, graduate education, am a generally higher level of educational
attai.rnnent" (p. 72).
85

'!he outcc:mes of the Govenx:>r's Ccmni.ssion To Inprove Education report were not always i.Jnneliate but they were substantive. One highly visible
outcane was the fonnation of the Georgia Educational Inprovement council, an
intergoverrnnental agency consistinl of representatives of the state Board of Education, the Board of Regents, the General Assembly, am private eI'lta'prise. 'Ihanas W. Mahler was awointed the first executive director of this agency am continued many of the cooperative efforts initiated by, or :rec:x:rtIlleI' by, the Govenx:>r's Ccmni.ssion. When Govenx:>r Jilmny carter decided to al:x>lish this agency as an executive ann, the staff was re-assigned to the General Assembly as a legislative agency.
'!he urgency of the Govenx:>r's Ccmni.ssion' s TNOrk was dramatized one year later when the number of high school graduates in the state increased by 19.1 percent am an increased proportion enrolled in units of the University System. '!he year 1964, as often pointed out, was the first year of the "i.Inperni.n:J tidal wave" discussed by Rolam B. 'Ihatp;on of Ohio state in various national plblications.
other outcomes of the Govenx:>r's cemnission report were less visible. '!he report am the Govenx:>r's Conference on Education, called to plblicize the cemnission's firxlings, were urrloubtedly effective in callinl attention to educational needs am in committinl m:>re of the state's resources to education. What the work of the Govenx:>r's cemnission denonstrated best, no doubt, was the need for effective leadership!
Regents st:my of ChmImity Junior Cbllege
At least one reccmne.rrlation of the Govenx:>r's Conunission was implemented the followinl year (1964) when the Regents directed the O1ancellor to conduct a cc.mprehensive study of the need for additional junior colleges am to rec:::cxnnen:l their locations. '!his action was apparently triggered by the approval in March 1964 of Gainesville Junior College, which was the fifth junior college approved by the Regents since 1961.
In 1963 the Regents requested a study of the northwesteJ:n corner of the state that resulted in the approval of r:al.ton Junior College am Kennesaw College. '!hat study was conducted in response to petitions from five different camnunities in the seventh ~ional District for junior colleges am the Regents were obviously urrler the pressure of "planninJ by dlambers of ccmnerce."
'!he Govenx:>r's Conunission resporrled to the particular issue, in effect, by saYinl the planninJ should be done on asystematic, statewide basis am is thereby "uniquely a function of the Board of Regents." With the ball back in their own court, the Regents resporrled by appointinl an eight-member adviso:ry committee which included representatives of Georgia colleges am universities who were well-infonned about national am regional trerrls in the developnent of higher education. Consultants for the study were B. lamar Johnson from UClA am I.E. Ready, head of the cemnunity College Division of the North carolina Department of Instruction. staff directors of the study were s. Walter Martin, vice chancellor am later actinl chancellor, am Har:ry s. Downs, coordinator of junior colleges in the University System.
86

'!he premises on which the study was c:x::niucted TNere: (a) equal am ItDre-
or-less universal q;:p:>rtunity for education beyorn the high school; (b) acceptance of ccmm.mi.ty colleges as c:arprehensive postsecor:dal:y institutions; (c) the essentialness of lon:J-rarqe pl~; (d) Georgia's need for its own plan; (e) operation of CCIl'I'lIlllity colleges by the Board of Regents; (f) a fixed role for cammrl.ty colleges as ccmnunity colleges;
(g) the need to identify ccmm.mi.ties am to :reccmnern locations; (h) con-
sideration of vocational-technical schools am their role; (i) the avoidance
of needless duplication; (j) the study to serve as a foon::lation for future
am continui.rg studies; (k) SlOOOth articulation between schools am colleges, includin;;J ccmnunity college/senior college transfers; am (1) the expectation
that c:x:mm.mity colleges would increase rates of participation.
A1oon;J the guidelines established for the study TNere: (a) a potential enrollment of ItDre than 400 students; (b) an acceptable concentration of
pop.1lation; (c) a ccmnuti..rg radius of 35 miles; am (d) ccmnunity desire, interest, am ability to finance. IDeations TNere to be assigned either a
Priority A: "iImnediate develq;rnent seems justified," or a Priority B:
"potentially pranising [but] should continue to be studied . "
IDeations assigned a Priority A TNere four. 'Ib the study camni.ttee's
satisfaction ccmm.mi.ty colleges were l"leErled in the Bibb am Houston counties area, in the downtown area of Atlanta, on the west side of Atlanta, am in
the south Atlanta area. Georgia state was identified as the logical
institution to assume community college responsibilities in the downtown
Atlanta area am Atlanta Junior COllege was the eventual outcome of the
priority assigned western Atlanta. '!he Bibb/Houston priority, however, was the snag in the study Conunittee's report. Political cxmnitments apparently
had been made to Bibb county am the Study camni.ttee was asked to make its
recamnerrlation SPeCific. '!he Study camni.ttee, believing the political
cxmnitment premature am thinking it had done enough in SPeCifying the area, did not believe it could, in good conscience, :reccmnern only Bibb county.
COnsequently, the final report was mimeographed only as a staff report for internal use by the University System.
Role am SCXp! stDiy of mG1t. InstitutialS
Another :rec:x:mnermtion of the GovenlOr's camni.ssion 'Ib Inprove Education
that was partially iIrplemented in the next year or bNo was "a c::::orrp:rehensive
study of the appropriate role of each institution within the University
System am the appropriate scope of its activities" (p. 50). SUch a study was
launched in 1965 following the appointment of Dr. George L. Sin'pson, Jr. as chancellor. Dr. Walter Martin, vice chancellor of the University System, was
designated study clirector am the Institute of Higher Education at the
University of Georgia, then in its secorrl year of operations, provided the
staff work. '!he Chancellor am the Board of Regents requested that the study
be concluded by June 30, 1966.
'!he Institute staff defined the premises upon which a role am scope study should be corxlucted am the infonnation l"leErled fran the separate
institutions. '!here was agreement that: (a) the clemarrl for higher education would increase; (b) the majority of Georgia college students would continue
87

to enroll in the University System; (c) meeti..rq the increased de.lnam would
require both an expansion of academic programs am adequate planning am coordination; am (d) all units of the University System nust assume a role
that YJOlld be part of a larger whole.
A stren:Jth of the study was its guidelines 1..1n:ier which institutional am
program developoont should take place. 'Ihese guidelines were specified at the
outset am included the follC1Ni..rq:
1. '!he primary purpose of the University System was to provide educational qp:>rbmi.ties to as many Georgia residents as possible without sacrifici..rq quality.
2. Educational qp:>rbmi.ties nust be expan:led in keepi..rq with the
state's resources am the institutions' capabilities.
3. '!he Ih.D., as the highest academic degree, should not be offered in any one academic field at m:::>re than two USGA institutions.
4. Professional programs such as law, ~cy, social work, medicine,
am dentistry should clearly achieve excellence before diverti..rq
resources to new programs.
5. Atlanta's concentration of state pcpl1ation required special
planning am coordination for institutions in Atlanta am Athens.
6. New programs should be approved only on evidence that they would
meet national am regional accreditation.
7. Master's degrees should be authorized for regional senior colleges
only on evidence of need am de.lnam.
8. senior colleges in metropolitan areas had a responsibility similar to that of junior colleges elsewhere.
9. Programs in junior colleges were at least tri-fold: preparation for
senior college transfer, adult education, am technical/ tenninal
traini..rq that did not duplicate efforts of vocational-technical schools.
10. Role am scope should not be detennined by potential enrollIN:mts
alone; student retention was equally ilrp::>rtant.
Institutional Roles: '!he specific institutional role that each unit of the University System had - or should have - was defined after a careful review of each institution's historical developoont, the scope of its
academic programs, am a request fran each president for his perceptions of
that institution's current mission as an institution of higher leanring. A classification of institutional roles was then developed in which six functional institutional roles were specified.
88

'!he IOOSt ~inting IilaSe of the role am 8Cq:)e study was the license
taken by many institutions in projecting academic programs for future
developnent. student enrollments, full-time faculty, am credit-hours taught
had shown a remarkable unevenness across institutions bIt the institutional aspirations of many units were inoroinate. One junior college projected by 1975, just ten years later, the offering of Ih.D.'s in several SPeCialized fields.
Given its premises or asslUlptions am the ~tion of participating institutions, the role am 8Cq:)e study of the University System was an intelligent guide to institutional am program developnent. '!he six
institutional roles defined in the study, ~, were either politically or
budgetarily unacceptable am despite SO\ll'D caution in the study's conclusions am reccmnerx3ations, the 8Cq:)e of acadenic programs urxier the canopy of
institutional role was urrloubtedly seen as ~ floodgates of institutional aspirations already out of bani.
A long-range planning study begun a few llDnths after the role am scope
study was canpleted. '!he staff work for this study was provided by members of
the Chancellor's central staff am each institution was asked to SPeCify its
own assumptions concerning enrollments, entrance requirements, academic pro-
grams, faculty, facilities, am other institutional activities. For exanple,
an asslUlption made for the University of Georgia was that it would continue to enroll approximately 25 percent of the equivalent-full-time on-campus enrollment in the University System. Also assumed were such matters as the
continued recruitlte1t am retention of well-qualified faculty, the expansion of research programs, am "a major break-through in graduate education."
Definitions were provided by the Chancellor's staff for data elements
that were to be projected for 1970-71 am 1975-76. 'IWelve categories were given for projections in educational am general experxlitures while nine categories were given for educational am general income. At same time between 1971 am 1975 the total E&G experxlitures for the University of
Georgia were projected to exceed one million dollars, a tripling of its actual experxlitures in 1965-66. As another matter of interest, the UGA faculty was expected to ream 1,500 in the academic year of 1970-71, a figure that was attained at least two years earlier.
For the University System, the planning projections were put to effective use in 1967 by Chancellor George S:in.p50n in his budgetary requests
for the 1967-69 Biennitnn. In a public statement entitled, "A n:un Has Broken,"
O1ancellor S:in.p50n made a persuasive aweal for furrls that would pennit the
University System to meet its obviously increasing obligations.
~licy Decisions in 1964-1971
In retrospect, the early years of the 1960s can be viewed as a Period in whim the state's first serious efforts were made in statewide planning for higher education. '!he develq:m:mt of the University System during the 1950s was CCI'l'ImeI'X3able bIt piecemeal. No systenINide policies guided or directed the growth am expansion of higher education, am too many policy decisions were
89

made by state legislators am other p,lblic leaders who proposed institutional am program dlan:Jes to the Board of Regents.
'!he 1962 nursi..rg am paraneiical survey resulted in the first statewide effort to plan am develc:.p academic prograns on the basis of systematic resea:rd1 into the SUWly am demani of professionally trained PersOl1l1e1. '!he
Regents study of Higher Education was the first concerted effort to view the
total picture of higher education within the state, am the representation of
private higher education on the Regents six task forces was in:ticative. '!he sarrlers canmission To Inprove Education was the only statewide, public ccmnission to consider education fran kirrlergarten to graduate school. Arxl the Regents study of CCmnuni:ty Jmri.or COlleges was the Board of Regents' first recognition that within its own institutions could be fClUI'rl the
knowledge am expertise needed to fashion a plan for the orderly developnent
of bNo-year colleges.
Despite the fact that decisions am commitments for Brunswick, Gainesville, Kennesaw, am Albany jmri.or colleges had been made in the early 1960s, their cons1:nlction am developnent were influenced by the concerted efforts to plan am direct the growth of higher education in the 1964-1980 period. It is IOOSt relevant that between 1964 am 1971, eight new jmri.or
colleges opened their doors am provided additional educational access am
opportuni:ty to Geo:rgians in a period of rapid growth am expansion. Macon
Jmri.or am Clayton Jmri.or colleges were clearly proposed am approved as a
result of the Regents Study of cemnunity Jmri.or COlleges. Although Atlanta Jmri.or COllege did not open until 1974, it too was the result of planni..rg carried out in the mid-1960s. In n1lch the same manner, Floyd Jmri.or COllege-
- although given a "B" priority in 1964 - was an outcome of both the 1964 study am the earlier study of northwest Geo:rgia. '!he approval of all three
colleges had been made at a time when a climate for growth am expansion
prevailed am before student protests in 1968 am 1970 resulted in a severe
climactic change for higher education nationally.
'!he Board of Regents' commitment to the expansion of educational opportunity still prevailed in December 1970 when approval was given to six additional sites for jmri.or colleges. '!he sites were identified as: (1) Bainbridge-Decatur county, (2) Dlblin-laurens county, (3) GriffinSPalding county, (4) swainsboro-Emanuel county, (5) '!hanasville-'Ihomas
county, am (6) waycross-Ware county. Approval was given on the basis that
despite the escalation of four institutions to senior college status, the state's two-year colleges had continued to educate approximately 14 percent of all students enrolled in the University System. Also relevant were
projections on continued increased enrollment duri..rg the 1970s am ProsPects
of ccmnunity readiness to furrl am support jmri.or colleges in the six
locations. In December 1969 a new study was authorized to detennine if am
where additional colleges were needed, am the study had been conducted
internally by the O1ancellor's staff.
Born issues for site acquisition am constro.ction were defeated in
laurens county (Februm:y 1973), SPalding county (June 1971), am '!homas
County (August 1973) but local support was forthcaning at the other three
90

sites am resulted in Bainbridge, Emanuel camty, am Waycross junior colleges.
other significant events durirq the years J::let.TNeen 1964 am 1971 were: (a) the creation of the Georgia state SCholarship cemni.ssion am the Georgia Higher Education Assistance COrporation by the General Assembly in 1965, (b) efforts to establish "special-help" programs for students not fully qualified for college coorsework, (c) special funjs to university-level institutions to assist in the developnent of academic departments of distinction, (d) the adoption in 1967 of a l'lE!W' transfer credit plan arxVor core curriculum, (e) the addition in 1967 of several lluIDred l'lE!W' faculty positions that raised the University System total to 3,543 faculty members, (f) the establishment of schools of allied health sciences at Georgia state am the Medical COllege, am (g) the escalation of Southern Tech to a four-year division authorized to confer a bad1elor of elXJineerirq ted'mology degree.
Policy Decisials in 1971-1980
With the opening of Floyd Junior COllege in 1970, the University System consisted of 27 institutions of piblic higher education that placed educational opportunity within ccmm.rting distance of 90 percent of the state's population. If, therefore, the 1960s are regarded as the extension of educational opportunity through the geograItrical distribution of institutions, the decade of the 1970s is characterized by the expansion of educational opportunity through program pJ.annin;J am developnent. '!he decade should also be regarded as years in which strorq efforts were nade to consolidate the gains am accomplishments of the 1960s.
DJrirq the 1971-1972 academic year, Annstron;J state, Augusta, COlumbus,
Georgia Southwestern, am Albany state colleges were authorized to offer graduate work at the :naster's level am North Georgia COllege was approved as a :resident graduate center. '!he Regents awroved in 1973 the provision of SPecial studies programs (later known as Developne:ntal studies) that would
begin in september 1974 am initiated a unifonn n-ethod of :recol::"dirg am :reportirq piblic seJ:Vice activities in the fonn of continuing-education-units (C.E.U. 's). Early in 1972, a PasSirq score on the "Risirq Junior Test" had been established as a graduation requirement for students earning degrees in institutions of the University System.
In september 1971 authority for the operation of Gordon Military COllege
was passed to the Board of Regents am in 1972 Gordon Junior COllege became
the 28th unit of the University System. In the fall of 1973, Bainbridge Junior am Emanuel County Junior colleges raised the rnnnber of institutions
to 30. In 1974 Atlanta Junior COllege became the 31st. DJrirq the sarre year, a feasibility study for an additional college was corrlucted in Gwinnett County, a special ccmnittee was appointed to study tenure, am a l'lE!W' law school was authorized for Georgia state. Role-am-scope studies were
initiated for senior institutions within the System with expectations that a role-am-scope study would be corrlucted for the entire University System.
In 1975-1976 the Board of Regents placed a l'lE!W' errphasis on interinstitutional programs within the System am errphasized quality am effi-
91

ciency in the state' s many health care programs. Kennesaw Junior College was authorized to t1p3rade its status to a senior college in the fall of 1978. A short-fall in projected state revenues resulted in a $24 million budget cut, however, an:i IOOSt institutions were banI pressed to handle an increase of 7.6 percent in ClIIII.l1ative enrollments of 173,212 sb.Dents (see Armual Report 1975-76, p. 3).
In followi..l"g years a SChool of Health SystEm:; was established at Georgia Tech an:i a 3-2 program between Tech an:i savarmah state was initiated. '!he state's ~tion plan :required a major overhaul in 1978, an:i the Board of Regents revised its policies for the Regents Test, Special Studies, an:i cut-off scores on the SAT. '!he differences between 1964-1971 an:i 1971-1979 were IOOSt evident, however, in the directions taken by the new C1ancellor in 1979-1980. SOUthern Tech was established as a separate unit of the University System an:i major task forces were appointed to consider: (1) the optilnal distribItion of institutions within the state, (2) admission st.arx3ards for the various units, (3) academic advisirg as a nuch-needed service to students, an:i (4) affinnative action.
Most of the People bom durirg the ''baby bocm" years did not go to college. Now, many years later, those People are of middle age; an:i many of them are contemplatirg the advantages which a college education, if obtained even at this time, would confer on them. we witness a "greyirg" of the students at a number of our institutions. (C1ancellor Vernon crawford, 1980 Armual Report)
'!he Educational Anerrlments Act of 1972 gave a Particular en:lorsement to statewide planning in its section 1202 provisions for statewide planning canunissions. Because of some confusion concerning "planning" as opposed to "planning an:i coordination," section 1202 was not furrled as quickly as other sections of the 1972 act, but with eventual furrling "1202 cammi.ssions" were established in IOOSt states. Georgia's first 1202 camnission was appointed by GovenlOr Jimmy carter an:i served with varyirg success for several years.
'!he decision was made to establish a separate public cammi.ssion as the 1202 canunission in Georgia. since section 1202 provided for representation by four different sectors of postsecorrlary education - p.1blic higher education, private higher education, vocational-tectmical education, an:i proprietary education - there may have been a natural reluctance on the Part of the Board of Regents either to seek or to accept designation as Georgia's 1202 canunission. For the same reason there was no designation of the state Board of Education - an:i thus, the decision was made to establish a separate public canunission to meet 1202 provisions.
Gove:mor's cemnittee at RJstseocnjary Wucatiat
In 1978 GovenlOr George Busbee established a new 1202 cammi.ssion with different an:i ltDre SPeCific responsibilities. 'Ib avoid confusion with the
92

previous ccmnission, he identified Georgia's 1202 agency as the Goven1Or's
camnittee on Postsecorrlary Education am a};P)inted ravid H. Gambrell, fonrer u.s. senator, as chainnan. other a};P)inbnents to the camnittee were representative of the tmiversities, senior colleges, am jtmior colleges in p,lblic higher education; tmiversities am senior colleges in private higher education; p,lblic education at the elementary am sec:onjary levels; the state's vocational-technical schools; proprietary education; am the state's
business/irxlustrial/financial interests.
Governor Bllsbee defined the TNOrk of the cemni.ttee as that of a problemdefini.n;J ccmnission. He asked the group to "detennine what the problems are,
where our greatest needs lie, am what should be our priorities." '!he
camnittee's response was evident, one year later, in its report subnitted to the governor. Entitled Postsecorrlary Issues: Action Agenja for the Eighties,
the report defined ten major issues confrontin:J postsecon:1ary education in Georgia am suggested an agenja of ten statewide actions to be taken in
resolvi.rg the defined issues. '!he issues themselves were stated in tenns of
statewide needs that concerned all sectors am levels of POStsecorrlary
education:
1. All sectors of POStsecorrlary education should be recognized;
recognition could be gained through appreciation am prcm:>tion of
the state's diverse educational q;:porbmities.
2. A cx:anprehensive statement of POStsecorrlary goals was needed; goals
am objectives could be defined by a};P)inti.rg a ccmnittee to do so.
3. Improved conm.mications am cooperation aIrOI"q institutions, associations, am state agencies were needed; a state-level fonnn
for such purposes should be created.
4. Issues should be identified before they bec::c:IIe crises; an on-goi.rg
process for identifyi.rg am analyzi.rg issues should be established.
5. Public resources should be used lOOre effectively an::! efficiently;
this could be accx:anplished by better methods of assessi.rg am
reporti.rg progress.
6. '!he fun:ling of education llUlSt be adequate; a lOOre careful review of econanic t.rerrls should be helpful.
7. BJdgeti.rg llUlSt be in'proved am made lOOre effective; fun:ling policies am processes should be reviewed.
8. Too many POStsecorrlary students are deficient in basic skills; the
role am responsibilities of postsecon:1ary institutions in
providirq basic skills instruction should be reviewed.
9. Postsecorrlary education is too often irrelevant for later careers
am life options; better balance in educational programs should be
encouraged.
93

10. A state-level agency is needed to prarote c::x:q;lerationi an advisory ccmnission for postsecorrlary education could be such an agency.
'!he secxni GcNen'lr's o:mnitt.ee
'!he need for a c:x:I'!1?rehensive statement of state-level goals am
objectives was the issue delegated to the Governor's carmi.ttee on Postsecornary Fducation appointed in 1979. Governor Busbee appointed himself
chainnan of the 8ec::c>rrl Governor's cemni.tt.ee am sought essentially the same representation of sectors am interests in the appoinbnent of other members.
'!he cc:mnittee staff remained intact.
'!he statement of goals am objectives subnitted the followiIq year to
the governor was Weed c:x:I'!1?rehensive. But like the issues defined earlier,
the goals am objectives defined contained no surprises. Eight general goals were defined am grouped urrler the rubrics of irrlividual development, diversity am acx::essibility, institutional responsiveness am excellence, effectiveness am efficiency in the use of public resources, am public
awareness. SUbsumed urrler the eight state-level goals were a varyiIq number of objectives designed to tie the goals IlDre tightly to SPeCific policies,
actions, am results.
1. '!he intellectual, ethical, personal, am educational development of
irrlividuals to enable them to live in an effective, responsible,
p:rcxiuctive, am PerSOnally satisfyiIq manner.
2. ce:atq;>rehensive, diversified, am acx::essible postsecomary education
opportunities for the citizens of Geo:rgia.
3. Equitable opportunity for irrlividuals to participate in post-
secomary education, consistent with their abilities am needs,
without regard to race, sex, age, religion, etlmic origin, economic status, or harrlicap.
4. Responsiveness by postsecorrlary education to changiIq needs of
irrlividuals am society.
5. Excellence in administration, i.nstru.ction, research, am service
consistent with institutional missions.
6. '!he effective am efficient use of resources by public am private
institutions in meetiIq institutional purposes.
7. canrmmication am c::x:q;leration am:>ng educational institutions, associations am agencies related to postsecomary education, business, i.rrlustry, labor, am government.
8. Public awareness am knowledge of the availability, quality, am
benefits offered by all sectors of postsecomary education.
94

Upon reaR;)Ointnent in 1980, the 5ecX>rxl Governor's canmi.ttee began a series of studies to assess the progl:ess that was beirg made toward state-
level goals am oojectives in post:secx>njal: education. It is well to remember that neither the Governor nor the Ccmni.ttee had set goals am oojectives for
institutions, programs, or post:secx>njal: personnel. '!he canmi.ttee had nerely defined in one document the stated or ilrplied goals postsecorrlary education already had. '!he CCI'lIlni.ttee's TNOrk then became one of assessirg the progress
post:secx>njal: institutions am programs were makirg toward those goals.
Unfortunately, as one camni.ttee member ci:Jserved, "this careful logic did not
prevent the canmi.ttee fran beirg cast in sanethirg of a busybcxly's role am many institutional leaders ex:w.d not :resist the notion that they am their
faculties were beirg evaluated."
'!he Governor's CCI'lIlni.ttee rerrlered good service in its third year as a 1202 ccmnission. '!he assessnent of progl:ess proceeded in various ways. six doctoral students in higher education at the University of Georgia contributed doctoral dissertations to the canmi.ttee's TNOrk; these dissertations were statewide surveys of interinstitutional c::xx>peration, community
services, honors programs for superior students, advanced placement am course exenption policies, student retention, am the reactions of corporate
recnri.ters to college graduates fran Georgia institutions. A seventh survey,
not developed as a doctoral dissertation, was also contri.buted am dealt with
student services.
In 1981 the Governor's CCI'lIlni.ttee sul:tni.tted its third report am, pertlaps for the first time, conveyed the remarkable diversity of private am public
postsecorrlary education. An institutional inventory disclosed at least 308
institutions providirg some fonn of education beyorrl the high school am
TNOrthy of the name postsecorrlary education. within the state were: 34 public colleges or mrlversities; 40 private colleges or mrlversities; 30 public
vocational-tedmical schools; 10 private certificate or diplana. schools; am
206 proprietary schools, ten of which were degree-grantirg.
Progress ex:w.d be clearly seen in the diversity of opportunities, but public awareness of postsecorrlary opportunities was another matter. '!he canmi.ttee rec:cmnerrled a directory, inclusive of all postsecorrlary programs,
am later published such a directory in tabloid fonn Ul')jer the title of '!he
Bridge. '!he publication of this directory continued in 1983 when a third edition was released by Governor Joe Frank Harris.
'!he canmi.ttee concluded fran its various studies that the future of
private education in Georgia was relatiVely secure am rec:cmnerrled that state
assistance to students in private colleges remain at its relative level to per-student allocations in public institutions. Postsecorrlary institutions evidently were meetirg the career needs of students but there were resen-ations about their responsiveness to e::b.an;}irg deI'narxJs. Academic,
career, am personal counselirg services were not readily available to many students am institutions were lax in meetirg the derran:l for non-credit, part-time, special/remedial, non-traditional fonns of i.nstn.lction am
trainirg. student financial aid was still inadequate, with too large a portion of it beirg federal :furrls only.
95

contirn.ti..rg its work without federal funjg, the Governor's cemnittee on
Postsec::orx3ar Education in December 1982 issued a report summarizin;J its work for the previous four years ani recx:mnen:ii.r priorities in postsec::c:ln3a
education for the future. '!he title of this report was Maintaining Progl:ess in Geo:rnia: Rec::cmnetmtions for Today ani Concen1s for Tcm::>rrow. (see <X>PE, 1982). Although the Governor's amnittee was officially continued by Governor Harris mrtil July 1983, the carmittee did not meet again ani its fourth major report was its final report. '!he cxmnittee staff continued as an office urrler the I'lE!W administration but consisted in 1984 of only the director ani a senior planner.
Addressin;J again the issue of student financial aid to private accredited institutions, the cemni.ttee :reocmnerXled the conversion of the state's Tuition Equalization Grant program to a needs-based program. Restated were its earlier reccmnen::lations of furrli.rg relative to University System Per-Student allocations ani the inclusion of aR;>:ropriate1y accredited p:roprie~ schools. Added was a :reccmrerxled proviso that financial aid should go only to students "able to benefit fran POStsecorrlary education" (Maintaining P:I:'oca"ess, p. 14).
Anticipatin;J the work of several national ccmnissions, the Conunittee :reccmrerxled that POStsecorrlary institutions "clearly define their expectations of high school prerequisites ... ani assist high schools in meetin;J those expectations" (Maintaining Progress, p. 15). Also :reccmrerxled were more definite admission requirements for colleges. 'Ihese requirements should be consistent with student abilities, as measured by stamarclized ability ani
adrievement tests ani previous academic Perfonnance. With resPeCt to instruction in basic skillS, the cemnittee :reccmrerxled that no degree,
certificate, or diplana credit be given for such instruction ani called upon
colleges for "policy plans" that would eventually IX1ase out all developmental
studies programs (Maintaining Progress, p. 15).
Future concerns for postsecorrlary education in Georgia included: (a) the coordination of secorrlary ani POStsecorrlary efforts in the development of basic skills; (b) the low rate of participation in POStsecorrlary education by Georgia residents; (c) the adequacy of student financial aid; (d) the improvement of furrli.rg ani budgetin;J; (e) the governance of vocationaltechnical education; ani (f) clearer definitions of institutional roles. '!he
conclud.i.n3' section of the 1982 report again states that need for an advisory
ccmnission on POStsecorrlary education with statutory authority.
1980-1986: In the early 1980s the Board of Regents addressed several major policy issues dealin;J with finance, the future course of public higher education in the state, the potential uses of teleconnmmications in University System programs ani seJ::Vices, the state's need for programs in the health professions, off-campus degree programs, ani statewide assessment in nursin;J education. '!he University System of Georgia was re-affi.nned as a statewide system of public higher education; the organization ani function of its separate institutions were to be reviewed; methods of furrli.rg ani financin;J were to be proposed; ani continued growth ani development were to be based on systematic inquiry ani analysis.
96

Sbdy CcmDittee en F'inarx:e
In Januazy 1981 the Board of Regents, the General Assembly, am the
Governor created, by joint awoinbnent, a study camti.ttee on Public Higher
Education Finance. Appoi.ntmants to the study camti.ttee were representative
of the three sponsoring agencies, private higher education, am the state's business am professional interests. staff work for the camni.ttee was
provided by an in::leperrlent, oot-of-state consulting agency. '!he study carmi.ttee adopted as guiding principles to its work: (a) the need to continue improvement of the quality of the University System; (b) the need for IOOre
efficient management; am (c) the need for a furxling system that would provide incentives for quality improvement am efficient management. A IOOre
basic premise on which the Study camtittee began its work was the inadequacy of the furxling fonrula that originated with the 1963 Governor's camni.ssion To Inprove Education.
'!he fin:lings am r:eccm:nerrlations of the study camni.ttee were presented
in september 1982 by Governor Bllsbee to "All Georgians Interested in Higher Education." '!he major r:eccm:nerrlations made by the camtittee called for a IOOre
equitable sharing of educational costs am specified that student tuition
should aCCOlU'lt for 25 percent of total revenue for general operations in the resident i.nstn1ction budget. To attain this proportionate sharing of costs, tuition should be increased 15 percent armually until the 25 percent objective was reached.
To foster efficient management of institutional resources, the study camni.ttee reccmnerxled that institutions be pennitted to can:y forward
unexperrled funjs for one year am use such funjs for non-recurring items such as equiprent am library materials. Also reccmnerxied for the purPOSe of
efficient management was the retention of 85 percent of in::lirect cost
recoveries on sponsored research am other prograns.
'!he furxling fo:nnula rec:ormnerxIed by the study camni.ttee specified major
categories for: (a) instruction am research, (b) public savice, (c) academic support, (d) student savices am institutional support, am (e) plant operation am maintenance. For instnlction am research, the camni.ttee reccmnerxied furxling by lower division, ~ division, am graduate levels am by five instnlctional or prograns areas, corresporrling roughly to behavioral am social sciences; professional am awlied fields; arts, sciences, am foreign languages; develc:pnental education; am medicine, dentistry, am veterinary medicine.
other details of the fo:nnula specified academic support at 17.7 percent
of the furxling base established for instnlction, research, am public savice; student savices am institutional support at 23.1 percent of that furxling base; am a special provision for quality improvement at one percent
of the total budget. SUch a furxling system was to maintain Georgia's rank
aIOOnJ the ~ fourth of southen1 states am focus attention on strate;lies
for quality improvement. No provisions were made in the fo:nnula for
protecting institutions fram declining enrollments am where enrollments did
decline, the Regents were encouraged to examine carefully the continued need for those institutions.
97

'!he recarnrrerrlations of the Study committee on Public Higher Education Finance thus had many pranisin:] implications for the improvement of education. '!he quality improvement provision wal1d create fun:is for faculty recnritment arx:i retention, professional developnent programs for faculty, the developnent of SPeCial programs, arx:i the pn:chase of SPeCial classroom arx:i laboratory equiprent.
'lbe IB}eIlts Needs AssessmetIt st:my
In August 1981 the Board of Regents initiated "a cx::mprehensive statewide needs assessment designed to provide a foorxlation for chartin:] the course for p.Jblic higher education in the state." '!he resultin:] report, '!he Eighties arx:i :seyorn: A commitment to Excellence, was the IOOSt relevant statement on p.Jblic higher education in Georgia since the report of the 1963 Governor's commission To In'prove Education. '!he statewide needs assessment was corrlucted within the span of one year arx:i was rightly expected to provide a basis for plaI'll'linJ arx:i developnent within the university System. '!he objectives of the Regents Study were: (1) to analyze current programs of instruction, researd1, arx:i service - arx:i to identify additional services that should be provided; (2) to detennine if the present cx::mplex of institutions is sufficient for meetin:] identified needs; arx:i (3) to project charges that will be necessary in the foreseeable future.
Notin:] that the success of the University System was judged in the 1960s arx:i 1970s in tenns of growth, the needs assessment report declared the improvement of educational quality to be the measure of success in the 1980s. '!he first recarnrrerrlation in the report called for establishment by the Governor, General Assembly, arx:i Board of Regents of quality improvement as the top priority for p.Jblic higher education. '!he report errlorsed the Study committee on Finance's report as "one of the IOOSt significant documents in the history of the university System" arx:i :reccmnerrled its full implementation (p. 19). '!he introduction to the report referred to the Study committee on Finance's report as a significant canpanion document.
Havin:] declared quality improvement as its top priority, the Coordinatin:] committee for the study :reccmnerrled: (a) closer cooperation between the Regents arx:i the state Board of Education; (b) creative partnerships with c::amm.mi.ty, business, arx:i irrlustrial leaders; (c) a system of program evaluation with both internal arx:i external. efforts; (d) a long-range goal of elilninatin:] developnental studies; (d) the reinstitution of SPeCific academic requirements for admission to units of the University System; arx:i (e) a systenMide program of faculty developnent.
Concerning the structure or institutional c:::anposition of the University System, the Coordinatin:] committee :reccmnerrled that no charges be made in present institutional structure or status. Existin:] institutions were to be carefully nonitored, however, to detennine if declinin:] enrollments implied closin:] or consolidation. In the meantime, better use was to be made of cooperative residential doctoral programs, telecamnunications, arx:i satellite researd1 centers to deliver needed services. '!he Board of Regents was expected to study its institutions in Albany arx:i savannah arx:i to detennine if
98

their present structure served the needs of their respective areas arrl the state as a whole.

A major stren;Jth of the university System was identified as its govern.i..rg structure arrl the leadership it ex:w.d provide. '!he Regents, therefore, were to set priorities for institutional arrl program developnent arrl to make those priorities known. '!hey were to take a lOOre direct bani in the definition of institutional missions arrl ensure that institutional
missions supported the University System as a whole. '!he Board would continue to delegate to institutions the autoncmy they required for diversity arrl
academic excellence, but the Board should :readdress the problem of institutional service areas arrl refine its guidelines so as not to encourage unhealthy canpetition.

other recx:mnenjations to the Board of Regents included: (a) stren;Jthening the periodic review of institutional productivity arrl mnagement; (b) studyirg institutional arrl program duplication with an eye to consolidation; arrl (c) measurirg institutional productivity in tenns of academic excellence, as well as the usual quantitative iniices. In accc::rnplishing these recx:mnenjations the Board was to also strive for better cxmnunications with both the citizens of Georgia arrl their elected representatives in the General
Assembly.

Rec:anunenjations concerning institutional an::Vor program matters were

directed to: (1) the liberal arrl fine arts - as the core of instru.ction in

each of the units; (2) agriculture - as a highly specialiZed arrl scien-

tifically oriented iniustJ:y; (3) business, iniustJ:y, arrl technology - as

significant partners in the creation of economic wealth arrl well-beirg

(4) the medical arrl health professions - as a cluster of particularly

inportant service cx::cupations; (5) tead1er education - as a profession

requirirg close study; (6) research - as a function requirirg continui.rq

overall ccmnitJnent as an essential part of the university System's mission;

(7) public service arrl continuin;J education

. as functions arrl

responsibilities with increasirg inportance, arrl (8) public arrl social

services - as areas of cxmnunity need that are subject to change.

'!he Regents Needs Assessment Report closed with a cogent statement of the University System's role arrl functions as "a cohesive arrl coordinated response to the public higher education needs of the state" arrl a nod in the direction of its next fifty years of service. Reaffinned was its canunitJnent to the ''basic operatirg principle articulated by the first Board in 1932the responsibility to detennine what will best serve the educational interests of the state as a whole."

R>licy Decisials in the 1980s

In the early 1980s many challergirg policy decisions were placed on the Board of Regents agerrla. fblicy changes requirirg attention were recurrent issues, such as changes in institutional status arrl the geographical
distribution of educational opportunity in graduate education. other policy decisions were needed in areas of public policy arrl the state's canunitJnent to academic quality or excellence arrl equity or fairness to the University

99

System's c.hargi..rg constituencies. '!he size am cc:rrplexity of thirty-four
diverse institutions educati..rg over 120,000 students challet1ed the day-to-
day care am attention of the Board of Regents, am institutional management am leadership were challet1ed by the magnitude of the tll'rlert:aki.n.
'!he approval of new degree programs am the authorization of inter-
institutional programs that would extern opportlmities for graduate education while 1esseJ'li..rg institutional aspirations for enharx:ed status required a
substantial annmt of time am effort. Prcx::edures am guidelines for cooperative programs were approved in 1980, am opportlmities for partici-
pation in doctoral programs were exterrled to senior colleges worki.nJ in
cooperation with the university of Georgia am Georgia state University. In similar manner, cooperation between units of the University System am
institutions outside the System were encouraged urrler policies permitti..rg the establislnnent of joint programs. Programs in the health professions continued
to exparrl am to require new fontlS of cooperative agreements with clinical agencies am organizations.
In December 1980 the Board adopted a policy statement concerning procedures for detennini.ng the feasibility of c.harges in institutional
mission am status. 'Ihree colleges were seeki.rg university status, am a
third was seeki.rg elevation to the level of senior college. other policy c.harges of major ilrp:>rtance concerned: (a) faculty salaries for entry-level positions, (b) the dismissal, denDtion, or suspension of classified
persormel, (c) the provision of grievance procedures, am (d) revision of
employee benefits, such as insurance. D.lri..rg 1981-1982 the Regents were required to deferxi their constitutional authority in the state's revision of its 1945 constitution. Another policy decision made at that time gave institutions an option in admitti..rg students who had not previously atterxied
college am who had been out of high school for at least eight years.
In Janual:Y 1981 the Regents adopted the :rec:x:mnen:3ation of the Georgia Public Teleccmnuni.cations Task Force that the System's public television station be placed urrler the authority of a newly created Public Telecammuni.cations Commission. One of the reasons given for the Regents' decision
was the "opportunity" to work IOC>re closely with the state Board am state
L'epartment of Education. other policy statements adopted by the Board of
Regents in the early 1980s dealt with: (a) academic advisement, am (b) basic
requirements for the University System's core curriculum.
As an essential component of the Regents' desegregation plan, the
operation of a joint conti.nui.n;J education center by Annstrong state am
savannah state was initiated in July 1980. Arrl followi..rg a recc:::armerrlation of its Task Force on OptiInal Distribution of Institutions, the Regents adopted a IOC>re "functional classification" of institutions in which: (Type I) universities were either category A-eatprehensive or category B-Special Purpose, (Type II) senior colleges were either category A-Senior COllege or
category B-Special Purpose, am (Type III) junior colleges were category A (offeri..rg transfer am career programs) or category B (offeri..rg transfer, career, am vocational-technical programs).
100

In 1983 the Regents adopted a revised policy manual in which efforts were made to eliminate inconsistencies ani to :reflect 1OO:re accurately the llUllerOUS c::banJes made in system.Yide policies. A1lDrg the new policies included in the revised manual were: (1) provisions for exteJ:nal degree programs, (2) c::banJes in academic calerrlar for the University of Georgia law school, (3) revisions in policies c:xmcernin;J develc:pnental studies, ani (4) revisions in the University System's tenure ani non-tenure policies.
Policy issues on the Regents' agen:la for 1983-1984 were: (1) college participation rates ani ways in which institutions c:aJ1d increase participation, (2) ways in which DeKalb camuni.ty COllege c:aJ1d beccme a mrit of the University System, (3) agreements with the state Board of Education that TNOUld inplement Goven1Or Joe Frank Harris' establishment of "a third board"
for Postsecomary Vocational-Techni.ca1 Education, (4) adoption of a pre-
college curriculum :requirement for admission to the University System, ani (5) evidence of "substantial progress" in meetirq the state's desegregation goals. Initiated durirq the year was a fonnal procedure for the review ani inprovement of teacher education programs not havirq a 70 percent passirq rate on the state's Teacher certification Test (TCI').
As a revision in its desegregation plan, the Board agree in 1984 to make substantial inprovements in the remediation courses offered students who did not past the Regents' Test on their first atte.npt. A study of engineerirq education by the staff of the south.em Regional Education Board was contracted, ani approval to beccme a four-year institution was given to Clayton Jmrior COllege. Approval was also given "provisional admission criteria" that would apply to freshmen not meetirq the requirements of the Regents 1988 p:re-college curriculum. A :resolution add:ressirq better lines of ccmnunication with the state's private institutions was also adopted.
In 1985-1986 the University System cbtained, for the first time, full :furrling of the revised "fonm.I1a for excellence" reccmnen:led by the 1982 Study cemni.ttee on Public Higher Education Finance. '!he new Chancellor noted in his annual :report "the constJ:uctive ~rkin:J :relations that has been forged
between the Board of Regents ani the Board for Postsecomary vocatiOnal
Education." '!he :report sul:ini.tted. by the south.em Regional Education Board did not support the state's need for a secorrl engineerirq school ani, to the contrary, presented evidence that Georgia Tech was not adequately supported in providirq engineerirq programs already in place.
'!he status of the University System in 1986 (the last year for which an annual :report is available) is :reflected in an equ.ivalent-full-time enrollment of 113,685 students ani a total enrol1lnent of 135,964 students. A total of 24,040 degree ani certificates was conferred, ani at least 6,199 faculty
members, makin:J an average salcn:y of $31,039, were involved in teachirq, researd1, arx3jor ~ice. OVer 12,550 continu:in:J education programs were
provided a total of 472,730 particiPants.
101

APPENDIX A
Historical Devel.qllent of '!be University Syst:an Iard:Jarlc Years: 1932-1986

1932

1950

1964

1980

1987

Number of Institutions
Number of students: EFT
students: Total
Number of
Faculty
Faculty salary
Degrees Conferred
Ih.D. 's

15*

16

19

32

33

-
8,035

-
29,011

33,147 47,139

96,505 124,541

113,685 135,964

339

1,095

1,826

5,965

6,199

-

$3,683 $7,589 $20,837 $31,039

-

6,046

6,029 22,732 24,040

-0-

1

78

444

458

*Excluding 8 A&M SChools and 2 Experllnent stations.

102

ANNOrATED HIBLIOGRAIHY:
University System survey am Intemal Reports
Allen, Ivan (Olainnan) Governor's cemnission 'lb Sinplify am Coordinate the
Operations of Governmental Depart:1lEnts. Plan of Silnplification and Coordination of the Departments Boards camni.ssions and Institutions of the state Government of Georgia. Atlanta: state of Geo~ia Executive Department, 1929.
can:ller C. Murphey (Olainnan). Reoort of state survey Conunittee. Atlanta: state of Geo~ia Executive Department, 1925.
A Citizens camni.ttee appointed by Governor Clifford Walker to
smvey "the con:lition am needs of our Educational System and
institutions." '!he committee looked at the "c::cmron schools," A&M
schools and junior colleges, am "the higher education
institutions."
Coffman, L.D., Elliott, Edward C., Judd, Olarles H., Zook, Geo~e F., and Works, Geo~e A. (Olainnan). Reoort to the Board of Regents of the University SYstem of Georgia. Atlanta: USGA, 1933.
'!he first of the statewide smvey reports prepared by an outside group of experts is known as "the First Works Report."
Dorsey, Hugh M. (Governor and Olainnan). Reoort of Budget and Investigating Conunission. Atlanta: state of Geo~ia Executive Department, 1919.
'!he Eighties am Beyond: A connnit:ment to Excellence. A Report of a Statewide
Needs Assessment for Public Higher Education. Atlanta: Board of Regents, University System of Geo~ia, February 1983.
Based on a statewide needs assessxrent am identifying quality inprovenent, accessibility am centralization, effective delivery systems, leadership, productivity, am financial support as the state of
Geo~ia's major needs.
Assessment Resource Book. Staff reports am collected data for Board of
Regents' comprehensive statewide needs assessxrent initiated in 1981. (Atlanta: USGA, 1983).
Fincher, cameron. Nursing and Paramedical Persormel In Georgia: A survey of
SUpply and Demands. Atlanta: Georgia state College, 1962.
A thirteen-month study of twelve health professions in the state of
Georgia. Enployers were smveyed for vacancies, tun1over, am future
persormel needs; colleges am schools were smveyed for educational am
training supply of persormel.
103

Fincher, cameron. Planning For A statewide System of Public Higher Education: Fifty Years of Trial. Error, arrl Eventual SUccess in Georgia. Athens: Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, 1984.

Fonnula For Excellence: Financim Georgia's university System in the '80s. Final Report of the study Ccmni.ttee on Public Higher Education Finance. Atlanta: Office of the Goven1Or, september 1982.

Rec:x::mrems differentiated furxti.n:J of institutions acx:::ording to mission
arrl ftmcti.ons. universities, senior colleges, arrl junior colleges should be :fun:ied acx:::ording to i.nstn1ctional productivity in five major program areas (humanities arrl social sciences; area studies arrl applied. or professional fields; sciences and technological specialties; renali.al/developnental education; arrl the professions of medicine, dentistry, arrl veterinary medicine.

GEORGIA 2000: FUture Growth arrl Human arrl Natural Resources. Athens: Cooperative Extensive Division, University of Georgia, 1986.

Goven1Or's Ccmnri.ssion To Improve Education.

Educatim Georgia's People: Investment in the FUture.
Goven1Or's Ccmnri.ssion To Improve Education, 1963.

Atlanta:

Final report of the conunission appointed by Goven1Or carl Sanders in 1963. Excellent staff work arrl exceptional group of consultants, plus remarkable representation of the public interest by a blue-ribbon group, led. to recornrnema.tions concerning statewide goals, planning, financing, arrl excellence at all levels of public education.

statistical SUpplement to staff Memoranda and Final Report EIXJCATING GEORGIA'S PEx:>PIE. Atlanta: Goven1Or's CC:mnission To Improve Education, 1963.

"Georgia's Public Junior College Program." staff Memoranchnn No.9. Atlanta: Goven1Or's Commission To Improve Education, 1963.

Goven1Or's Connnittee on Postsecorrlary Education:

Postsecondary Issues: Action Agenda for the Eighties. Atlanta: COPE, 1979.

Report issued. by the state's sec::orxl 1202 commission as the result of its charge by Goven1Or George Bllsbee to identify major problems, issues, and concerns confronting postsecorrlary education.

Georgia's Postsecondary Education in the Eighties: Goals and Objectives. Atlanta: COPE, 1980.

secon::l report issued. by the Connnittee as the result of re-appoinbnent arrl a charge by Governor Busbee to identify statewide goals arrl objectives in postsecorrlary education.

104

Georgia Postseconda:ry Education: Where we Are and Where We Need To Be.
Atlanta: CDPE, 1981.
'!he third report issued by the Govez:nor's canmission on Postsecorrlal:y Education. Includes efforts to assess progress beirq made toward the state's postsecorrlal:y goals and objectives and reports progress in offerirq a diversity of institutions and programs, educational opportunities that serve student career needs, and cooperation among postsec:c:>mary institutions. SUbstantial progress was not beirq made, however, in p.lblic awareness, institutional responsiveness to educational needs, and adequate OWOrtunities for a changirq clientele.
Maintaining Progress in Georgia: Rec:ort'Ine.rrltions for Today and Concerns
for Tcm:>rrow. Atlanta: CDPE, 1982.
SUllInarizes the cemnittee' s efforts to identify issues and problems, to identify statewide goals and objectives, and to assess achievement of educational goals. Recanunen::Is state policies for student financial aid, college admissions and remedial assistance, geographic access and program plannirq, and plannirq for future needs. Among reconunendations is the establishment of a statewide adviso:ry camnission on post-
sec::on:my.
Govez:nor's Conference on Education:
A Special Report on Testing, Counseling, and Guidance. Atlanta: Georgia Nuclear Adviso:ry CoImnission/cemnittee on Manpower and Education (William M. SUttles, C11ainnan), 1959.
A scecial Reoort on Teacher Education. Atlanta: GNAC/CoImnittee on Manpower and Education (William M. suttles, C11ainnan), 1959.
A Special Report on Educational Television. Atlanta: GNAC/CME (William M. SUttles, C11ainnan), 1959.
A Special Report on Vocational Education. Atlanta: GNAC/CME (William M. SUttles, C11ainnan), 1959.
Improving Undergraduate Teacher Education Programs in Georgia. RecoImnendations of the External Review Committee for the Improvement of Teacher Education in Georgia. Atlanta: University System of Georgia, 1986.
:Report on the reconunendations of an exte.n1al review conunittee convened to consider teacher education, ways of ilnproving teacher education programs, and actions or studies that should be urrlertaken. Contains forty-three reconunendations for educatirq teachers.
Martin, Walter S. A Role and SCope Study of the University System of Georgia. (Unpublished manuscript, 1966).
105

study prepared with staff assistance fran the Institute of Higher Education. In 1966 Dr. Martin was Vice Chancellor of the University System arrl President-Elect of Valdosta state College.
New state Directions for Postsecorrlaly vocational Education. Report of the vocational Education Task Force (Robert B. Onnsby, Olainnan). Atlanta: VEI'F, 1983.
Report of the task force awointed by Governor Harris to rec:anunerxi new fOnDS of governance for vocational education that TNOUld not require an irneperrlent state agency or constitutional authority.
Regents study on CoImnunity Jtmior Colleges in Geomia. Report to the Board of Regents. (Prelinrlnary Draft, December 1964).
First draft of the cxmnittee's report in which recarmnenjations for Bibb County-Houston County, Downtown Atlanta, West Atlanta, arrl South Atlanta areas were made. Includes detailed data on high school graduates, population growth, etc.
Roberts, Derrell C. (Cllainnan). Mission arrl Role of Public 'lWo-year Colleges in Geomia. (Report of the Study camnittee awointed by O1ancellor H. Dean Propst in 1987).
Simpson, George L., Jr. A Dam Has Broken. A statement of Vital Interest to All Georgians by the O1ancellor of the University System of Georgia. Atlanta: University System of Georgia, 1967.
Strayer, George D. (Director). A RePOrt of a SUrvey of the University System of Geomia. Atlanta: USGA, 1949.
'!he third sw:vey corrlucted by outside experts since 1932; contract was with George Strayer, fonner director of the Division of Field Studies of the Institute of Educational Research, Teachers College arrl thus, numerous references since 1949 to "the strayer Report."
Works, George A. (Director). Report to the Board of Regents of the University System of Geomia 1943. Atlanta: USGA, 1943.
'!he secorrl sw:vey report arrl :Jmc1..m as "the 8ecorrl Works Report." F'ur'rls for this study were acquired in 1940 but c::anpletion of the report was delayed by the University System's "time of troubles" in 1941-1942.
state laws:
Jtmior College Act of 1958. No. 53 (House Bill No. 686). General Acts arrl Resolutions, Voltnne I: Georgia laws 1958 Session.
An act to provide for a system of jtmior colleges in Georgia arrl defining "jtmior college" as a cannnunity educational institution constJ:ucted arrl operated by a local operation authority (Le. city, county, or iI'rlepement school systems).
106

aJAPl'ER III
'!his chapter considers lower-di.vision, ~vision, professional, ani graduate education ani the iJrplications of national ani regional commission reports for the iJrprovement of higher education in Georgia colleges ani universities.
'!he American Association of state COlleges ani Universities (MSaJ), Association of American COlleges (MC), caznegie FOlJI'Dation for the Advancement of Tea~ (CFAT), Education carmission of the states (ECS), National Errlowment for the Humanities (NEll), ani National Institute of Education (NIE) have issued reports on the status of un:iergraduate education in American institutions of higher learning. Each report addresses the decline in liberal or general education ani calls for national efforts to strengthen urrlergraduate programs in conununity colleges, senior colleges, ani universities. Each report has its own list of recarnmemations for the iJrprovement of UIXiergraduate education, but all three reports have much in conunon. '!he particular thrusts of the six reports can be identified as:
(1) the reordering of national priorities to make a full and unequivocal camnitment to learning (MSaJ);
(2) a redefinition of the meaning and ~ of baccalaureate degrees (MC) ;
(3) the iIrprovement of UIXiergraduate education in virtually all aspects
(CFAT) ;
(4) the development of comprehensive state strategies for educational iJrprovement (ECS);
(5) the restoration of the hmnanities to their central position in college curricula (NEll); and
(6) the imucement of more active involvement in learning on the part of students (NIE).
A dominant theme of all six reports can be expressed as the belief that the quality of UIXiergraduate education has declined over the past two decades ani that quality can be restored by concerted attention to general education
ani the liberal arts. Unfortunately, the recarnmemations made in the reports
differ appreciably in their iIrplications and in their promise for iIrplementation.
107

'Ib no small extent the reIXlrts agree that un:lel:graduate education can be st.ren;Jthened best through the requirement of additional coursework in the liberal arts. All would presumably increase course requirem:mts at the freshman an:! sqilcm:>re levels of baccalaureate degree programs, an:! few would be reluctant to len;Jth.en the time taken to ecu:n a degree if more time is necessary.
In many respects, the NEH an:! AAC reIXlrts are the most traditional, one having been written by a phile>sqiler (William J. Bennett) an:! the other (primarily) by a historian (Frederick Rudollit). '!he CFAT reIXlrt is the most ambitious an:! literally "covers the college canp..1S" in its efforts to refonn urrlergraduate education. '!he ECS reIXlrt addresses p.1blic policy more directly than the others an:! is the one most likely to be read by state-level officials. '!he NIE reIXlrt is also directed to p.1blic authority but reflects certain sociological preferences for urrlergraduate education, as OPPOSed to htnnanistic concems. '!he AASaJ reIXlrt is the most relevant an:! identifies fairly SPeCific tal:gets or goals for colleges an:! universities within the nation. Each report is comprehensive in the sense that it addresses all institutions engaged in urrlergraduate education, an:! in the further sense that most rec:x:munenjations Pertain to all academic programs leading to a bachelor's degree. All the reports seek a restricted audience, and none suffers from a lack of ambition to :redirect an:! to enhance the urrlergraduate curricula of the nation's POStsecorrlary institutions.
'!he NIE Report makes a Particular appeal for the assessroont of student achievement an:! feedback to students to encourage their continued involvement in learning. '!he report discusses assessment as a potentially effective tool for clarifying expectations an:! thereby increasing student involvement. Strongly favored is a fonn of Perfonnance testing which would include pretests an:! post-tests that would Pennit the measurement of iInprovements in Perfonnance. Writers of the report believe that institutions should be Particularly interested in measuring how students grow an:! develop as a result of their college education.
One of the report's best rec:x:munenjations, therefore, is to the effect that faculty ani academic deans should design an:! iInplement a systematic program to assess the knowledge, capacities an:! skills developed by students in academic an:! co-curricular programs. 'Ib aCCCllt'plish these tasks, the report advocates the widest possible range of assessroont ani testing techniques, including essays, interviews, portfolios, an:! Perfonnance examinations, as well as traditional staroardized tests. '!he report assumes, of course, that common parameters of student learning can be identified and that tests can be devised for pre- an:! post-testing to assess significant changes in learning an:! achievement.
A somewhat puzzling rec:onunerrlation in the NIE report is to the effect that academic administrators an:! faculty should ensure that their testing i.nstnlments an:! methods are appropriate for the knowledges, capacities an:! skills addressed, an:! for the stated objectives of urrlergraduate education at their institutions. Following this rec:onunerrlation is one favoring the
108

participation of faculty in the developnent, adoption, administration arrl scoring of the :instruments arrl procedures used in student assessment. Related to these c::c:mneOOations, no doubt, are student evaluations of academic programs that should be an essential requirement for stren;Jt:hening the quality of urrlergraduate education.
'!he ECS :report challenges institutions to i.Jrprove their assessment of student perfonnance while the CFAT :report rec:x:mmen:ls the elimination of the SAT arrl Ac::r when they are not used specifically for selective admissions. A strorq preference is expressed for a written essay as an admission requirement, arrl student achievement should be assessed prinlarily for advisement puI.lX)SeS. '!he CFAT :report does errlorse, however, the measurement of outcomes by means of senior theses, senior seminars or colloquia, arrl portfolios of student activities as "campus citizens." Authors of the AASaJ report state a preference for educational methods that facilitate student learni.rq arrl suggest that assessment should be used to deteJ:mine student progress toward skills arrl competencies that are explicit in the attainment of a bachelor's degree.
'!he MC :report is skeptical of the value of testing in undergraduate programs. '!he report states that higher education is not yet in possession of generally useful means for the sophisticated assessment of programs or of the integrated ClmlUlative intellectual growth arrl capacities of students. '!he report does concede, however, that there are many procedures available for assessing particular aspects of higher education. An appreciable faith is expressed in the capabilities of faculty to devise their own assessment procedures. A joint trustee/faculty/student ccmni.ttee on assessment should oversee the legitimate interest arrl responsibilities of each group arrl thereby seI:Ve public demands for accountability.
SUrprisingly, the MC report is opposed to the use of comprehensive exams. Preparation for such exams evidently is not the best use of a student's time, arrl such exams may, in fact, be disruptive of other educational experiences that are coming to fruition toward the erxl of the senior year. It should be possible to invent intellectual exercises that will allow students to demonstrate what they have learned arrl to show that they are able to synthesize their learni.rq without i.n::lulging in what the report calls "the frantic InelOOrization arrl cult of coverage that characterize comprehensive exams in their worst i.ncal:nation."
'!he core of the rec:omme.rx'!ations in the MC report is same kind of "study in depth" before irrlividuals complete degree requirements. '!his study in depth evidently would meld together most of the requirements for synthesizing student learni.rq arrl demonstrating student perfonnance.
'!he requirement of the MC Report evidently would ensure that learners compreherxl same complex structure of knowledge, gain same degree of understarxling arrl control, arrl (by iInplication) overcame the disadvantages of the narrow specialization that major fields TY:M encourage. In-depth study presumably would present a central core of method arrl theory that introduces learners to the explanatory power of academic disciplines, provides a basis for subsequent study, arrl "force" student to experience the range of
109

disciplinary topics am the variety of disciplinary tools. studies in-depth presumably are as relevant to professional am awlied fields as they are to the traditional disciplines in arts am sciences.
st:.aImrds ani Reqd t aIents
In discussin;} "the nvathods am prcx:esses, IOOdes of access to umersta.rdirg am judgment, that should infonn all study," the Me report gives a confusin;} picture of the oojectives am expected a.rtcanes of uniergraduate
education. In addition to studies in depth, the report calls for an unusual mixture of knowledge, infonnation, skills, c:::c.upetencies, attitudes, beliefs,
am values. Authors of the report have been unable to agree on the purposes of education am they are often uncertain as to whether they are declarin;}
for knowledge, intellectual c:::c.upetence, or shared values. '!here are
cx:x::asional hints that all three ki..rrls of a.rtcanes are desirable, but the report does not consider the relative nvarits of each kim of lean1.in:} as an instnlcti.onal or teach.in;J objective, as the pw:pose arrljor meaning of
education, am as teach.in;J or lean1.in:} expectations.
'!he ''methods am processes, IOOdes of access to unierstami.rq am
judgment, that should infonn all study" are: (1) inquiry, abstract logical thinking, critical analysis; (2) literacy: writin;}, readin;}, speaking, listening; (3) urrlerstarrling mnnerical data; (4) historical consciousness (5)
science; (6) values; (7) art; am (8) international am multicultural
experiences.
'!he AASaJ report rec::onunenjs the development of strategies that will
strengthen the interactions of students am faculty IDeInbers. '!he lean1.in:} that takes place in student/teacher interactions am among students themselves is an essential feature of urrlergraduate education am its facilita-
tion should be assigned the highest priority. ways of fosterin;} faculty
vitality am excellence are: (a) ~ outstarding teach.in;J, (b) involvin;} students in faculty research, am (c) supportin;} faculty renewal
efforts. Recammended by the CFAT report are distinguished teach.in;J professorships, encouragement of scholar-teacher ideals, mini-grants for teach.in;J faculty, and the continued professional development of faculty members and department heads.
student Involvement
'!he major recannnerrlation of the NIE report is that students must become l1Dre actively involved in their own education. '!he recammerrlation obviously stems fram a theol:)T of lean1.in:} in which active participation by learners is a crucial variable. To that effect research is cited to show that lean1.in:}
is directly related to the quantity am quality of lean1.in:} efforts.
NIE recannnerrlations are based on the premise that colleges and universities must produce deIOClnstrable iIrprovements in knowledge, capacities,
skills am attitudes between tine of entrance am tine of graduation. To produce these deIOClnstrable improvements, colleges am universities must establish clearly expressed am publicly announced starrlards of Perfonnance
for awarding degrees. Another premise upon which NIE recammerrlations are
110

based is that these improvements must be achieved efficiently (Le., be cost effective) .
'!he NIE report states that student involvement can be increased by the
reallocation of institutional resources to the first am secorrl year of
urrlergraduate study. '!he reallocation of resources should pennit faculty to
make greater use of active m:xles of teac::hi.n;J am to require that students
take greater responsibility for their leaJ:lli.n:J. Faculty should also lecnn to
use the leaJ:lli.n:J technologies that are available, am they should insist that
the use of these technologies pennit IlDre personal contact between students
am faculty on intellectual issues.
A somewhat gratuitous recannnen:1ation states that all colleges should
offer a systematic program of guidance am advisement. A less directly
related. recannnen:1ation concerns the creation of leaJ:lli.n:J cannnunities that
evidently waI1d be established within colleges am tmiversities am organized
arourrl specific themes or tasks. Another means of increasing student
involvement is through adequate physical support am recognition of faculty am student Participation in caI'lp]S activities.
'!he NIE report testifies that if excellence is to be achieved in urrlergraduate education, the eJq)eCtations of both teaching faculty and
students should be raised, faculties am chief academic officers should agree upon am disseminate a statement of the knc1.Yledge, and capacities and skills
that students should develop prior to graduation. All four-year college degrees would require at least two full years of liberal education. Should this require the extension of urrlergraduate programs beyorrl the usual four years, colleges should not hesitate to impose such a requirement. In exparrling the requirements of liberal education for baccalaureate degrees, the report states that curricula content should be addressed not only to subject matter but to the developnent of analytic problem-solving
cannnunication am skills. In addition, students am faculty should work
together to integrate knowledge from the various academic disciplines.
A further recannnen:1ation states that the curriculum in each college or
tmiversity should be adjusted to match the knowledge, capacities, am skills
that students are expected to develop. All colleges, COIlUl1lll1ity colleges,
college am universities, should supplement the academic credits they give
with assessments of proficiency both in liberal education and in the students' major fields.
'!he NIE report is addressed to all college am university officials responsible for urrlergraduate curriculum am instnlction. Graduate schools
should require applicants for graduate work to present evidence of a broad urrlergraduate liberal arts education. Graduate deans should develop ways of helping prospective faculty lecnn about the history, organization, and
culture of American Higher Education - am develop their own urrlerstanding of teaching am leaJ:lli.n:J. state am system-Ievel officials should minimize
the intrusion of their agencies into the daily affairs of public colleges.
Arrl, of course, accrediting agencies should hold colleges am tmiversities
accountable for clear statements of eJq)eCtations for student leaJ:lli.n:J. state
officials should establish special am alternative :fun::lin;J for colleges to
111

encourage efforts that promote student involvenent arxl institutional assessment.
'!he NIE Report rec:x::mnems that federal arxl state agencies , private
f<Jl.1IDations, colleges arxl university research organizations, arxl researchers concerned with higher education should focus their funli.n;J strategies arxl research activities on the facilitation of greater student learning arxl develqment. One section of the report gives advice to students on such
matters as seekirJ;J an intellectual mentor, t.aki..nJ advantage of advising arxl
COl.D1Se1ing services, involving themselves in campus activities, trying to atterx:i college full-time, not TNOrkin;J unless it is related to their educa-
tion, arxl t.aki..nJ at least one irxlepement study course arxl one internship
during their college careers. '!he study group suggests that at the erxl of their sophaoore year a college student should be able to read scientific American arxl explain to friends the theories, methods arxl conclusions covered in the major article. At the beginning of their junior year, college students should be able to read a foreign newspaper arxl recount to friends the TNOrld, national arxl cultural issues presented. In the middle of their junior year they should be able to describe "a high quality analysis" of a particular set of data, text or artifacts in their major field. A concluding suggestion to students is that they should insist on participating in regular evaluations of their institutions' program offerir;Js arxl envirornnents.
'!he active involvenent of urxiergraduate students in their own education is also ilrplied by many reconunenjations in the AASaJ, ECS, arxl CFAT reports. Institutions of higher education should seek ways in which they can build greater student involvement (ECS), recognize arxl integrate public arxl conununi.ty service into urxiergraduate programs (AASaJ), arxl require a "service project" as an integral part of urxiergraduate education - with academic credit (CFAT).
Reclai.min;J the Humanities
'!he NEH report, written by William J. Bennett prior to being appointed secretaJ::y of Education, makes a special case for the humanities in urxiergraduate education. '!he report, arxl the deliberations of the study group appointed by Bennett, is predicated on the observation that the hUIllal1ities have lost their central place in baccalaureate programs. A substantial majority of students now graduate from college without exposure to westen1 civilization, American literature arxl histo:ry, arxl the civilization of classical Greece and Rome. '!he dominant reconunenjation in the report thus states that:
'!he nation's colleges arxl universities must reshape their urxiergraduate curricula based on a clear vision of what constitutes an educated person, regardless of major, arxl on the study of histo:ry, Iilllosophy, lanJUages, arxl literature. (p. 2)
Closely related to this reconunenjation are encouragenents to college arxl university presidents to take responsibility arxl to reward excellent teaching - arxl to college faculties in escaping the confines of narrow depart:rnentalismarxl in helping establish a core of c:x::mnt)n studies. '!he report is
112

particularly aweaJ.ing in its encouragenent of academic programs that would pennit "all students to know a CCIDl1DI1 culture rooted in civilization's
lasting vision, its highest shared ideals am aspirations, am its heritage." In many respects, the rep::>rt is an eloquent plea for cultural literacy.
Unlike the NIE am MC rep::>rts, Bennett am his study group are lOOre
explicit about what they would like to see restored to the umergraduate
curriculum. Much needed is a better balance between breadth am depth; lOOre
frequent use of original litercny, prilosqili.cal, an:l historical texts; better continuity in humanistic studies, inp:roved teachin;J or greater faculty
canpetence am expertise; am conviction that the hmnanities are not mere!Y
an educational luxury. '!he rep::>rt is quite explicit in its preferences for
particular books am authors that urrlergraduate students should read, d j scuss, am assmlate.
Unfortunately, the rep::>rt fi..rns that too many college courses in the
htnnanities are taught with "excruciating dullness or pedantry." In intro-
ducto:ry or 10000er division courses, too many courses are taught by graduate
assistants or adjunct, part-time faculty. In much the same manner as the MC report but a little less fervor, the NEH rep::>rt lays much of the blame at the feet of graduate education. '!he rapid growth of higher education in the 1960s left little time for the professional acculturation of college teachers
am many faculty members in the 1980s teach with habits am expectations
established in an earlier era.
'!he steady erosion of the htnnanities in lll"rlergraduate education is
attributed, pert1aps too easily, to a collective loss of neI:Ve am faith on the part of college administrators am teachin;J faculty. '!he report at this point is insufficiently appreciative of the changing deInaIxls am expectations brought to college campuses by older, nontraditional, am "new" students who were the first generation of their families to seek the benefits am
advantages of higher education. Not tmrelated to this perspective are the
memberships of Mark curtis, president of MC, am Frederick Rudolph on the
NEH study group.
'!he NEH clearly denies any preference for "a return to an earlier time when the classical curriculum was the only curriculum an:l college was available to only a privileged few." Arrl it wisely acknowledges that
restoration of the htnnanities is "a task each college am university will
have to aa:omplish for itself." It is unfortunate, therefore, that the
report will be read by many research am teaching faculty as a declamation of
faith in classical, elitist doctrines of education.
Evaluaticn am IlIplicatialS
'!he AASaJ, MC, CFAT, ECS, NIE, am NEH rep::>rts have much in conunonam much to cx:mnern. All provide good insight into the difficulties of umergraduate education am the many good intentions that have gone astray
over the past twenty years. All are on target in pointing to a national need
to strengthen baccalaureate degree programs am to declare in lOOre affinnative, constructive tenns the objectives am expected outcomes of a college
education. Arrl to a noticeable degree, all are correct in their inferences
113

(or assunptions) that if umergraduate education is to be strengthened am if
it is to give better evidence of quality or excellence, the challenge must be
aa:::epted by college am university faculties am concerted effort must be
directed to the academic programs by which college students ean1 college
degrees
.A1t:>n;J the several worthy rec::x:mnerrlations of the three reports is the
certainty that if uOOergraduate i.nstJ::ucti.on am academi c programs are to be inproved, attention must be given classrocm teach.inq am program developnent in institutional decisions related to hirirg, p:ralDti.rg, am tenurirg faculty
members. '!he reward system of many institutions does i.rxleed act as a dis-
incentive for instr:uctional inprovement am for the enhancement of academic courses am programs. In much the same manner, if colleges are to assure the
llX)re active involvement of students in their own education, teaching faculty
must develop llX)re systematic, objective, creditable, am fair methods of assessirg student canpetencies am in providirg knowledge-of-results to
learners.
'!he cammon weakness of national cc:mnission reports is their lack of sensitivity to what is actually takin;J place on a majority of the nation's
college canp.1Ses am in a majority of the nation's classrooms. Institutions
of higher education will be hard pressed to meet the challenge of cultural aOOjor scx::ietal acculturation while reestablish:in3' the centrality of liberal
leanring. With clear inlications that roth national am state policies
currently favor the concentration of ~lic resources in secoOOary schools,
it will be quite difficult for colleges am universities to obtain the
financial support needed for curricular refonn.
'!he IIDSt noticeable weakness of cc:mnission reports is in the poor
direction am guidance they give to the strengthening of umergraduate
curricula. To an embarrassing extent, all six reports deal with a stereotype
of uOOergraduate education that no lorger serves educational purposes. To
teach the Classics, the developnent of western civilization, the best of
English literature, am the nxli.m:mts of abstract, logical thinking to
educationally disadvantaged students is a challenge that sane institutions
am sane faculty will decline.
More specifically, the AASaJ, Me, CFAT, ECS, NIE, am NEH fail to address the substance am content of college curricula in ways that will make
sense to the majority of college faculty. Virtually ignored in all reports is the judgment of the carnegie Fourrlation that major fields of study are "a
success sto:ry" am only Passing references are made to the fact that American colleges am universities teach well what they are best prePared to teach: those areas of specialization that merit am sustain the research am
teaching interests of faculty. To a similar degree, the reports do not take
sufficient notice of the generation gap bebNeen the leanring needs am interests of students am the teaching interests of faculty. As the carnegie
FC>UI'X3ation pointed out, the majority of our students are enrolled in
professional am applied fields of study while the majority of our faculty
have been trained in traditional disciplines.
114

Many curricular problems are overlooked in each of the six reports. !here are cxx:asional l::lows in the direction of distributional requirements,
electives, am specialized or advanced coursE!'w'Ork as the three ingredients
that go into a two-Iayer cake, but there is an acccarpanying reluctance to
consider the design, developnent, substance, am content of academic
programs. '!here have been even m::>re reluctance to address the many problems
of course planning, developnent, am evaluation Were the levers of curric-
ular refonn unioubtedly are fourxi.
But m:::st of all, national canmi.ssion reports may perpetuate the
confusions of the liberal arts, liberal lean'li.rq, general education, am the
htnnanities. If there are IOOaningful distinctions to be made am::>ng these concepts (as many scholars believe), there is J'K) sustained effort in any of the reports to address those distinctions. 'Ib sane extent, each of the reports discussed can be accurately described as traditional in its major
thrusts, am there are passages in the Me am NEH reports that could be
called reactionary.
In brief, if the AASaJ, MC, CFAT, ECS, NIE, am NEH reports stilmllate or provoke serious thought am di SClJSSion - about the pw::poses am meaning
of a college education - among the nation's 500, 000 faculty members (or an appreciable proportion thereof) - with concerted attention to how faculty
can develop better courses am teach their students m::>re effectively, the reports will exceed all reasonable expectations of their various authors am
sponsoring agencies. !here is evidence (El-Rhawas, 1987) that many institutions of higher education are currently ~ged in various fonns of
student assessment am urrlergraduate refonn, but the extent am the effec-
tiveness of such efforts are not yet clear.
Regional. am state Perspectives
!he National Governors' Association (NGA), the Southen1 Goven1ors' Association (SGA), an:! the Southen1 Growth Policies Board (SGPB) have taken the lead in advocating a nore active role for higher education in promoting economic growth. !he assistance of colleges an:! universities is needed in training tedmical manPOWer an:! in developing new an:! m::>re competitive technology for export in a highly c::arpetitive international market. While conceding that the university's first responsibility is to teach, virtually all reports of this kin:i call for educational refonns that would involve
university resources an:! expertise in the state's econcmic am technological
developnent.
As a result, the National Governors' Association (1987) has reconunended
that states distribute research f\.1rDs on a competitive basis am thereby
encourage universities to concentrate on areas of specialization in which they already excel. state goverrnnent is also encouraged: (1) to increase its
furrling of research equipment, (2) create or expam research centers that
study productivity an:! labor-management relations, (3) facilitate through technology centers the transfer of knowledge between universities an:! business corporations, (4) promote an:! SUWOrt exchanges of university
faculty members an:! researchers in imustry, am (5) review institutional
115

policies that are disincentives to faculty members with research skills needed by business corporations.
In its frequently cited publication, cornerstone of competition, the Southem Governors Association (1986) has addressed regional awareness of international canpetition an:! the SOUth's need for international education. AnDng SGA's fin:li.ngs are: (1) the ineffectiveness with which geography is taught in p.lblic schools, (2) the inadequate preparation of school teachers to deal with international issues, an:! (3) the failure of the federal government to support language an:! area studies an:! to encourage exchange programs.
AnDng the IOC>re important recanme.rrlations made by the SOUthern Governors' Association are the teaching of geograIily as a distinctive subject matter throughout public schooling (K-12) an:! sunmer programs covering international topics for high school students. Opportunities to study foreign languages should be provided all elementary school children an:! certification requirements for teachers should include verbal fluency an:! listening skills in the languages they teach. COlleges an:! universities should require foreign languages as an admission standard an:! assess the international awareness of graduates certified as public school teachers.
'!he SGA report encourages states to provide assistance in economic developnent by establishing curricula an:! seminars for business leaders that focus on foreign cultures an:! business custans. '!hey should also make :funjs available for the professional developnent of teachers an:! thereby pennit them to participate IOC>re directly in the design of programs an:! instnlctional materials related to their teaching needs. IDcal. businesses with international experience should be encouraged to W'Ork with school teachers, an:! states or cities with "sister relationships" abroad should include "sister school" agreements as part of their program.
'!he Southern Growth Policies Board's report Halfway Home And A Long Way To Go is the IOC>St interesting of the reports dealing with state policies for econamic development. '!he intent of the SGPB's camnission on the Future of the SOUth was to produce "a short, readable report" that would identify and discuss ten "strategic objectives." AnDng those objectives are:
1. To provide a nationally canpetitive education for all southern students by 1992;
2. To mobilize resources to eliminate adult functional literacy;
3. To prepare a flexible, globally canpetitive W'Ork force;
4. To increase the economic development role of higher education;
5. To increase the South's capacity to generate an:! use technology;
6. To enhance the South's natural an:! cultural resources; and
7. To develop pragmatic leaders with a global vision.
116

'!he major weakness of the NGA, SGA, am SGPB reports is the lack of guidance am i.nstnlction given state-supported colleges am universities that must inplement rec:x::mne.rx3ations given in the reports. For the southern region in particular, the three reports are repetitive of rn.nnerous earlier cxmnission reports deali.rq with barriers to the South's ecx>ncmi.c development. Hoover am Ratchford's (1951) study, Econanic Resources am Policies for the SOUth, can be cita::l as one of many such studies shc::Mi.rq that the region's ecx>ncmi.c barriers are prilnarily cultural. Deficiencies in education am health care continue to i1npede the South's pz:cqress, am traditional notions of education, research, am tedmologica1 innovation continue to retard cultural charr;Jes in many sections of the southern region.
Many of the rec:x::mne.rx3ations am strategies are reminiscent of the Sloan
Ccmnission's (1980) report, A PrcxJram for Renewed PartnershiP. At that time
profourxi charr;Jes in university-qovernment relations had. led to "a new Period of retrenchment." Government was perceived as a policeman am not as a partner of research universities. In particular, the enforcement of federal laws am regulations had. encroached on institutional autonomy am academic traditions - with the result that federal regulation contributa::l directly to increased educational costs. '!he leadership of universities in state goven1I1e'ltjhigher education partnerships was regarded by the Sloan Commission as essential am "the largest possible scope" of institutional autonomy was needed!
'!he leadership of major state universities is clearly absent from the NGA, SGA,' am SGPB reports. If IOC>re effective partnerships anong business, govennnent, am higher education are to be established, the leadership of major research universities must be encouraged. '!hus, the discovery am education of leaders for regional am state development are depen:lent upon institutions of higher education.
Policy stmies
Duri.rq the mid-1980s twenty or IOC>re states have reviewed their organization am governance of higher education in what they have referred to
as "policy studies." '!he procedures am outcanes of these studies are similar
in many respects to statewide planning or role-am-scope studies in the Past. Policy studies in at least four states (Idaho, california, New Mexico, am Wisconsin) have been corrlucted by legislative canmittees. Nine states (Colorado, Maine, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Marylam, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Islam, am Texas) have appointa::l study (blue ribbon) cammissions as a means of reconsideri.rq state govemment-higher education relations. Internal studies have been corrlucted by governi.rq or coordinati.rq boards in five
states (Florida, New York, Missouri, North Dakota, am Wisconsin), am five
states (Mississippi, South carolina, Ialisiana, am North carolina) have employed the services of outside consultants.
Virtually all state-level studies have focused on the future of higher education am each state's internal preferences for re-organization. Few states have re-stro.ctured or altered significantly the working relations anong institutions, programs, or PersOrmel, but appreciable charr;Jes have been made am institutions of higher education are expected to playa IOC>re vital
117

role in the state's continued econanic develcpnent. several states, such as Marylani, have sought new fonns of academic organization in which more effective gOVeJ::naIlCe ani coordination would be assured. other states have engaged in variations of strategic plann.i..rg, but they have succeeded prilnarily in stren;Jt:hening authority ani responsibilities that their state boards already had.
Proposals to close or merge institutions have been a major concern in several states. other concems have dealt with the elimination or reduction
of ''high cost" or "non-cost-effective" programs. one or two states have
expressed preferences for transfonnational leadership (with vision or charisma) ani look to more effective governance as a means of supplying that leadership. several states must cope with public expectations that declining enrollments will mean either increased efficier::Y or reductions in state appropriations.
In states considering re-organization, the relative merits of governing, coordinating, ani consolidated boards have been disalSSed. 'Ihirteen states nt::M have consolidated boards for all public institutions of higher education
while ten states have a separate agency for carmmmity colleges. Georgia, of
course, is one of the states in the first group ani North carolina is readily cited as an exarrple of the secorrl group. A third group of states - including Alabama, Termessee, ani South carolina - have coordinating boards with limited authority concerning budget reca:nmerx1ations ani program review (see
state Coordinating am Goven1ing Boards Handbook, 1986).
Policy issues ani concems in other states include IOOSt of the problems that can be identified within the state of Georgia. All states apparently need more explicit procedures for the fonnation of public policy, better leadership fram governing or coordinating boards, more flexibility in the management of institutional resources, adaptive ani responsive methods of promoting institutional effectiveness, ani innovative ways of "leading from their stren;Jt:h" while maintaining institutional ani program diversity.
'!he fimings of the ECS sw:vey of policy studies are confinned, in appreciable measure, by a report fram the COUncil for the Advancement ani SUpport of Education (Quehl, 1988). Fran interviews fram over 500 public, academic, ani corporate leaders, the CASE study identifies five public interest issues believed to be parannmt in American higher education: (1) the quality of higher education, (2) the cost of higher education, (3) opportunity ani choice for qualified citizens, (4) higher education's relationship to employment ani econanic developnent, ani (5) public tmderstarrling of the purposes of higher education.
College ani university presidents interviewed in the study are primarily concel:11ed alx>ut the increasing costs of education, public tmderstanding, past promises ani the credibility of higher education, ani managing c:harge. '!hey are aware of the many pressures to c:harge their institutions, to educate "new kirrls of student, " ani to resporrl incessantly to the urgent demarrls of federal ani state government.
118

Faculty members am chief academic officers are lOOre conc:::eJ::1'lE!d with the urrlergraduate curriculum am the quality of teac:h.iIg. '!hey rec:xJgJlize the need to balance teac:h.iIg am scholarship, am they are aware of the many conflicts between explicit am i.nplicit rewards as they function on college am mri.versity campuses. In contrast, students are concemed about the lOIlCJ-tenn value of their degrees, the accessibility of teac:h.iIg faculty, am the rising costs of education.
'!he CASe study stresses that govenlOrs am state representatives are concemed about the role of higher education in econanic developnent, the efficiency am accountability of higher education, am ways in which educational quality can be ensured. Fran a greater distance, corporate executives am fO\.1IX3ation officials worry about the "goodness of fit" between higher education am societal needs. Also of concenl is the overall stature of higher education as one of the nation's principal social agents.
'!he convergence of infonned national opinion on matters of cost, quality, am public perceptions is Weed relevant infonnation for public am institutional leaders in higher education. Where so many perceive gaps, deficiencies, am defects in the nation's efforts to educate am develop its future leaders, there is sufficient cause for concern!
other Perspectives aId Criticisms
Following the release of Bermett' s report for the National Endowment for Education, other critics of higher education joined forces in decrying the state of college curricula amurxlergraduate achievement. Urner a new director (Cleney, 1987) NEH has sponsored a "national assessment" of what seventeen-year-olds know about their nation's histoty am its literat:y traditions. As depicted by Ravitch am Finn (1987), our high school jmri.ors know vet:y' little about the histoty am literature of the nation in which they live. As students, they are ignorant of many essential facts am unexposed to IOOSt of the literat:y traditions that presumably give significance to national aCCOI1'Plishments .
'!he appearance of Allan Bloom's (1987) book, '!he Closing of the American Mind, on best seller lists is further irrlication of public disenchantment with what young adults study am learn in college. Although the major target of Bloom's criticisms is cultural relativism in the teaching of lOOral am ethical values, he argues forcefully that western civilization has legitimate claims to its centrality in educational thought am discussion - am he suggests in equally strong tenns that our current infatuation with nonwestern cultures urxlennines an intellectual am cultural heritage of which we should be proud.
He argues that our colleges no longer prcx:luce graduates who are known for their piety, their wisdom, or their marmers. Foolish notions of cultural relativism have tw:ned our classrooms into places where students no longer
learn to be irrlustrious, to resPeCt the law, to love their families, am to
celebrate the founding of our nation. In the 1980s education is not conc:::eJ::1'lE!d with the natural rights of man, am an openness to all kirrls of PeOple am
119

societies may be the only virtue that is consistently instilled in the nation's college students.
'!he p.n:pose of the university, in Blcx:m's opinion, is to maintain the
centrality of philosq;irlc inquiry, lilieral. education, am "the questions" that manki..rrl Il'llSt address continua1sly am seriously. In doin;J so, univer-
sities Il'llSt keep alive the works of those who have addressed such questions
in the past am whose written thoughts have becxJne an essential part of our
cultural heritage.
Blcx:m is easily dismissed as an elitist who describes education in
highly idealistic tenns. His views of education am his conceptions of troth
will not serve the educational needs of 12 million college students in a culturally pluralistic democracy. Am yet, his criticisms of higher education are often on target. Colleges are often lllimless places in which ideas of
substance am merit are seldom dj SOJSSed. Many canpJSes are inhabited by both faculties am students who fim it embarrassing to discuss (in college class:roctl1S) the intellectual, m::>ral, am ethical developnent of human mi.n:is am character.
E.D. Hirsch's (1987) CUltural Literacy has also appeared on best seller
lists am, in a different way, has given assistance to national thought am discussion conceming educational problems am issues. Hirsch was a member of
the small group who suggest items for the national assessment of what seventeen-year-olds kno~v. He is obviously corwinced that literacy is
deperx:lent upon a canunon furxl of knowledge that all school am college
students should acquire. By concentratin;J on skills instead of knowledge,
public schools have robbed students of their cultural heritage am doomed
l1DSt graduates to a life of cultural illiteracy.
Hirsch supplies a list of ewer 4,600 tenns am concepts that should be
kr10wn by those who are culturally literate. Included in the list are dates,
names, places, events, titles, am other words or Itrrases that presumably
should be taught in public schools. To sane reviewers, Hirsch's appreciation of human knowledge as a continuously developin;J aspect of civilization is
naive am his understanding of educational am cognitive psychology is embarrassingly weak. Like Bleam, Hirsch views education as m::>re siJrple am direct than classroom teaching am learning can ever be! To Bleam, education is basically a matter of discussin;J great ideas with intelligent am
interested students. To Hirsch, education is apparently the dissemination of truth by tellin;J students what they ought to know.
Q>llege am University Faculty
since 1986 two major studies of the American professoriate have been
published. Bowen am Schuster (1986), in a study furxled by the Teachers Insurance am Annuity Association am College Retirement Equities 1'\.100 (TIAACREF), identified a representative sample of thirty-eight institutions am
coordinated onsite interviews with 128 admi.ni.strators, 127 deparbnent heads,
am 225 faculty members. '!he results of their study depict the plight of college am university faculty members in an era when public demarx:'ls am expectations are c.harging rapidly am the academic life is marred by
120

conflictin;J plblic am institutional policies. Bowen am Shuster firrl American professors to be dedicated am ex::t'l'p!tent but "dispirited" am
"devalued."
Fran inteJ:views with faculty on sixteen representative campuses am the
camegie FOlll'rlation surveys of college faculty, Burton Clark (1987) paints a
similar picture of those who teach am con:iu.ct resea.rch in institutions of
higher education. He points out that the generation who staffed American
colleges am universities in their years of rapid growth am expansion is
passin;J fran the scene am the adequacy of their replacements are much in doubt. Clark, too, firrls evidence of faculty dedication am competence but with noticeable losses in faculty norale, self-respect, am sense of well-
bein;J. '!he gist of Clark's fi.rrlin;J can be oversilrplified as a national need
for periodic am effective renewal of the nation's urrler-appreciated teachin;J
faculty.
RefeJ:E!l1CE!S
en the In:provE!IIEnt of umergraduate 14HJlCJltion
Bennett, William J. To Reclaim a Legacy: A Report on the Humanities in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: National Erxiowment for the Humanities (November 1984).
Boyer, Ernest L. COllecre: '!he Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.
Education Conunission of the states. Transformim the state Role in Undergraduate Education: TiIne For A Different View. Denver: ECS (July 1986) .
National Conunission on the Role am Future of state COlleges and
Universities. To Secure the Blessings of Liberty. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of state COlleges am Universities, 1986.
Involvement in I.eaming: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education. Final Report of the Study Group on the conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education (october 1984).
Integrity in the COllege eurricultnn: A RePOrt to the Academic Corrnnunity. '!he
Fi.n:1irgs am RecarrIrnerrlations of the Project on Redefinin;J the Meaning and
Purpose of Baccalaureate Degrees. Washington, D.C.: Association of American COlleges (February 1985).
Missions of the COllege eurricultnn: A contemporary Review with SUggestions.
A cemnentary of the camegie FClllI'rlation for the Advancement of Teachin;J. san
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.
121

Ql Begiala1 and state IaSlJeCtives
Assessim the outcanes of Higher Education. P.r:oc:::eecl:i of the 1986 ETS
Invitational Conference. Princ:etan: EducatiaJal Testi.n:] set:vice, 1987.
Assessment in American Higher Education: Issues am Contexts. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Researdl am Inprovement, u.s. Department of
Education, 1986.
A statement of Policy by the state Higher Education Executive Officers on
Program am Institutional Assessment. Denver: state Higher Education
Executive Officers, 1987.
El-Rhawas, Elaine. GaIrpIs Trerxls, 1987, Higher Education Panel Reports No. 75. Wasl'li.n3ton, D. C.: American council on Education, 1987.
Gaudiani, Claire L. am Bun1ett, David G. Academic Alliances: A New Approach
to School/College Collaboration. was1:li.rqton, D. C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1985/1986.
Hoover, calvin B. am Rachford, B.U. Econgnic Resources am Policies for the
South. New York: Maanillan, 1951.
Higher Education am the New Technologies: A Focus on state Policy. A joint publication of Western Interstate Conunission for Higher Education am state
Higher Education Executive Officers, 1987.
SOUthen1 Association of Colleges am Schools. criteria for Accreditation.
Atlanta: SACS CoImnission on Colleges, 1985.
state Postsecondar{ Education structures Handbook: state Coordinating am
Governing Boards. Denver: Education CoImnission of the states, 1986.
'!he Master Plan Renewed: Unity. Equity. Quality, am Efficiency in califo:rnia
PostsecoOOal:y Education. CoImnission for the Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education (July, 1987).
National Goven1Ors' Association. Making America Work: Jobs, Growth. am
competitiveness. Washington, D.C.: NGA center for Policy Researdl, 1987.
Newman, Frank. Oloosim Quality: Reducim Conflict Between '!he state am '!he
university. Denver: Education canmi.ssion of the states, 1987.
Quehl, Gary H. Higher Education am the Public Interest: A Report to the campus. Washington D.C.: Council for Advancement am SUpport of Education,
1987.
Results in Education: 1987. 1988. 1989. 1990. 1991. '!he Goven1Ors' 1991 Report on Education by the National Goven1Ors' Association (1987).
122

'!he Role of science am Tedmology in Econanic eatpetitiveness. A joint p,lblication of the COrlference Board, the National Goven1Ors' Association, am the National SCience FCJUI':3ation, 1987.
Southern Governors' Association. COmerstone of Ccrrpetition. Washi.rgton, D.C.: SGA, 1986.
Southern Growth Policies Board. Halfway Heme Ani A IJ:>ng Way 'Ib Go: Report of the 1986 cemnission on the FUture of the South. 0lape1 Hill: SGPB, 1986.
Bloan, Allan. '!he Closing of the American Mi.rrl: How Higher Education Has Failed Deloocracy am Impoverished '!he SOUls of 'I'oday's students. New York: si.m:>n am SChuster, 1987.
Bowen, Howard R. am SChuster, Jack H. American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled. New York: OXford university Press, 1986.
Clark, Burton R. '!he Academic Life: small Worlds. Different Worlds. Princeton: carnegie FOllIX3ation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987.
Hirsch, E.D., Jr. CUltural Literacy: What Evez:y American Needs 'Ib :Know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987.
Ravitch, Diane am Finn, Chester E., Jr. What Ib our 17-Year-olds Know? A
Report on the First National Assessment of History am Literature. New York: Harper & :Row, 1987.
Q1 Public Higher amcatial in Georgia
Academic Dearee Program Assessment in the University SYstem of Georgia: A Tentative statement of Rationale. Purposes. am Procedures. Atlanta: University System of Georgia, 1977.
Fincher, cameron. Adult Learners am the SAT in the university System of Geornia. A report submitted in CCITIpletion of a study fi.Jrrled by '!he COllege Board, New York, 1983.
Fincher, cameron. "'!he Adversities of success: '!he Responsibilities of Govel:'l'lin;J Boards in Meeting the Special Needs of Students." Paper presented at the Armual Meeting of the Association of Govel:'l'lin;J Boards in San Francisco on April 13, 1984,
Fincher, cameron. "Assessment Uses of the SAT in the University System of Georgia. " Paper presented at the 11th Armual Meeting of the International Association for Educational Assessment in OXford, Englam on June 27-July 2, 1985 (Published in 'lHE NEWSI.ErI'ER, Institute of Higher EducationjUniversity of Georgia, 1985).
123

Fincher, cameron. ''University~emment Relations am Academic organiza-
tion." Paper presented at the 9th European AIR Fonnn at the University '!Wente in Ensc::hede, ~ Netherlams on August 24, 1987.
Fincher, cameron. Uses of the SAT in the University System of Georgia,
COllege Board Report No. 86-5. New York: '!he COllege Board, 1986.
Preparim for COllege: Essential courses am Skills. Minim..nn Reqt.rirenents for
Regular Admissions to University System of Geozgia Institutions. Atlanta: Board of Regents, 1986. USGA Infonnation Digest: 1986-1987. Atlanta: Board of Regents of the University System of Geozgia, 1987.
124

In brief, a SUllI'lIation is made belOW' on the critical national issues confrontin;J Higher Education as they ~ly to Georgia:
'!HE F'EDERAL lAW 1992 ELIMINATING MANDA'IDRY l<f:l'lJ<tMENl' ruE 'ID AGE: Presidents feel that this law ex:t1l'licates management/leadership and increases
the need for retirement incentives. Administrators at all levels must resporrl to greater demarx:Is for personnel assessnwant through perfonnance evaluation and sensitivity to ineffective personnel.
FUNDING: Present fonnulas are inadequate for meetin;J the needs of the 1990's. '!he Presidents suggest that the needs of in:lividual institutions vary too greatly to be met by fonnulas based on enrollments. '!he supplements for Quality Inprovement are helpful but too limited. Presidents recognize the need for cost controls but ~ze the greater need for long tenn plans and urge that cost-savings be awlied to faculty salaries and special situations.
'!HE DECLINING RX>L OF HIGH SOIOOL GRAIXJATES: Presidents feel that this affects higher education in Georgia and presents a growin;J challenge to reach
dropouts and non-traditional ProsPects. Institutions and governing bodies
must be innovative in providing resources to do this effectively
(extraordinary furrling)
FAaJUI'Y TENURE: Many Presidents feel that tenure may no longer be relevant, but does not present urnnanageable problems. Administrators need all the latitude possible to provide incentives for inq;>roved perfonnance in order to inq;>rove teachin;J.
'!HE DFARIH OF ALLIED HEAIJIH PERSONNEL: '!his matter is reachin;J crisis proportions accordin;J to the Presidents' opinion. It is not due, however, to educational limitations. If resources are provided, higher education can teach these students. Educators feel that the health in::lustry should respond by inq;>rovin;J work conditions to reduce turnover.
IDRSENING SIUDENT/FAaJUI'Y RATIOS: Presidents question whether they are worsening, on balance, and point out that "averages" are not absolute measurenents as to quality teachin;J. '!hey point to wide variations by discipline and emphasize critical needs for qualified teachers in English, Mathematics, computer science, etc.
LIBRARY a:sr INFlATION: Presidents feel libraries face a dilennna as to
usin;J resources JOOSt effectively. '!he explosion of infonnation, periodicals and research data presents institutions with new problems. Electronic and technological advances compel libraries to centralize certain materials. Centralized plarming and purchasin;J are suggested for study. Librcu:y management deserves serious consideration for restructurin;J.
125

ADMINISTRATIVE SAIARIES:

'Ihe salaries of middle management

administrators dese:Ive serious study. Presidents suggest lOOre flexibility

with rec:xJgni.tion based on merit. '!hey feel upgradin;J salaries am restnlcturirg would better adjust TNOrk loads am canpensate for leadership

effectiveness.

FAaJIJI'Y' SAIARIES: Presidents feel that this is pel:haps the m:>st serious
need in the University System. In c:::c:Ilplrison to plblic schools, other
colleges in the region, am in the private sector, salaries for faculty in
higher education are not ~tive.

ENROLIMENT OF MAWRE AOOLTS: '!his is a fortunate developnent which
deserves an intelligent response by higher education. For a variety of
reasons older students are retumi.rq to develop skills, upgrade kr1c:Mledge am
conserve (retrain) human resources. Presidents realize that colleges have adjusted only minimally to meet this new need.

SURPIIJS ErUCATIQNAL CAPACITY: College Presidents react shaJ:ply to this assumption. '!hey emphatically deny a "surplus versus need." '!hey acknowledge a maldistribution of facilities in certain areas. '!hey rec:xJgni.ze certain p:t'CXJraIILS as questionable, but they urge aggressive adjusbnent to meet overall educational needs. Special consideration should be given to politically sensitive areas but the educational need should take priority.

CURRlCUIA WI'IH NON-APPLICABIE srupms:

Presidents feel that

non-applicable studies exist, but should be eliminated. Also, they feel

where there is urxier-enrollment or non-relative subject matter, resources

should be reallocated. '!hey point esPeCially to senior- level curricula,

graduate work am some educational courses.

ENROLIMENT OF MINORITIES: '!he results fran efforts to date have been
disappointirg to Presidents, esPeCially enrollment am continuation of black males. '!hey agree that this is of the ut:loost inpJrtance to education am to
the socio-econamic factors in our country for the future. Further they accept the responsibility that it I1I.1St start at the top in each institution
am continue without let-up.

EMPLOYMENT OF MINORITIES: '!his effort is silnilar to Minority Enrollment, but sonewhat lOOre difficult in the short tenn. '!he shortage of qualified personnel together with the canpetition for minorities makes progress lOOre difficult, esPeCially in lOOre rural colleges. Presidents agree
education needs minority involvement am leadership at all levels.

FEDERAL REGJIATION: Higher Education has learned to live with federal
regulations as they now exist am are administered. Administrators do not
accept their many requirements as necessary or beneficial even to the agencies. '!here is a cont~ fear that there will be new interferences; in accreditation, in control of toxic waste, or new areas.

RX>RLY PREPARED FRESHMEN: Presidents acknowledge that incoming freshmen
are poorly prepared am agree that the criticism levelled at public schools
is justified. Some see hope in QBE if it is continued. Some accept their

126

share of the blame for poor teacher education. Generally, there is agreement that a sizable proportion of college students llIlSt be in Develop1OOl1tal studies for the foreseeable future.

INI'ERO)r..:rn:;IATE A'lliIErICS: Presidents resave their harshest conunents for the effects intercollegiate athletics are havinJ on academic quality,
faculty Irorale, am public perceptions of higher education. '!here is an urgent plea for leadership fran Regents, NCAA, AAIA, to restore proper balance to academic stan::'Jards. the excesses in athletics are urrlennining the
Irorale of administrators strivinJ for quality in education.

EXXJIFMENr AND lliSTRJMENI'ATION REPIACEMENI':

'!he present f'l1OOi.ng

mechanism is not adequate to provide replacement needs, in the Presidents'

opinion. With better plannin;J am management there is however, room for

considerable improve.rrent with present f\.1ms. '!he Quality rnprovement F'l.miin;J

has definitely helped. large scale purchases in todays environment (am the

1990's) with rapidly changinJ technology will require Irore flexibility am

test the University System severely.

MAINI'AINING AND REPIACING PHYSICAL PIANI': Presidents feel this presents
a similar problem to Equipment Replacement. '!hey feel there is a great need
for a 10fXJ range plan. Priorities should be deteI:mi.ned systematically rather
than reactinJ to "urgency am crisis when the roof begins to leak." With the
ageinJ of the system, current f'l1OOi.ng practice does not meet the current
needs.

DECLINING ACADEMIC ~: A majority of the Presidents acknowledge declining academic stan::'Jards but it is not unaniJoous. '!hey also acknowledge that the manage.rrent/leadership of Geoz:gia Higher Education can address this. '!he smaller schools do not recognize the decline to the degree that senior-university levels do. While Presidents agree that this is within
their province to correct or improve, they do not cc:mnit to concerted action.

AI:MINISTRATIVE STAFF REPIACEMENT: Replacem:mts are not of serious concern to Presidents in :rural areas because they do not have frequent vacancies. When they ocx:::ur, qualified staff is Irore difficult to fW. In u.rl::>an areas, it is of serious conc:enl because of canpetition fram the u.rl::>an COllUTIUIlity job market. '!here is conc:enl that faculty are not Irore interested in staff administration am that little training is provided new staff appointments

FAaJIJI'Y REPIACEMENTS rn SEIECI'ED DISCIPLINES: As in staff replacem:mts,
faculty replacem:mts present a variety of problems. '!he shortage is acute in
technical, scientific, mathematical, business, health professional areas,
etc. Non-campetitive salaries are adc:lin:J to replacem:mt problems, am with
fewer caIXiidates for doctorates it will intensify.

rnrnFASING MEDIAN AGE OF FAaJIJI'Y: Presidents see this as a test of management/leadership for college administrators. '!hey urge that they be given all the available tools to solve poor teachi.rg Perfonnance. lack of i.ncomi.rg junior faculty, need for faculty renewal, lack of flexibility to reassign to new disciplines are all areas needing attention.

127

EFFEC1'IVENESS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACrION HIRING: Presidents express disappoinbnent with :retention of ID.irxx'ities cn:::e recIUited. '!hey urge new programs to develq> faculty an:l staff so as to retain qualified prospects since the pool is limited. '!hey recognize the i.np)rtarx:e of this effort to minority recIUiti..rg an:l further recognize the urgent need to iInprove
education generally. FUBLIC PERCEPl'ION OF HIGHER EroCATORS: Presidents are seriously
concerned about the erosion of plblic q>inion about the quality an:l :relative value of higher education. '!hey acknowledge that sane of the criticism is
justified, even to the point of sayi..rg it is ''better than deserved." '!he
plblic links adult illiteracy, poor academic results, perception of intercollegiate athletics, an:l poor returns on the "education dollar" with the quality of higher education.
128

ERESIIEfrIAL REPLIES 'It) NATI~ RF.XXnZED QJES'I'I<ES
~ mtmR EDrATICB IN GIDGIA (1.989)
'!he en1{ilasis throughout this assessment is on the factual an:i the
practical. Very few academic authorities are in a position of experience superior to that occupied by the chief executive of each university System writ in the maki.rg of decisions leadin:J to success or failure. Practicing the profession in discharge of daily duties, an:i PersOnal service in scholarly capacities on the road to the presidency prepares the executive officer to live the presidential role an:i to discharge the authority delegated by the Board of Regents. In consequence, the practices of the presidencies in the System are the i.nst.ruuw:mts designated by duty to confront the challen;res an:i forces encountered in the college's operations.
'!he office of the presidency in consideration of the operation of higher education has been afforded pronounced recognition in :recent years. Dr Clark Kerr's study entitled PRESIDENTS MAKE A DIFFERENCE: srnENGIHENING
lEADERSHIP rn roT Ja;ES AND UNIVERSITIES (1984) pronotes the principle of
responsibility for decision an:i ac::c:omTtability for action originates in this office.
'Ihe first-harrl knowledge of the subjects covered in the headings listed in this chapter are the everyday concerns of the holders of the chief leadership positions. '!heir can:iid remarks reflect perspectives develoPed through executing procedures an:i weighing results, an:i these finlings are inp::>rtant with resPect to the develcpnent of PerSOnal answers to these listed issues an:i problems set forth below. Several scholars an:i wriversity organizations have identified these SPecified historical an:i current forces, operating in the fonn of the issues as higher education's paramount problems. 'Ibis list of presidential input, as responses to these national problems, are given in the fonn of their quotes, an:i lOOSt are as complete as practicable. SUch topics challen;ring the presidents of Georgia's state colleges an:i wriversities have invoked a wide range of vital infonnation an:i thoughtful conunentary
'Ihese Presidential responses were developed as a request for replies to twenty-five of the lOOre profOUI'Xi issues representing the actual sources of concern to the presidents. 'Ihese subjects are the daninating factors in the daily operation for which academic leaders are responsible. Being such wriversal matters of attention in the present, they can be expected to exercise praninent direction an:i set limits for post-secoOOcil:y education in the future.
Each Paragraph represents a seParate quote fram a president. Where the response was lengthy an:i a second Paragraph was indicated, it will be an obvious continuation of hisjher remarks.
129

PRESIr.UfrS' ~ (If mElAL rAW 1992 ~ IN ~ ~
SJIRTY IDE 'ID '11IE AGE FACIIR
I believe that there should be a mamatory retirement age of 65 for college
administrators am of 70 for tead'1.in} faa.ll.ty. If neW' people are to be brought in to provide neW' infusions of enet:gy, neW' ideas, am general
vitality, there Im.1St be openi.n:Js for them. In heavily tenured faculties, with many senior faculty, you have neither the financial flexibility or the openi.n:Js to hire younger, less expensive faa.ll.ty members often needed to move
into neW' arrricular am institutional directions, while stable enroll1nents
might not allOW' resources to do it without the salary savings of retiring
members.
'!his is a real problem. In the short nm, it is going to prove very expensive as ever-larger pools of older professors draw heavily on the health insurance program. In the long tenn, I feel that there will be a negative iJnpact on the vitality of the classroan. '!he silnple fact of the matter is that those professors we might like to have retire, won't, while those we
might like to keep to age 100 am beyorrl, will probably opt to leave us
early.
We should work to change laws which restrict higher education's flexibility fram doing what is best for the institution. Practices or laws which provide for a guaranteed life work with no regard for productivity is hannful to effective education at all levels.
'!his law poses no llmnediate problem for our college. Most PeOple here are choosing to retire by the time they are 65. Also, if present growth of the college continues, it seems that the school will not have significant number of persons reaching retirement age at any one time.
Federal law 1992 which eliminates man:1atory retirements based solely on age
places more emphasis on the systematic am careful evaluation of the
performance of faculty. Competence should be the factor of the continuing enployment of faculty members at any state of hisjher career, but the renova1.s of the man:1atory retirement provision make it increasingly ilnportant that an effective system of faculty evaluation be maintained.
'!he renova1. of man:1atory retirement provisions also greatly increases the need for retirement incentives. '!he attention which the University System is
giving to the development am ilnpleIlElltation of policies to encourage early
retirement should be continued.
'!he change will mean that there will be fewer places open at our college which is not in a dramatic growth mode. A number of faculty will be continuing on well into their seventies. We will be able to add only one or
two new faculty members a year, am it will thus be difficult to bring in new ideas am fresh viewpoints to the faculty. At the present time, though, we
have not been seriously affected. we do anticipate that the change in the
law will have the result described here.
130

SUmmary:
Presidents are obviously concerned - but not alanned - that the 1992 law eliminatiIq marrlatory retirement will restrict their ability to manage their faculty ani administration effectively.
131

PRIiSIUiNIS' <XIH!NIS (If FtlNIl]];

F'Uni:inJ inadequacies are certainly posin;J prd:>lems for many aspects of higher
education. In tenDs of operatin;J bD;Jets, lWe are lWell belOW' the national
figures in Georgia on our furrlin:J foDlllla further penalized high cost technological programs. '!he furrlin:J foDlllla should be revised am should be
generally awlicable to each institution, rather than to the System as a whole. In the area of facilities, lWe are all havin;J problems with old inadequate buildings. '!he dramatic increase in the MRR allocation to the Regents held out the pran:ise of helpin;J in this area, but much of it continues to be spent to rem:we asbestos. capital const:roction priorities seem also to be set rather arbitrarily with each institution gettin;J its tmn
whether the need is as strorg as others or not. Equipnent acquisition am replacement are serious problems for lab intensive oolleges am require
orgoin;J allocations. Faculty salaries remain l.lI'lCCI'l'petitive compared to
alternatives in the business am imustrial TNOrld.
A possible cost-savin;J measure would be to oonsolidate programs am even
institutions wherever feasible. '!he system of tedmical institutes should be integrated with the junior oolleges into the System.

It is i.rresIx>nsible of the state to take back education m:>ney to pay for health insurance shortfalls because they are not willin;J to furrl these vital
benefits fully.

Although I applaud the ooncept of fonrula furrlin:J, our problem is that we have not been given the furrlin:J ccmnensurate with our growth. '!here seems to
be a hesitation to reallocate furrls by decreasin;J the budgets of those
institutions not growin;J am by increasin;J the budgets of those who are
growin;J.

As always, we could use m:>re furrls than are currently allocated for the operation of the institution. However, I think we have been fortunate to have been furrled at a level such that the instructional program has remained essentially viable over the years.

state appropriations will increasin;Jly be tied to program relevance am

academic achievement.

Additional furrlin:J categories beyoIXl student

capitation or credit-hour generation will becx:me accepted as essential to the

senior institutions. Here the presidents of the university level
institutions will have to ''make the case"; the chancellor am staff cannot do

it for us.

'!he public will furrl the educational institutions m:>re readily if they are accountable for their furrls. '!he image now of graduates not being able to
read am write is the greatest drawback to proper furrlin:J.
'!he duplication of oolleges am programs in Georgia also prevents effective furrlin:J. '!here will be further misuse of the higher education dollar with the present m:we of the tedmical schools toward beccani.rxJ carmnunity oolleges. It would stretch the dollar m:>re for the Regents if the two-year oolleges am

132

the tedmical schools \\lere to merge, thus creati..n:J a call1uni:ty college system which would ser.ve the educational needs of Georgia better. At this time, tedmical schools are providi..n;J inadequate educatioo for future jobs because of their lack of general educatioo courses.
'!he current EFT driven fun:lin3 fontllla does not take into ac:x:::amt the unique
needs of part-time students. In many cases they require not fewer resources
but lOOre.
F\miin:J in the University System of Georgia is beycni me. 5anehow, fun:lin3 has to deperrl 00 enrollment am yet there are inequities produced by the
present procedttre.
Attentioo to adequate levels of fun:lin3 is of paraIOOUIlt i.np>rtance if the University System of Georgia is to maintain am enhance its current place am::>n;J the better syste.ns of high educatioo in the region am the nation. It is generally known that the level of fun:lin3 has been eroded by inflation
over the past several years.
'!he current regional am state strategic planni.rg will identify needs that will require additional fun:lin3. 'Ihese current needs will require special initiative fun:lin3 or sane other method of assuri..n:J that appropriate courses am program; will be made available to the people of Georgia on a timely
basis.
'!be need to do long-range planni.rg am the last minute receipt or extension of special initiative fun:lin3 ron contrary to each other. While we applaud special initiative fun:lin3 for critical areas of need such as health care, teacher education, econanic developnent programs, am cultural development
activities, we feel a need for these :fur::Is to be transferred to an enrichment fonrW.a. 'Ibis should make for greater stability in the planni.rg process.
Adequate fun:lin3 :remains a continuing concern at the post-secoooary level in Georgia. '!be relatively low increase in faculty am staff salaries in the
University System of Georgia over the past four years is becaning a serious problem in maintaini..n:J same highly marketable personnel. F\m:li.ng for
maintenance am replacement of };tlysical plant continues to be serious problem
in Georgia, especially 00 the older canplSElS, but all canplSElS are ageing annually. F\m:li.ng for new equipnent is totally inadequate in the University System of Georgia. '!be Cllancellor has in:licated the time may have come to review'the current fonnula within the System.
F\m:li.ng for higher education in Georgia is inadequate for providing the
canprehensive program; am ser.vices needed by citizens am required for the
progress we want in econanic social develcpnent for our state. Much of
Georgia is urrlerdeveloped, am the vast majority of Georgians are depriVed educationally, socially, am culturally.
F\m:li.ng, as it affects capital outlay projects, is also woefully inadequate. Qmp.ls Iilysical plants should be 00 reasonable deferred maintenance
schedules, with an equitable set of stamards for current am long-range
plans that equitably deal with every uni.t in the System.
133

In recent years, :Eun:tirY;J fran the states to their higher education systems has had less priority than in previous years am:::D3' the cc:Ilpetin;J de.lnams for tax dollar support. '!his is urnerstarmble inasDllch as the large smge in enrollments has riWled through the System ani other matters have cxmnarxled the attention of state:fun:iers. '!he new dollars have at least kept up with the risin;J number of students, ani the quality inprovement portion of the fonmla, though exc:eedin;Jly valuable, addresses ally a very small portion of the need for quality inprovement. '!here is little flexibility in either the university System l:uiget or in the in:li.vidual institution budgets, ani so a
great deal of "nmni.n:J in place" occurs. It is difficult to make strategic
mves which require the concentration of :resources in specific directions to
IlV3et institutional goals.
SUrmnary:
'!he Presidents express their frostrations with :Eun:tirY;J inadequacies ani fonmla tied to enrollment; faculty salaries ani the flexibility to fund special programs are major concerns.
134

'!his awears to be a short-tenn prcblem with significant growth predicted
after the mid-90's. '!he chal.lerge will be not to tmn off resources am
capital construction f'DtI (usin;J the justification of decl~ enrollments) so that we are not ready for the growth when it canes. Of special COnc.eJ::11 to me is the a1Ioost total lack of 1:ec:fln:>logical literacy in our pcp1l.ation. Very few high school students envision a technical career, yet the vast
majority of jobs in the 90's am the 21st century will be in these fields. our international cuupetitiveness am ultimately even our status as a
developed nation deperxi on gettin;J IOO:re people into the technological
mainstream am producin;J things rather than sen::1i..rg our raw materials to other camtries to have them developed for use am then sold back to us at a
profit.
Given the decl~ pool of high school graduates, we must think in tenns of diversifyin;J the types of students that we seI.'Ve, primarily by recnrltin;J IOO:re nontraditional students.
'!his is not a Ion;} tenn prcblem in Geol:gia. By the mid-90's, economic growth
am the dE!lTOCJraPric factors already in place will save us. In the interim,
there are a lot of urrlereducated adults in Geol:gia. Of course, a lot of the
new students of the mid-90' s am beyorx:l will be minorities. We had better
lean1 to work with them effectively.
since Geol:gia has so few students graduatin;J fran high school, am still
fewer goin;J on to college, we need to increase the pool that is there by maki.l'q sure the students are educated well enough to graduate from high school.
we are nearin;J the ern. of the period of time in which we expected a decline
of the pool of high school graduates. we awea,r to have smvived that period
laJ:gely on the basis of attractin;J additional non-traditional students into higher education.
E:Kt:errli.rg educational seI.'Vices in such a way to attract additional participation in higher education is expensive. Educational seI.'Vices need to be exteIxled in locations such as cannen County. SUch expansions are
difficult to do with the existin;J furxii.nJ fonnula.
'!his has not had a major iIrpact on the laJ:ge urt>an universities, but it will have a negative effect on small colleges in rural areas.
At one college we have not noticed any decline in applications. In fact, we have continued to have an increase each year. It is my fee1in:J that any
institution which maintains high st:aI'Dal:ds of academics am research will
continue to educate its share of the pool of students pursuing a college degree.
Higher education needs to seI.'Ve those citizens who can benefit fran am want
135

the benefits of higher education regardless of age. '!he high school graduation rate needs to be i.Irproved. out-of sdlool adults need education
ani t.rai.nin1; bJsiness ani iniusb:y need a capable, well-prepared 'WOrk force.
SO far I have seen very little of it except in the northeastern United states. In the south, we have been forbmate to have sane of this declining pool of high school graduates offset by illmigration ani by older people decidin;J that they need to have an education as the econany in the Southeast ll'OVes fran agricultural to irxlustrial. A major d1al.lerge facirg us is not the declining pool. Rather, it is getti.rg a greater percentage of high school graduates to atten::l college at all.
SUImnary:
'!he concerns of the Presidents are evident in this area, but are more concerned about the need to ilrprove the percentage of students graduatirg fran high school, their qualifications for higher education ani their ability to do the 'WOrk in medical, technical, scientific fields. Also when colleges reach out to teach in non-traditional areas, the cost of education is higher ani present fonnul.as do not provide adequate furrls.
136

I am not in favor of faculty tern.lre, believi.n:;J that the :reasons for which it was established no lorqer exist. It now serves, too often, to protect expensive non-producers who no lorqer feel a need to justify their employment
am productivity. If tern.lre cannot be done away with, limits should be
placed on it so that an institution has sane flexibility to bri.n:;J in new blood with sane reasonable Perfonnance expectation for the salary eanlEld.
My personal preferences would be to go to a system of rolli.n:;J contracts, followi.n:;J the IIDdel. currently used by carnegie-Mel.lon.
Presently, faculty enjoy constitutional am statutory protection that make the twin issues of academic freedan am. tern.lre m::x>t. Hc::Mever, tenure still
leaves the institution with considerable conti.n:;Jent liability during financial exigencies. '!herefore, I believe that tern.lre will became
increasi.n:;Jly irrelevant am increasingly difficult to obtain. '!here will
likely be a litigious transition period.
sane faculty have nrined the tern.lre concept by treati.n:;J it as employment
without worki.rg. On the other harx:l, a system is needed to prevent a despotic President of an institution fran firi.n:;J everyone who does not march to
hisjher drum.
Administrators of colleges and universities have also helped destroy the concept of tern.lre by rewarding only the faculty who do research and publishthe time that will enhance the image of the institution on the outside but help destroy the image inside. In other words, What happened to teaching? '!hat may be the major reason we graduate students who are inadequately
prepared am the reason for the poor p,lblic image today.
As a nation, I would like to think we have became sophisticated enough to realize that a teacher's main reason for existence is the search for truth
am, therefore, should not be dismissed for the search of it in the
classroan. If this degree of sophistication was really so, we could do away with tenure in our schools. '!he m::>ra! majority cult novement in our recent Past has made me question the degree of our sophistication. So, pertlaps, we should keep tenure. Although, I do wish we could have it for good teachers as well as good publishing.
OUr college has a relatiVely low tern.lre density at this point and as foreseen for the near future. I do think it would be timely to institute a well-
reasoned retrendnnent am. program reduction policy while there is no
litigation facing the institutions of the university System of Geor:gia regardin;J such cutbacks.
I'm a1.Irost tempted to say that we should do away with faculty tenure. I appreciate the attempts of the University System to work out of the problem we have created for ourselves, but I do not believe we have a solution yet. We still need a means of protecting the academic structure from those who abuse the tenure system. Perhaps, a system of renewal of tenure periodically
137

could be effected. Tenure policies in the university System of Georgia are SOlU'rl. '!he recent
inclusion of a non-tenure track st.ren;thens tenure policies am allows
institutions to avoid becaning "tenured in." '!he real issue here is academic freedan, not jab security. If a substitute for tenure that would guarantee the protectioo of academic freedom could be fourxi, then we should explore it IOOre fully. In the older institutions, there is a high percentage of tenured faculty. I do not think this is a good policy, but there is little that can be done abaIt it. Faculty tenure is decli.nin;J in ilrportance. Its value as a protection of
academic freedan is dilni.nishi.nl as faculty i.Ix::reasinlly see tenure as a
property right. In Irr:f opinion, such faculty attitudes will eventually destroy the tenure system. '!his campus has also effectiVely reviewed tenured
faculty through evaluation am within the last year three tenured faculty
members were threatened with dismissal but chose to resign. '!here is no need for faculty tenure today. D.1e process provisions of the law meet our needs IOOSt adequately.
Tenure decisions are e::atplicated at two-year institutions because of the relatively low tmnover rate all'CI'g faculty am because many faculty members are not oriented toward research am publication.
SUImnary: Except for a few institutions, the percentage of tenured faculty does not
seem to concem Presidents at this time. In their interest of good teaching, Presidents are anxious that they be given all the latitude possible to effect
proper evaluation of Perfonnance, encourage early retirement, am provide
incentives for illlproved teaching.
138

l'RESI1JiN1'S' CXMU!NIS CR 'DIE 'Il'Im",tn'"1UrRJGlSI IFARIB OF AT1JID BF.ACIB J?mSHmL
'Ihis is a serious problem am will not be solved l.mtil salaries am working
corrlitions are brought in line with alternative professions.
Nursirg programs are very expensive, requirirg a lc:M faculty/student ratio in order to do the clinical experiences effectively.
one college is aware of the shortages anticipated anDng allied health
personnel in the future, particularly anDD:J technicians am nurses. '!he
college has canpleted plans for resparrli.rg to needs in these areas, with new academic pl:ograms pen:lin;J Board approval.
'!he university System is well positioned to increase its support for the
education am trainirg of allied health personnel. For the number of units
within the university System, there are currently sufficient numbers of both
two-year am four-year degree programs available. '!here will need to be increased support of various fonrs of laboratory am health sel:Vice
technology in the future.
'!he dearth of Allied Health personnel is IOOSt severe in rural areas. In the u:rt>an areas, salaries are goirg to solve the problem. Rural areas cannot
afford the salaries, am they will be left behim.
Perl1aps the IOOSt critical factor in the shortage of allied health am nursing
practitioners is within the health professions themselves. '!he health care
in:lustry am the nursirg profession need to work jointly toward ilnproving the
salary working conditions of nurses. Higher education cannot educate enough nurses to supply a profession that loses up to 20 to 25% of its practitioners each year.
'!he dearth of allied health personnel is not future; it is present. '!here are a number of reasons for this. First, the salaries have been IOOSt
unattractive. secorrl, these fields were exploitative in many ways because
they were the only ones that wanen could enter, am so women took these
regardless of hc:M hard the work was or hc:M lc:M the pay was. 'Ihird, these
instructional programs have becare technical, requirirg science am mathematics backgroun:1s, am students have been avoidirg these subjects
throughout high school. Consequently, they steer away from any career
programs requirirg math am science when they get to college. Finally, it is
quite possible that the occurrence of Aids has discouraged PeOple from wantirg to work in certain health care fields.
SUnunary:
While there are sane educational problems involVed, these can be solved if
the medical profession am the :furljs needed cooperate within the
institutions. '!he nore serious side of the problem - unattractive career
factors - is one that complicates recruitirg am education.
139

'IRFSllIiNlS' CXMtENJS at 1IRa{DI; SlUIHrrjFN:IJIII.Y RATIOO
'!his topic begs the questions. Whether the ratios are TNOrsen.in;J depenJs on
the insti'bItion. Not all have this problem. Good deparbnental am college
management can prevent the ratios fran TNOrsen.in;J.
we have not seen any appreciable worseni.n:J of our twelve-to-one
student/faculty ratio. we believe reasonable class sizes am personal
attention to be an:n1 the best reasons for a1:t:errli.n] bJo-year college.
'!his has beo:me a serious problem, especially for junior am senior colleges who often do not have the pool of graduate assistants to team classes am
laboratories.
Worsen.in;J student/faculty ratios are a national concern, but an average ratio figure for the entire canp.1S doesn't tell the sto:ty. Presidents need to knOW'
toore about actual faculty load am nonitor toore carefully the efficacy of
what our faculty actually do. we have been reluctant as presidents to get
involved with faculty load; it remains the secret domain of intividual
departlnents
our college has problems in the areas of mathematics, CClTIplIter science am
account~. Irrlividuals c:x:rnpetent in these areas can make better salaries in alncst any other job than tea~. Higher salaries would help prevent this problem at the two-year college.
At senior colleges am universities,the first priority is football, follOW'ed by publication am research - the areas whim br~ lOOney am prestige to the
insti'bItion. By putting emphasis on these areas, the teamer is put in the position of not want~ to be bothered to team.
'!he University System must continue to TNOrk with the Goven1Or's Office and the Legislature to inq;>rove upon student/faculty ratios within POSt-secorrlary insti'bItions. Unless enrollment fun:ling is consistent with enrollment increases (or decreases), there will be imbalance in the student/faculty
ratios at various University System insti'bItions. A current am serious
problem is the fact that there is no differential tuition charge aOOjor fun:ling allocation for disciplines whim require, by their aa:redi.t~ bodies
aOOjor licens~ bodies, high faculty/student ratios am relatively high equipment am i.nstnlctional material costs; e. g. , nurs~, engineer~,
exmplter science, am others.
'!he problem is likely encountered toore on senior college an university campuses than at two-year colleges. One of the major features affect~ it is the increased insistence by SPeCialiZed accredit~ agencies upon reduced class size. SPecial accredit~ in nurs~, CClTIplIter science, business, tead1er education all insist on reduced class load for faculties.
'!he student/faculty ratio at one college has increased from 20/1 in the Fall of 1984 to 21/1 in the Fall of 1988. In the aggl:e;ate, the student/faculty ratio is not a problem at this insti'bItion; however, in SPeCific disciplines
140

such as En;;rlish, mathematics, arrl selected programs in business, steps must

be taken to provide lIDre faculty.

As ext:emal. forces place new

responsibilities requirirq additional TNOrkload an university System

institutions - fun:iirq llIJSt follC7 or other programs will suffer.

AssuInirg that these TNOrsenirq ratios will continue as a tren:i, it is i.np:>rtant to select those subjects (such as introductory En;;rlish composition courses) that clearly require smaller classes fran those that do not.

'!he issues related to student/teacher ratios should be rationally studied
before we attempt aIr:! major efforts in this area. Educational institutions have not acted responsibly but have merely asSInned that a higher ratio of
faculty to students produces a superior l ~ envirornnent. we have the
ideal laboratory in which to test this hypothesis. let us demonstrate
through :research that the ratio of faculty to students doesn't make a significant difference in the quality of l~. '!hen, arrl only then, will we be in a position to sell the public whatever the :research reveals.

First, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by a student/faculty ratio.
'!his ratio can mean one thing at a small liberal arts college arrl can mean
another thing at a large :research university. In fact, the ratio of student/faculty varies widely anDng disciplines. For instance, in art, music
arrl nursirq there is often a one-to-one ratio between student arrl faculty while in law programs, the traditional instructional IOOde has been large
classes of 50 students or lIDre. '!he real question becanes one that must be
answered in light of the academic programs that are a Part of an
institution's mission. Without increases in outside fun:iirq, it may be necessary to do internal reallocation of fun:iirq to maintain appropriate quality of instruction arrl to iIrprove student/faculty ratios.

SUmmary:

'!he Presidents point out that ratios/averages canp.lS-wide can be misleading. Also they canunent that the makeup of the curriculum greatly affects faculty requirements. On balance, they seem to say this is a management problem to be attacked by institution with full realization that faculty cannot be overloaded in certain disciplines arrl still be effective in teaching.

141

Costs do continue to increase. '!he ~ is better selection of materials
am better management of :resources.
In spite of our decision to direct Quality Improvement lIDlli.es to our library, collection developnent has suffered greatly in recent years due to the "entitlements" the library I1UlSt pn:dlase: Ja.nnal. subscriptions, intices,
updated reference tools, microfilms, am microfonns. Costs increase yearly
in each of these categories, leavin:J little m::>ney for book purchases.
FUrther erosion of our library's l::ludc:Jet has cx:::curred through the establishment of a cc:mp.rt:er center, with software billed to the library.
'!his is a serious problem. Although inflatioo in nDSt areas exceeds the state allocation for it, nowhere is it lNOrse than in library materials. COllaborative arran;ements such as the one inplemented by the university
center in Georgia help by facilitatin:J the sharin::Js of resources.
Library cost inflation is yet another exanple that our need for increased
f'urrl.irg extenjg throughout the campus. we need m:::mey, not just to add IOC>re
volumes but also to automate the library in order to become IOC>re adept at
infonnation retrieval am dissemination.
Devastatin:J. New tedmology is not the ~.
we see no ern in sight. It is a very serious threat to the integrity of our
library hOldin::Js.
Furth.entcre, it is difficult for a faculty to agree upon an acquisition policy beyorxi their own discipline. If we are to become a major research library, serious new IOC>ney I1UlSt be placed in it.
OUr college has a significant problem because library growth has been held in check for years due to inadequate facilities.
Increased costs in libraries can only be confronted by changin:J the way higher education is furxled. Library costs are goin:J to continue to escalate as a result of increased errphasis upon library automation. As PeachNet
becanes a reality in the University System of Georgia am as that tedmology
allOW' the m:JVin:J about of huge annmts of data anx:>D3' institutions, there is going to be increasing need for cc:mp.rt:er based library automation so that all institutions can share the resources. '!his technology is expensive. '!here is, hOW'ever, a positive side to this; in particular, libraries with small
budgets rely upon larger am IOC>re complex libraries through automated interlibrary loan am resource sharing.
An investigation of the charging practices by publishers is needed at the national level. '!here is simply no reason why libraries should be charged IOC>re for the same book than a private buyer. Yet, this is the case a1nDst universally.
142

OUr dean has proposed system-wide pll"Chase of books as a means of canbatting the a1Ioost oveJ:Whel.min;J problem of librazy inflation. Whether this is feasible or financially advantageous is unknown fran our stan:3point. Librazy costs are a major problem.
'Ihi.s has been a major factor for a nuni:ler of years. we are not able to pll"Chase certain periodicals am other p.1blications needed in a librazy the size of curs due to lack of:f\.1ms. we continue to request additional fun:ling
for our librazy. 'Ihi.s is the one area in which we are lacking sufficient suwort.
Libraries may have to organize to break the lJDl'lOPOly of p.1blishing canpanies. Periodical costs to libraries are usually ten tiInes the cost for in:lividual subscriptions.
Libraries should establish consortitml relationships which should increase efficiencies. National plarming should be focused on establishing six to eight super libraries that would save large geograpucal regions of this nation. unforbmate1y, I do not know of any effort to plan significantly for
such a develcpnent. COnsequently, libraries will continue to be less am
less CCIl'prehensive am less am less adequate.
I believe we can firxl IIDre cost effective ways to resporrl to the legitimate librazy needs of students. '!he university System provides an ideal setting
for the achievement of this kini of goal. we, apparently, have a good interlibrazy loan mechanism in place, am I think that we must look at hOW' well
this is utilized. surely, the state of the art technology available today will enable us to firxl additional ways to share librazy resources among institutions.
'!he university System could make a rnnnber of substantial lOOVes to help, especially in the realm of periodicals. '!here cugh.t to be sane centralized
acquisitions program for periodicals for the University System, am
researchers, students, am faculty, cugh.t to know where these periodicals are
located so that they can gain access to them when they need to do so. '!here is no need for 34 different libraries to maintain matching sets of periodicals.
SUmmary:
'!he opinions expressed support for a System-wide study of librazy costs, requirements, possibilities of central sources to eliminate reclun:3ancies,
applications of technology, etc. Urrler present inflationary corrlitions am
proliferation of p.1blications, the institutions are at a loss to hOW' to provide "librazy" resources IIDSt efficiently.
143

:mESIIJ:!N1S' cx:a.ENrs CB AI:HINISmATIVE SAIARIES
'Ihese are in better shape than faculty salaries, bIt there is real carpression at the ~ levels. A merit-based system that does not provide for merit increases at the tq>; soon the secon:l-tier euployees will be pressin] the CEO in salary. No CEO of a bJsiness of the budget magnitude of a college or tmiversity makes as little as the college president (who has no
jab security am great responsibility).
In one University System there is a gulf between the salaries of research
institution presidents am those for senior college presidents. For example, the president of the University of Georgia eams $120,000 a year am receives a car am a bane on the eatrpJS. Not only is Irr:I salary substantially lCMer, I
also receive only $10,000 for a halsin] allc:::1Na1'lCe. '!he University System needs to :rethink the issue of S\.Wlyin] halsin].
'!he real difficulty here is at the jtmior administration level. For the senior colleges, deans' salaries are a problem, too.
we have been able to maintain administrative salaries at a respectable level
that is carpetitive with that of carparable institutions.
Except for isolated examples of disparate salaries, administrative salaries
are appropriate am carpetitive. IIowever, the nultiplication of middle managers is unwarranted am unnecessary. Academe TNOUld do much better to
reduce the number of administrators am better recognize am reward those
that prevail.
I do not see this as a problem in Georgia. we need to concentrate on
inc:reasin] salaries of the teachers. '!he administrators seem to take care of themselves. I TNOUld like to see salaries in the Regents Office increased in order to attract sane of the best mi.n::)s in the nation.
Administrative salaries at one college should 1OO:re equitably :reflect the scope of assigned responsibilities. A :relatiVely small staff is carrying a tre.nerrlous workload in c::x:mprrison to many other institutions in the System.
Life faculty salaries, administrators' salaries are not carmnensurate with
those fourrl in similar sized businesses am government operations. Faculty
salaries are well belCM administrators, am the issue of faculty salaries
must be addressed first; otheI:Wise, to increase administrators' salaries at this time TNOUld be ca1:ast.rol;:hic. When faculty salaries rise, our salaries
will rise also. we are aware of the difficulty of obtainin] high competitive
persormel for leadin] positions in administration.
I really have no carplaints al:x:>ut salaries for our administrators. HCMever, when I look at the other institutions, I see that we are lagging behind. '!here should be sane adjusbnents.
'!he serious problem aR;)ears to be the uneven salaries paid to middle management administrators. A study of middle administrators' salaries should
144

be umertaken; I believe it will reveal a shcx:::kin;J ran;Je of salaries in the university System for irrlividuals doirq essentially the same jab. Institutions in large w:ban areas have been faced with increased competition in the recnrltment arxl retention of qualified personnel. 'Ibis campetition has largely been fran the private sector where higher salcny scales often prevail. It seems that colleges arxl universities train their administrative staffs only to see them leave for higher salaries in the private sector. While sane Presidents do not see this as a problem, this attitude is generally in the smaller cities. '!he larger schools in w:ban areas firrl the campetition very keen, resultirq in tunlover of lOOre capable people. It is noteworthy that this is generally ranked as a less severe problem than low faculty salaries.
145

R<F.SIIJINrS' cx:JMDDS QI ~ SAlARIES
Faculty salaries have kept pace with inflation. What else can be expected?
More of a problem exists in regani to faculty salaries: OUr college has fallen behi.rrl the scaled salaries for IXJblic school teadlers, post-secorrlary vocational school employees, am those offered by our nearest out-of-state
two-year college. D.1rin;J the past two years, we have lost one faculty member
to the IXJblic school system am one to the University System of Florida, due partly to our inability to offer c:arpati.tive salaries.
Faculty salaries are lOYT, especially in sane of the c:arpati.tive professional disciplines. More attention should be paid to market forces (i. e., an engineer is part of the engineerin;J market as well as the "associate professor market"). '!he system especially penalizes those in these fields who remain at the college only to see new employees carre in at higher
salaries since industry has received higher inflationary am merit raises
than state employees.
'!he nature of the problem depen:ls upon the discipline you are talking about. In Business Administration, an upward wage spiral is eatin;J us alive. In same of the A & S disciplines, we can meet the salcu:y requirements, though I'm not sure hOYT the junior faculty manage to eat.
One of the weakest areas of education in the state. We need to reward proven, outstan::lin;J teachers as well as we do our coaches.
With the exception of those disciplines in which accreditation has forced the
payment of high ''market rate" salaries (e.g., business administration am
computer science at one college), faculty salaries in general are insufficient within the University System to c:::anpete for new personnel. When high salaries are paid for ~ high-demarrl discipline personnel, this
causes obvious IlX>rale problems am salcu:y <::arpaction in other disciplines
within units of the University System.
OUr college needs higher faculty salaries to attract gifted teachers, particularly in math, the hard sciences, business, am nursin;J. Competition is intense for the caliber of personnel we employ, am we demand much of them in the c:::anpetitive settin;J.
'!he University System's relative position anong the SREB states with
reference to faculty salaries has been slippin;J. We have fallen from anong the top one on two state systems to about fifth or in the middle of the pack. We are beginning to feel increased resistance fram job applicants to the faculty salaries which we are able to offer. Also, we are feelin;J the adverse affects of the substantial increase in salaries paid to public school
teachers in Georgia.
As an exanple of the disgrace in college faculty salaries, I include a 198889 sununa:ry of our college's faculty salaries ~ with those from two public school systems - one rural, one suburban. From these data alone it is
146

easily seen that there is a major discrepancy beb.'ee.n p.1blic schex>ls arrl college salaries. I think the faculty salary average is ~ arrl feel there should be sane other basis for det:enninin;J salaries. '!here should be a faculty salary average for each rank. not an overall average. '!he significant gap in faculty salaries beb.'ee.n the levels of institutions within the System remains a concern of mine. Despite ~ efforts on the part of the Olancellor to address this problem, JDt:hi.n; substantial has been done in the 54 years I have been in the System.
'!he distinctly law average increases for university System faculty durin:J the
past few years has brought us to a serious situation. unless the trerrl is
reversed dramatically arrl soon, we are goin:J to continue to have difficulty
attractin] good faculty.
SUnunal:y:
A few Presidents feel the situation reasonably good, but the vast majority point out the erosion in c:::c:q:arison to other colleges in the SRER states arrl to the p.1blic schex>ls, arrl the inequities in salary administration.
147

PRESlDiNIS' a:aem; aI :EJRlI.lMmT OF MMtlRE ADJIIIS
'!his is likely to be our lOOSt productive source of new students in the
decades ahead, since many nDre career dlanJes will be necessary ani higher
overall levels of education will be required for all positions.
Education for mature adults is m:>re than just offerin;J classes for them; it llIlSt include the same sort of provisiooal. services available to traditionalaged students. We need to rethink admissions, registration, ani student services in order to meet the needs of this pcpJ1ation, especially with the declinin;J pool of high school graduates.
'!his is a very attractive student source for the nursin;J ani allied health professions. We are givin;J serious thalght to bJo pc:p.I1ations, those with either generic associate of baccalaureate degrees ani those with only high school credentials. We believe their maturity ani stability make them attractive as students ani even nDre attractive as health professionals.
with jobs changin;J to robots, infonnation ani services, I expect we will have
nDre ani nDre adults cc:mi.n:J to college. At the same time, we make it
extremely difficult for adults to attem college. We try to fit them into the nDld of the seventeen-year old.
Enrollment of mature (over age 25) adults is a major factor in the growth of graduate programs at one college. We expect this fact to be a constant. Although the ability to attract mature adults to un:lergraduate programs is .i1rp:>rtant, the fact is, their number will not offset the projected decline in the nmnber of high school graduates durin;J the early ani mid 1990's.
More ani nDre adults over the age of 25 are at.te.rrli.n;J our college. [)}ring the past year, we had over 26% over this age. As we enroll nDre of the mature students, the college will have to be nDre flexible in meeting their needs.
We are getti..rg nDre ani nDre mature adults enrolling here. We have approadled irrlustry in this area, encouraging those in their organization to continue their education.
One of the lOOSt significant developments in recent years has been the surge in enrollment of mature adults into higher education. '!his is entirely un:lerstarx:3able. A rnnnber of people could not afford higher education, and another nmnber didn't complete high school. Also, it has became clear to them that they need higher education to advance in their careers and to be placed in positions with good salaries. Also, as the many baby boom graduates I'lCVe up the career ladder, they leave a vaa.n.nn behirrl them with entry level jobs lookinJ for college graduates.
What is amazing is how little colleges have done to resporrl to the different kirrl of student. Only recently have I read that sane institutions are beginning to re-examine the un:lergraduate curricultnn to see if it is responsive to the "older" student now c:x:::rrposing a large part of the ranks of
148

ex>llege urxlergracluates. '!here is a ex>nsensus that higher education can meet an urgent need for mature
adults - an:l that c:han:Jes should be made to meet their special needs. '!he
potential for ser:vice is not only gocxl for the society rot also equally beneficial for higher education.
149

~ IIJINIS' <X'IM!Jf.rS (If SlJRP1lS ~ ~
'Ihi.s is not a problem tmless an institution has failed to exert itself to :recruit students.
If "surplus educational capacity" is defined as a urrler-uti.1.ization of
Iilysical resources, our oollege has a problem: we tern to ~te IOOrnings an::l eveni.nJs with little afternoon activity.
'!he real problem here is our jtmi.or oollege system vs. the technical
institutes. sane sort of mergin;J is goin;J to have to ~.
'!he only area. in which we have experienced a surplus "capacity" is in dentistry. 'IWo dental schools in the nation have closed, an::l one is in the process of closin;J. All dental schools have reduced class size. Sare projections inticate a potential surplus of Iilysicians. since accurate forecastin;J is inpJssible, the only action we i.nteni is a close IOOnitorin;J of the supplY/need/deInarrl situation in medicine.
Given the nany an::l diverse allied health professions an::l the relatively short career expectancy in these disciplines, there will always be an ebb an::l flow in need/deInarrl. 'Ihi.s means that schools with small total enrollments should seriously oonsider the oostjbenefits before entry into health career educational programs.
A problem which the University System of Georgia has not faced directly is sane fonn of rollin;J shield fonnula which subtracts fran the budgets of institutions which have lost enrollment appropriate percentages of base budget an::l therefore, personnel an::l non-personnel resources. our oollege provides a good exaIl'ple of an institution which has grown continuously (33.6% in enrollment) since 1980, but has not :received ccmnensurate support in either facilities or personnel to meet this increase.
'!he educational capacity of the University System may not be sufficient to meet the demarrl placed upon it by the citizens of Georgia. While the traditional IXPIlation may not grow as fast as in the past, many nontraditional students are enterin;J or re-enterin;J the System. If Georgia is to catch up with the nation in tenns of educational levels, IOOre and more non-traditional students must enter the System. 'Ihese students are more likely to atten::l c:xmruter schools in the large urban areas. '!hey are usually employed an::l have family obligations. camnutin;J IOn;J distarx::es will not be possible for them
'!he System's capacity is likely to be strained at these urban cormnuter institutions, while nany donnitory oolleges located in rural areas may have excess capacity. '!he problem is not a surplus, but a geographic maldistribution of facilities an::l programs. Programs must be located where the people are.
If by surplus educational capacity is meant the location, development, and maintenance of educational institutions in areas which cannot support them, I
150

believe that they should close. several colleges in the University System would fall in this catego:ry. I woul.d SlJgest that a real an:i honest evaluation of these institutions woul.d properly dictate they be closed as they perform no function that could IXJt be fulfilled by another institution lcx::ated close by. 'lhese political schools are c:x:stirg the System a great deal in resources that should be made available to other viable units.
If, hc:JrNever, the term above means the develc.pnent of new an:i duplicative technical schools, I am qp:sed to them. I think that voc::ational-technical education should be developed alorg the cxmruni.ty college lines an:i that the Board of Regents should be the govemi.nl board for all post-high school
degrees.
I also oppose the cases where regional libraries have built an:i provided educational facilities for higher education. [For exarrple, that the action of the OCnI.l1gee Regional Lil:>ra:ry in Eastman, Geot:gia to build educational facilities usirg p.Jblic :f\.lOOs obtained frc:m the Gov'enlOr for the use of a private college is culpable.]
surplus educational capacity may be a myth. It certainly is not a problem for the SOUth.
'!his concept is foreign to us at this tilne. I am not sure that the System is givirg this concept enough attention with respect to the current capital allcx::ation. I think I can speak with a sense of certainly that there are not 10 institutions in the System that are in greater need of classroom-academic support facilities than we are at this tilne. we must break the pattern of the furrl.i.rg list which bec:c:.mes "locked in" an:i is not IOOre responsive to recent an:i projected develcpnents.
since we are workirq with an mner-educated population, it is somewhat anomalous to speak of sw:plus educational capacity. It is tro.e that we have same institutions that were built at the tilne of the great expansion of enrollment, an:i I'1OW that enrollment has fallen off. At the sane tilne, though, we are gettirg enrollment growth in areas where we have been mnerbuilt. '!here is a need for an overall plan to help distribute students throughout the System an:i to use the institutions to better advantage. At the present tilne the trerxi seems to be to create an institution wherever students happen to be livirg. '!his is a totally one-dimensional view of higher education.
'!he other aspect of sw:plus educational capacity is the flexibility higher education has shown in resporrling to new educational deman:Is. '!he establistnnent of the vcx::ational an:i adult education board deroc>nstrates the sense of several constituencies that there was a vast educational need not beirg properly met. Whether this is really the Regents' responsibility or not, it deroc>nstra.tes that there is at least one class of educational clients which felt un:ler-served.
'!he vast new area of education has developed best recognized as "trainirg" or sponsored i.nstnIction. Colleges an:i universities have only begun to scratch the surface of these new fonns of i.nstnIcti.on an:i of i.nstro.ctional delive:ry.
151

Irrleed, sane of our old fashioned methods in colleges am mri.versities have
led to this. '!he best exanple is the old fashia1ed way in which speech is taught in colleges in contrast to the "'IOrld-wide acclaim of the Dale caD1egie method. Another exanple is the Berlitz method of lan;;ruage instruction in
contrast to the tedious methods still in use in IOOSt colleges am
mri.versities in teac:hi.n:j languages. I doubt that there is a problem in this regard in Geozgia. If there is, we sinply need to refocus our efforts to meet the needs of our urxlerdeveloped
state. we shalld be certain we are prcvicii.nq what is needed by our citizens am society.
SUnunaJ;y:
'!he Presidents recognize that "external factors" - pc:pl1ation shifts, fluctuatinl demarrl in career areas, creation of vocational/technical schools,
etc. - all cause dislocation. sane point to the need for aggressive response
to meet the great educational need. on balance, they do not feel that there
is a surplus - to the contraJ:y they feel that the new demarx:ls far exceed the capacity.
152

'Ihi.s has not been a major concem since the 1960's ani the call for relevance by people of the camter-cul.ture.
we do not fin:l this area. to be a prciblem because of our limited curriculum.
OVer the next few years, colleges nust re-evaluate what is the core ani what is the specialization ani fin:l ways to streamline those courses that have been added because of the special interest of one faculty member.
At our college we are lNOrJd.n;J to restore cxilererx::e to the Core, particularly Area III. I suspect that IOOSt of us could eliminate one-sixth of the courses listed in our catalogues ani be academically IlDre respectable for having done so.
Personally ani professionally, I have a very low regard for sw:vey courses. '!he college curriculum should be IlDre substantial than a fast-food menu. Liberal education ani general education are prerequisite to our baccalaureate programs. '!he prerequisite courses for medicine ani dentisby allow some latitude in liberal education, but time ani m:mey constraints limit the overload or irrelevant a:::ll.lrSe lNOrk. 'lherefore, we believe that it is generally the students who are unsure of his career goals that is a victim of overloaded or non-applicable studies.
sansone recently said, ''When you atterrpt to weed the curriculum, you fin:l that every weed belongs on saneone's turf." But, we do need to weed. '!he "core" curriculum has gotten to the point that we should not refer to it by that name. '!he core has been Sl'lCthered by special interest courses and we can no lorger call it "the steps to bec:x::Ine an educated person."
All units of the University System should be enc::xJUraged to audit all major and minor programs with these concems in mi.n:l. When a program is consistently un:ler-enrolled arxijor contains an excess of non-relative subject matter, the unit administration should be ~ly enc::xJUraged to cut back in such areas in order to reallocate resources to other stable or growing fields.
I am against it.
'!he Core curriculum protects the University System against such abuses during the first two years: however, as pointed out by me and to me on rnnnerous occasions, the biggest abuse of this prciblem exists in senior colleges and university level institutions in their SChools of Education (a misnomer) I recently reviewed three senior college ani one university catalog education offerings. It was conf<JlJniing.
'Ihi.s does not appear to be a prciblem in a bIo-year college with a rather lean curriculum. What this topic brings to my mi.n:l is the over-e.mphasis on career ani vocational trainirg, particularly in this state, but also throughout
higher education in America. we have oversold education as a way of getting
153

a jab. But this has been done at the total sacrifice of praootin3 the value of education for its own sake. IJhere prcbably are c::oorses thrown into curricula that are meant primarily to serve the interests of academic departments rather than the educational develcpnent of the students. I do not believe this is excessive. It is certainly a minor consideration in light of oor greater teniency to think that only c::oorses that train students for errployment are worth taki.rg.
summarv: Quite a number of Presidents feel that this deserves serious
attention in the light of current needs. It is, of cx:urse, felt to be IOOre prevalent in schools of education, senior-level curricula, university, arx:l graduate work.
154

Presidential leadership makes the difference in this matter. '!he institutions of presidents who care aJ.xnt inc:reas~ minority enrollment have increased minority enrollment.
we have had a good minority enrollment when cx:.Ilpn"ed to our sister
institutions. However, our percentage of minority students, which rarges fran 15-25%, does not reflect the percentage of minorities in the total population of our savice area, which awroaches fifty percent. 'Ihi.s lag is
not mrlque am. nationwide attention need to be fcx:usa:i on the problem.
particularly on the ''miss~'' black male.
'Ihi.s is a serious problem am. it is inperative that we solve it. CUrrently
there are llDre black 18 year-olds in jail in America than in colleges. Blacks atten:l post-secorrjary education at half the rate as Whites. Recruitment of minorities is s1:J:'orqly linked with the availability of financial aid.
Educational am. career qp:>rtuni.ties continue to <:pm am. widen for
minorities, particularly for the black population, while the pool of academically prepared blacks has not increased.
'Iherefore, when viewed programmatically us~ percentage enrollment figures, little progress is abseI:ved. Enrollment of blacks at the Medical College of
Geo~ia is approaching the System-wide percentages in associate degree am.
baccalaureate degree programs. It is above the System level for dcx:toral
programs. In fact, in medicine am. dentistzy only Howard University, Mehan:y University am. Morehouse University have a higher percentage of black
students enrolled than MeX;.
A real problem, particularly for male Blacks. we need to tun1 arourrl the trerrl to drop out of high school am. college because our society cannot
survive the alternative. '!he real need is to give our society a burning
desire for education am. have them feel as positive aJ.xnt it as the Asians do. we need to start that effort in the e1emental:y am. secomary schools.
It appears that a number of units of the University System are in a position to enroll a l~er percentage of minorities with awropriate recruitment,
COl.UlSe1~, am. support savices. One college has had a successful record in
this regard in that its percentage of minority enrollment has remained steady
am. high, with retention rema~ equal to that of majority students.
A new bus savice introduced this fall is interned to make the campus llDre accessible for inner city residents. '!he College is devoting llDre of its
recruiting staff time to prarote this new savice am. attract llDre minority
students.
We feel that our institution am. others within the University System have
done aJ.xnt all that can be done in the erx:ieavor. It is becaning increasingly apparent that critical decisions are made in the early stages of fonnal
155

educatiat whidl have an ove.r:whel.mi.n1 :inpact at ~ or not an irrlividual will atten:i college. '!he decisiat to drcp out of high school is one of the
IOOSt devastatirg decisions am alIOOSt precludes college at:terrlance by the
irrlividual affected.
While we mJSt W'Ork to maintain an environment whidl is attractive am
invitirg to minorities, we mJSt insist that the prOOlems asscx::iated with
academic success in high school be addressed am dealt with in a nuch lOOre
effective way than is currently the case. '!he prOOlem is bad l'lC1N. It will be aart:e in 5-10 years when the minority pcp.tlation increases its ratio. It is as l'IIld1 of a social as an academic prOOlem. '!he answer does not lie in offerirg lOOre remedial courses. Althalgh minority enrollment data shc:7N an all-time high in 1986, the rnnnber of black males enterirg higher educatiat dl:oppeJ by 7 percent in the last decade (American Council on Education). '!his statistic bears examination. As a note, our college is launc::hin;r a center for the study of the Black Male, which may shed sane light on this distt:essirg trerxl.
SUImna:ry:
'!here is a general agreement that this effort nust continue - without let-up
- to recruit, enroll, counsel, encourage, am broaden participation in the
college life. It is fully recognized, however, that nuch needs to be done in
elenentary am secorrlary levels, as well as in the c:x:mnuni.ty to prepare the
minorities for sua:essful experiences in higher education.
156

'!he Presidential leadership ccmnitment makes the difference.
If the university System would recognize its enployees as be.irg systenMide
enployees rather than institutional enployees am would TNOrk toward providing
incentives for persons of minority races, in both extremes, to voluntarily
transfer between am aIOOng institutions, this would go a long way toward
alleviating the disparity of racial mix 'We currently suffer.
Although 'We have in recent years succeeded in increasing our rn.nnber of minority enployees, the college still has great difficulty in filling vacancies in our corps of instructi.on with minority carxiidates. Few qualified blacks apply, pe.rtlaps because of an apparent reluctance to IlDVe to a :rural ccmmmity. Also, as mentioned above, our college has had little
turnover in its faculty am therefore few q:p:>rtunities to hire minority
teachers.
'!his is not a significant problem for us in the administrative area, but it is a serious problem in the faculty area. With our heavy emphasis on the
engineering fields am the natural sciences, there is almost no pool of Black
Ph.D.'s in these fields (at any price). '!he solution will be to find ways to
encourage more Blacks to study technical fields am then to get cooperation
from i.rrlustry who also wants to hire them (at significantly higher salaries).
we must also seek the errployment of minorities to serve as role models arrl as
mentors. As the student body becanes more arrl more diverse, so must the faculty 'We employ to teach them. Minorities must also be recruited to fill top administrative roles to show minority students arrl faculty members that they have a true voice in the governance of the college. Affinnative Action must continue to playa key role in ensuring that minority carrlidates are given full consideration for both faculty arrl administrative positions.
'!he errployment of minorities continues to lag in leadership roles. Recently, one institution has experienced a major ilnprovement in black faculty. In most instances, these new faculty are at a junior level. It will take SOll'e time for them to mature arrl grow into leadership roles. '!he present national cadre of black faculty in academic health centers is less than 1000 persons. In order to meet the Department of Education goals for EEX) categories 1 arrl 2, that pool will have to be ~ to at least 2500 persons.
Affinnative Action Guidelines should be maintained in the recruibnent arrl errployment of personnel. '!here has been considerable success in attracting minority errployees to our campus.
until more minorities major in English, history, mathematics, arrl the hard sciences, it will continue to be a problem to us. Minorities need to attain the Ph.D. in these fields, not the Ed.d. with a "concentration" in an area. Once the rn.nnber of minorities attain the Ph.D. in the more academic subjects, smaller colleges will be able to attract them.
157

we have made yeaman efforts in this direction in the last five years with "bJo steps forward am one step backward." In fact, in three of the instances when I have "caused thi..n:Js to ~," TNe have been unsuccessful in
reta~ the Black American enployees l~ than one year.
SUlmnal:y:
A1nDst every President cx:mnented on the limited Slg)ly of caniidates for enployment especially for faculty. In addition, they are acutely aware of the difficulties of real progress due to tumover. '!here is a willingness expressed to continue to press forwaztl in this area to improve this enployment nee:l.
158

'!he threat of IOOre regulation by the Federal government has been tenpered by
the l[K)re aggressive stance of SACS's self am peer narltorirg system.
Because higher education is strivirg toward aa:x:mrt:ability umer its own initiative, the Federal goveJ:1"JIDell't has less cause to i.np:se additional
regulations. we do sperrl a great deal of staff tilDe to ca.rply with federal regulations for financial aid am federal grants, am the Office of civil
Rights has caused us to sperrl a great deal of effort in documentirg our
efforts in enployirg am recnritirg minorities.
Although this has gotten less burdensaDe urder the Reagan administration, it is still very cumbersane. certainly the many reports (which visits to Washin;Jton irxlicated are a~y not even read) can be reduced or elilninated.
Hazardous waste disp::>sal is a problem of major magnitude, am we aren't
dealirg with it yet.
we fim that an inordinate annmt of tilDe is spent in doclnnentirg the fact
that we are followirg Federal regulations in all of our programs.
'!he need is for better educated legislators.
'!here is, of course, too much federal regulation on education at the present
tilDe. '!he i.ntenni.nable reports am audits make life difficult am
unenjoyable for the higher education administrator.
Should the federal government beccme IOOre interested in accreditation, we will have problems which will pale when <:x:mpn'E!d to those today. As academicians, we must insure that our own regional accreditation processes are as good as we can make them, thereby not encouragirg gOVe.rrmleIlt intervention.
'!here have been fewer new regulations introduced, am we have had a chance to
adjust to the many federal regulations that were JUt into effect. So at the present tilDe, my feelirg is that if we can maintain the status guo, we will be able to ca.rply with them.
art it has beccme clear that we have sane problems in the management of toxic waste as do other institutions.
'!he gist of the OPllUons irxlicate that institutions are less burdened, or better able to hanfie than in the past. Nonetheless, they are critical of
the tilDe required am need as much relief as p::>ssible.
159

IH!S I leos' <X:HtDf.IB CIl RXIml ~ ne::amN
'Ihi.s is a perennial prciJlem. No generation of teachers ever thinks that
students are ~l-prepared.
our college opened with a Developnental studies prcxJram, am we see no
possibility of eliminatirg it in the near future. '!he steady enrollment in remedial classwork tl'1ralghout the System seems to irxticate that approxilnately the same percent of poorly prepared freshmen are admitted to college each year. Also, we have fam that many new students have no foreign language experience whatsoever. 'lWo gliJrmers of hc.p! exist: the Quality Basic
FJ:lucation ltDVement am the new pre-college curria1l.um l1C1N required of Georgia
high school students.
'!here is no question that enterinJ freshIren are poorly prepared in the basic
skills area (not to mention science am math literacy) nationally, am even
IIDre so in Georgia. EnterinJ students are better prepared l1C1N than several years ago. '!he trerxl nust continue until colleges do not routinely have to offer renvadi.al studies for large segments of their pcp.l1ations.
let's hope QBE will have an inpact within the next five years. If not, we're all in big trouble.
we continue to have poorly prepared freshIren matria1l.atinJ at the college level. Consequently, a large percentage of enterinJ freshmen nust come
through Developnental studies.
'!he walk:i.rq woun:led on our canpuses are the product of a generation of neglect in our public school system. lIavever, we carmot abarrlon an entire generation. Remediation is a present necessity. It need not be the task of the research university or the professional school. '!he entire system of post-sec:on:3ary education fran vocational schools to <:XI't'I11m1ity colleges should make this a major agema item.
our big jab is changinJ the attitude of society about education. we have let society believe that the m:>st i.np:>rtant aspect of college, of education, is athletics. we get what we deserve.
A relatively poor preparation is provided in all Georgia public am IIDSt
Georgia private schools K-12.
'!he proportion of poorly prepared freshmen seems to have grown throughout the
1970's am 1980'S for various reasons. While the correction of this problem
is priInarily the responsibility of the state's public schools, the SYstem can do rruch to support their efforts.
Poorly prepared freshmen are our fault. our schools of education have been tun1i.rg out poor teachers for many years, am we are bearinJ the brunt of it
l1C1N. Fortunately the educational systems of Georgia have noved in a direction to correct this prciJlem.
160

'!here is no dearth of literature anjjor public pronouncements as to the causes ani cures of the problem of poorly prepared freshmen; it appears that there has been IrOre ''vi~ with alann" than effective methods to assure that high school graduates who desire to atteIxi colleges may do so with reasonable assurances of success.
'!his is an excee1in;Jly great problem in all disciplines. Inability to orally cx::mm.mi.cate, write, c:arp.rt:e, reason, lack of knowledge in subject matter areas cause our faculty to gnash their teeth. Am acx::ording to the remedial
courses for one year is not the answer, for students who have not studied and lean1ed disciplines for 12 years cannot be expected to learn them sufficiently to enroll in a freshman class after three quarters. We, the
colleges, are at fault. '!he situation will became no better until we overllaul the Education Department's requirement for teachers, insisting that prosPective teachers receive A.B. degrees in subject matter fields with an equally challerging minor in an appropriate field. I)) away with the useless IrOrass which l1OW' confOUl'X3s education.
While it is too early to tell at this juncture, we are seeing at one college some inpact of QBE ani CPC. Content deficiencies of our entering students this fall seem to be somewhat lower than we had anticipated.
Based on the latest nonnative data for freshmen in the university System, this institution has the highest average SAT for freshmen among all junior ani senior colleges south of the line fram Dahlonega to Atlanta to Augusta. '!his SAT average is a low 857 while the university system average is 873. '!his is but one irrlicator of the poor preparation of freshmen entering the institutions of the University Systems of Georgia. While the states federal desegregation plan dictates developmental studies programs on all system campuses, such programs would be necessa:ry without such federal interference. Ideally, teaching less than college level work on a college campus should not be pennitted, ani a long-range goal would be to eliminate such courses. While change is in the air, preparation of freshmen for college remains poor.
Access ani quality in higher education are issues for healthy debate. Access for all without quality is not being honest. Quality without access for all who can profit fram higher education is elitism that we cannot afford.
one of the IrOst painful situations that higher education must deal with is
that of poorly prepared students. Renatial programs constnne valuable time ani resources that could better be applied to college level work.
It is not clear to me that the freshmen here are any more poorly prePared than they use to be. We may be better at diagnosing their deficiencies. certainly, with greater access to higher education, a number of people are coming to college who might in the past have not been pennitted. 'Ihe other
asPect of this topic is the meaning of "poorly prepared."
'!he educational systems must recognize that students ani others have new ways of acquiring knowledge other than those traditionally associated with academic skills such as writing ani reading. We are living in a postliterate world. '!his is extremely challerging in an area where we are still
161

dealin:J with :remnants of a pre-literate agrarian society. It is extremely difficult to IrOtivate students toward the written ~. It is no smprise that in an age when there is the greatest cle.marxi for technically prepared TNOrkers, we are get:t.irg the fewest students enterin:J academic programs requirin:J math ani scierr.e skills.
SUrnmal:y:
Accord:irg to the Presidents, the entire educational cxmmmity must be involved in the "solutions" if we are to i.Jrpact properly the incoming students of the future. '!he begi.nnirgs have been erx::ouragin:J but have yet to be proven adequate.
162

01rrent practices are, in general, a scarDal am vitiate the educational progzans. PrcpJSition 42 am related prqxJSa1.s are steps in the right
direction.
'!here is no question that intercollegiate athletics has gotten out of hand at many w'liversities. '!he concept of scholar-athlete is rarely fulfilled. 'Ihe
new "stri.n:Jent1l academic requirements fran the NCAA for academic preparation are a joke - the 700 SAT requirement is not:hi.n:J llDre than an entry credential
into develq:.mental studies. Presidents need to becane lIIJdl llDre involved in policy setti.rg for athletics, as the NAIA, llDre than the NCAA, is doi.rg.
'!here is no doubt in my mirrl that the intercollegiate athletics program plays an i.nportant role in the life of a oollege. It does, however, need to be carefully lOOllitored by the president so that can take its place alon;} with other activities to fonn an exciti.rg array of student services.
'!he tail is very definitely waggi.rg the dog. Presidents am faculties must
take control again.
Frankly sportsmanship am scholarship need not c:::anpete; eadl oontributes to the maki.rg of an educated am socially interactive person. '!he present
dc:aninance athletic directors hold over academic officers is unnatural,
unwarranted, am counteJ:productive to the maki.rg of good productive
graduates.
Football is the rn.nnber one priority of education in Georgia. If it were not for athletics, develq:.mental studies TNCUld be at the jw'lior oollege level,
am senior oolleges am w'liversities TNCUld be llDre concerned about quality students. we have pennitted a jock strap to replace 'Ihoreau, Shakespeare am
Plato. Am we womer why we have so many who cannot read or write.
My aJ:::serva.tion is that the University System senior institutions have been allowed to pursue much too broad a spectnnn of intercollegiate athletic involvement. '!here was a period of time when the University System oolleges
could have been encouraged am supported (if not required) to fonn a
oonference am similar levels of ~ition whidl TNCUld have been nnldl llDre
efficient and effective in providin;} intercollegiate participation
opportunities for student athletes am much less expensive for llDSt of the
senior oolleges involved. 'Ibis should be llDre closely oontrolled through. the
dlief executive's office am the trustees aIXVor Regents.
Intercollegiate athletics may be the ruination of us yet. Georgia had a
reasonable awroadl to the cost am the effects of intercollegiate athletics
when it reserved football for the universities. Now the problem is out of
oontrol. sane may say that athletics is not costi.rg anyt:hirg, but it spends
llDney that could be used on the education of the people of the state. I
think that intercollegiate athletics is a problem whidl will grow, am I do
not believe that we will fim a way out of it. Intercollegiate athletics is one of the llDre troublin;} aspects of higher
163

education. It seems that nearly everyone associated with higher education
feels that the p:rcblem is becanirg i.rx::reasinJly acute am at times even
threatens the very existence of viable acadeni c pnx:Jzams - collegiate athletic teams that have nearly seveLed thenselves :fLan the academic teams. large segments of the general pcp.l1ation aLe beaEi rr:J disenchanted with
intercollegiate athletics. '!he few am mostly feeble efforts to raise to a
:reasonable degLee the academi c stamards requi.Led for participation in intercollegiate athletics aLe met with hostile cgx:sition.
It is to the CLedi.t of the univezsity System of Georgia that the roost recent effort to raise academic stamards for participation in intercollegiate athletics at the Division I level came :fLan the univezsity of Georgia. It is also to our CLedi.t that the university of Georgia is adherinJ to a higher academic st:anjard for enterinJ freshmen athletes than the mi.ninumt required by
the NCAA.
Officials of our college am the other university System officials have for the past two years attarpt:ed to gain suwort which TNalld raise the academic
stamards for participants in intercollegiate athletics at the bJo-year level. A major effort was made to LeqUire student athletes to maintain an overall GPA of 2.00 in order to continue to participate in intercollegiate athletics. 'Ihis proposal was sourrlly defeated by institutional votes durinJ the 1986-87 fall meeti.rg of the GJCAA.
'!he current tren:ls in the field of intercollegiate athletics pose a serious threat to academic stamards at all levels of higher education. '!his pLeblem should be addLessed in an effective way before the situation becomes urnnanageable.
Intercx:>llegiate athletics has a legitimate role in the scheme of higher education. yet it poses special p:rcblems that BUSt be :resolved.
Participants in intercollegiate athletic activities are students first, am
academic starx3ards - fran admission thLough graduation - must be maintained. Gove:rnance of intercollegiate athletic programs must be retained by the institution. Athletic programs BUSt canplement the academic mission of the institution.
I think too many institutions at the different levels are tLyi.rg to became involved in big-time college athletics. 'Ihat tlu:ust needs to be rethought with increased attention given to club level or intramural participation opportunities for larger groups of students. On the other errl of the perspective, I am begi.nrlirg to question the efforts to force the merger of
the dernan::ls of big-time college athletics am the academic rigor of senior
college or university study. I am alroost to the p:>int in my thinking that students with special athletic abilities should be given a period of five
years of eligibility duri.rg which they may perfonn four years am at the same
time be given every opportunity to get a college education. I despair of the less than honorable efforts that go on when we tLy to marry those two items.
'!he rep.ttation of intercollegiate athletics has :reached a low p:>int due to numerous scan::Ial-ridden programs thLoughout the nation. Integrity should be :restored but such will not be the case without a concerted effort by college
164

and mrlversity presidents to pursue sudl a course. '!he public de1narrl for successful intercollegiate athletic programs continues to be a major h.irmance to the restoration of credibility and academic cx>nfonnity in athletic programs. Excesses and problems therefran are legion in this regard. '!he prilniny function of higher education is education, not entertairnnent. '!he recent attenpts to refonn intercollegiate athletics are camnendable, or, at least, the spirit fran which they emanate is. 'Ihese refonns are not dealinq realistically with the pherlcmmon of intercollegiate athletics. '!he key factor is that it will no larger do to have an adequate sports program. '!he only things that count are to be the national c.hanpion. Athletics should be treated as arrj other program at a cx>llege or mrlversity. 'Illat is, it should be viewed as a part of the foor years a student spends on a campus, whether he or she participates or spectates. Athletics should have the same measure of quality, be held to the same strinqent set of standards, and take a rightful place as a part of the entire educational offerinq.
SU1mnar{:
From the above canmleI'lts of the presidents, it can be deduced that the present cx>rrlition of intercollegiate athletics is urrle:nnining the m::>rale of cx>llege presidents as they seek to improve academic results.
165

flRESI1E'llS' a:Hmm) af EXJ)IIMENl' AND INS'lHIBlrATIaf ~
Equipnent replacement is another area in whim we can achieve greater
efficiency. We sameti1nes want a piece of expensive equipnent - its proposed
use is for a short period in a course offered a1l.y orx::e a year. we can do a
much better job of evalua~ the cost effectiveness of equipnent in tenns of
the contr:ib.rti.on made to the quality of the leanri.Ig experience am thus
enhance our investments.
with increasin;J sq;nistication of scientific equipnent, colleges are having a
difficult time acquirin;J what is needed. We are tXai.ni.ng students on
obsolete equipnent that was nc:M bein;J used in the b..1siness world. '!his may be applied to all of our scientific equipnent.
'!he University System of Georgia has one strikiIg failure within its furrli.ng
mechanism: '!he ability to make la:rge-scale p.m::hases of equipnent am
replacement of i.nstroctional equipnent am other instJ::umentation in a given
fiscal year. azt for large-scale p.m::hases, such as ccmp.rter equipment am vehicles am replacement of specialiZed equipnent, we have a1Ioost no way to
acx::anplish these replacements. One suggestion: Allow institutions, irx:tividually, to retain up to 2% of their annual appropriation at year-errl, to be carried over into the next fiscal year, expressly for the purpose of
maki.rx.J these very costly purc:hases.
In the past, Quality ~rovement furrli.ng has helped us in this regard, but in recent years budget cuts have necessitated the direction of our QBE ftlrns (about $25,000 annually) to the library. We are concerned about our ability
to keep up-to-date equipnent in our science labs am to keep our computer lab current in both software am hardware.
COlleges have for years operated urrler the assunption that once you purchase a piece of equipnent it is expected to last forever (with no maintenance or need for updatin;J). As a result, laboratories are in place that purportedly teach IOOdem technologies, usin;J equipnent that is 10-20 or lOOre years old. '!his fo:nnula should pennit total replacement of the instructional equipment inventory at least every 10 years.
We need a lot of lOOney throughout the University System, am we need it soon.
we are very near the crisis point.
Technological advances make patient care am :researdl equipnent obsolete at an increasin;Jly rapid rate. One cannot team state-of-the-art competencies with wo:rn out tools. '!herefore, teadlin;J effectiveness will suffer if equipnent acquisition falls behi.ni technological advancement.
'!he present furrli.ng fo:nnula within the System does not adequately address this critical issue.
One solution to this, am which will alleviate many of the problems, is to realize that we have too many colleges in Georgia - University System, Tech schools, am private colleges - that half of them should be merged with
166

others. '!his ccW.d help reduce the b.1i.l.di.n;J of DD1l.1lDel1ts to support the egos
of college presidents, reduce several layers of administrators, am share
resources accoJ:'din:J to the mergEd needs of two institutions into one, or even foor or five mli.ts into one. we are now at a point where a penalty nust be paid. M.1c:h. of the COllege's
original laboratory am media equipnent is now art:dated am in constant need
of repair. sane adjusbnents nust be made if oor traditiooal. high starrlards
are to be maintained. While it is growi.rg in:::reasin;Jly difficult to place significant equipnent llDl1eY in the regular l11dget; quality inprovement f'llms have been entirely
adequate to supply equipnent am instromentation replacement as needed by
this institution.
At oor college, ~ necessary to acquire new am to replace instructional equipnent am i.nstnnnentation is less than adequate. '!he System should increasin;Jly address the problem of maintenance f'llms am
instromentation f'llms as an integral part of the bJdget. '!he University System of Georgia nust place great ertP1asis on ~
equipnent purchases am instromentation :replacement. '!his institution is not allocated any f'llms for these ~ am ~ nust c::xme annually fran
:reaJV'ered f'llms within the college bJdget if such can be foum. '!his problem is becan.irg a major embarrassment for state higher education in Georgia. For research mli.versities, havin;J up-to-date research equipnent is essential.
Modern laboratories equipped with state of the art instromentation am up-to-
date super c:anp.tter facilities are a necessity. Additionally, widespread
availability of micnxXluputers to faculty, students am staff is inp:>rtant.
SUmmary:
While the Quality Inp:rovenv:mt F'Urrli.rg has gone a lorg way to meet the urgent
needs of IOOSt institutions, the absence of regular ~ am the great
needs in certain institutions present substantial managenv:mt problems.
167

PRF.S1LI!Nl'S' <XHHnS ell ~ AND ~ OF IBYSICAL PIANr
lbysical plant maintenance presents a different ki.n:i of problem. '!here is no
solution to this problem except to analyze em:' needs accurately am to
oonvince the legislature of these needs.
So far, 'tNe have been able to meet the basic deman:is of the maintenance of our
PlY'sical plant. we have not been able to replace bJ.i.l~ as we have
needed. OUr biggest problem' is that plant was designed for instructional delivery of quite a different nature. OUr plant was designed before cx:mp.1ters 'tNere invented. At best, 'tNe have made adaptations in our plant.
In general, our campus is an old one, am many of em:' bJ.i.l~ are going to
have to be refurbished. we see very little evidence that fun:li.rq will be
available for this. Hopefully, a plan will emerge which recognizes the extent of the problem.
we are fortunate to have relatively new bJ.i.l~ am an extre.rrely canpetent
am versatile am bJ.i.l~ grouOOs staff. OUr largest expen:liture has been
for roofing replacement am repairs, of which the Cllancellor has been very
~rtive.
Although the System MRR furrl has been significantly increased, much of the IlDI1eY remains canmitted to asbestos problems which seem to escalate each year.
Many System schools were built during the last thirty years, am as we grow
old together, the maintenance of the };ilysical plant am the need to replace
"WOrn out or out-dated equipnent beccmes a critical fun:li.rq cxmcern.
'!he last great capital thnlst of the university System of Georgia occurred lOOre that 15 years ago. '!here is no fonnal depreciation furrl accounting
system in place. Presently, major fixed am nJVable equipoent in these
bJ.i.l~ is wearing out or becaning d:Jsolete. Soon, 'tNe 'tNe1l be faced with
major renovation CXlSts. 'Iherefore, maintenance am replacement will continue
on a crisis basis tmless a furrl in excess of the 3/4% is available.
'!his is a major problem within the University System which has not been faced openly by the Govenx>r's Office, the legislature, or the Regents. It appears that MRRF :funjg are allocated sanewhat artlitrarily on the basis of certain
immediate needs, but not on the basis of relative age am conlition of
};ilysical plant.
'!he cieInaIDs for maintenance am replacement of our };ilysical plant (valued at
a sum in excess of $100,000,000) are great am exceed the resources available
to the college. '!he need for increased MRR :funjg is statewide.
No lorg raIXJe plan for the System. Priority list for facilities never based on pragmatic needs.
we are in dire need of assistance in this area at our college. As an
168

institution approachin:.J its 25th armiversaJ:Y, we are finiirg that all of our
roofs are wearin:J cut at the same time. '!he System is prd::lably lOO:re un:ierf'urrled in this area than in any other area. Deferred maintenance ani :replacement of lilYsical plant is another major issue
in the university System of Georgia. current fumi.n:J silrply does not meet
current de1naIxls. SUCh cx:nlitions also :reflect on the quality of public higher education in Georgia. '!he practice of deferred maintenance has :resulted in a necessity of I'llal'X3atory :repairs that are often goin:J to be quite expensive. Roofs llIlSt be :replaced;
teletXtane ani c:c:rrp.1ter cxmIIJl1i.cations need updatin:J; inefficient ventilatin:J
systems llIlSt be :replaced, ani hazardoos materials such as asbestos must be harrlled. 'll1ese deferred projects often have cost ann.mts equal to that of
Wilcii.nJ new facilities. summary:
with the exceptions of the new canpJSeS, the concern is the question of availability of furrls to harrlle needed :repairs ani :replacements. Most regard this as a major problem deservin:J serious study by Regents staff ani lOO:re legislative concenl.
169

H<I!S II *'HIS' a:HHfIS aI ra:::I:J:IiIK; ACAIDIC S'D\NIlARI:S
'!he areas of i..r'Jawropriate curricula ani decli.ni.n;J acadeni c st:.an:3an1s are two that TNe should ani can directly aall'ess. COlleges oant.rol both, ani TNe have no acceptable academic st:.an:3an1s. COllege faculties have backgrourrls
that are discipline-oriented with no experie1'X'e or trai.nin:J in curriculum
developnent or in assessin3 academi c st:.an:3an1s. It is, therefore, my contention that administrators nust fin::l ways to address these major perils to higher education - areas to which TNe may have given the least attention ani, he1'X'e, realized the fewer successes.
'!here is no llVJtivation aItDn3' the faculty to relax academic st:.an:3an1s. As a matter of fact they would like to c:x::>J.1ti..nu raisin3 them. '!he fact is, though, that there is a serious dislocation l::letTNeen the freshmen c:anirg in ani what they are expected to do durin3 their first year. consequently, student perfonnance durin3 the :fresbman year tams to be quite low. Academic perfonnance cannot be expected to ilrprove nor can st:.an:3an1s be raised until there is an iIrprovement in llVJtivation. At the present time it is not clear to anyone why TNe nust strive for excelle1'X'e.
Is this a problem? Not at all institutions.
same concenl exists on our canp.lS regarding the newly~ ability of 28
Georgia vo-tech schools to grant the associate of applied scie1'X'e degree.
Would separatin3 vocational students fran their college classmates raise the level of academic work ani make tedmica1 courses nDre relevant? I am not sure that a consensus exists aItDn3' our faculty.
I do not perceive this as a significant problem. At our institution, student perfonnance has risen stead; ly over the last ten years. In addition, our entrance requirenents have significantly increased, yet we have doubled in enrollment in the last dozen years.
Academic st:.an:3an1s seem to be increasin3 rather than declinin3. We may have had a period in the past where we overac:x:::aoodated marginal students, but now we have a variety of se:rvices that help those who seem pranisin3.
I believe we have tun1ed the COn1er on this one. '!hough it's kin::l of hard to be sure when you are in the middle of the fray.
Open admission policies have resulted in open graduation policies, particularly when teachers are nD:re aCCOlmtable for some outcome than students.
Revive educational values. Replace the now number one priority, football,
with :readin3, writin3 ani canputin3.
OUr academic st:.an:3an1s are eroding because of student laziness, a malady which produces a maxi.m.nn expectation for a mi.ninum effort. Another factor is the grade requirement criterion for college ani professional school entrance.
170

I llB.lSt admit that I also see a degradation of the dedication that used to be a mark of oolle;Je professors.
I do not see how such a pervasive trerrl can be reversed without drastic steps. certainly, we abhor the decline in academic st:al'ml:ds, but we may have to accept what we have ani place an' hq)e in the few who still maintain the high st:al'ml:ds that sane professors set.
we do not acknowledge that academic st:aIrlal:ds are decli.n:i.rg within the
University System of Georgia. '!he dlai.rman of an' division of general studies (liberal arts) reports that academic st:al'ml:ds are high in his division. However, grades tern to be very good or very bad with little middle grourrl.
New initiatives to ~ in outCXl!Df'S assessment may possibly prove
embarrassin3' to this ani other oolleges. we may fini that we are not doin3' as good a jab as we thought we TNere doin3'. If that is the case, we will address those problems ani iIrprove where iIrprovements are warranted. HOIrleVer, we do not believe that academic st:al'ml:ds have declined as
drastically as sane critics of higher education claim.
As oolle;Jes grew, ani as budgets grew, ani as rnnnbers of oolle;Je administrators grew, ani as salaries grew in proportion to students, oolle;Jes fourxi ways to let in IOOre ani IOOre students, many less qualified than
earlier. we are now egalitarian. Everyone who WANTS to go to oolle;Je is
allowed. in. ''When the central Office reports that a requirement of 250 vel:bal., a 280 quantitative, ani a high school grade point average of 1.8 is minimal ani that to disqualify these students would mean eliminatin3' 11,000 University System students, one urrlerstarrls why an' academic st:al'ml:ds are not as high as we would like."
Decli.n:i.rg academic st:al'ml:ds do not seem to be a serious problem in our area.
our SAT averages in our area seem to be stable ani even increasin3'. we are
grateful for this situation.
While it may be only a false sense of security, since caning to a two-year, open admission institution, I have not been as bothered by decli.n:i.rg academic
st:al'ml:ds as I was at tmiversities in another state. we have the ability at this institution to assess ani place students in programs that allow then to address academic deficiencies am l1DVe canfortable into oore-based transfer
Y./Ork.
with the social revolution of the 1960's, many barriers to abtai.n:i.rg a higher education TNere lowered as stress on access was intensified. 'Ib ac::comrrodate the new students who TNere generally less prepared, the faulty responded by lowerin3' st:al'ml:ds to ae:tXilillaJate these new students. '!here appears to be a l1DVerrent to recover fran this dark era in p.1blic higher education.
Appropriate, chall~in3' st:al'ml:ds llB.lSt be our watchword. Presidential
leadership is required in academics. we generally get about what we expect
am that to which we are fully canmitted. Poor academic quality is the 100St
oostly aspect of higher education.
171

summary:
'!he many ccmnents shc:7N that Presidents recognize the dlarges that have
ocx::urred in the past two decades both in the curriculum am in student
capacities. Also the concerns are greater at university levels.
172

'Ihi.s is an area of conti.nuin.;J carrern. Fin:lin:j able leaders to assume administrative p:sitions is seemin;rly l)f:!(X'lJdn;r lIDre difficult. I sanetilnes think that all new administrators should be provided a bIo-year continuous educational program; harlever, I know of no good program. I think that focusin;J our attention on inprovin;J the quality of leami.rg may attract lIDre able persalS into administrative p:sitions.
our area is a tmnoff to lIDSt acadeni cs, ani lNe have to do a lot of sellin;J
to get the attention of people. Orx:le they have ocme here ani see the place they like it. '!he administratim is relatively yam:], ani replacement will not bec:x:me a serious prc:i:>lem for sanetime.
we have had. little tunlover am::n:J our administration, so THe have little
experience in this area.
I do not see this as a problem. When a vacancy arises THe are able to fin:i a TNe11 qualified replacement generally.
Because of our lcx:::ation next to the diverse job market available in ani
a:rourn Atlanta, it is difficult for us to retain ani to replace valuable staff members. we definitely need lOOre m:>ney to offer our staff PerSOnnel
lIDre CXlupetitive salaries.
'Ihi.s is not a COncen1 at our institution since administrative staff replacements over the Past six years have been a marked ilnprovement in lIDSt cases.
'Ihi.s is potentially a major COncen1 for higher education. on our own campus,
I sense less interest aIrOn;r teachi.rg faculty in their future utilization as
Part of the administrative staff of the institution. In fact, two key
administrators have relinquished their administrative resp::>nsibilities ani gone back to teachi.rg p:sitions in the five years.
Administrative staff replacement has not been a major problem on this campus. Obtainin;J the best qualified administrative staff depenjs upon budget allcx:::ations ani this remains uneven throughout the University System.
It is ~ that staff appointments in the central Office of the University System of Georgia have been less than desirable due to budget constraints.
SInaller institutions face difficulties in this situation, especially in abtainin;J capable, experienced minorities.
As in other areas of COncen1, the situatim varies widely by institution ani geograpti.cal lcx:::ation. '!here is no system-wide plan to recruit, train, or develop administrators based on these camnents.
173

1'RIi.SlDiNIS' ~ CB FAalIIlY ~ IN SETJiX~IM) DISCIPIJ:NES
'!he recruitment of talented carxtidates has always been difficult. '!he
reprt:ation of the college has illproved considerably, am 'We are fin:ii.nJ it sanewhat easier to attract carxtidates. we expect that this will not
continue, once the neW' expansion in higher education begins. Also, fewer
people have been seekirg the doctorate in recent years. we expect that this
will lead to an acute shortage of qualified people.
Again, 'We have experienced low faculty tl.u::n:Jver am have had little
difficulty in attract:in:J qualified awlicants, except for minorities.
'!his is a significant problem in the technical disciplines as well as same
categories of rosiness am the health professions. A significant part of the
salary problem is that educational institutions do not begin to c:::onpete with irrlustry in the area of fringe benefits.
Even with the many advantages available in metropolitan Atlanta, it is
difficult for us to recruit science am math i.nstn1ctors.
Business Administration is our pressure area - am a pressure area for
everyone else. Fran what I hear, Ergineering is a TNOrse situation. until a significantly larger number of high school students make it through a full sequence of math, including the first course in calculus, while still in high school, our society is in trouble.
Although it may create morale problems, 'We may have to increase the salaries substantially in sane areas to attract bright, good teachers fram going to irrlustry.
'!his is a COncenl at institutions where there are certain programs growing much more rapidly than others' e.g., nursing, ac::x:xJUl1ting, management, infonnation systems, etc. I see no way in which the Regents of the university System can assist with this problem.
'!his is not viewed as a problem on our canplS. With the possible exception of nursing, 'We have relatively little difficulty in attracting highly
qualified am c:::onpetent applicants in the instructional areas offered by the
institution.
()Jr dean of the college says that replacing faculty in all disciplines is much more difficult than even three years ago. '!his is true based on our
recent experiences in employing a librarian, a geologist, am an Erglish professor. we have not yet fourxi a qualified Erglish teacher.
SUrnrna+Y:
As noted the recruiting of qualified faculty am their retention varies widely, but is especially acute in technical, scientific, business am health
professional areas.
174

we DUSt first devise ways to assess faculty perfOntanee am inplement this assessrreIt as a rooti.ne of institutional ~tioos. '!hen am only then will

"We be able to assist an ageirg faculty lDE!lliJer in inprovirg his perfonnance or

to nrNe the person into early :retil:ement which, ciNiously, calls for a better

early retirement plan than "We presently have.

In SUImIal:Y, these

circumstarx:::es place a :responsibility an college administrators that "We must

accept.

'!his is saneth.in;J of a pI."'Cblem. Faculty now are less nd:>ile than they were sane years ago, me.ani.rg that the mJD!ber of senior tenured faculty are increasirg at roost institutions. senior, tenured faculty are often not willirg to lecnn the new fields or specialties that cool.d be foun:l if new faculty cool.d be hired as needed.
Because of the greyirg of our profession, "We must fin:i ways to :rejuvenate am
to :renew faculty members. For exanple, "We need 1OO:re programs for faculty developnent, programs that llwolve a wide spect:nnn of age groups. Faculty renewal is the key to the future.

'!his is not a present pI."'Cblem in grc::Mi.rg doctoral-grantirg institutions.
Here maturity adds strength am stability. However, administrative attention must be given to the recruitment of junior faculty am to maintaining a
productive fresh edge of senior faculty. '!here is a :real need to have
"sabbatical" arrljor other faculty :renewirg policies available. We cannot afford to merely lOOVe senior faculty up into figurehead middle management
positions.

'!his is not a pI."'Cblem if they are good teachers. '!he pI."'Cblem is if they are
not good teachers am are tenured.

Arry institution is in darger of becani.ng "stale" if large mnnbers of older
faculty beccme tenured in, thus makirg it difficult to infuse new life into
the institution. Although our faculty in the general studies division of the
institution has matured am becane sanewhat "tenured in," "We have a sizeable
mnnber of faculty positions that are in the non-tenured track. However, we
feel that early :retirement incentives am aggressive programs in professional
developnent for faculty are inportant factors in maintaining a viable
faculty.

An institution must carefully plan to use its new or :reallocated resources to brirg fresh talent into disciplines that have becane stagnant. '!his requires
extensive management llwolvement am must be harrlled with sensitivity.

Surmnary:
'!he Presidents acknowledge that this is a test of management, am they need
additional flexibility ani "tools" to solve the in:iividual problems.

175

:I'H!S111INrS' <:XHtIMIS af EIi'ftl:l:I\IDi CF ~ AerIal IIIRllC
'!he foll~ ccmnents by Presidents are representative of the opinions
expressed:
'!he recrui:bnent of minority students deserves cur best efforts. '!he hirinJ of minorities will p:rc:bably enhance cur efforts to :recruit minority students.
I wish I knew how to recruit minority students am enployees.
'!here is no question in my mi.rn that withaIt the steady pressure of
affinnative action policy fran the University Systan am fran the President
of this ex>llege, we would have accx::uplishecl considerable less in employment
of minorities. While I feel that the affinnative action plans am all the reex>rd keepinJ have been burdensane am themselves have really not
contributed to minority hirinJ, I do feel that constant encouragement is necessary fran the top.
To hire is not sufficient. we must look at retention rates am be sure that
we have not sinply created a :revelvinJ door.
we have had same limited sucx::ess with "growi.n;:J cur own." OVer the years, we
have hired three of our own minority graduates. However, as mentioned above, attractinJ qualified minorities to the few faculty vacancies that occur poses
a problem in a rural cx:mnunity.
sane proglOdltS in this area have been very successful am other have not. '!he
Regents Fellows Program led to a mnnber of Blacks beinJ placed in
administrative positions, but that program was ch:c:g;m.
our institution has eJq:lerienced this problem particularly in high deman:l
areas such as nursinJ am business administration. Also, the relative w:ban
versus relative rural socio-econcmic situation is pertinent here.
Affinnative action plans have enabled institutions to make ex>nsiderable progress in attractinJ minorities. However, we seem to be witnessinJ a plateau in the level of minority employees in many institutions. '!he pool of minority applicants seems to be diminishing.
Affinnative action hirinJ has been effective when I consider the rn.nnber employed durinJ the Past 15 years. ConsiderinJ the percent of minorities hired fran this rn.nnber, many would consider it less sucx:essful. our problem is that few qualified apply.
Affinnative action hirinJ has had a p:::lSitive effect on higher education. '!he
pool of minority camidates has been small, am higher education must work to increase the pool to ma.intain our effectiveness am 5'tren3then efforts to
achieve our overall goals in this area.
176

SUImnary:
Generally, the Presidents feel that Affinnative Action is necesscu:y to
achieve results in this difficult area that is OCI1plicated by tmnover am
small pools of carxli.dates. One President did say, however, "I am not sure we have tried it yet."
177

mtsILltNIS' a:::MmnS CB roBUC ma:PI'ICB OF HIGHER EDJCATICB

Public perception of higher educatial is ll'UCh more positive than we deserve. As the typical citizen that I encc::Jl.U'lter thinks we are. until we improve significantly, I view plblic perceptial as one of our many blessin;s.

SO far, higher education has escaped sane of the criticism that the rest of education in America has received. No doubt, the JOOSt embarrassing aspect of higher education has been the abJses in intercollegiate athletics. It is l.ll'lfortunate that the measure of quality of an institution in the public's eyes ten::1s to be so much associated with the perfo:rmance of their athletic teams, especially for football teams.

I would like to ercphasize that the business am iniustrial cannnunity does not

look upon higher education in general with high esteem.

.

Many studies i.n:licate that the plblic does not have a good image of higher education. '!here are also i.n:lications that the plblic does not receive
enough infonnation to urrlerst:.an:i the missions, goals am role of higher
education in our society. It is imperative that there be evidence of the success of the college mission: We must do what we say we are doing.

A perception exists that views colleges as being far too expensive, paying
their faculty am administrators salaries that are far too high, and as having employees who have far too much freedan, am faculty who work a few
hours a day. '!here is not nearly the plblic support for increased funding
for higher education as there is for elementary am secoIXlary education, and
it is thin even there. Legislators tern to take one-shot approaches to
dealing with whatever the hot topic of the nanent is, i. e., last year it was
Q.B.E., today it is roads am a dame. SUstaining adequate funding to achieve
real quality in higher education will be a great challEm3"e for the future.

'!he president of today must be tremerrlously involved as a spokesperson for higher education. Presidents should be actiVely involved in connnunity affairs. '!hey can be valuable resources on commissions, they can be used to lobby for higher education, they can be used more by the O1ancellor to win business an:] corporate frierrls for higher education, an:] so on. We also need renewal processes for presidents too. Only 5 Georgia presidents out of 32 go to MSa:J meetings. Presidents must be involved as advocates of higher education on a local, regional, an:] national basis.

we asked for it! Educators did not keep their noses to the grindstone. We did not act in an acx::ountable, responsible manner because our priorities
switched from academics to non-academic concerns - to being bigger than better, to :replacing teaching with plblic relations, an:] to pompoms.
By am large I believe the public perception of public higher education is
quite good. However, it is obvious that many citizens, including potential students and their parents, consider high tuition to equate with high quality.

178

education is on the rise. 'Ibis may be attributable in part to the recent ~is on "accamtability" ani the concerted efforts of colleges, tmiversities, accrediting agencies, professional societies, legislative bodies, educational leaders, ani writers, as well as other agencies to encourage institutions of higher education to becxTI!e en;Jaged in measuring institutional effectiveness. 'Ibis effort, we think, is having a very positive impact on the public's perception of higher education.
I am in cx::.nplete agreement with the remarks made by Paige Mulhollan during the last meeting of the American Association of state COlleges ani universities regarding p.1blic perception of higher education. 'Ihat address, "'!he New Accountability," sums it up very well. His point was that we in higher education are resisting p.1blic aocamtability, ani the public is learning our game.
In our area of the state, the p.1blic still holds p.1blic education in high esteem. I give credit to the faculty ani staff members at the college for this achievement.
Nevertheless, public higher education appears to be one of mediocrity and this problem must be confronted vigorously by irrlividual institutions and by the University System of Georgia.
I believe we are "losing grouni" in this situation. with escalating costs, with scarrlal.s in big-time athletic programs, ani with ever-present instances of irrlividual graduates who are not well educated ani prepared for productive participation in society, many people are becoming disenchanted with higher education ani question its benefits. In Georgia, too, many PeOple feel that higher education is not relevant for them ani opt for vocational training or minimal entry-level jobs requiring little education or training.
We must, as a society, make every effort to reverse this apparent trend
toward the lowering of our values concerning education ani its benefits for irrlividuals ani our entire society. '!he future, the campetitiveness, of our state ani nation are at stake.
summary:
Presidents are seriously concen1d that there is an erosion of public support for higher education, and with some justification. It is linked with the very negative perceptions of intercollegiate athletics. Also, the high cost of education and the relatively poor results in many areas cause the public to want institutional effectiveness.
179

aJAPIm V
aa:v::J:lG RR:::'ES
Each society 11I.1St meet the challeJX]E!S of its era in order to smvive, arxl our society expects higher education to be in the forefront of these confrontations. '!he University System will succeed in meetin:J the needs, wants, desires, drives, arxl notives, of its citizens, or it will fail these historical trials as they appear. Arnold Toynbee's :role of historical challerge, :response arxl smvival governs the perceived role of the University System in Georgia, not the :reality alone. For p.1blic policy :reasons, therefore, the System must not only achieve measurable arxl p.1blic success in fact at its own i.nt:eIDed level, but the perception of SI1CCElSS, on the parts of all constituencies :related to higher education, 11I.1St prevail.
C1ancellor Dean Propst wisely considered the :future prospects of the University System in detenni.ni.n:J the limits for examination. '!be University System is an ageirg institution arxl the status-guo invites external testing of the organization. Internally, any force of potential irrlifference can forestall progress arxl neutralize efforts to plan arxl execute improvement in public post-secorrlary education.
'Ibis work assigns to these confronting trerx3s arxl elements, for the purpose of prospectively evaluatirg the System's :future, the designation of the "driving forces". 'Ihese factors are capable of influencirg arxl steering the organization of social priorities arxl the sources of risk, or benefi-
cence, will help maroate the posture the University System will employ
through the 1990's.
Driving forces are difficult to define. '!he academic administrator encounters this phenomenon personally on occasion.
An experienced, highly-placed university-level executive in reflecting about his personal academic administrative career, stated to the assessment team, that "the plarming of solutions to campus problems is usually a routine professional exercise. However, upon starting the solution's processes in fact, no matter how well we have planned, timed, arxl made sure of the involving of the essential elements, a confluence of forces unnoticed arxl unpredicted surrouni the problem, the procedures UIrlel:wa.y, arxl often confound our intentions." 'Ibis observation of such administrative corxlitioning forces is limited to a local canpJS scenario. '!bese local trerrls and group influences can have profourrl, even national significance.
Driving forces subject organizations to their iInpacts. '!bey appear as "field forces" in social envirornnents arxl, if strong enough, will berxi the popular acceptance or rejection, of society's values, ideas, and organizations. SUch driving forces influence the perceptions of educators arxl predictions about cultural dlange must take them into account.
180

'!he national drivirg forces are created by significant events which penneate the collective consciousness of the population. '!he trerrls resultirg fram the creatirg events persist as corxiitionirg agents in the affected social, political, econanic, ani religious enviromnents. On the higher educational scene, p,lblic awareness of the IOOSt widely-held professional values serve to fuel quietly the forces for ch.arge (or, the
status 9!JQ) in how tl1inJs are to get done. SUdden iJrpacts f:ram new events,
~titiveness ani eqilases can :reverse old t.rems ani do serve to justify
new directions for scholars. Drivirg Forces do Bake a difference in colleges ani universities tmless rebutted or cancelled out. 'I\o characteristics attach to drivirg forces in education: vision is needed to evaluate ani utilize these forces; drivirg forces can be harmful or helpful to education.
By no means are these drivirg forces the only corrlitionirg agents directirg future events. '!he list herein is a small part of the elements occasionirg ch.arge.
Since this assessment has been assigned the dimension of "prospective" evaluation, such prospectives are based on the capacity for their cognitive recognition by the Board of Regents ani the SYstem's errployees in their times ani places. Choosirg when to identify the factors of ch.arge ani growth, on the one harrl, or when to react to negative elements inilnical to the System (or its parts), is a leadership-role priority.
'Iherefore, the daminant responses required by the SYstem's leadership are: (1) the early recognition of drivirg forces, ani (2) the discovery ani developnent of the optimum methodology able to provide for their equitable ani advantageous utilization. '!he lerxlirg of these forces to the needs of the University SYstem should be stressed, ani though sate trerrls are not always beneficial in social, econanic, ani political identities, these trerrls (forces) can be harnessed, or diverted to the advantage of Higher Education. SRJ'lNIK'S challenge stinulated science ani mathematics teachin;J ani lear.ning in a directly positive, although short-lived manner.
'Ihese agencies of ch.arge have been present irrlirectly or directly throughout the period of time the Regents' SYstem has been in operation. Facirg the issues caused by such forces in past years did not result always in timely decisions by the state's officials ani scholars.
Example: Integration, as a drivirg force, was omitted from earlier surveys ani assessments (1949). Had the issues been identified ani confronted at an earlier date, the passirg years would have measured more positive results in pursuin:J the goal of htnnan equality.
'!he concerns identified through past evaluations (1949) provided notice of some of the negative forces facirg the Regents. Han:llirg of funds, piecemeal construction, lack of central control, absence of clear identification of the quality of absoluteness in the Regents' constitutional authority, the lack of central assessments of the quality of graduate work, etc., were referenced as situations to be regarded with sate wariness by the Regents at that period in the history of the SYstem.
181

'!hese fi.ntin:Js stron:Jly en'l{i1asize that the leadership in the System must concentrate constant awareness an the prablem-caus:i.rg factors. '!he peripheral elements must be aCCOlDlted for arx:l today the educational areas of focused awareness are to be fourx:l in social, political, arx:l econami.c sett:i.rgs surrourxlin;J the delivery of all PJblic services. Higher education cannot vector in an one aspect of its delivery systems, dismiss:i.rg other elements present, or practice ignorance regarcii.rg its own limitations.
In predict:i.rg what will be encountered in the future envirornnents, it shoold be considered that these con1:en'porazy value judgments are captive to our present knowledge arx:l UlXlerstarni.r3s. '!he authors believe that appraisal of available evidence, fourx:l in present t.rerrls, point to a few of these forces capable of crea.t:i.rg profourx:l challerges to the university System.
182

'!he historical proof of the drivirg forces' effectivenesses in their fulfillments are matters of record. '!he lorg-tenn results of the presences of these hereinafter described exan-ples of forces CC>I'ii.tionin:J the decisions
made in their times am places are deloonstrated in dramatic am physical actions. '!he nnst profOllI'Xi exan-ples of national prrposes am policies
reactin;r to the drivirg force of p.1blic will are:
1. '!he great depression of 1929-39 left a "livirg scar across the soul of America". Millions of citizens were subjected to the degrading
experiences of beirg homeless, workless, penniless, am the feeling of hopelessness. '!he nation's instincts am em:Jtions were sensitiZed to
the totally demeaning asPects of "losirg everythin:;J". '!he reaction was
am is clear: Never, never again will this nation pennit itself to be
so self-denigrated in the mass, or in intividual life-style patterns!
All of the welfare programs am relief measures since undertaken are
direct results of this drivirg force of national canunit:ment. No one can justify the personal abuse suffered by beirg one of the intigent, the
homeless, am the victim of poverty durirg old age. Unemployment was targeted am social security measures provided. a wide SPeCtnnn of social
insurance. Many ancillary actions, all designed to help prevent and to
alleviate hard am sordid livirg conditions, are but off-shoots of this
};i1enomenon. '!he lists of auxiliary connections are vast as seen in the aids to higher education through the enactment of laws Pertaining to student aid, the earlier N. Y.A. (National Youth Administration), and in
other historical am present encouragements to education whose provisions for assistance, takes both indirect am direct fonns. Direct :fundi.rg of projects, construction furrls, am equipment financing
c:::orrplemented the "G.I. Bill" to create lastirg changes.
'!he level of consciousness al:x:Jut the originatirg forces driving these
many social programs, designed for a m::>re healthy am happy united
states, is diminishing each year. IDsirg sight of a driving force in
the confluence of powers am forces confrontirg executives in higher
education can result in misurrlerstarxling the scene. Acting in concert:
with driving forces am being able to withst:arrl the negative asPects of
the confronted elements affecting the campus envirornnent are a function
of leadership vision, imagination am willpower.
2. '!he National Will, as expressed in the fonns of the United states'
system of world alliances, the maintenance of milital:y am naval presences abroad, am the heavy investment in manpower am weaponry, all
fim their source in one detennined American POSture: Never again will it be an easy aCXXl1lplishment to attack the united states through
surprise am by treacheJ:Y! '!he diffusion of programs springing out of this recognized objective constitutes a veJ:Y large am diverse number.
In addition to the traditional branches of the Defense establishment,
many programs of educationally-based. study am researd1 are in OPeration
183

today solely because of direct, or i.niirect, connection to this National
PUl:pose.
As the defense posture hardened, R.O.T.e. participation grew in
curricular importance am in the nmnbers of canp.1S personnel involved.
ReseJ:ve Officer scholarships multiplied. laboratory suwort funjs increased.
rxmations :frCln the plblic were designed to aid i.n:lirectly our national
position in inter- national cx:xrpatition. studies were urxierwritten am the
u.s.-SOviet tensions fueled many additions to the :furx:lirg of academic pursuits. statistics imicate DDre than 80 million dollars annually are accredited directly to national defense soorces designed for research being accamplished at Georgia Tech.
In the inpact of its success, SIUINIK, :representing a competitively scientific lead over this country's space efforts, :red.ourried, as do so many factors of international importance, on the American Defense posture.
IImnediately, academic :resources in the specific am allied areas were engaged
in programs of support to the nation's position, vis-a-vis, our selfidentified rival - the Soviet Union. '!he driving force for the insuring of
national security am of the maximizing of the capacity to participate in
international decisions urxierlies a large measure of the utilization of
national tax resources. '!he college am tmiversity resources were affected
directly through the international space race, especially in new support for
the physical sciences am mathematics.
'!herefore, both driving forces, as set forth above, produce positive and negative effects directly on the well-being of higher education. It is the hope of academic leaders that possible reduction of international tensions will release lOOre of the public wealth to canba.t illiteracy, poverty and personal enotions of hopelessness in the population. In addition, academia is on the threshold of the need for an additional :furx:lirg infusion of the nature of a major new commitment. '!he rnnnbers of traditional students are
diminishing. Voters who outnumber students, make the decisions to vote i.n:lirectly for the errl use of tax funis. will the voters decide fairly between new educational needs, defense, or social programs?
'!hus, driving forces create paradoxes; not problems alone. Paradox or not, in questions relating to national goals, the independence of academia
must be preserved. Higher education must not be misled, am if any covert
activity is contertplated through academic means, the unit and the System must lOOnitor each function.
184

A wise authority has made the observation that "Institutions age. As institutions age they gather critics. As time progresses the critics become
canpetitors to. the institution".

'!he inescapable factors of time chan:]e the character of the standing
institution am original needs am llDtivations are affected.

Time is chan;Je. '!he university System is an agein;J institution trave1in;J as an entity across the years. '!he drivin;J force of agein;J is able
to avoid discovery am, in consequence, hide its presence. '!his phenomenon
also offers the possibility of agein;J disguisin;J the ultimate results of its processes. other social institutions, bearin;J agein;J characteristics, are
noted am it appears that other clues to the agein;J phenomenon evidence themselves am are capable of givin;J visible notice.

Knowin;J where the institution starx:is, in relationship to both its past and its contemporcu:y envirornnent, pennits rational analysis of its position and the detennination of its direction by the responsible leadership. '!he System chan;Jes slowly but on-site assessment of its progress renders valid finiin:]s of certain characteristics.

sane of these characteristics appear to be discovered in human
organizations generally. '!hey are, in part:

(1) '!he older institution becc:lne; a ''victim'' of its own success! '!he more games the Coach and the team win, the 1OO:re the future intercollegiate canpetitional triUl'l'phs are expected. '!he high ratin;Js of a system of higher education are expected to continue and any drop in such "ratings" terxl to set off fire-alanns. Over-reactions of a dem:x:ratic society are a1m:>st totally predictable when ford expectations are not realized, especially those future irrlications built on the pride generated by past records :rep:resentin;J attairnnents of success.

(2) '!he older institution terrls to support the status-guo. One result is

the paradox of the possession of the experience which, when problems

ocx::ur, info:rms quickly the leadership of the identified trouble area;

however, the status-quo posture does not have an automatic way at hand

to go about confronting the issue. '!he Soviet union's leadership is

fully knowled.geable about the economic plight of that country, even

eloquently so in recorded. declarations. Unfortunately, for their

intentions, there is no new "automatic" way of action to solve their

consmner problems nor, of the actions attempted, have there been

successful results.

certain u. s. corporations have this same

characteristic; as such entities grow older they terxl to lose or

misplace the ability to take protective measures to enhance their

sw:vival.

185

'!he terxiency not to resporrl to the inb:usion of elerrents, unintended by the leadership, may represent the sIaN pace of traditional academic values in action. other factors limit the capacity to meet troubles, suffered by older entities, incl~ the discontinuity of personal leadership due to rapidly made personnel dlarges over a relatiVely short pericxl of time. 'Ihese ani other reasons, can be fOUl'Xl to explain the
delay ani the hold.iIg to the status-guo.

(3) '!he aqein;J institution does not view the Toynbee Olallenge as a threat to sw:vival. Agein] institutions tend to make "tacit assumptions of invulnerability." '!he positive side of this state of well-bein] is the assurance factor consistinJ not only in the provid.iIg of a sense of corporate well-beinl but in the ~ of a visible diffusion of authority flaNin] from this self-confidence. '!he latter practice,
through the act of sharin] of authority, builds self-esteem in the organization's membership.

'!he negative side appears in the institution's leadership envirornnent, in evidencin] the absence of vision needed on behalf of the organization. '!he dan;}er here is that what is not seen cannot be rebutted as a challenge to the institution. It is not enough to say that, "past success carries with it self-assurance." Assurance becomes c::x:l1placence ani prcxiuces the absence of conscious awareness. Thereafter that ''what can possibly go wrong, will go wrong."

National safety courses ani practices have proven that if the intention is planned ani inplensrt:ed from the top, incredible results have obtained. Conscious awareness is the quality lost in asstnned invulnerability.

(4) John Gardner was reported to have remarked in 1968, in speaking on the
destructive asPects of student protests, that ''mankind is at war with
its institutions."

In E!1l1{i1asizing institutional vulnerability to time ani change, the record of the institutional concepts being not l"lOIIl as respected as was fonnerly the case, the oldest ani nnst rnnnerous exanple of traditional institutions is the institution of marriage. In recent years, the figures imicate that there has been a divorce for every two marriages.

Institutions are not perceived as they once were. The ageing institutions should urxierstarxl where "it is" in the fields of forces operating arourrl themselves.

Elsewhere in this work the "plateau" effect will be analyZed as it affects the University System. One firxiing of this collation is clear. Institutions with long histories must be prepared to defen::l themselves. "Conscious awareness" is the best guardianship posture.

GrOIrling older can be a ~ experience.

However, the

characteristics of growing older must be minimized by constant awareness and

conscious acknowledgement of ani response to the driving forces.

186

"If our sense of nationhood is to be strergt:hened, if a generation of new citizens is to be brought into the mainstream of American life, colleges ani l.D'li.versities DUSt reccmnit themselves to the task of equality of opporbmity to all."
(p. 39) Boyer, COllege 1987
Human organizations are victimized by bJo cormected forces: the failure of the organization's leadership at arry level in its structure ani the acc::c:arpanyin:J fragmentation of its :resources at every level.
A drivin:J force, integration ani equality, have long been in action and one whim, since 1954, has been accelerated. '!he American idea of "one from many" often has been ignored or set aside. '!he c::al'l'petitive economic system developed folklore slogans; "Let the devil take the hirxhnost, root hog or die", ani, "It' s every man for himself." SUm expressions may have been applicable to frontier challenges ani the necessity for personal independence in hostile environs.
To meet today's challenges, equality means "integration" in the contexts of all educational levels. '!here is no equality of life's opportunities without CXl1T!pleted integration.
Counteractin:J these psymological separations of individual Americans into positions of personal self-sufficiency is made difficult by the aura of ego identity with such a life style. Unity of purpose is difficult even along partisan political "lines". only a few starx:Iards remain fixed in the mi..njg of the general public ani in business circles. '!he virtues of flexibility and adaptation to new starx:Iards have been carried to new positions forcin:J constant change (but little self-evaluation). It is legend that the only thing two corporate executives can ream an agreement about is the annmt that a third corporate dlief (not present) should donate to the mutual charity.
Against these forces of personal ani camrmmi.ty fragmentation, the force of integration has stnlggled. '!he ideal of same fonn of consensus of all elements in the population for the benefits theoretically able to be produced in solvin:J national problems is a universal vision. '!he best for adversarial, deloocratic gOVenmtent is the balance of an infonned citizeru:y acting to reconcile differences ani to provide rational opporbmity for a qualified ani pluralistic consensus. Without this ability to agree on certain essentials, fragmentation weakens the body politic.
Again, it is worthwhile to emphasize that national survival, much less national integrity, requires attention to the axiom: Two factors tend to destroy nations - fragmentation of :resources at arry level if unchecked, and failure of national leadership at the top. Integration is the force
187

preventin:J, in part, such failures of lost leadership am the results of
destn1ctive fragmentation.
TrNo main thrusts attach themselves by nanenclature to "integration." '!he lOOre inpJrtant fran every st:arDpoint is minority integration into both
the Iilysical beirg am the soul-spirit of this nation.
Integration, above all else, is the ''package'' of un:lertakings by the System to increase the mnnbers of minority students (including minorities
att:errli.rg Fort Valley state, savannah state, am Albany state) and the
mnnbers of minorities in the ranks of teachers am administrators in the
System. To quote Boyer again,
"'!hey (the colleges am universities) must assure that their recruitment am admission procedures brirg them
significant mnnbers of students fran umerepresented populations. PeJ:haps llDre than any other institution in our society, it is the college that is crucially
inpJrtant to advancirg PrcsPeCt:s for black am Hispanic students. we stron:Jly urge that colleges give priority
to need-based awards." (p. 39)
In other sections of this work, a solution, in part at least, to some of the problems of inlplementing these objectives, is considered.
'!he main ingredient in the acceleration of effective desegregation and
the increasirg of the mnnbers of minority enrollments am academic employees is an unequivocal am an unreseIVed cx:mnitment on the parts of the
responsible System's persormel for the obtainirg of the objective of greater mnnbers.
constant vertlalization of this objective must be accomplished to the widest audience. F'I.lrrls are required to spread the networks for appropriate contacts with minority interests qualified to assist in this orgoing process.
In these matters of integration, time is not on "our side." Other institutions will compete for the opportunities to fulfill their enrollment
am employment objectives. '!herefore, time is of the essence for that
commitment to be realized in the System.
Another thrust of the integration process surfaces in the area of "integratirg" our national cultura.l goals in a marmer designed to possess completeness but with allowance for subjective choices. '!he prolific authors on the general subject of national culture patterns emphasize the roles played by higher education in the developnent of nationally-held perceptions. Integratirg all learning in this age of academic specialization is difficult. Many could argue that such intention would destroy the elements of diversity and innovation.
However, a measure of brirging together the sciences and the liberal arts has been energirg. '!he real problem lies in detennining what a college diploma. is supposed to represent. '!his question (as to what is meant by a
188

college-educated mirxl) has ever been a topic for debate, ani it is expected that its ~ to academic interests will never grow old.
What is involved in this debate is the clear delineation of separate ideas stilrulatiIg 5t:ron;1 loyalties in SUWOrt of each differinJ viewpoint.
one of the main causes of this on:JOinJ debate stems from a question
foorrl in '!he wall street Jouznal's quoted blum in support of a popular historical l'lOV'el. '!he Jouznal's erxiorsement :revealed, in the fly-leaf, two options for a person's life-goals': "Is it the way we live that matters?" (or) "Is it what we acc:::anplish that's really illlportant?"
'Ihese philosophical orientations fuel contentions as to what the learni.rg-teachi.n;; process should be. Even nD:re illlportant is the question: can this oontention be :resolved, as the paradox it is, by inquirinJ as to
what the learni.rg-teachi.n;; process can be? HOW' much nD:re can be done? can
that which is done, be done in a nD:re sucx:;essful marmer? Only through "togetherness" (the academic catchword of the 1960's) can
sate rationalization toward cultural subjects :reconciliation be accomplished.
Personalities invokirg principles supportinJ the sinJle discipline's
interests are a fixture in academia. '!he brinJinJ together of the liberal arts ani the sciences is a transfonnation lorg sought. '!heir integration into a nD:re favorable balance is predictable.
189

'DIE ClIAIUNiE OF mIVATE INSl'I'IOI'I(H; AND OF PRIVATIZATICN 'ID

mmm. S'mm-stJPIUmii)

lDDTIaI

'.lBE J.IU\UiS OF PRIVAm aJAIUH;m

'!he stress in this sub-chapter is on the dlallenge to an ageing institution. '!he axian that, "the ~ institution first begins to
enc::ounter critics am secorxll.y, c::::arpatitors" is CiR?licable once Irore.
'!he record of accredited private higher education in Georgia is a most
positive one am the work of these colleges am universities as non-public
centers of leami.n;J has been out:starrlin;J. '!he healthy competition with its sister institutions has helped to maintain the scholarly values and the high level of intellectual vigor of the units in the University System. '!he i.nte:rcharge of graduate students assists all colleges by offering doctoral programs in which present and future professionals can be graduated to retunl to their home campus complete in their training.
'!his need to focus on privatization is based on two tenns: ''marketability'' and "acx:x>untability for gettiDJ interned results." '!hese two
cammarxling concerns are daminatiDJ the criticisms pertainiDJ to higher education. '!he flexibility of private college am university operations
allows max:iInum facilitation in attainiDJ sucx::essful marketing strategies and direct academic accotmtability.
'!he irrlepen::ient sector of higher education is divided into several separate echelons. Anong these are:
A. '!here are 27 traditional, regionally - accredited indepen::ient colleges and universities in Georgia; - included in this number are the branches of the Irother institutions. (statistics provided by Dr. Tom Bertrarrl.)
B. '!he mnnbers of units, by classification of the Georgia state
Department of Education, p.rrsuant to am operating urrler the
Georgia Proprietary School Act, Geo:rnia Code 20-4-60, are:
105 Licensed, Private Trade Schools (3 are non-profit, 102 are for profit) .
c. '!he mnnbers of units, by the classification of the Georgia state
Department of Education as Postsecondary Educational Authorization Act Ga. Code 20-3-100 are:
19 non-public, degree grantiDJ institutions licensed (11 are for profit, 8 are non-profit)
37 Exempt from state oversight on religious grounds
190

538 (approxilnately) K-12 Private elementary am secomary schools
not subject to state regulation.
(statistics provided by Janie W. smith, Fh.D. - Georgia Deparbnent of Education.)
Internal in:1ifference to the challerqe of private am commercialized
education has been an unacknowledged characteristic of higher education in the public sp:tere. '!his competition, lon;J recognized by the leaders of city
am county p.1blic school systems, has cx:x::asioned one highly regarded public
school authority to declare: ''Unless p.1blic schools inprove their capacities
to prcduce lecuned am scholarly transfer students equal to the demands of
the college-mti.versity requirements imposed thereon, the image of public schools will suffer, pertlaps, pennanently" (fran the growth of privately furrled schools)
Private and proprietary competition with public institutions is based
primarily on ''market'' characteristics, am successful marketing of the
institutions must obtain in order for them to continue operations. Colleges have been closed recently on being judged as inefficient in the balance
between input am results.
'!he market forces erqerrler rapid change which suits the changing
requirements of :irrlustty, cammerce, finance, am the work of the professions.
Being "on time" with inprovements in the curriculum to insure timely production of graduates qualified for the new occupation or vocation is of profound inportance to the college hopeful of placing its graduates in the interrled vocation, profession, or cx::cupation.
Market forces take many forms, but all its manifestations signal the tenn - "change."
'!he traditional private post-secx:>rrlary institution fo:nnerly terrled to erphasize the nold of classic leanti.rq in competition with that purported knowledge which was constantly changing. '!he state supported units made the curriculum changes, especially at the two-year, four-year and urban institutions. Today, private institutions are striving to lead the way in adopting the new and the public institutions are terrli.ng to be more tradition conscious.
Being first in setting up special areas of concentration, use of advisory CJI'OUPS, offering of new "executive" degree programs, and other innovations in business education occurred at an earlier date on leading private university campuses than was the case for public institutions.
Schooling for profit is a rapidly exparrling concept now implemented in response to the present envirornnent's need for specialists. To these additional entrepreneurial schools are added the in-house training programs of co:rporate America. '!he growth in co:rporate profits enable private cc:mpmies to accelerate the growing rnnnber of educational self-help programs.
191

Georgia Tech now sel:Ves rrore than sixty client businesses with graduate studies by replicati.n;; the on-canpJS courses with video lectures on the CCllIpmy site. Opportunity for feedback to cxx::ur simultaneously is provided. Joint trai.n.in;J with state-of-the-art equipnent is a growjn;J academic offerjn;J for the convenience of the consumer. '!he fulfillment of this market-oriented technique will fim increasjn;J replication in other fields. Eventually it is predictable that the lecture or laboratory, will visit the business location when sufficient CCllIpmy PerSOI'lI'le1 can be present in rn.nnbers warrantjn;J the costs of this innovation.
If the future witnesses large rn.nnbers of enrollees in non-publicly financed tea~ institutions, it ~d be irrlicative of the failure of publicly financed institutions to meet the needs of the 1990'S in tenus of educational offerjn;Js.
How far the trerrl to privatization will extern is not predictable. Market con:titions are a force to be reckoned with in higher education, and the market demams "accountability." Failure to give adequate and timely acc:::omlti.n;; of resources used, versus "assessed outcomes" (if such occurs) will result in changes in the machinery of control in the administration of
higher education. In this regani the System has PaSSed its test and the
general confidence in the University System is well-fourrled. '!he System will continue to be measured against the private units in the state of Georgia as well as the privatization of the functions allied to academic practices. '!he privatizjn;J trerrl has been a subtle presence on the System's campuses for
many years. Contracted fcx:xl sel:Vices, Park.inJ sel:Vices, banking outlets,
dispensjn;J machines, franchised operations, c::anunercial janitorial sel:Vice, repair and maintenance sel:Vices are but a portion of the historical list of the potential uses of imeperxient contractors. In:tirectly, potential savings from contracted sel:Vices theoretically should increase academic support sel:Vices.
'Ihese anns-lengt.h relationships provide advantages to the units in the System and the use of private contractors limits the rn.nnbers of employees
which otherwise would be listed on state PerSOI'lI'le1 records and eligible for
state benefits.
In the evaluation of professional organizations, one test of the psychological dc:minance factor is the test of detennining who is the SPeCialist or expert. When consultants are employed to give advice or to solve problems, the host management connnunicates tacit subservience through willingness to stop and listen to the superior knowledge source. '!he authors' findings indicate that many SPeCialized educational consultants are private practitioners. How much impact this state of being has on public higher education is debatable. In addition, many experts, acting as private
entities, SPent their leanring years acquirjn;J expertise on public university
or college canp.1seS or, as students, were trained in that enviromnent.
'!he point being develOPed: Public education is not designed to facilitate every opportunity, and many administrative and academic experiences are restricted by tradition arnjor budget limitations to narrow
192

work an:i duty ~rtunities. Private interests will fill these academic/ educational vacuums wherever they cxx::ur.
'!he privatization moverrent bas further support as it is oa:::urring t:1lrouglla.lt JOOSt areas of the world which have achieved .in:iustrial maturity an:i which trace in:reased prosperity to this practice in action. Reversals to private interests of fonnerly state-owned enterprises by authoritarian goverrment have received wide recognition. Privatization has challenged govemmental seJ:Vices an:i bas tested itself against the market forces at work.
It can be predicted that the next dlal.l~ of privatization to public educational institutions will appear in the offer of private professional management cx:arpmi.es to contract for the perfonning of all internal management an:i business operations ancillary to the academic seJ:Vices areas.
193

'DIE J:JllVDG FCR::E OF INIlIFF'EmHCE
'!he only t:.hi.rg necessary for the trilJll'lil of evil is for
good men to do nothin;}. Ed1IP.lrrl Burke
In this dj SOJSSion the stress of attention is placed on these observations: "the presence of in:tiffererx::e lIDlds a person's attitude; such personal attitude, so lIDlded, determines that person's outlook; personal
outlook determines a person's future." It is an assessment of these fin:tings that success in the attainment of the i.nt:.errled goals in higher education
deperrls directly on the elimination of in:tifference to all the elements
involved in the malcirg of the cxmni.tment am, thereafter, to all the
processes relatin:J to the conunitment's ultimate success.
If "college freshmen can't read," the cause is not the product of educational intention. No serious plot by malicious conspirators sentenced these students to this imprisornnent of mi.rrl through the shuttin:J out of the krlowledge otherwise designed to enIcu:ge their lives. Internal indifference
is silent, pernicious, am opposed to constructive, ti1nely plannin:J and fulfillment of needed educational programs am innovations.
'!he presence of national in:tiffererx::e cannot be long tolerated in a lean1ed society when challenge to survival occurs. '!he bases of cultured,
civiliZed, am cooperative social organizations rest on constant awareness.
Too often internal in:tifference slips into society's conscious consideration only when Potentially fatal results are recognized by the populations affected.
'!his negative drivin:J force of in:tifference, encountered by the University System throughout its life, has been rebutted in many instances by
scholarly savice am timely administrative behavior. '!he need to
derocmstrate academic successes, or to explain the failures of higher
education's projects am programs, through statistical quantification and
other fonns of "objective" data, is not sufficient when cause and effect are
victimized by in:tifference replacin:J lIDtivation am connnitment. Indifference
can not be quantified.
'!he University System has allowed very few issues to slip through the cracks of its aware professionalism. However, in:tifference plays a driving and steady force in changing and damagin:J the effort to improve education in Georgia.
In confronting the presence of in:tifference, one element succeeds in directly causin:J its disappearance: "conscious awareness."
QBE has the CClmltlel'da.tion of many observers am reflects the thOUghtful
actions of the Office of the Goven1or, the legislature, and the state Department of Education. Clear directives have been agreed upon, the needed appropriations specified, and predictable results assured. '!his is the best
194

plan so far in recent state histmy an::l Governor Harris is to be carmnerrled for the QBE program an::l its inplementation.
Hc:7.NeVer, college "dropouts" are a prdJlem receivirg serious concern, an::l
the irxlifference surt:'CIllI'rli the facts relatirg to the non-retention of
students IlI.15t be reJ::Jutted. '!he solution is a factor of personal awareness by the authorities. '!he prospects for active plannin:] an::l subsequent practices to save the "dropout" is a reality resultirg fran intense studies on the subject by scholars on several System canpJSes. '!he solution, in part, is actirg to create "a beneficent experience realized on the part of the student, in an::l out of the classrocm" a beneficent experience which must involve the student's teacher.
Shi:fti.n;J the perspective of the destructive influence of irxlifference to the spectnnn provided by the total popl1ation, pratpts the question: how much have personal (an::l plblic) apathy an::l irxlifference affected the awesome statistics (an::l unknown rnnnbers) relatirg to cases of AIlE? If objective inquil:y within the population is c:::anpleted to test personal reaction to this epidemic, the overwhelmingly general reply would irxlicate the failure of plblic awareness an::l of private responsibility. until the public's remaining in:lifference is reversed, the AIlE statistics will not inprove.
Same of the in:lifference to student life patterns have their origins in the judicial decisions affecting the c.harges in the doctrine of in loco parentis. Today, safety of the canp.1S is a subject of growirg inportance due to the contraction of specific rules regulating student rights and privileges. In tying the harrls of college personnel involved with student-life activities, court decision have c:::anplicated student issues.
Naturally the adult student has been educated to a great degree of freedc:m in the making of personal choices. Gaining voting rights at an earlier age an::l military experiences lerrl inpetus to the acceleration of self-identified maturity. Students feel an::l take self-independence for granted.
Irrlifference to the dangers to student-life patterns poses serious questions to the responsible executives of colleges an::l universities. '!bese dangers have grc:MIl steadily in their variety an::l have became more deadly since the 1940's. Chemical habituation is now a universal threat to the national purpose. In:lifference to these forces can be eclipsed only by a conscious, daily applied program of education on a "directed, personal delivery basis". scx::ial diseases have retun1ed to the national health scene an::l potential canp.1S in:lifference to venereal disease is, at present, a matter to be confronted by each unit's leadership.
Irrlifferences concemi.ng' other "negative" drivirg forces make fonnidable barriers to gaining means of detennining such influences' sources. However,
negative canp.1S forces an::l practices must be identified am these subjects
must be conferred about an::l pursued by the institution's management. Written action programs, with official responsibilities assigned, are the necessary elements of the organization's conscious awareness.
195

Racial hantDny on the carrplS results, in part, through practicing of affi.I:native actions which depeni on the ocmplete execution of the plan. careful lOOl'litoring of legal requirements BUSt be allied to social equalization of opporbmities to participate. '1bese results must be aOCClrplished by the avoidance of the .confl.u.et'Da of negative forces in higher education's desegregation. Inlifference to sud1 negative forces is the problem!
Inlifference develops negative POStures by creating PerSOIla1 leadership
vacumns. Vacumns, so developed, becane the IOOSt persistent abstnlction to the success of academic desegregation and carrplS-life planning and implementation.
Vacumns cx:me into being when leadership is lacki.rg. Absenting oneself fram the decision-making process, or ignoring leadership opportunities
invites a secom "force" to fill the enpty slot in the fonnal institutional
stJ:ucture. Vacumns can occur at all levels in the organization; executives can receive issues "delegated upward" when subordinate positions do not fulfill their ftmctions. A cynic voiced the truism: "'!hat's what presidents are for," e.g., to take the heat.
Inlifference, creating administrative vacumns, proceeds from failure of leadership. 'Ihrough in:lifference to the institutional whole subsequent fragmentation of the college or university is a1Ioost certain. Absence of official and human CO:nceI:11S can result, and unless concerns predominate in the doing of that ''which is right," in:lifference can become an operative factor in the areas of minority hiring and enrollments.
Inlifference is not easily rreasured and usually its origination is not
marked. '!he discov~ of the destruction of the ozone layer in the ionosphere and the major increase of cartx>n dioxide in the atmosphere are vital questions suffering from present in:lifference on the part of most of the planet's population.
'!he presences of these and other in:lifferences concenri.ng the quality of education, the quality of life, and the quality of the health of the natural world have multiplied with the growth of materialism so omnipresent in mode:m lifestyles. Education's greatest task is the redirecting of resources into the channels of support for educated discoveries of applicable methc:rlology designed to save human life and the envirol1l'leI'1t.
since the direct causes of the negative influence of indifference in higher education terxi to be disguised, careful examination of the linkages of such causes and their negative results is a priority for scholars. On the other hard, the traditions of academia terxi to be natural supports for the statusguo. Fear of change and avoiding the responsibility of innovation are natural allies of tacitly assumed traditions.
Another source of in:lifference to issues related to education, often unrecognized, derives fram the new era of litigation. Being deposed in pre-trial legal proceedings of legal disputes, and subsequent appearances in the witness box, have corrlitionecl academicians to limit themselves in the
196

exposures which they feel remer them vulnerable. Interests in matters
beyom their i1mnediate am fonnally san::ti.oned duties may develop attachments
which later dernanj direct participation on subjects beirg put "in issue." Because of the multiplication of the l'lUll'ber of la'WSllits durirg the past 40 years, which have been related to academi c env:iraunents, the afore described
defensiveness of administrators am teadlers is a reasonable result. In
addition the resultirg constrictiat of the conscious awareness span of
PerSOlU'le1 at the stages of academic activities is part of the withdrawal
synll'ane further :fragme:ntin;J the academi c whole.
'!his loss in the latitudes of canpJS-wide interests am concerns is one of the worst features of IOOden1 canp.lS life. Avoidance of contacts with People am issues by campus PerSOlU'le1 is both umerst:.arx:fable and regrettable.
withdrawal of scholars into specialized fields has been accelerated on canpJSes over the past 40 years. Knowirg DJre about an ever constricting area of study is DJre than a cliche. Expertise flows directly in proportion
to scholarly am academic concentration. Administrators have multiplied in great rn.nnbers durirg this Period am deserve credit, as do the specialized scholars, for POSSesSirg tmique am CXI11prehensive knowledge. '!his fonnalized
fragmentation, though COJ.'l'I[[leI'Xle, :renxJVes each specialty apart from other disciplines. Irxlifferences about what is ~ elsewhere on campus is a natural consequence.
one of the least acknowledged causes of active (present) campus
irrlifference arises rarely in written fonn, but is fourrl readily in
conversation with those who put together statistics am reports. '!he search
for infonnation upon which the best decision can be conceived and executed by the executive recipient represents professional technique, but also PersOnal feelirgs by the researcher. 'Ihese preparers of data have witnessed many
"fact-gatherirg" exercises am the question which arises, based on Past
experience, is whether or not the data are acted upon or disregarded. Questions may be expected to arise about the need for these data. '!he volume
of data can became a vast accumulation am the impact of any part of the
reported knowledge ten:ls to be lost in the whole. '!he secorrlary question addressed to the researcher COnce.n1S the methodology, the sarrple size and
quality, am whether or not validatirg the results has transpired in fact.
Havirg to justify results, if carried to the point of dilninishing returns, naturally builds irrlifference to the process. Only the most narrowly projected subject matter is thus able to be treated with the result that
facts am the forces on the Periphery are excluded.
Repetition of data preparation, dea1irg with identical subject areas previously addressed, insures that irrlifference to the general problem is a predictable consequence to those who are called upon to duplicate the process.
Too many data defeat conscious awareness on the part of the executive and make all data appear to be ext.renel.y t:ercq:x>rary. '!he nonnal reaction becomes: "let's wait for more data; let's wait for a new approach."
197

In like manner, in:tifference flows fran the acknowledgments of present
am past studies am treatments of academic am higher education problems. 'n1ese studies am volumes naturally present personal am professional
estimations of critical aspects of post-seccn:1ary education. Where
descriptions of the origins am developnents of problems fourrl in education
are specified, solutions to these problems are not always offered in a manner that enables the expectant evaluator to visualize the facts or to grasp the
proposed methods to provide realistic awraisals. SOlutions are needed which can be related to the in:tividual canp.1S, department or discipline, am if
such are not fort:h.canin:J, in:tifference to the process of their examination
tends to grow. COnversations am interviews sanetimes reflect the Grecian
Tragedy syrrlrt:m3 - the fate of higher education is to continue to erxiure SOll'e situations, since the Perfect responses to the difficulties have so far eluded their discoverers. 'Iherefore, tacit in:tifferences become attitudes,
am attitudes corxtition the in:tividuals's outlook. Too often, personal
outlook, so deriVed, becanes negative.
It is also paradoxical that successful campus authority which, when it is well executed to the satisfaction of the campus personnel, unintentionally can increase the presence of in:tifference. '!his unfortunate result represents the confidence of the subordinates in the deoonstrated abilities
of the mrlt's leaders am in:tifferences to other COncenlS can accrue if the
faculty became "spectators". Well-operated organizations inevitably feed the
vacuums of in:tifference, am the very success of the enterprise can work in
that style of aa::arrplishment which can foster apathy.
On the other harxi, a similar situation may arise out of ineffective leadership. When the unaware personnel on the campus experiences a crisis of sufficient magnitude, all attention is focused on the one issue or hapPenstance. All conscious awareness is I'lOVl polariZed. 'Ihe degree of the
in:tifference to other matters expanjs, I1eW' vacuums appear, am the focusing
of concern diverts campus attention fran other issues. Routine is dis:rupted,
am the participation of faculty in sharing the traditional roles of govern-
ance may be reduced.
'Ihe foregoing example explains part of the difficulties encountered on the American carrpuses during the "time of the troubles" (1965 - 1975). 'Ihe
era of protests witnessed closings (banbing am burning on different
occasions) on approximately 400 canp.1SeS. 'Ihese events were news media
magnets am, in their continuance, all other educational policy and planning
operations were negatively affected. 'Ihus, the campus envirornnent was not receptive to rational inquiry. Attention on the historic campus questions no longer obtained: What is learning? What are the institution's goals? What constitutes the elements needed to c::arpJUl'):i a cultured personality? Irxtifference nn.I1tiplied when one agency of control after another could not negotiate a consensus upon which the affected institution could detennine a satisfacto:ry I1eW' beginning in hanoony with their constituencies.
National irxtifference to the students' protests about the drafting of the young to fight in an undeclared conflict was the fact that all educators encountered in 1965-75. Irxtifference, in general, to the value of higher education was assigned clearly - the campus must take care of itself! And, in
198

the university System, the <J1ancel.lor, Regents, faallties, am staffs of the
units in operation during those years did so successfully.
'!he period of 1965 - 75, as a watershed, marks a new realism in the
conscious awareness of am within the professional ranks in the University System. '!he many questions in this ~rk relatin;J to "perception" am to
''perspective'' acknowledge the psychology ilwolved. All the statistics
available will not give the states of awareness, am what such awareness or
its absence, can mean in the success or failure, of academia (when un:ler
stress)
'!he past imifference of U. S. irrlustry to the attractiveness of foreign
goods am services, in tenns of quality, price, am service, is a mirror to
reflect what happens to management's organizational effort when the competition is ignored. SIUINIK did lOOre to create "conscious awareness" in
science am tec:hnical educational values than any positive force, originating
at harne, could have accamplished.
'Ihese finti.n;;s conc::erni.rxJ decision--maki.rq strongly imicate that educational leaders must PQSSesS a certain mi.n:i-set, a certain psychol~ical posture, with focused energy at ~rk, to make right (long-tenn) decisions. 'Ihe IOOSt insidious aspect of imifference's presence in the hmnan corrlition
is its capability to dissolve organizational pmpose am to reduce executive
readiness. A victim of imifference ten:3s to "keep the problem going", am
the victim's energy is diffused, authority is made debatable, am commitment
to action is delayed.
'Ihe imifferences in professional education become very personal, am
the responsibilities for their rebuttal must be consciously un:lertaken.
Recall of the axiom should be frequent: Irxlifference to others am to one's
professional erwiroIlI'le1t negatiVely corrlitions attitude; attitudes detennine outlook; outlook detennines the future.
Failures to be apprised of forces at ~rk in academic erwiroIlI'le1ts are
matters of record. For exanple, in 1965-75, the colleges am ill1iversities
failed to read the student ill1reSt signals correctly, or read them not at all, in trying to un:lerstarrl the student protests of that era.
'!he insidious diffiallty with the driving force of imifference in the affairs of the hmnan corrlition is the certainty of the coming of "secondary consequences" . Logic can dictate the scale of possibilities, lOOre or less, when acts of commission or omission involving people are set in motion. However, no prophetic evaluations can measure the ultimate results stemming
from the effects of silrple am general imifference.
199

'DIE IIU'YlH; FtR:E OF ~ <XEED OB9QTJfSC'DTCE
Technology's role in chan;Jirq the cxmtent ani styles in the life patterns of llDSt of the w::>rld's pcp.l1aticn has clear acknowledgment. Technology's lOOVirg forces are proclaimed by llDSt mature societies as the vehicle of dlan;Je in accepted values ani st.arnal:ds in the historic divisions of labor, producticn ani consunpticn. Goods ani services are created ani ctistrilJuted to the ultiJDate user through tedlrx>logical innovation.
'!he process, however, creates dlaJ'ge ext:ernally inposed on the cont:.el'lp)rcu:y system then at w::>rk. '!he consumers' desires for better quality, lower costs, :reduced prices, faster service, or IOOre esthetic appearance, are realistically the destroyers of the status.QYQ. Market decisions favor the new ani better ani insure the passirg of the old ani less-technically desirable.
As a result of constant technological change, it is not possible to forecast accurately how much inprovement (or damage) will be occasioned in the presently in-place system of higher educaticn. Futuristic ideas irrlicate students will be able to be taught at haDe. Video lectures ani examinations will be the nann. Infonnaticn fran a central librcu:y source will be received directly ani alllDSt instantaneously in literary or pictorial fonn. And classes "atterxied", with instructicn ani student dialogue, will be accanplished through electronic devices. 'lhese ProsPeCts are considered to be highly probable.
Obsolescence is not a factor restricted to technical changes or scientific irwention. 'lhe ~ of c::c:Il'petirg educaticn sites tends to rerrler a presently functionirg educaticn unit vulnerable to loss of students who would have enrolled in the nx::>re senior college othel:Wise.
Short-tenn appropriations decisions can invoke the principle of the Law of 5econ::3al:y Consequence: '!hat which is set in notion without long-range vision beirg the governing factor inevitably will produce later consequences, sometimes far reroved fran the original c:arprehensicn of the possibilities anticipated.
'!he "age limit" laws legislated in 1959 produced such irreconcilable results for the entire University System that they were necessarily repealed. In like manner, the Office of the Goven1Or labelled the closirg of the schools ("school-closirg law," 1951) a general calamity, ani repeal of the law soon followed. Had these matters first not been adjudicated, and sec:orrlarily not corrected through the repeal process, these two laws, as passed, would have had innneasurable sec:x:>rnary consequences. certainly the sec:x:>rnary ani :irrlirect elements in these legal provisions would have
nullified adult education, an::l the uman w::>rkirg student would have endured
great difficulty in matriculatirg in the System. Fortunately the external force of judicial decision made these laws governing educational limitations obsolete.
200

et:lSolescence often is unseen tmtil visible t:hralgh its secomary
consequences. '!he nearest exanple of secorxiary recognition on the System's doorstep is the awesane discovery that asbestos, as a brllcli.n;;J material used Ul'Y3er certain cx::ntitions, is a potential cause of ~ in humans. 'lhe
general d.anqer of this insulatin1 material, am its ultilnate costs in health
hazards or expense of its correction were not conceived or projected by capable officials.
student Rights I10W have made dJsolete certain rules of the System which
were in place forty years ago, am new attitudes relatin1 to sex distinctions have been translated into ~es in hoosing, visitation, am even less
restrictive social co--mi.rgling.
NCAA regulations have done ll:lre to increase academic awareness and
sutPJrt than sane institutions could do i.nternal.ly, am these athletic
eligibility changes marrlate higher starnards for participants in intercollegiate sports activities, emphasizing admission and progress-toward-degree minimums.
'!he e::c:mp.rt:er revolution diminished the need for certain classifications of employees, but other ranks developed in their places because of the infonnation deluge. '!his form of dJsolescence - job dJsolescence - is a growing phenanenon.
et:lSolescence, originating elsewhere am being tmattached to the local
canpJS tradition, practices am environment, can berxi a college to its force. 'lhese forces take the form of "tJ::'enjs". It is very difficult for one
academic leader to start a trerrl alone or to halt one with ease. But trerrls, when recognized, can be used to advantage by sourrl academic management.
Teamwork is the requirement of success in dealin;J with trerrls am often the challenge of obsolescence can unify am re-group organizations. other
challenges to the organization may have a less positive effect. When observers praise academicians for "having vision", it is the recognition of
the potential for negative am dJsolescence-causing trerrls, in time to allay
these challenges, which is the basis for acclaim.
et:lSolescence attacks the status gyg. Invesbnents of time am resources
in capital items are rerrlered valueless or only partly useful when the
state-of-the-art systems are judged to be out of date am inadequate. In terms of human organization, authority am procedure both can become judged
as inadequate am obsolete as time am external forces magnify change.
201

~ I.RlVIlC FOOCE OF ~ BASICS, c::IASSICS AND mm:CS
Attention to illiteracy has never been DDre pronoonced than at present. COJY:]ressiooal interest has grown to match the concerns of state legislators,
am worthwhile efforts are l1C7tl in professiooal practice to reduce or
eliminate illiteracy.
. '!he University System's charge is the provision of means to educate for life experiences those qualified for post--secx:>rmry leami.rx;J and for subsequent preparation of future Participants in professions, vocations, and ~tions of choice.
American values are honored in the scx::ial recx:Jgni.tions of the nation's
college am tmiversity graduates, ani these graduates should reflect that
drivirg force for excellence which is expected fran higher education.
Americans are an acquisitive people. Acquisition of personal possessions, c:x:mnuni.ty positions, official powers of leadership, and the honors of privilege, all within the contexts of p,lblic approval and scx::ial praninence are considered as worthwhile goals to be achieved, or at least, pursued.
'!he p,lblicly supported systems of higher education in the united states have been han1essed to these patterns of career goals. Even though. many variations in life styles are given recx:Jgni.tion of worth, and as in:lividual
preferences, the realities of intelligence am acx::amplished leami.rx;J, in
scx::ial tenns, are highly priZed personal attril:Jutes. Erudition, as an element of htnnan personality, is treasured on the scx::ial scale of htnnan values.
In addition, this Republic's need for intelligent am learned leadership
at all levels is a widely urxierstcx:xi prescription for national greatness, certainly for national smvival.
'!he expectation of the American Public, therefore, is that this nation shall enjoy the best education a free nation can create within the context of equal opportunity.
'!he preseI:Vation of knowledge fran past centuries is Part of these p,lblic expectations. "Basics" can also be translated in the broad int&pretation of the tenn "classics". ConfroIItirq the knowledge "explosion" a1nDst directly, the traditionalists demani that curricula be spaced to facilitate the retention of cultural subject matter. simultaneously, there are proponents of the view that Il'KXiem discoveries since 1900 are imperative inclusions, in depth, in most courses of study in the 1980's. Great advancements in two htnnan knowledge areas dominate this latter development: the discoveries and explanations of the mysteries of htnnan behavior, and the
contenp::>raneous investigation of natural science am phenorrena.
202

'!he fonner illmninate the psychological forces in hmnan personality
analysis am developnent, am the latter support scientific i.rlqully in phenomena ranging over nuclear, space, electronic, am related.
science-oriented disccNeri.es.

'!he question for every teacher is: What to teach? What should a
cultured person possess in the capacity of intellectual awareness am,
subsequently, in the ability to effectuate rational use of acquired
knowledge?

'D1Us, another drivin;J force in higher education (1989) is fourxl in the

fact that three books on the subject cu:e on the best-seller lists in the

united. states. '!he Closing of the American Mi.rxi (Blcx:m), Olltural Literacy
(Hirsch) am College (Boyer) cu:e all in the mai.nstrea:m of American intellectual force am require an identification with each of the constituent

leadership c::cmp:ments representin;J higher education.

Directly, or

irx:lirectly, all voices resPect the basics, am illiteracy must confront

1ecun:in1 in the context of the classics. Ethics is now an American ''must''.

'!he question for the University System of the state of Georgia, is to
detenni.ne whether or not its educational fo:rmat am education resources cu:e
bei.n;l allocated. to the drivin;J forces now danina.nt in our society. '!he
university System will be able to define am to justify its existence, and its leadership, in the use of public furrls am private contributions, on the
basis of meetin;J the challenge of these drivin;J forces. '!he classics,
basics, am ethics cu:e currently drivin;J forces in education, or soon will
be.

Prior to mak.i.rXJ the decision regarding whether or not the optimum
efficiency is bein;J managerially c1i.recte:i towards the goals intended in 1989,
a recall of the drivin;J forces of the 18th, ani previous centuries of the
Western era can assist in describin;J whence academia came.

Classical 1ecun:in1 operated. to justify dogma, though the renaissance
versatilities honorin;J of hmnanism were gainin;J curricula control. Education
"fashioned" hmnan personalities, am philosophy was emphasized roth for settin;J starnards for the lean1ed person am as a link to the Past glories of
classic intellectual values. Heaven, not the earth sciences, was the central
orientation for scholars until the POst-renaissance arrived.

'!he beginning of the study of physical sciences am the study and under-
~ of hmnan behavior therefore were present in:tirectly only in the
foI:llS of the classical 1ecun:in1 patterns representin;J the concepts of the
POst-renaissance Period. At the en::! of the last centw:y, the classic
disciplines' fo:rmats were extern.ed am changed, or renamed as a result of the research of Einstein, DaJ:win, Freud, am other scientists.

SCholars in the 1980's are harassed by the fact that the time allowable to each subject matter has become shortened by the enonrous increase in the mnnber of new discoveries and recent developnents affectin;J the general
scientific, mathematical, electronic am engineerin;J envirornnents. All

203

academic disciplines now c:x::lIIJ)ete for time in college ani university CUJ:::ricula.
Ieamed educators, many in the University System, have iIxlicated that if the secx:>rdary schools CXJU1d provide IOOSt of the liberal arts, mathematics ani basic science courses in the CUJ:::riculum of the secx:>rdary schools (as is the case in Japan ani in many of the camtries of Europe), then the development of the time necessary for the lllIIl'ber of pertinent owrses related to scientific leami.rx;J CXJU1d be acexmplished within a framework of the traditional university or college foor-year program.
'Ibis report of the expressions of opinicn ani attitudes of those leaTIled in the professions, referenced above, iIxlicates that the University System of Georgia needs to meet "the driv:irg forces" with a ~ application in the scientific ani technologically-related CUJ:::ricula of both instnlction ani discovezy durirg the four year l.1lXlergraduate degree prograns. As is the practice now, the co:rps of instnlction of eadl unit must "pick up" the student by remediation "if necessary" ani start to teadl the student ''where the student is." '!hese educational realities can delay the exposirg of the student to essential CUJ:::ricula subject matter.
Today, sane educators urge the return to the classical fonnula of educaticn in which the subject matter be:irg taught, as well as the manner of the teadlirg, is represented through close personaliZed instruction with the student. '!his fonnula defines one of the better elements in the classics' educational intentions: the i.IrpJrtance of beneficent student experiences with personalized teadlirg practices, in ani out of the classroom. SUch experience of beneficent student-teacher relationships is of profound i.IrpJrtance to the University System.
'!he college CUJ:::ricula, support:irg the claimants for a return to the "classics", have many variations ani optional opporbmities. Individual teadlirg tedmiques ani personal perspectives of the instructor are agents of change ani iIxlividual personalities provide subjective conditionirg of the course's subject matter. Professional teachi.rg prerogatives provide freedoms of ar:raI'1ement of tests, auxiliary materials, ani visual aids. '!hese are treasured professional freedans ani this assessment emphasizes their i.IrpJrtance ani marrlates their continuance in practice. Nevertheless, the vezy heart of the argument justify:irg the preservation of the classics is the strongly-held contention that the "classics" are clearly identifiable and possess pristine identity.
'!he design of course requirements hardly ever escapes the private professional expressions of personal attitudes as to what constitutes "a learned person". '!hus the cause in favor of "classics" would be selfenhanced from the academic manager's position with unity of purpose of course content ani course selection. On balance, however, the development of the ability for personal expression of ideas, the polishing of student writings, ani enhanced literary appreciation are generally results of emphases in the liberal arts program existirg in the System.
204

"Basics" are subject to definitions lorg in use, ani the expectations of the sucx::ess of QBE in these areas are very high. Basics ani classics need eac:::h other, ani westeJ:n civilization can not permit these two ingredients of support for rational consideration of the wri.verse by free peoples to be diminished.
Aristotle's science, Plato's sophistication, and Socrates' interrogatories about the real world requires a facility of language ani a
conceptual urrlerstan:linJ of classical semantics. Each discipline contributes
to the whole.
'!he problem becanes, ''what is a classical education?" '!he tenn, "Liberal Arts", is m:JSt often used to describe the design of this curricula. '!he followi..nq divisions are set forth as one exanple of one context in which these definitions (includi.n:J variations ani derivatives) may serve.
'!HE ACADEMIC SUBJECI'S
1. '!he Erglish I..an3Uage, Rhetoric, Gramnar, Literature, Communication, etc. 2. '!he Iaboratory SCiences: Fhysics, Biology, 01emistry, Geology, Botany,
Astronany, etc. 3. Mathematics 4. History ani Political science 5. Foreign ani Classic I..an3Uages 6. Fhilosqny 7. Econanics 8. Social SCiences
In addition, the Liberal Arts can encanpass the foIIOW'in;J:
1. Music 2. Drama ani Speech 3. Art: AQ;>lied Art ani History of Art ani Architecture 4. Fhysical Education ani Bcx:iy Develc:pnent as well as Mental Health 5. other Ihysical ani Social SCiences.
'!he future expansion of basic k:nowledge through future applications of mathematics ani science is believed to POSSesS potentials almost without
limits. '!he advancement of k:nowledge in bie-tech, bio-genetics am bie-
system application is increasin;J dramatically. However, the translation of scientific ani literary knowledge, gained in the classrocm, into irrlustrial ani camnercial usage is not the sole intention or product of personal academic success. A major drivin;;J force in action in the late 1980's is the drive toward "ethics".
Ethical behavior, in general, I'lOIrl given strong attention in curricula designed for business ani management scholars, formerly constituted a relatively small segI1Ellt in the area of national anxieties. Today the questioned use of certain chemical substances consumed daily by the public has placed l1E!W' obligations on the sources of these additives. '!he ethics of
professionals in medicine, law, accountin;;J, architecture, goverrnnent, am
science are urrler scrutiny. Nuclear waste problems, hospitals' relationship
205

with patients, arxl office-holders' practices are of plblished interest arxl official cx:n::ern.
'!he high level of the incidence of litigation in the state arxl federal courts often :reflects the sec:c:n:1ary consequerx::e of the shortcani.ngs in the human comi.tion directly caused by the absence of ethics in action.
'!he ethics question is very nuc:h comi.tianecl by the degree of fairness encountered in matters of equal opportunity administration. In the :recent past, news events have been reported :relati.nJ acts of unfaimess to minorities on caI1'I['JJSeS. '!he constantly repeated intentions of the laws and court decisions designed to insure equal treatJDent arxl to create liability for bias perpetrators, enable the institution's authorities to change completely the canplS cliInate which otherwise may be at variance with the national plrPOSe. l-i)ra! postures DUSt be added to legal postures, and a conscious, affinned effort must prevail. '!he positive results from focusing energies towards these goals can be predicted: a less detennined effort will not succeed.
Until ethical behavior is honored in the mainstream of American awareness, minority, age, sex, national origin, :religion, arxl handicapped
issues will surface. '!he canpJS can not wait in makin:J these conunibnents,
arxl the efforts arxl energies :referenced above must be applied (as one System president said) "from the top down". Ethics is the soul of affinnative action.
'Ihese fintings emphasize the need to teach ethics to all students in the context of each subject urrler instruction whenever possible.
Do the Classics arxl Basics teach ethics? '!his is a question, which in the past, called for an affinnative:response. McGuffey's Readers' hame-oriented themes pronounced the accepted verities familiar to the frontier arxl rural personality. '!he Classic Greco-Raman story was heroic, and the protagonist was dutiful to his destiny. sacrifice and seJ:Vice thread through the classic medieval story. Renaissance personalities remain extolled arxl worthy of bein;J romanticized.
I..an;Juage is the tool of thought arxl Ethics is a particular legacy to Higher Education. In a:mpany with the definitions of aesthetics, politics, logics, arxl metaIilysics, that which is considered "gcxxl" - ethics comprises the major elements which contition arxl direct our lives. '!he classics provide the word vehicles able to traverse time. '!hough derivative meaning arxl semantic treatment have worked same change, that behavior which is jUdged to be good by its long-starrli.rg definition, in a civilized, culturally-aware, arxl cooperative society, remains fairly arxl widely accepted. saving the language arxl prom::>ting the effectiveness of human cammunication are definite goals of the appropriate language studies.
:Reversing the meaning of words is the worst scenario in savin;J valuable life-concepts arxl G. Ol:we1I's 1984 (1949) stresses that word-reversal hann is certain. History's IlD110lithic dictatorships invariably captured words and
206

IiU'ases, treated them with semantic corruption a fact all presently free societies nust tuXlerstarrl ani guard against.
'!he classics, the basics, am ethics fi.ni ~ support in these fi.n:ii.n;s. UnstJ:uctured curricula ani raman infonnation cannot perfonn the
tasks to be disdlarged in the ~t of the best educational stan:1ards for
am on behalf of Georgia students. '!he forces of ethics are not new am they are worthy of presel:Vation in
developirg human con::luct. '!heir origins are worthy subjects for the insb::uction of the generation fonnirg its values llC7il. For the study of ethics the time is llC7il.
207

'!HE rm:v:n; Faa OF '!HE DISPARI'lY OF 0Pl'U<l\JN1'1'.lES Em HUMAN
EDJCATIC6AL IEYEI:DIMENl'
"Sixty percent or l11O:re of the American p.1blic, rcugh1y 140 million pecple, get most or all of their news fran television. Presumably sane of those pecple can read, bIt ~tely 60 million of oor fellC7N citizens cannot. '!hey are ftmctional illiterates."
Ted Koppel, carmencement address at [)]ke university [)]ke Magazine 73,5 (July-August, 1987) :35-36
Charles Percy SI'1cM in his TNOrk '!he 'I\Jo CUltures: An:i a second IDok (cambridge Press, 1965 p. 2), discussed the dividing of scx:::iety in the modern era by the intel:vention of al1tural differences between segments of the population. His inmediate :reference bespeaks the a~t opposites of scientists and non-scientists, i.e., the differences engendered by contrastin;J academic bacl<grourvjs, posin;J traditional lilieral arts against the al1tu:re of science.
'!he impact of the division :referenced ~, was, as Snow expressed it, as "one m:win;J between two groups, (very similar in backgrourrl), who almost ceased to ccmmmi.cate at all .. 0 who... had so little in c::amnon (with each other, that) one might have crossed an ocean."
In the united states in the late 1980's one can cross a street and experience immediate self-iIrp:ressions of isolation with conscious acknowledgment of not belon;Jin;J in the new environment.
since one of the modern themes dcminatin;J the yet unrealized :reality of international scx:::ial intercourse is "globalism, " education becomes the para1IDUI1t resource to mix the divergent and disruptive force of national and international ignorance about the merely different or the completely unknovm.
World scx:::iety analyses indicate that al1tural vaeutnns exist, due to unfulfilled educational goals, in all but a feM global areas. In certain international film reports, the person TNOrkin;J at the COl'lplter is pictured next to the unlearned, animal husban:iman as a ''vignette'' evidence of this growin;J disparity between those who "speak canp.rter" and those who do not. '!he same disparity in levels of modern sophistication and understanding obtains in the many populations found in the iniustrialized world as a result of illiteracy and under-education. Srx:M'S experiences represent variations which are products of the drivin;J forces affectin;J available opportunities. No opportunity exists to change one's style of livin;J when IXWerty dictates policy.
208

In the 01apter ~ ''National Perspectives", a review of the failures to educate adequately all oor citizens is noted. Inadequate furrling of higher education raises the question: "Does everyone want or need a college education?" An equally important query: "Do JOOSt people desire to give support or are willin3 to pay for even an adequate financin3 of public colleges ani universities?" Proposition #13 in california has been a duplicated experience. contra-al1.tural ani anti-leanrl.rq concepts can be rebutted only if the tax-paYin3 sources of this, ani other nations, provide furx:led ani CCl'l'plete programs of leanrl.rq. Unleamed populations do not support taxation for pRpOSeS of enhancin3 education.
'!he degree of anxiety affectin;J this trem toward less COnceD1 with
financin3 education was noted in a New orleans, Louisiana, local newspaper in June 1985 in which there was an item of :report that a servin3 legislator had observed that the voters were not wa:IIll in support of Louisiana's higher education budget. In the June 19, 1985, issue of the Times-Picayune/ states-Item (A-19), Representative Kevin Reilly was quoted as saying that Louisiana was "last in higher education." '!he legislator, reported in a college newspaper, declared that his citizens only wanted "a pick-up truck ani two shot guns" ani a job at a local plant requiring only the pushing of buttons ani having the title of "operator."
'!he courage of the legislator's uttering a criticism of the cultural level of the voters in his own constituency is remarkably rare, but it can be assmned that rejection of adequate financial support for that state's colleges ani universities had not only continued in existence during past legislative sessions, but that the rejection of the opportunities to support leanrl.rq would lower the level of future expectations for service to the citizem:y from the affected institutions.
'!he basic recognition of the separation of people, in tenns of differences of educational experiences, produces differing comitioning patterns of personal, social, ani work-related values. A lesson for higher education emerges clearly, Le., education ImJSt prevent fragmentation of our nation's unity.
Tenrs such as "urxi.er-cul.ture" ani "subcultural" are now encountered regularly in descriptions of society's current fragmentation. Too often these tenns translate to absence of financial means rather than the proven lack of the love of leanrl.rq on the parts of that portion of the population unable to complete an educational career.
'!he driving force challengin3 Georgia requires that its citizens avoid two, or IlDre, fragmentations, ac:x:x:arpmi.ed by economic ani social exclusions, based on inadequate ani obsolete educational opportunity. '!he optimum financin3, commensurate with the tasks of doin3 away with partial or basic illiteracy, is required immediately. QBE is a major step in the right direction ani receives public support because of the publicly-understCXld calamity of the old ways of "business as usual."
can Georgia provide the financin3 for lorg-tenn success in unifying our
citizens through higher education? One part of the support needed by higher
209

educatial is diverted to nuch-needed health am welfare. '1hese needs are
due, in part, to the :recipients' lack of marketable skills: a matter which lon;r-~ educational cat'mi:t:ment can :rectify. '!he questial then becomes: which canes first, the cure or the therapy? It is beyon:i these authors' lilnits to assmne the answer. '!he PJlitical arena must grasp the profound
idea that bad health am i.rr?overishment are preventable in large measure through objective, valid, am reliable knowledge am research produced, served by, am ilrproved by its University System's scholarship.
'!he requirements for the System to trilJlllil aver the "ills of mankind"
require a new tax program, Imllti-year bucJ;Jetin;J am extraordinary funjs to assist minority enrollments am System level professorships. '!his direct connectial between resources am results is a theme constantly sounded. The
System must continue this intensive solicitatial for state funjs not only for the nonn, but' for extraordinary bucJ;Jetin;J beyon:i the present base.
'!he in-migration to the united States of approximately 40, 000, 000 new citizens in the past 150 years did not cause a national calamity because the
public schools am colleges, aided by the inunigrant student's personal drives, met the challenge of absorptial am intellectual orientation.
Flexibility of altematives, the use of open curricula, inspired and
well-trained teachers, reliance al the practical am the abandonment of
unworkable theory, cnoong other elements, p.1lled together with dedicated administrators, produced a cultural miracle. '!he teachers and students
produced a general consensus of certain national goals. one of these goals
was equal opportunity, especially in public educatial, for all to learn.
our country's unity was preseJ::Ved, am the added population elements
were able to fonn a stable national ca:npc::lllni. '!he task for the System is placing the unlearned into the learning environment for without knowledge of innovations in applied SCience, the ages of space, bio-genetics, and electronics will Pass Georgia by. In addition to the blessings conferred by the knowledge revolutial, the possession of scholarly skills and cultural acqui.sitial is the main driving force able to unify our diverse society. Ignorance divides: learning coalesces.
On one harrl, non-at'terrlmce am dropouts enlarge the mass of the
unlearned. Simultaneously, the explosion of knowledge is taking place among the learned. '!he gap between those bNo segments of the population is widening. '!he national goal achievement patterns of personal productivity are accelerating while an increasing PJrtion of Georgia's PJpulation is dropping off the educational ladder.
'!he trerrl to dividing the state's and the Nation's population into separate cultural groupings, based on educational experiences, can be redirected. Whether or not there are "bNo Georgias", with debated PJlitical cormotations, there could be, in years ahead, several Georgias on the basis
of differences in the levels of learning am knowledgeable skills.
When fragmentatial on the campus occurs, social values and social aa::eptance iImnedi.ately demarxi consideratial. Interviews in pursuit of discussions about ilrproving integration, for exaIrple, indicate that
210

nan-traditional "renuneration" was stressed. '!be periPteral elements, often
lost in "efficient" cx:mtract deali.n3s with pzospects for Employment, omit the
nan-traditional factors. '!he factors stress the psydlological "posture" of
the elements CXtupcosi.n;J the hmnan environment. Acx::eptance am uninhibited
admission into "privile;Jes," available to others, are considered as iInportant as rights.
Fragmentation of the curricula, lcn;J experienced am accepted, reflects c. P. Sl"lc1tl's concerns. Bloem's anxiety, foorrl in the term, "clC:Si.n;J" (in his
title), stim.llates conscious awareness aba.tt academic canpart:mentalization. '!he prcblem of exclusion of other subjects, through centralizi.n;J orientation of subject matter within a eatpartmental.ized IOOld contains the potential for adversarial self-justification. Consensus, the IOOSt productive state of bei.n;J for resolvi.n;J the paradoxes produced by CCIlp!ti.n;J academic interests, is difficult to achieve if the disciplines' canpart:mentations are extreme.
Each discipline must be defined by oojective scholarship am its position on
the schedule must be paid for in tenns of fo:rward commitInent.
Fragmentation between am an:>I'g campus concerns are subject to learned
personnel's employment of the machinery of consensus to resolve the causes of academic divisions. '!he fragmentation resulti.n;J fran the lack of learning opportlmity carmot be so easily overcane.
If ever-increasi.n;J educational disparity affecti.n;J social change,
PersOI1al status, am levels of incane, is the by-product of an educational
inadequacy due to an urrlerfurxiirq of higher education, then the American
Dream, so often explained am soun:led, will became an American nightJnare.
Do our citizens desire strongly enough the fruits of the afore described
commitInents? '!he answer reflects social am political goals not easily
identifiable. Paradoxically, when the national needs become great enough, the answer may be too late.
It should be E!lllilasized that our University System TIU.1St meet the
challerge of the PersOI1al goals am aspirations of the p.1blic's providing its
nourishIrent. '!he degree of success in creati.n;J equality of educational
opportlmity (not disparity) relates directly to what Georgians want am will
pay for. our Georgia students, as do IOOSt aexpisitive populations, want
prestige, power, positions am possessions, with honor, am within the scope of acceptable social values am the provisions of the law. Higher education am the University System offer the best training am environments to hanoonize existing am future diversities to be fourrl in individual
expectations held by our people.
211

'JBE rRIVI:H:; Faa OF ~ INF.lIlJ!K:E, P.R:JGRAH;, AND FINJ)]N;S
'!his conc::em is of great interest to higher education in tenns of evaluatiIg these forces plShirq at pzoesent tcMard "acx:x::A.mtability." All such
i.ntervenin:1 forces are designed in one way or another to shape the future in
~lic education.
Govemments (federal am state), am their a.gerx::ies for the delivery of
educational seI:Vices to the citizens, 'are the lOOSt certain of the nonacademic sources of the directed forces iJrpirgirg on the University System.
'!he natural designation, or design, of govennnent influence and direction, through the furrling mechanisms, is based on the simple axiom:
"the dancer who pays the piPer can call the tune".
When :ftJms directed to certain programs as a result of crises in areas of educational conc::em, the specific referenced lIDnies will detennine the controls implied or, at the least, will be used to corrli.tion the experiences of the institution in connection with the furrling :received.
'!he auditirg of these projects, am of their fun:iin:Js through and by
federal ani state programs, is goirg to increase in the future. '!he program
objectives am the manner in which the program has been executed will be
subjects covered by third party auditors who will ccme to the conclusion that the lIDney has, or has not, been well spent. An increase in resources must be allocated to the System unit receivirg the govennnent furrling in order to make proper c::::anpliance with the c::::anplicated corrli.tions of the use of such :ftJms.
Another consequence of govennnent conc::em with post-secondary education is the need for data on a lIDre c::::anprehensive basis. '!he Peripheries of
problems umer scrutiny by state am federal agencies are subjects requirirg
additional infonnation. '!he result is the errployment of large staff in the institutional research areas with ac::cc:mpmyirg increases in costly and
sophisticated equipnent am space for record retention ani recovery.
All interviewees on the subject expressed some dismay for the anticipated growth in future demarrl for infonnation required by the national,
state, am system agencies. '!he necessity for accurate feed-back developed
for these agencies is urxierstood. It is the firxiin:] of the resources needed
for c::::anplete am accurate reportirg which is the cause of concern. '!he
simplistic quantification of reported infonnation POses other questions, and requests for annotated data are increasirg. "statistics do not explain; statistics, themselves have to be explained" is the verdict l1D5t often noted.
~rehensive data l1CJW' govern the process, am the forces of these necessary additional researches am reportirgs will change the practices
currently in use.
212

In addition, the assembly of precise costs will be expected to became IOOre relevant to the issue stillulati.n;J the research. '!his "ex>nnecting" of data preparation will clemarxi far IOOre participation fran a larger rnnnber of
offices am institutional mrlts. As the future production of data materials
will receive IOOre stringent treatment, the areas surrourxiing the subject
umer scrutiny can expect qualified treatment as well.
one of the IOOre out:stanlin:J am U1'Xlesired external influences potentially affecting ex>llege am mrlversity administration is the
possibility of "accreditation" of acadenic umert:aki.n3s by govenunental
agencies. '!hough the general freedan fran this form of academic oversight has not been curtailed, SPeCific items of eligibility for receiving grants
am funjings are in place. For exanple, the "Buckley .A1ner:rlment", the Family Rights am Privacy Act of 1974, as amen:3ed, provides that violations of the
Act CX>U1d result in cutting off of Title IV :funjg to the institution in violation. other sections of the aQ;>licable statutes can be activated in silnilar fashion.
within the last twenty years, one University System mrlt's students :funjg were cut off for two (2) days, due to the tec::hni.cal "time" provision for receiving the FISAPE Report (Title IV :funjg nust be applied for annually) not being canpleted on schedule.
Accrediti.n;J for advanced research :funjg fran SPeCial govenunent sources requires the institution to becane ex>nfigurative with the ex>nstantly ilrproving scientific prerequisites for eligibility status. '!he National Research Council's publication, News RePOrt, May 1989, (p. 6) emphasizes the "Federal. Lab's" role in higher education, pointing out that the "best PeOple from the best mrlversities" only are eligible as POSt-doctoral associates. '!his vital associateship program's starxlards are the role IOOdels for the
national throst in these scientific directions am, unofficially, will tend
to gOVen1 the University System's future ccmnitment to these ends.
'!he IOOst direct influence on academic self-determination arises from the requirement of the 2.0 student's average for eligibility for ex>ntinuing on, or receiving aid, after two years atterrlance, through the facility of the Title IV Student Financial Aid F'Llrds (P.L. 99-498, section 668.7 (c) (2) (i).
'!he alternative is stated: '!he student can receive the identical funds if "he or she maintains academic st:arrli.I'g ex>nsistent with the institution's graduation starxlards" (ibid.) Receipt of the benefits, as designed in the original intent of the statute, flCM fran the Starrlards of Satisfactory Progress, as l1laOOated by the applicable section (668.14). Each institution is required to put in practice the published starxlards ex>ntaining the basic elements as p:redetennined by Public law. Monitoring of the practices is assured by the agencies.
'!he applicable laws require each System's mrlt to expense the costs (unless the audit is provided by the state Auditing Deparbnent) of an irrlepen:lent audit of all compliances necessary to meet the marrlated starxlards, including the StaI'rlards of satisfactory Progress. Failure to pass
213

the audit, due to perfonnance detennined to be aItside the starxlards, can result in the financial liability of that institution.

One negative influence on the tmits of the System reflected by a c:oncemed financial aid official emanates fran overcorrective changes, as reported fran the financial aid officer sector, which, in tmn, require further expense outlay to police potential errors already founi on campuses
aItside the System. '!he reaction ezx=I11Dhers those canp.1SeS already acting in
an efficient am qualified posture. To have to perfonn duties to correct a
prd::>lem which does not exist at institution A, when the problem exists at institution B, insures the outlay of unnecessary budget expense and
questioned efforts by A.

will the regulations increase in the 1990's with ever tightening
starnards am practices requiring larger ccmnitments of personnel, funds, and reswrces? '!he era of "ac:x:x:mrt:ability" is in progress am accountability
practices terrl to increase. '!he university System can rationalize the belief
in the prediction that controls, audits, am specific action directives will
increase on balance. '!he University System would be advised to approach
federal am state agencies on a continui.n:J basis in time to assist in the
guidance of the rule makers. s'tronJ inpact at the earliest stage will be m::st successful in preserving the university System's intentions. In
addition, protection of the flexi.bilities in decision-making can be protected
best by the face-to-face contact.

Most College am tmiversity governance questions are tied to an
instinctive umerstarrling that the external presence being ~ienced appears usually in the fonn of the organizations of "specialists". Dealing
with "specialists" is an increasing experience for higher education's
leadership. one view, admittedly personal in context, sounded by an
experienced observer was, "the specialist" can tell you (the agency being evaluated) only that which you have already told her, or him".

'!hus, governing boards am gove:rning authorities appear on the campus in

various fonns.

'!he NCAA requ.irenerts, the accreditation agencies

requirenents, am the influences of other organizations are presences which

are forces of the present am future. It is thought by many observers that

these are self-controlled units by the very participative membership which

creates their authority in the first instance. certainly, the ~ience of
the NCAA leaves a large minority not in favor of many of the moves made to

strengthen academic preparation to meet the corxlitions for entering the
institution of higher leanring, am, also, for the requirement for

maintenance of grade-course progress toward. the chosen degree. '!hese are

changes which do make a difference in the way in which the institution can

detennine its own academic pursuits. However, specialists and organizational

visitations are needed, especially in the contexts of the Peripheral

activities and in the areas of potential darger to campus lives and

properties. Matters involving questions related to human health, safety,

legal protection, lOOrality, and aesthetics need "experts", i. e., qualified

specialists, for best results.

214

'!he corx::erns of the envirornnent necessitate govennnental. directives am
interdicti.rg positionin;J of forces, as regards higher education. '!he renoval
of the asbestos threat fran so many b.ti.l<i:in;r-; in the educational work-study place is a priIne exanple. Hanllin:J radioactive am other dargerous material will beccme IOOre am IOOre a matter of statutory control by outside authorities, am the mrlversity can expect the certification of the laws to
chanqe regardin;J experiments by human subjects with chemicals which could be
habituatin:J. one cause of interest is witnessed in the steroid connection
with athletics on the campus.
'!he list of entities capable of actir:J on the interests of the
university System is incalculable as to the total figure which might be considered at present or as potential sources of confrontation. '!he University System ITP.JSt operate with full knowledge of its vulnerabilities, but also take control of its:future. court decisions, chanqes in the
liability am inmmity provisions affectin:;J the rights of the officials am employees of the System, am many other "external influences" have not been explored. However, these am other action elements constitute viable am
lastirq "drivin:J forces. II
215

:rtR1!S mG\GIlG BEDIFSS EIDZl'ICIf AND BEDIFSS ~
Am:lrg several historical concems current in the consciousness of western nations, is the realization that the "ani of the age of the frontier"
has been approac.hin;J at an ever i.ncreasirg rate. '!he age of seemingly tmlimited qp>rtuni.ty to exploit the raw material :resources of untapped
ridles prcduced, in tum, capital formation am national policies engineered to produce goods am. savices for ultimate consumption at a profit. '!he trainirg of business executives was then, am. even l'lC:M, fonned within a
fraIlleWOrk of expectancies based on exploitation through the converting of raw material into saleable finished product.
'!he aggressiveness of management was stinulated by the incidence of the
production requirements of bJo TNOrld wars, am. the lorg-nm equilibrium of
marginal utility production provided efficiency of cost-control, thus making
the a.ssettbly-line am. the c::orrptrollers of expenses the leaders in business
decision-mak:irq. IDWest cost per unit control, in material acquisition and corwersion into saleable products, daninated the mass market phenomenon and provided c:x:Jllletitive retmns on invested capital.
No stimulant to mass-production was greater in scope am. length of time as a corxtitioning factor of national am. international business manufacturing
than the appearance of defense contracts. From 1914 through 1945, a period reportedly described by Winston S. Clurchill as the "secorn 'Ihirty Years War", the nationally ordered construction of not only SPeCifically designed
manufacturing assets (am. also their infrastructures) but their production
credit financing, resulted in massive production successes.
'!he international situation continued perilous, am. "local" wars
occurred through the period - 1945-1975. Production facilities increased also in all the in:1ustrial nations on the globe.
Today's international scene con::luces Peaceful solutions to disputes between nations. As the situation changed globally, the modern industrial
plant, replaced in Japan am. Gennany with completely modern, high-production
equipment, opened the floodgates of cost-effective goods. '!his foreign
competition has tested American consumers am. manufacturers in a PerSOnal and
painful experience: the fonner receiving consumer satisfaction, the latter painful financial shock.
Global changes daninate the TNOrld economic picture. Most closely obsel:ved is the closing of the "frontier" as referenced above. '!here are no
frontiers in tenns of travel am. transport facilities. All raw materials are
available on nearly open markets, unprotected in large part, as compared to
the restrictions of the 1930's am. earlier. But the raw materials are
disappearing or will be consmned at increasing rates as global populations rise.
216

One's CXlupetitor, literally located t:housani of miles away, is now a presence on one's doorstep. '!he resources that are available are priced in
global ran;Jes capable of dramatic c.han:Je in value ani availability.
Educatirg talorrow's business students denJanjs that the possibilities of the redirection of E!llPlaSis, in the System's plans for the future of econcmi.cs ani business disciplines, sh.a.1l.d receive i.nmedi.ate attention. Tacit assunptions about the future ani confidence in the status gyQ are not appropriate fClUI':2tions on whim to base education programs designed for business students.
'!he time when the basic assunptions listed below were valid is PaSSing. Cheap interest Cheap labor Plentiful labor
Cheap energy
Plentiful energy Plentiful raw materials Cheap raw materials Closed national markets Non-quality foreign goods ani services Dollar sovereignty Dollar convertibility at premium Market penetration assured internationally
Uncontested quality of U. s. goods Prevention of inflation ani preservation of the soundness of U. s.
currency over lOD;J Periods of time. Planned stimulation of obsolescence Predictable Interest Rates allowing for lOD;J-tel::m construction loans
with predictability of interest rates for maturities reinvestment. Freedan from Goverrnnental SUpervision
'Ihese ani additional anci1lcu:y factors, tacitly assumed as being
positiVely assured in Past preparation of business students, have not only
disappeared but their absence now insures future competition for the scarcities of resources required for the econanic survival of the United states.
with the advantages of the frontier's bounty, ani the subsequent urbanization of rural ani immigrant labor, the American production and distribution system was so sucx::essful that education llJVed in its wake without apparent question. '!he same econanic slogans ani executive success stories filled the college lectures ani the books on the subjects studied. Exploitation was the tel::m employed to i.nteJ:pret "opportunities". '!he new imustrial age required specific business skills ani management conceptions ani their productions daninated business education.
Errleavors to widen the curriculum ani awaken the development of management consciences about their imustrial, c::cmnercial, ani financial enterprises, began through the Business Administration facilities teaching that a canpany can be an institution ani should behave as one; secondly, the business schools emphasized that human behavior was a subject worth studying.
217

One result of these erx:ieavors, in a cnupetitive global econany coupled with the losses of econanic ingredients listed~, is the loss of confidence in the character of c:::onsurrer goods arxl sel:Vices. Ethics' questions emerged over the years clothed in many law suits arxl plblicly debated lOOral issues. '!he loss of econanic lOOrality in the management of materials, lOOIli.es, markets, arxl man and wataIl power, is now a ~l-documented fact. '!he age of litigation is not a cause but a result of the 10n:J-stan:ting failures to exercise equity in universal application. '!he lack of altruism is assigned by sane obsavers as the stinulus for bad blsiness practices. Business lOOrality nust be physically present to prevent unethical behavior in the market system. Acqu:ir~ the vocab1lary of blsiness m:>rality must be a
conscious arxl conti.nu..in.;J practice in the "B" SChool curriculum.
'!he desb:uction of the envirornnent through unwholesane exploitive practices pushed forward the issue of whether or not abarrlornnent in certain enterprises should be IDaI'X:2ted by law. Tobacx::o, IUlClear energy plants, certain food additives, arxl lead in gasoline are only part of the list.
Agribusiness, eager to preserve the earth's soil resources, is now receiv~ new direction signals fran society. Water, wi.n:l, arxl soil erosion resul~ fran certain econanic decisions affect~ larxl management dramatized the econanic quan:1aJ::y. With the loss of exploitable resources, another erosion appeared - htnnan erosion. Georgia's out-migration, since 1910 arxl l~ lmtil 1960, has been a tramnatic experience. '!he state's out-migration was so large in rn.nnbers that fifty years were required to double the 1910 census total.
A most comprehensive prediction which will change, for years to come, future preparation for COllegiate students of business, is found in the Club of Rcane's Project on the Predicament of Mankind entitled '!HE LIMITS 'IO GROWI'H (universe Books, 1972, Donella H. Meadows, Dermis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, WIn. W. Behrens). 'Ibis specific wurk of :reference to the consequences of exponential growth in wurld population arxl irrlustrial output on economic staroards of consunption arxl PerSOnal cultural styles is most profound. '!hat 1OO:re must be aCCClllplished with less is one driv~ force now oPerating on global htnnanity.
One of the wurst scenarios is emerg~: the grow~ spread between the affluent arxl the poorer national population groups.
'!he "timing" of this widening of canparative economic positions is made 1OO:re potentially damag~ to world Peace, prosperity arxl progress due to the
simultaneous di.minishment of open larxl, open opportunities am to the
approa~ limits of food, fuel, arxl fiber productions. 'Ibis spread between economic prospectives cannot be made up, if natural wealth cannot be found or shared 1OO:re equitably aIOOng global populations.
Educated business executives must either strive to halt this economic disenfranchisement of the majority of htnnanity or urgently attempt to :reconcile such rifts in a manner to minimize the danger to rnanki.n:l.
218

In nearly all matters related to goods ani savices production and distril:uti.on, usage of the descriptive "global" is l'lC7N deJ:nanjed by the current world envirornnent. In aatition to the present grow~ pace of "global concepts," and econanic explosion is anticipated in 1992. Atto:rney E. H. wilcox's "Europe 1992: A I.egal OVez:view", (1989) states "creation of an integrated market will have a dramatic inpact on the way business is corrlucted in ani with the EC (European Chrmmi.ty) "
'!he question becx:mes, for units in the System: "Are our students able to ex:tlp:rt:e as graduates in the new global econanic envirornnent?"
'Ihi.s question is treated in depth by the three-year study as cxmnissioned by the American Assembly of COllegiate SChools of Business (MCSB) on "the future of management education ani developnent" (Porter and McKibbin, McGraw-HllI Books Canpany, 1988, on Managenent Education of Develognent: Drift or 'Ihrust into the 21st century).
'!he preparation of students is perceiVed to be ovel:burdened with "quantitative analytical techniques" (ibid). Not only is the amount of time spent on quantitative analyses, in curriculum 'ten15, excessive, but the experience can conlition the student to believe that business questions can be reduced through quantification to their optimum solutions. '!he quantification technique of problem solv~ is not without merit, however.
other subjects are ert'phasized, or contrarily dealt with by these professors, ani their dClCl.n'llel1t is a major step in insur~ that education for business leadership and economic developnent is global in scope, content, and concentration.
waste recycl~ efficiency, quality of savice and product expansion, in:iustrial hanrony, ccmmmication skills developnent, general awareness of external forces at work, leadership acx:ountability and responsibility must be addressed, alorg with many other subjects for study, if the future business student is to be sucx::essful. Yet the Porter & McKibbin study suggests that CXllTIplacency ani self-satisfaction are entrenc:::hed so thoroughly that "there is little perceiVed need for major c:harges in which collegiate management education is carried out" (p. 80, ibid). '!his dramatic assessment is sh~ for, unless the need to c:harge is perceiVed by educators responsible for lea~ the profession, no future can be assured.
'!he status 9YQ must be c:harged. '!herefore, the state of consciousness of the business school leadership must c:harge first. Social questions are go~ to dominate the economic clilnate of the future, and the University System leadership will be commen::'led for a positive errlorsement of those htnnan
values whose worth shall be greatly enhanced "into the 21st century".
Robert B. Reich's article in '!HE NEW REroBLIC (issue of May 1, 1989) reflects the wid~ rift in i..ncanes earned annually by the differentiated economic categories. '!he rich are prosper~ and the less rich, in the least affluent category, are receiv~ progressiVely less income (1978- 1987). '!he wid~ rift in the schedule of income rates is serious ~ se, but the
219

trem in:li.cates that the CJR)Orbmities to reverse this econanic inequality are di.m.i.ni.shirg.
one cause of the disparity of personal irxxmes, Reich points out is that
the American eoonany is no lager an entity of production am c::onsurrption
"separate fran the rest of the world". '!his iIxllusion (or, as same observers would classify the situation, this reduction of American economic
i.rrlepernence) into the global system of prcducin::J am ctistributin::J goods and
sezvices, prarDtes much greater <::X:IJI)etition. '!he greater the number and
efficiencies of buyers am sellers, the llDre difficult it becomes to enjoy captive or custanary consumer markets am the llDre difficult it is to
pm::hase cheaply when global p.u:chasers aba.1ni.

'!he blsiness student must confront anot:her problem which most
production-mi.rned leaders in :in:1ustJ:y overlooked. In the united states these production line mentalities have cantrib.It:ed to the overlooking of ''market''
forces drivin::J the economy. Global <::X:IJI)etition did not make this error. '!he
freedan of choice aIOClD;J am between canpeti.n;J items multiply the marketin;r
function. studyin;r the market forces has becane the number one drive in
action for the business am management practitioner.

Geol:gians graduatiD; fran blsiness schools in the System will continue
to utilize the ''market'' forces which stabilize am provide continuity to the ways of maki.rg a liviD; through the exc1lanle of goods am sezvice quid pro
gyQ. But innoorality in the market place creates controls for all and
punishment for the convicted. Onerous government restrictions, caused by
failures in practiciD; ethical market operations, are a certain result. '!he
students' knowledge of st:an:3ards, both of practice am secon::1ary results, are
marrlatory curricula elements.

An entirely new emphasis is developin::J in management, accounting,

finance, am other blsiness-related studies.

canpetition will be

st:rerqt:hened as a conscious element in the P:t"03I:aIn, am customer confidence

will be emphasiZed. Another prominent theme will emex:ge: efficiencies of

operations will becane llDre in balance with the ''proficiency in human conduct

of the enteJ::prise". Too often hard-driven efficiency has destroyed the human

proficiency needed to answer the increased c:arpetition fram global dlallen;res

of the identical market. Again, market forces deman:l proficiency in well-
foun:ied management Iirllosq:h.ies. '!he new emphasis, in teachin::J business
subjects, will use old tools am concepts in different contexts. For example:

since it has become a life-endangeriD; force, waste management pgr se is a

major econcmic factor in contenplatiD; any would-be on stream production of
goals am sezvices. '!he University System must avoid splittin;r up disciplines am the creatin;r unconnected "waste Management" centers and

institutes in such manner as to elilninate the professional business course

disciplines in this subject area.

Business education curricula, both applied am theoretical in the
System's course work, must innovate to meet the new corrlitions. One factor, so devastatin::J to Geol:gia erployment figures, is the losiD; of Georgia's workers as victilns; of external obsolescence of production systems due to
foreign campetition. Ext:ernal obsolescence of operation is observed too late

220

in many cases, am the state of the ec:ananic krx:Jwledge of management is
tmable to foresee negative econc:mic results in time. '!he national l,X)licy
decisions have raooved the protective tariff defense fonnerly in place.
Management has been made vulnerable to global econc:mics.
'!he textile, auto, am other goods iniustries, until recent times, have suffered set-backs. 'Ihese am other econc:mic slow-downs contribute to the
ll'UCh-debated "bNo Georgias" J;t1encmenon. 'lhis subject has been l,X)liticized, but the university System needs new aJrricula, or old truths, to insure a dedication to givi.rg the c:::arpatitive edge, on 10000-rarge bases of ccmnitment, to its own iniustries. Every Georgia i..must:r:y, or non-iniustrial economic entity, needs proper identification in that marmer JOOSt productive of college
am mrlversity support within the liJDits of ex:isti.rg l,X)licy. Georgia Tech, the university of Georgia, Georgia state university am many other mrlts provide programs of aid am evaluation. Lllnited resources restrict TIUlch that
could be effectively aCCC111?lished.
Each mrlt of the System possessi.rg business management courses should be
assisted in making available to that canp.1S' adjacent Wustrial and
cammercial enterprises all data am practices which will enable the local
concems to meet the challeD:3'es of survival. SUch an effort will require :ful'xli.n;J levels above that nr:M available for this pn:pose.
Education, when prosperous econc:mic times occur, does not envision the
~ market am econanic changes, then l,X)SSibly obscured by success at the
market place, am business am management aJrricula i.Irprovement is not deemed
necessary. '!hese drivi.rg economic forces too often are lOOre traumatic in the event than the case would have been if the proper evaluation of the periJ;t1eral factors had been at1:eIrpted.
Likewise, as in the case of higher education, the very success of
American am Georgia business operations on behalf of ultilnate consumers
between 1945-1975, contributes to the ignori.rg of external forces capable of
making obsolete the enterprise am the job. Resti.rg on past successes is a
factor inhibiti.rg needed changes in sare Georgia management echelons. '!he business schools constitute the JOOSt important factor of progressive change able to lead the management conti.rgents in the directions JOOSt predictable of success.
Economic forces create the question: ''Will present and future graduates in the fields of business, from the System's colleges and mrlversities, help
insure the economic survival of the united states am Georgia?" '!he answers
deperxi on the students themselves. '!heir goals will detennine their
ccmnitments - in business am in all other disciplines offered by the
University System's mrlts. But, by far,keepi.rg in mi.rrl the findings of
Porter am McKibbin (that "there is little perceiVed need for major changes
in which education is carried out") the greater weight of responsibility will rest on the System's authorities. '!he leadership TIUlSt
involve itself in un::lergraduate am graduate experiences. (Boyer, College,
1987)
221

'!he citizem:y anticipate the enjoyment of personal. goal adrievements in their life span. AnDrJ;J these goals are acqui.rin;J of personal. possessions, the adrlevin:] prestige, hold.il:g positialS of honor, ani possessi.n;J the powers
of self-detenni.nation of careers, with the privileges accorded to successful
life-styles. In addition, the discharge of personal. ani social obligations, inherent in law ani IOOrality, hopefully are i.rx:l00ed in the aspirations of students. certainly the graduate's institution should give recognition to
aforesaid life value pattems in a meani..rgful manner.
Without bein:] equiR;>ed to c:x::npete eoonanica1ly, an intividual's
expectation to gain the rewaros of 21st century livin:] will be lacking in
reality. '!he University System tmits are dlarged with accountability for positive results in their influences on the lives of the pop.l1ation sel:Ved by the institutions in the present ani future. '!he main evidence gained from the economic set-backs experienc:si recently by the midwestel:n and southwestern states is that education makes jobs ani jobs make taxes.
'!he University System cannot progress if the Georgia citizen is out of work ani taxes are not forthcam:irg, all due to the lack of competitive human skills equal to the challer1in:] forces of irmovation in the work place.
In the lorg-~e expectations, one of the IOOSt inq;x>rtant sel:Vices to be rerrlered unto the citizens of this state is the increase in the general UIXierstan:lirg about how economic forces work. '!he production of wealth, creatin:] an econanic sw:plus able to support cultural UIXiertakings, is the basis of support for the University System.
'!he University System's econanic education of high. school teachers through fannal courses ani University-college level workshops has been a genuine success. '!he nultiplication of these efforts would also nultiply great respect for the University System ani arm large mnnbers of future citizens with better umerstaming of the economic elements in living
situations. '!he citizens cannot protect or inprove what they do not
und.erstan:i, Le., econanics.
'!he Georgia Council on Econanic Education was established in 1972 with the support of leaders fran business, education, labor, government, and agriculture. '!he Council is affiliated with the national Joint Council of Econanic Education, and a nationwide network that included 50 state Councils ani nearly 300 college ani tmiversity-based centers for Economic Education.
Workshops for teachers: [)]rirg the '80's, 3,399 teachers attended 211 Council-sponsored graduate credit summer workshops, and thousands more atterrled in-sel:Vice workshops. More than a hundred teachers have ecuned the Master Teacher of Economic Education designation in a program conducted at Georgia state University.
Consultation with local school leaders: A total of 40 public school systems representin:] 58% of the student pop.l1ation in the state, and 12 private schools, are fonnally affiliated with the Developmental Economic Education Program (DEEP).
222

'!he Council also sponsors awards programs for teachers an:i professors, an:i pcpl1ar activities like the CCIIp.lter-!oonto:red stock Market Game that
irwolved llDre than 32,000 students duri.n:J the 1988-1989 school years.
'!he council is fun:ied by the private sector, with nearly 600 contri.b.Itors includi.n:J b.Jsinesses, fam:ia.tions, an:i irxtividuals. Council operatin:J an:i restricted budgets currently total about $400,000 Per year. '!he council has always enjoyed top leadership, fran its first Olainnan, Mills B. Iane, to its current Chainnan, William J. VanI.arxti.ngham, an:i leaders from across the state of Georgia.
(Infonnation provided by Mr. David Martin, Director, Georgia Council of Econanic Education.)
223

HR:R - '.IHE :FC.IO OF ImI'!'1VE awZ AND IFAlIiRiHIP IOlER
What one honors, one cultivates; what one cultivates, one enjoys the fnrlts thereof; withc:ut honor ~ grows.
on several ocx::asions the inte.l:viewees contacted in these assessments
about the future of pmlicly-supported higher education voiced the question: ''why can't we (Georgia) develop ani maintain an 'M.I.T.' in this state"? '!he value of these assessments over time has been the distillation of many ideas ani suggestions into a sin;Jle measure.JlEllt value. '!he exanple of creatin;J an institution on the order of the cambridge, Mass. canplS frames the issues of why sane educational goals remain unsecured in fact, ani why the state' s
citizens do not supply the :funjs required to have all mrits operatin;J at
''world-class'' levels? As the wealth ani pcpllation of Georgia grcM, this query becanes the ultilllate educational question.
Georgia will enjoy world-class educational institutions if ani when their conception is honored. '!he IlDSt beneficial force in the social
environment, provided the ern product meets the American starrlards of
equality, lawfulness, ani the greatest good for the greatest number, is "Honorin;J the Objective". '!he old axian :repeated above is the one factor IlDSt capable of actin;J in the multiplier role for positive change for the University System. Without the conscioos awareness of placin;J first the
objective to be honored, the necessazy labor will not be expended on the
nurturin;J of the goal. Attention spans will be lost quickly. Trivialities will i.ntn:Ide, ani passions becc:me diverted. Every goal achievement of the leadership positions operating in the University System reflects a placin;J in first position the object for which the efforts were expended.
Examination of the neans to bring about this desired state of presence capable of action requires the acceptance of principle over personality. In:.lividual personality either supports the principle governing action or serves to divert available resources elsewhere. Personality differences exist on every canplS, ani managerial expertise is measured by the degrees of success in their reconciliation. '!he honorin;J of objectives requires consensus, subliInation of egos, ani genuine cxmni'bnent to future goals.
Personal differences arising in the determination of the objective for a full ani mrified ccmnitment are the strongest rebuff to the creation of an institutional envirornnent of unified support on the part of the unit's
management team. '!he necessary "pre-posturing" of the management planning
group, be it the academic committees or the executive ccmnittees, requires consensus. Without consensus, the efforts on the part of the academic leadership to establish a general pn:pose of dedicated ideals ani plans can be costly in time col1SUllption. Personality differences place the leaders in a position to be criticized in their IlDSt vulnerable areas - the areas of subjective contemplation ani exten::led visions.
224

once new courses are set, the debates begin as to the TNOrthiness of the
expected goals. With the honori.nq of the ci>jective, the personalized debate
can be stilled am action begins.
In short, expressions of ideas am plans, TNOrthy of bei.nq honored, lift
the leadership performance above the ra.rt:ine. Dr. Clark Kerr, in his analysis of success or failure of institutions of higher learn.in;J chose to point out that the ''presidents made a difference". Pointi.nq in honor to the
presidency position lifts the position above the expected am the typical.
SUCh recognition, t:hra1gh honor, also places leadership personalities in an :issue-developi.nq position. '!he positions so honored will assume even greater
responsibility am leadership characteristics.
''Honori.nq'' the position translates into "confidence" . Confidence
synthesizes the team awroach, am 1lDtivations of a non-personal mind-set
emerge. Perfectly 1lDtivated lJ!f!Jllbers of the leadership of the college or tmiversity can envision institutional future plans, experxlitures, and results primarily in tenns of consensus.
If personalities becane subordinated to principle, other distinctions are nore easily resolved. '!he reason for this managerial expectation lies in the lorg-~e versus short-~e goverrnnental objectives operati.nq on the tax resources available. If academic personalities do not agree on lorq-range cx:mnitments, by honori.nq the ultimate goals so designed,
institutions of education am goverrnnent will fill the vaarum.
When the public service entity cannot, or will not, agree on action to be taken, or if the entity cannot function in action after agreement is concluded, this probability of natural consequence is activated; ''what the
public office does not do properly for am by its authority, will be done
iIrproperly by others."
'!he principle is pronounced: '!he university System, over the years to came, will possess only that which is honored in the conception and cultivated diligently in its execution. '!hough not yet in possession of all the desired attributes it hopes to possess, the university System has come a very lorg way. certainly, the System 1l1USt continue on the broadest level to honor all of its constituencies.
'!here are am have been forceful am active examples of honori.nq of
objectives by political am professional educational leadership in recent
(am earlier) periods of the state's history. '!he Regents and the System's
officials are constitutionally authorized to act in the absence of any other constitutional check or balance to set lorq-tenn provision for the support,
growth, am direction of the Systems' many tmits. '!he "direction" involves
lorq-tenn planni.nq am, as one senior educator has remarked, "the System is
not in politics but, certainly, it can not be above politics either". Longtenn successes in the System will necessitate a cx:mnitment on the order of QBE.
Govet:nOr Joe Frank Harris has the signal honor of havi.nq planned and havi.nq sti.n1ll.ated the financi.nq for iIrprovement t:hra1gh the authorization and
225

i.nI:>lementation of QBE for grades K-12. 'Ihi.s is the first time in recent GeoJ:gia political histozy that a oc:rrplete plan is "in place" with the totality of the plan's requirements bei.n; assured. No piece-W?al. effort is
this achievement, am only with a oc:rrplete am successful "CX>nSCious
awareness" of the awesane needs involved wa.Ud these actions by the
legislature, the state Departm:mt of Educatioo am the dUef executive have
been an:ai.ned. Honorirg the task posed by the prci>lem of savirg Georgias
youth fran illiteracy am lmted leamiI'g has resulted in this comprehensive
quality basic education decision.
'!he university System shoold give consideration to the Systems'
readiness for the planni.n;J am execution of a prcxp:am, 10000-tenn in scope,
likened \D'lto the QBE.
'!he :record is clear in imicatin] that the planni.n;J function in the
System is, am has been, progressirg stead; 1y. '!he Needs Assessment Programs am special Task Forces, c::anpleted in this decade, establish the background
of material factors as :necessary bases for predictirg, planning and progranm:in;J' fonrcu:d developnents of the university System of Georgia.
'Ihi.s assessneIt notes that the success of the 1990's era of changes in the System will entail two elements in any event: imagination and will power.
Imagination in public life, when oonstructi.vely present, is a strong leadership asset. '!he honorirg of imagination in the 1980's society, lOOreover, is an expanii.n;J characteristic seen in scientific discovezy and technological irmovation. will power i.nI:>lies continuity of effort and st.rerqth to change or to rebut adversity.
All of the assessments by the authors fim the Board of Regents and the office of the O1ancellor clearly in possession of the elements of control to visualize with imagination and to act with willed intention in stJ::ucturing the future of the university System.
"Personality" leadership Im.lSt be taken into account, and single, diversionary projects Im.lSt be redirected. Principles, however, must be justified if consensus is to prevail. '!he "directions" chosen will make all the difference. '!he will of a majority of the population, coupled with the imagination of the political leadership can give the Board of Regents the position of the premier University System in the southern half of the nation's states.
''What is not honored will not be done at all, or will be done badly,"
am if the enplacement of honor brings into beirg subsequent activities in
support of the abject, or objectives, beirg honored, the absence of honor insures the reversal of the process.
'!he forces of control able to make changes in Georgia's society must continue to honor the constitutiOnal powers conferred on the Board of Regents. '!his adncnition is not lleW'; historically the honoring of the Regents reflects decisions made by the voters of Georgia.
226

By the time a problem rises 1:hrcu:1h the academic
administrative ranks to my level, the problem is fourrl to be either trivial or inpossible. (Fonner vice Clancellor Jdm Hooper)
Pragmatic divisions of labor provide autanatic am i.nlnectiate spooialization of \\lerk. When the process is exten:ied in tine am numbers of functions, eJq?ert:s soon awear in each specialty field. Further refinement of the art am science, pert:ai.nin;J to the subject be.in;J perfonned and
successfully acxx:anplished, produces ''Professionals.''
SUCh. historical devel~ of specialized hmnan skills, crafts, and knc:Mledges produces a civilized culture which is l"lOW able to receive the benefits of all of the expertise available. '!he question arises, almost siInultaneously with the successes by the practitioners of the specialty: do
these divided interests, entitled as specialized situations am special
practices, serve to create a cooperative erwirorment?
Hc:w nuch specialization can be absorbed by the budgets of the System's mrits? Are special educational ~ in support of the whole
(curria.l1a) ? Are there irreconcilable differences between am among the
special educational umertakings? In short, is there a point of diminishing retum in the process of specialization of traditional educational values?
One c:oncen1 for a state system of higher eduction is: does the specialty educational function "reinforce" the learning process for the student within the learning context of the total college experience? If the
special program becomes ncre and ncre irrlepernent am the student' s
experience pattenl becomes ncre fragmented, can there be a balanced synthesis of academic results? Can there be symmetry of educational intentions and means to the fulfillment of the intention?
Clearly, the university SysteJn will be confront.in;J change in its future. Tine is change. Appropriate special campus entities will need to justify
their separateness am irrlepernence.
None of the forego.in;J questions should be i.ntel:preted as denials of the legitimate need for special educational umertakings in the University System. '!he demands of a highly irrlustrialized society insure special
applications, am tectmiques must be applied to that society's problems.
In addition, the authors reiterate its support of the simple but
insightful definition of scholarship am research: I.eaming always has the twin objectives "to classify am to criticize." One of the strongest elements support.in;J defined specialization am the role of scholarly proficiency
derives fran the historical experiences in the era when learning was straitjacketed between religious intolerance and political authority.
Specializations in subject matter am innovations in i..nstruction and research
228

acted as i.nstroments of academic f:reedan's sw:vival am present predominance in the life patterns of teacher am students.
In freein:J the traditional American state colleges am universities from the narrc1t/ permissiveness am pseuclo-ilDralistic behavior codes in which tead1ers am students fourxl themselves in the 19th c:entm:y, the diffusion of
the pov.lerS of canplS policy-maki..rg became exten:iErl in an ever-widening arc.
As healthy faaIlty participation in institutional p.n:poses am policy-making
increased, the pov.lerS of self-determi.natial spread into the areas of personal professional interests to create special academic postures in the curriaIla
structure.

New curriaIla, by name am course content, have proliferated in recent

years. Accreditin:J associations, involved in these developnents, furthered

the view that in sane cases the additional specialization ~ con:litions of

future re-accreditation.

Many i.nnovations were in fact necessary

recognitions of new disciplines branch.i.n;J forth from the traditional syllabus

materials.

on the other side of this subject, special disciplines became expensive
to initiate am to operate, am the rnnnber of students enrolled in them are
now vital to the continued existence of the new offerin:Js. 'nle budget strain
causes nuch. of the debate within colleges am their departments during the
periods in which the plarming for new projected offerin:Js is occurring. 'nlese recitations of professionals at W'Ork are recognized as an innnediate and necessary discharge of duties atterrlant to the professional roles in action.
Nevertheless protectin:J the budget against proliferation of expensive un::lert:aki.n3s also must be honored as a prime leadership qualification if maximum success of the unit is to be realized.

SUch. drivin:J forces take on other shapes where the discovery is made that lOOre "process" is going on than "product" is being created. Already
(am in other sections of this W'Ork) the business technical-irrlustrial
envirornnents are SOUI'rling questions of acx::nmtability of educational practices. 'nle main interrogatory pursues the theme that American business
has (a) un::lergone a revolution in cutting costs am reducing consumer
purchase prices through "getting lOOre out of its resources;" (b) that
specialization is not as efficient as it should be; am (c) that much of the
"process" of higher education is sinply not cost-effective.

'!he trivialization of info:nnation, rarrlomly created am projected, is
un::ler critical analysis. Recent experiments concerning fusion at more cheaply expensed teJrperatures in collegiate laboratory envirornnents are worthy academic goals. 'nlough unsuccessful at present, the experimenters'
goals are manifestly honored am needed. 'nlese fusion experiments are
snDthered by so much info:nnation being circulated that the public reaction is
characterized by sane confusion. '!he inportant am the uninportant are co-mingled am the resulting whole loses, in the public mind, the one
characteristic :roost desired by the sources of the data: specific identity and worth of that which is being attened.

229

Trivialization has been produced mainly by higher education's over-use of tenns of description, the misapplication of tenns of identity or the
bor:rowin;J of other disciplines' definitioos. 'nle tenn ''urlJan'', was fonnerly
awlied so widely an:i used so often at vari.aooe with its etyIoological root that its enployment became aJ..roost meani.n:}less. other tenns such as "adult",
"conti.nuin:t', an:i "special" all have the capacity to arouse reactions of
wariness from their auditors. '!he use of such tenns in umefined contexts first trivialize an:i seconUy assume the substarx::e of mythical reference.
In developirg these finiin:Js, the earliest effect of trivialization in higher education was encamtered in the "throwi.Ig away of the past". Efforts
by this collation to secure doannents an:i to audit recoms became difficult.
since these investigations dealt with lIIJCh mre than quantified and statistical data, as contained in annual. reports, searches were initiated to discover the subjects which held the attention of those academic sources active in the past. Veroal acx::amts of fi.nii.n;s an:i opinions relative to past events were IOOSt helpful. Archival practices will help to save nnlch material in the System while umer:st:al'rlinJ that the at:t:ernant costs could be unreasonable. A balance is needed in preservirg data between cost-productive expense an:i the natural instinct to save all.
Trivialization is not always the result of too much data, though random data is usually unproductive in the System's need for accuracy. One definition applied to ran:ian infonnation is that it is infonnation which
absa.Ires both the need an:i the em for which the targeted research is
i.nterxled. One suggested test for research probity is adherence to the principles that research is bourxi by objectivity of umertaking, validation of fi.nii.n;s, an:i reliability in subsequent use of the earlier detennined results.
Specializations often originate with the confrontation on the campus of a new phencmenon. '!he terrible tragedy of chemical habituation through narcotic usage occasioned many canp.1S reactions. Now, there are on the canpJSeS, numbers of what are euphemistically called "Drug Programs". '!he
rnnnbers of these worthy urrlerta.ki.n3s have the capacity to confuse. What
program is best for the unit? What can be a feasible solution for the entire membership of the System? Specialized by name an:i differences among them, one terrls to lose the inp:>rtance of the specific program. '!his subject can never be a trivial one, however, an:i extraordinary fun:iin;J would assist the best programs, in tenns of results, to lead others. Of course, scientific research umer traditional safeguards an:i control is excepted from these remi.n:iers
Trivial claims on occasion are put forth in settirg the blame on academia because many people can't read. George Keller, writing in ClfANGE, May/June, 1989, p. 54, encounters the declaration, "Students don't fail; institutions do," a quotation Dr. Keller has read fran another article about education. Dr. Keller's self-descri.becl reaction to his article was that the "detenninist philosqily a.sstnnes that students are open, disciplined, and eager to leam by nature. Teachers an:i the educational 'system', however, wreck their lives." In short, Keller's view is that the student can and does
230

fail am that the student nust go fmward in a posture of readiness to meet
the teacher. In like manner the teacher llIJSt go fmward to meet the student.
'lhese references IXlint out that broad, mU.imited accusations, program
designs, project plans, am gram schemes can be so sinplistic that they are
capable of trivializirg the IOOSt Profouni questions! '!he exceptions, being
limited in scope, specific in detail, am conceptualized in practical
execution teJ:ms, are not simplistic. '!he balanced viewpoints are proffered
by sources cognizant of the nature of. leamin:J am of the problems founi in a
highly c::cmplex society. BlaIll:in; education's ill on "society" may be oonsidered the ultimate trivialization.
Sinplistic perceptions often ignore am eliminate essential variations
in the operating scenario. Am if elimination of details is extreme, IXllarization of subject matter results. Reductio ad absurdam follows and
trivialization of educational elements am iss.ues result in specious debate am fatuous claims. Ti.rre does not pennit the CXiuposition of even a partial
grouping of the opinions, suggested solutions, am universal panaceas,
relating to the questions am issues founi in education's domain, often
through gratuitous assigmnent by those who are safe fram the responsibility involved.
At this juncture, this assessnent of the university System, as limited in this section, encounters a profouni executive principle. "How does the executive in higher education detennine the test of organizational success"?
A lean1ed am experienced educator answers the question with the proven axian: "Did the executive get sanethirg done by intention am applied effort"? Was the plarmed Ul'Xlertaking a success am was it finished and/or
workin;J? "Gettirg my program through am in action" is a proud boast of all
who serve the public well.
Most of the executives in public office will declare that they are more
satisfied by their programs' c:::c::mpletion, am subsequent operation, than by
arrj of their other achievements.
In conjunction with this assessment of the i.np:>rtance of the executive's public record, experience will reveal that special interests and the diffusion of the main thn1st into trivial issues can constitute the most
tenacious oppositions to the executive's plans am future activities.
However, much needed scholarly attairunent deperrls on concentrated resources. Specializations are IXlSitive characteristics founi on the Systems' campuses.
Many "centers" and "institutes" exist on the various campuses, each
specializing in specific areas of academic concern. Proper library and other support facilities are budgeted pursuant to the scholarly work to be
organized am c:::c::mpleted. Elsewhere in this work is a current list of these
entities.
Specializations of other interests am COncen1S, many non-academic in
nature am p.n:p:lSe, tern to proliferate am take on lives of their own.
If financial support wanes in the 1990's, the System will need, in place, a balanced support system for these entities. In addition, at such
231

future period of tilDe, a procedure for rati.rq the iJrportanc:e to the needs of the University System of each entity of specialization shalld be in place. All entities of special description are in the <X1tP!titive stream of support each one with the others.
As persons who have seJ:VErl in the University System, the experiences of the assessors dem::lnstrate the p.1SSibility of specialized efforts being made trivial is very real. '!he canplS executive will save other special programs if the unproductive specialty is foreclosed. 'll1i.s protection of the desired entity of specialization is a prime responsibility of the canplS managers.
'Iherefore, such canpJS efforts to plan, to program in detail, am to
practice administrative policies IIIJSt be prat:ect:ed against being defeated by
the trivial am the specific objection of interests which can not be defined
as "special" . '!his is not to say that academi c claims of being special interests sha1ld not receive every effort at c:cn=i.liation in upholding, on balance, these interests gernrinely productive.
'!he positive canplS position delights in unity, am the units of the
System have dem::>nstrated a thoroughness of pn:pose through the exercises of its decisions. '!he IrOSt hantDnious exercise of collective effort is based on professional teamrlork derived fran consensus. COnsensus is not confonnity.
'll1i.s denu:::::tatic balance is a marked feature of Pe:rsOnI'le1 relationships in the
University System. Consensus must be consciously urrlerstood am follows only fran free debate am the protection of the varied interest of each of the System's many constituencies. Consensus in academic processes insures that a balance between special interests will obtain am the essential elements, workin:] for progress in the many college am universities, will not be
trivialized.
232

A great many decisions are made in keepinJ with the student enrollment numbers listed as the University System totals. 'lhi.s force is present in
every dj SOJSSion of new programs am in the develcpnent of criteria by whim
present programs are judged to be fit for contimJation in the catalogs. '!he
fo:rnul.a chosen am cperative 1'1OW in the System creates the DrivinJ Force of
numbers generally. HatJever, there are situations concerni.rg a new program's begi.nni.rg, or when a new chair's initiation, in the name of a donor, is being considered. '!hen, in these cases, special urgerx:::ies attach to the numbers question.
will the new chair require special space, equipnent, am laboratory
facilities as TNe11 as library f'\.lms? will the projected enrollment justify the collateral expenses incident to the chair's cperation? Does the incoming professor's research ac::x::c:ll1pU1YinJ her or him fit the budget lilnitations?

These concems with irrlividual programs en;Jerx1ering sufficient

enrollments to justify their presences on the schedule are encountered in

several traditional disciplines. 'lhi.s clilenuna is treated elsewhere in this

work, but a paradox requirinJ resolution is thrust into the administration's

apparatus for decision-maki.rg.

other disciplines are in silnilar

ci.rCl.nnstances if am when enrollments detennine the viability of that

offering.

'!he separation of surrmer sdlool budgets fran the 9-nv:>nth budgets causes irrlividual class size in the surrmer quarter to be placed under strict scrutiny. securing sufficient students to justify the retention of the surrmer class, within the overall surrmer quarter budget lilnits, always poses the perception that a nv:>re equitable system should be available. Senior faculty are desirous of teachinJ the c::x:I1'plete faculty load to secure maximum surrmer incane. '!he expected reduction in the numbers of teamers employable for the surrmer places the junior faculty at a disadvantage unless summer quarter enrollments justify full faculty usage. In such case, seniority status does not preclude courses beinJ taught by junior faculty.

'!he increase in the percentage of the cperating budgets to be supplied
by tuition, potential loss of traditional students in the 18-25 demographic
age matrix, am the potential econanic tum-dCMIlS effectuating the lowering
of personal disposable inccmes are factors whim, alone or in combination, could have negative enrollment results on the System.

'lhi.s question of sufficient numbers of enrollment is heightened by the expectancy of the predicted loss of enrollment numbers in the 1990's. At
this time, no study has been conclusive as to the effect of this dilninishment of the pool of eligible entering students in the 18-25 age-year groups, for
1995 or later. surveys am statistical projections have yet to prove to be
reliable as to the downward trerrl in the number of students in American
colleges am universities; enrollments were supposed to be reduced during the
passage of the last years of the 1980's. SUCh results influence the present

233

student of these projections to feel sane :reluctance to accept the verdict of the 1990's predictions.
Nevertheless, lack of students has been a factor. Already in the matters of numbers has this assessuwant IX:Jted the reports about the closing of
dental schools in this countl:y am the dlan;Jing of the curricultml involved in
other dental-training institutions. 'lhi.s questioo of the adequacy of skills
in the pc:pllation carmot be answered for a IIDre profourn reason: '!he pc:pllation of the United states is unpredictable as carpared to efforts being made in Japan or west Gennany to hold these nations' pc:pllations in check. In addition, one thrust of these fi.n::ii.Igs is the irreversible lOOVe to global
involVements. No authority can predict the needs for :future numbers of
professionals or the practitioners of vocations am oocupations in the future social am global diInensions.
'!he pc:pllation of Georgia is gl:OWing at a rate faster than many of the states in the union. '!he unknc7"m property about higher education is that as
an entity, higher education is a CCIlplex social };ilenanenon, am academic
"self-detennination" on occasion has failed with past predictions about the type of pc:pllation needing services fran the University System. Because the past provision for these kinds of figures was not stressed, the basic data,
preparation of projections, am the developnents of the trends in higher
education generally are very much needed on a continuing schedule. In addition, the need for probative figures arises fram population lOOVements affecting local canplS situations.
'!he prediction, earlier referenced, that there ~d be loss of two million students in the United state in tenns of the traditional colleg'e-going numbers of 18-25 year-olds, as carpared to the same rn.nnber in 1980, (such result to mature during the 1990's) is another factor bearing on the numbers dilenuna. If the original suggestion that the loss of student population reaches the proportions as outlined in the projections for this decline in the 1990's, conceivably huOOreds of post-secoOOary institutions would be d1allenged to continue operations. '!he state of Georgia has been
fortunate in being able to retain am exparrl its pcpllation of colleg'e age men am women. CoIIprred to the state of Florida, which has had phenomenal
growth since 1920, Georgia has not beg\m to grow to its potential population
size, am the future for expansion of the pc:pllation of all age groups is a
d1allenge to the planning of the University System leaders at this time. Georgia now ranks eleventh in population.
'!he "rnnnbe:rs mystique" pertaining to the University SYstem, reveals an important connection: '!he size of the enrollment numbers terds to condition
the self-image of the institution! In addition, the public perceives that the IOC>St important units are those possessing the greater rn.nnber of enrolled students.
Both self-image am the public perspectives are increased when the rnnnbe:rs refer to Graduate programs, specifically doctoral programs, am
post-doctoral courses. '!he mnnber of the Graduate program listed for students is perceived to be more important, in this case, than the number of persons enrolled in these graduate disciplines.
234

All such };i1encmena tern to enccmage course proliferation ani the strivirg for graduate course ani degree authorization. 'Ihese are worthwhile objectives and ll'A.1St receive consideration worthy of their intentions.
'!he position of the System wa1l.d be best sel:Ved by correctirg the p,lblic's perceptions relatin;J to quality of product as beirg m:>re to be o:tluerded than size of institution. In like manner the smaller (in enrollment size) mrlt wa1l.d be assisted t:hl:'a.1gh receipt of appropriate rewards for qualities of organization, faallty proficiencies, ani the high values possessed by such mrlt's graduates.
'!he developnent of new mrlversities ani the chan;Jirg of the
classification for stan:li.n1 institutions relate to the numbers factor in each
case. Eligibility st.armrds for a mrlt to acquire university status e.trP1asizes enrollments as a con:iition precedent to the enterirg of the eligible classification for ~e of title.
'Ihese influences of student numbers on policy, ani the corxtitioning effect of projected enrollment numbers on future plarming, do not always constitute the stror:gest elements in SUWOrt of quality education. '!he initiation of some of the outstarxii.n;J programs of study on the campuses of the University System were lJIdertaken with no m:>re than two students, as PaSt :records irrlicate. '!he justification of a new program on the basis of numbers alone can deter both innovation in fact ani iIrprovement in prograrmning. COnversely, the attraction of a large number of students does not, by itself, prove that a program of study autanatically qualifies for financial support in an unlmted time frame. '!he numbers strategy is en:lowed with both emphasis ani brevity. '!he siIrplicity of the use of rnnnerical values in
dete.nni.ni.n:J the course of the future, hOlrleVer, has been tested in the PaSt
when new schools have been opened in the p,lblic sector elsewhere ani closed thereafter due to enrollment goals beirg unrealized.
In arr:l event, the student-en:rollment-based fornn.lla constitutes a driving force to admit as many PersOns as possible in certain programs without the assurance that the p:rosPeCtive student has the basis of preparation sufficient to complete the course. '!he canbination of numbers, therefore, has necessitated the introduction of the Developnental studies Program ani other auxilial:y ani ancillcuy programs of assistance ani instruction to complete the students' attainments of the basic educational skills. Guarding against the tercptation for increasing numbers beyom logical predictability
of success in the program is the duty of all SYstem PersOnnel involved in
marketir:g the institution's offerings.
One of the areas concen1E!d with numbers much p,lblicized is f01..1I'rl in the announcement by the Federal Government concerning programs in tenns of money - appropriation ani provision. '!he senate budget CCITIIlli.ttee member, U. S. senator Paul Simon, armounced on May 10, 1989, that the "Federal budget function, incl1.ldi.rg education received 40.7 billion, an increase of 2.6 billion over 1989 levels". Federal:fl.1n:li.n;J is a much needed ingredient in the financial mix uniergi.rdi.r:g higher education's hopes. '!hese fimings stress the extraordinary budgeting which will be needed if the colleges ani universities are to assist in the firxling of solutions for some of the
235

problems threaded t:hrc::u;Jhout society. Minority enployment am minority
student enrollment need the direct assist:aooe thra.1gh ~ on a lorg-tenn ccmni'bnent procp:am basis.
All such :fuOOs need expert guidance in their use am continuity
year-by-year of their applications. '!he state of education was banned
Wirectly am sec::ormrily by the influx of large sums of m:mey for higher
education, am its programs, durirg the Jcbnson am Nixon years, only to see such scm:ces of :fuOOs dry up in SUCD?edin:J presidential tel:nLs of office. '!he
tenn "soft nx:mey", became a factor of great significance in the 60' s am
early 70'S of this centw:y for higher educatiat. When "soft" money disappeared, or when program furx1s were cut or dj ~ with the program's
demise, serious hardship affected the colleges am mrlversities as well as
the in:lividuals involved in the program. Once more these federal fundings are di.mi.nishi.rg.
Most obsel::vers agree that the total of federal dollars available sets a limit on the growth of higher education in many directions, especially in the
research am developnent areas. Numbers of new monies are needed badly for
the world of bio-technology am genetic ergineerirg, am these areas of vital
study for the planet's people are un::lerful'ned when c::x::IlIpared to the optinunn scale foreseen as needed.
'!he state' s ~ for higher educatiat 1'1CM must take up the slack left
by reduced federal aid, especially, in research. am developnent operations.
Unless this is done quickly, am with sufficient financirg, the units
involved in research. am developnent will lose their competitive positions.
Bloom, Allan. '!he Closing of the American M.i.rrl: HOIN Higher Education Has
Failed Denxx::racy am Impoyerished '!he Souls of 'I'oday's students. New York:
Sinon am SChuster, 1987.
Boyer, Ernest L. College: '!he urxiengaduate Experience in America. New York: Hal:per & Row, 1987.
Hirsch, E.D., Jr. CUltural Literacy: What Every American Needs to KnOlN. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987.
Keller, George. Olange. (May/June, 1989).
Marks, Joseph L. SREB Fact Book on Higher Education 1988. Atlanta: SOUthern Regional Education Board, 1988.
Meadows, Iklnella H., Meadows, Dennis L., RaIX:lers, Jorgen, and Behrens, William W. '!he Limits to Growth. universe Books, 1972.
National Research Council. News Report. (May, 1989).
236

Porter, Lyman W. am Mc::Ki.bbin, Iawrence E. Manaaement Education and Develognent: Drift or 'Ihn.1st into the 21st century. New York: Ma;raw-Hill.
Reich, Robert B. '!he New Republic. (May 1, 1989).
Reilly, Kevin. Times-Picayune/states. (June 19, 1985). strayer, George D. (Director). A Report of a SUl:vey of the university System of Georgia. Atlanta: USGA, 1943.
237

Problems have solutions
Paradoxes require resolution
'!he successes of the university System aver the past twenty-five years
paradoxically can cause difficulties for the System. on the public's part,
great expectations flourish: am political, social am econcmic problems are
delivered to the attention of the Regents for solution. unemployment, crime, welfare, small-business develq;m:mt, illiteracy, ccmnuni.ty health, cormnunity
develq;m:mt, irxlustrial develq;m:mt am gerontolCXJical problems are only a partial list of the issues socially prescribed for e::lu.cation's concern am potential solutions. '!he IlDre success in solvirg these am other problems
confrontirg Georgians, the IlDre expectations are raised for successful conclusions to be ac::c:carplished by the System.
'!he University System has attempted, in each case researched, to determine practicable approaches to "solvirg" problems. '!he general public does not always distinguish between:
a. Problems which are subject to solution, am
b. Paradoxes which can not be solved but which must be, in each case, "resolved."
A Paradox is a set of multiple facts each of which alone is tnle, but when taken t<:XJether cannot be rationalized hanooniously. When a policy-maker considers an issue a problem, when, in fact, the issue is a paradox, energy,
time, am resources are wasted in futile attenpts to solve that which can
only be resolved.
Resolution, as opposed to solution, requires the removal of the envirornnent creatirg the real or apparent diletmna. '!he parameters attached to
the paradox's surrourxlings must be cl'lan3'ed am the peripheral elements
rerroved or re.arraI1CJed. since these steps require both time and managerial effort, the factor of patience is involved. Demarrls for over-zealous efficiencies can defeat attempts to cl'lan3'e the situation supportirg the paradox.
one method of resolution is the adoption of the m::>st favorable posture,
on balance, with the diletmna, thus cc:mi.rg to tenns with the insoluble. C0existence combined with um~ allows realistic appraisal of the constraints on the policy-maker. In this sense continuity becomes a fom. of resolution.
238

As it is administratively unproductive to confuse problems with paradoxes, it becanes potentially hannful to soun:l administrative practice to consider the c::cIl'plex paradox as a "contradiction". SUCh a conclusion tends to drive the authority into the position to eradicate all but one of the nultiple truths. Example: In the protests of 1960's, students whose presences were clearly desired by the institution were expelled from the very campus which, on other occasions, they had honored. At the time, the situation was clearly paradoxical ani called for patience ani change in policy. '!he exception to the latter course of administrative action, as prop:JSE!d above, YJOUld depenj on the facts in each case ani whether or not "the clear ani present dan:Jer" dcx::trine walld have applied.
Paradoxes also becx:ane contradictions when the policy-maker fi.n:3s herself or himself unable to acx::ept the existence of the paradox. Again, in higher education, if one can live with nultiple truths, with equanimity, a fo:rm of resolution develops. 'Ihe diversity of campus life encourages this fo:rm of resolution.
Until the nature of the paradox, so ever present in the hmnan condition, is urrlerstood, the practitioner of each profession, vocation, or occupation tends to suffer failures, instead of success, in bringing about the results originally interrled. Education has been plagued with dilemmas for years. Simplistic solutions have been thrown at educators innumerable times. No easy solutions are likely if the college executive is being hoisted on the ho:rns of the dilermna. Simply stated: "a paradox is the truth absurdly put." Every administrator has experienced this fo:rm of gratuitous advice from wellmeaning sources. Without knowing the meaning of the intentions of the administration, sincere advocates of radical departures often suggest actions which can be best exemplified in the quoted Japanese analysis of American marketing techniques recently noted in the NCAA News: "READY, FIRE, AIM." Persons without the responsibility of academic policy-making have assumed knowledge which, in fact, can be gained only fran experience, where paradoxes are encountered.
What must be accomplished for the interrled success in resolving the identified dilemmas is the control of the time factors inherent in the mix of circumstance. 'Ihe technique of resolution requires great patience, and political ani partisan forces do not foster patient management of the paradox in every case. 'Ihe dilermna c::cIl'prises equally weighted solutions but the advantage of one alternative subsequently poses complex decisions to administrators: (1) the dilermna's dual c::cIl'pOnents are not easily reconcilable but are mutually opposed; (2) each "hom" of the dilermna, taken in consideration alone, has value or merit ~ se but is costly to the administrator when used alone, ani (3) the "ho:rns" are renovable only if the erwirornnent creating the specific "hom" is changed sufficiently in Jdnj or degree.
239

'!HE PARAOOX OF DATA VS. 1NRH'ATIal
"In the place of tnrth we have di.soovered facts. For IlX)ral
absolutes, we have substituted IlX)ral ambiguity. we I1C7iI camnunicate
with everyone am say absolutely not:h.i.n:J."
Ted Koppel, D.1ke University ce:mmence.ment address, D.1ke Magazine 73,5 (July - Aug. 1987) 35-36.
one very experienced researcher declares that "it is becoming very
difficult to secure infonnation frc:m the sources produciIg the data you seek,
am once the data is forthcan.i.rg, it is a.l.m:lSt i.np:lssible to secure from the
data's own source exactly what the research received actually means." Another senior administrator declares, "you have to live with infonnation systems which give you IlX)re than enough data l:ut fail to separate the significant frc:m the irrelevant."
In the process of gatheriIg facts for evaluation, the investigator in the field of higher education is made conscious of a climate of inertia. On occasion, the researcher can experience an environment of resistance.
'!he paradox faciIg the university System: '!he IlX)re current "feed-back" is needed in this era of dramatic c.han3'e, the IlX)re the infonnation absolutely necessary for insuriIg optimum decision making is arriviIg in highly con:litioned fonn.
same of the causes of feed-back difficulties were examined and the authors noted some of the justifications. same of the forces at work
limitiIg tilnely data production are listed belCM:
(1) By far the leadiIg inhibitor to volunteer research is the feeling that the research results are not honored with serious contemplation by those for whom the research was carrpleted. '!he assessment team also was
apprised that this work could receive similar treatment.
(2) Many data am research productions are received in a highly corrpetitive
enviromnent, and the material can suffer rebuttal or professional criticism.
(3) rata collection correctly is subject to question. '!he source of the data can be inhibited by the judgment about the "timeliness" of the research, even though all received infonnation is contributory to solviIg the problem being studied.
(4) Adversarial positions in the source material place a burden on the researcher to take care to insure that the extensions of professional
240

courtesy arxi objective balance in the :research are urrlertaken. From the point of time lilnitations, this objective may prove difficult.
(5) CClI!?letely quantified data requires annotation or explanation. 'Ihese requirements necessitate a ''brief'' in SlJRX)rt of a position and such can be too burdensane.
(6) self~ as to bein;J qualified for the :research task, on occasion creates postures of reluctance for the proposed urxlert:akirg.
(7) Personnel with infonnation do not volunteer its sharin;J easily or quickly. '!he work required to provide diffused infonnation imposes additional work ~ ~, arxi the fonn for dissemination necessitates litercuy structurin;J. 'Ihese are major projects arxi are widely angled away fran the scholar's routine.
(8) self-interest positions in academia can abstnIct the would-be researcher by maI'rlatin;J such wide arxi peri};i1eral areas to serve as the central :research targets that the :research is thwarted or, at the least, delayed. Meanwhile such divel:gent interests can "keep the problem goin;J."
(9) Arguments expected over the methodology employed in the quantified data subject matter can deter experienced researchers from desirin;J other parties to make subsequent evaluations. Discouragement replaces readiness to initiate :research if confrontation related to the process of the project is anticipated.
(10) one veteran University of Geo:rgia professor, f'I:M retired, expressed the
adage: "statistics by themselves explain nothing; irxieed, statistics always require explanation!" For the inhibitin;J cause recorded in item #7 of this list set forth above, the explanation of the statistics can diminish the readiness to disseminate the data.
SUch a short list is irxiicative only of the realities involved in the i:mmediate production of infonnation in the University System. Sensitivity to these personal perceptions held by same infonnation arxi data collectin;J authorities can be helpful. '!he ultimate infonnation for the campus managerial corps would provide accurate infonnation regarding all factors affectin;J campus llDrale arxi the detennination, with accuracy, of those operative causes arxi their sources. Administrations allowin;J information vacuums to develop will experience vulnerabilities.
Most certainly it is the self-image of the :researchers, infonnation recorders, arxi the curators of past activities related to the University System that is the chief COnceJ:l1. Researchers' opinions about the subsequent "use" of assembled data revealed same confusion. It is the employment, or non-employment of the work presented in institutional arxi department research arxi infonnation gatherin;Js that concerns the professional infonnation harxilers. '!he authors have been led to believe that the practical side of
data gatherin;J is not always a positive experience. Parameters affecting the
241

developed infonnations' exposures, arxl the contexts in which the resource person's data is beirq used, are areas for awroPriate System sensitivity.
'lhi.s paradox is fai by the use of electronic data gatherirq, camputirq, arxl ccmtI.1Ili.cati.rg capacities enjoyirq incredible rapidity of operation. But
:retention of the past in the fonn of early records am programs apparently
has proven to be difficult. '!he paradox of efficiency of operation versus the inefficiency of storage space utility is a c:onti.nuin;J contest in the system. It was difficult to i.Irp:ssible for the assessors to secure certain data fran the past.
Another element seriously affecti.n;J the receptivity arxl subsequent use of infonnation by unit arxl System leaders is the need for accurate predictions. Knc1tlirq in advance of the future c:1erllaros to be placed on the System delivers that future into the managerial harXls of the leadership. statistics predictirq enrollment, energy expenses, salary levels, and. other administrative predictions about the course of future System and/or unit needs are invaluable executive assets if such projections are proven to be realistic. As Tan Peters declares, on his pmlic broadcastirq program, "authority does not build organizations, confidence does. " Confidence building relates directly to accurate forecastirq of events, problems, solutions, arxl experimentation in human oJ:gani.zations.
To the contrary, beirq in error distw::bs arxl sometimes diminishes the projectors' capacities to build arxl maintain the appropriate confidence.
'!he resolution of these dilenunas deperxis on the successful employment of the System's CMI1 people. Strangers to the System can only advise or provide
infonnation, which the System's CMI1 PerSOl'lI'1e1 have already made available to
the visitirq professional adviser. '!he expert fran outside the System, more than likely, is deperx:lent on the same infonnation as that previOUSly encountered by the System's CMI1 sources.
Research. results, designed to be the basis for developing new institutions, adding programs to units, or measures to conserve expenditures, can became sources of conflict. SUch data cannot be dismissed, but continued contestirq of their different results delay sourrl decisions. Adversarial data are to be expected, arxl this is another factor derived from authorities with different persPectives employirq personalized perceptions as to ''meaning'' arxl ''value'' of the data.
'!he IOOSt i.np:>rtant feature of the assessments relatirq to research, data-qatherirq, infonnation collectirq, arxl relatai subjects is its future exPectations. No discipline has a brighter tcm::>rrow, arxl the Perfectirq and synchronizing of technique are acceleratirq. In an article on networking in ECU<X:M REVIEW, (Vol 24, NO.2, Slnmner 1989), Michael M. Roberts states that the future for a "National Network" is very bright. V. P. Roberts reviews work toward this goal beirq accorrplished by the Federal Coordinatirq Council on SCience, Engineering, arxl Technology. senator Albert Gore Jr. is recalled as the sponsor of S. 1097, "'!he National High Perfonnance Computer Tectmology Act of 1989" (May, 1989). If these arxl other plans, referenced by the author, are made effective, the opportunities gained thereby are
242

incalculable. Robert's work asks this question (am:>n;J others): "Has a strategic priority for a 'universally' acx:::essible canp.1S-wide network with connections to regional arrl national networks been adopted by your president arrl govemi.n;J board?"
'!his question, am:>n;J others posed by the EJ:lJcx:M article, is vital to the future of the units in the System. withcAlt the ccmni.tment of the necesscuy expense arrl the fontalized intention to participate on even tenns with other Class I institutions, Georgia's aggI:ega.tion of tax-supported institutions will be left be.hi.rrl.
If the world's great i.rrlustry is goirg to be the "knowledge in:lustry," arrl if the gatherirg arrl processirg of infonnation bec:a1e that world's main business function, the University System has to set in 1'OC)tion now (1989) those primaI:y arrl intennerli.ate l'l'W:!dlani.sn arrl activities that promise the I'lCSt support for the canpletion of such interxied p.n:poses.
243

~vs. PI.Am
'!he first carprehensive recq:praisal in 27 years of california's huge system of higher education has fourxi that the quality of teachi.rg has diminished because of an overertP1asis on faculty research.
Atlanta Constitution, August 4, 1987, P 6A
"Ab, never forget we can only stave off that final degradation, if we mrlte the liberal arts, which embody the sacred fire of
sensibility, with the sciences am
the useful arts without which the celestial light of reason will elisappear. "
Quoted by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard Prof. in his coltnnn in the June 1989 issue of Natural Histo:ry Magazine, entitled '''!he Passion of lavoisier", quotirg lacepede's address for honor of the guillotined martyr-chemist.
Professor Gould's quotation refers to the "final degradation" which
stanis for the ignominious am total d.estn1ction of the human race in
lacepede's meanin;r. How many Georgians conceive of the fact that the rational means to human life's continuance relates directly to the question
of how hospitable has been the treatment of, am support for their arts and
sciences? Eve:ry current news digest now reports on one or more aspects on the decayirg corxtition of the natural world. Now, educational institutions are beirg called upon directly to instruct the population in ''ways that COlUlt" (as one scholar noted).
At various ti.m:!s in the Past histo:ry of the System's mrlts, institutions basically non-technical in course offerirgs expressed a willingness to give
consideration to the adding of technical am applied science courses to their
curricula. Similarly, technical institutions (Georgia Tech for example) are not averse to adding courses which will broaden the offerings available to their matriculants. ''What counts", educationally speaking, changes with the
ti.m:!s am through the influences of different contests between and among the
national COncen1S.
244

'Ihese examples reflect the paradox of c::cxrpetirg educational values seeki.rg to capture the m::>st accepted IXJSition of eligibility to claim the title ccmnensurate with that which "a truly, wel.l-educated person in the late
20th centw:y west:enl world shalld IXJSsess, in college am university
leami.rg, through the ma.sterirg of what subject matter."
Another explanation consistent with the example above is the academic contest between curricular c1lan1e versus the holdirg fast to the traditional CXJUrSeS' schedules. '!his contest is rot a sin;le academic debate about a course substitution, nor is it a conflict about one discipline's major thrusts. '!his depiction of great differences, in the orientation of degree offerirgs operatirg on the carrpJSeS, is best SlUlmE!d up by the distinguished Professor Emeritus of English, Edward H. Rosenberry, University of Delaware. His address in November 1988, reported in the Sprirg 1989 Issue of the Key Reporter Vol. 54, No.3, published by Fhi. Beta Kappa, celebrated the University of Delaware's first third of a centw:y of its own local chapter's history.
Professor Rosenberry's wide scope focused on Prof. Allan Blooms' published views that "the heart of a liberal education is (or should be) Plato's Republic " '!he Rosenberry 8.};.Praisal illuminated the Bloom support of the traditional as opposed to "every warrlerin; wirxl (of c1lan1e in subject matter) as to conp::>UIrl the very ignorance they ProPOSe to dispel."
'!he main thread of Professor Rosenberry's analysis of the Bloom view is a self-revelation of his insight to the effect that what "troubles me (Rosen-
berry) about Bloom, am his cohorts of the right (academically), is that they
are Platonists in an Aristotelian world."
'nle learned discourse focuses on the dual objectives of the "holding fast to that which is gcxxl", but a~ "it (education) does require acconnoodation of that which is to be learned to the mi.rrl of the prosPective lean1er. "
'nle lecturer stressed how pragmatic society is am that the
contemplation of academic leadership about what will work for the :irx:lividual campus, in "openness" of course developnent, is a strength. Rosenberry's
dictum "'nle stance called Aristotelian, while admittedly pragmatic, is not a
denial of idealism.... "
'nle Paradox relatirg'to these academic POStures ext:e.ms itself in time.
Because the System's leaders on the carrpJSeS must adopt pragmatic and relativistic stances, the a~ of non-traditional courses will continue.
Whatever the ''mission'' of the unit, there will be a continuous stimulus to c1lan1e when alternative opportunities appear. New courses confront the
inplace curriculum am "art am technology are buildirg on the Past but not
dwellirg in it."
'nle Regents have reacted to c1lan1e in a productive manner, am the
buildin; process has accomrnodated many mission c1lan1es ano~ the units of the
System. From this experience, am with the thrusts on combined learning
discussed above, the question of seeki.rg a "sirgle mission" with which to
245

define the institution's future category of i.nte.med achievement, is
debatable. one aspect of the characteristics of educational organizations is the cc:arp.l1sion to stratify the strocture sez:virg as the vehicle for the
delivery of scholarly sez:vices to the p.1blic bei.nJ served. '!he IOOSt limiting
force which can be experienced by a college's personnel is to be boun:i by the
operational vision specified as the ''mission.''
If the need to "classify" the unit arises, as opposed to allowing openness of offerirgs, financial decisions can be expected to detennine the category in which the specific unit in the System will have its designation. In the period 1932-34, nulti-canplS duplication of educational offerings were
foreclosed am sane units were reassigned new academic objectives of public
sez:vice.
On the other hard, if a potential University System QBE program designed
by the C'harx::ellor, the Regents, am the System's academi c leadership is
activated, it will terrl to insure the preservation of the worthwhile academic values in tJ::ust to this present generation of scholars in Georgia's System. SUCh nulti-year conunitment to higher education will weigh heavily in favor of resistirg budget cuts in years of possible shortages in state revenues.
In the "Drivirg Force" segment of this work, the roles of the classics
am basics (am their contributions to the ideal of the synnnetrical
personality) are stressed in their worthiness for preservation.
Nevertheless, nore technical am scientific course content, nore
practical subject matter, and nore "applied" course work are predicted for scheduled curricula in the university System. '!he drivirg force, among
others stimulating the unit's desire to increase new am different course
offerings, reflects concern for enrollment numbers to save, or add support to, the budget of the unit. '!he worn, "ce:att:>rehensive", as a descriptive title is an attractive reality to the ambitious canp1S leadership, and its
use denotes both variety am size in curricula.
Time is change. Integrative forces are at work on every level. '!he cultural subjects, sez:ving as the sources of PersOnal enrichment of lifevalue pa1:ten'lS, must be preserved. '!he savirg of that life, however, depends
on scientific knowledge am applied technology.
Can the University System make sure of both objectives?
246

Partial success argues that it is better than no success! But it is the supreme act of self-justification for failure of the whole.
"I did the best I could" becanes a paralyzin:J ~n am
inhibits the willin3ness to envision am effect positive change.
'!he Paradox of "partial success" can be a misleadi.rg phenomenon in the
realm of higher education. It is referenced nost often as a justification of
one's efforts am can be claimed with self-satisfaction by its practitioners
unless the dilenuna's absurdity is focused.
Author Robert G. Kraft writin;J in an article in aIANGE, June/July, 1987, POSeS the higher education dilenuna: Dr. Kraft repeats the boast of the fictional teacher of English who says, "If you sucx::essfully reach 10% of your students, you are a good teacher." Kraft continued with the hyPOthetical auto mechanic who asks, "If I fix 10% of the autos in my shop am I a good
mechanic?" or, if the doctor says, "I save 10% of my patients." '!he latter
subsumes a 90% death rate. "Partial success" terrls to be a negative factor as an educational philosophy, am, in use as an explanation, its absurdity is
heightened. Partial success, however, is better than no success, and progress toward an educational objective evidences at least same improvement in obtainin;J results. '!he paradox c::ampourrls when the justification of the low-percentage reco:rd leads to the diminishment of the organization's l1Dtivation to substitute a high percentage effort in place of the partial success defense.
Obviously, the success rate of the teachin;J effort of the University System is nnlch higher than 10%.
'!he real problem, as far as the University System is affected, lies in the excuse for mediocrity inherent in partial success errleavors. '!he scene is set on the academic stage for the Perf0nner's self-judgment that the effort completed ''was the best I could do"! '!his assessment undennines the reachin;J for, or the bein;J pushed toward, excellence. '!he PersOn, or the institution, never detennines what achievement level is possible. Individuals never discover that which is in fact "their best."
Two forces inte:rdict the partial success claims of educational efficiency ratin;Js. Both are referenced in other contexts in this work.
'!he first is the criticism of the partial success claim expressed in
considerations of conunercial am irrlustrial interests, i. e., taxpayers and
donors. '!he position articulated best by an outstanling executive is that "the System nn.lSt operate with i.ncreasecl production retunls" in keepin;J with the improved aCCO\ll1tability of American business. More results from the
247

i.np.rt of all resources nust obtain in the same manner American competition has proven able to do in the face of off-shore ecorx:mi.c dlallerges. From the stampoint of these business leaders a sucx::ess rate of Verj high percentages nust hecxToe the measure of success in academia by which out-put (1ean1ed <Jraduates) relates positively to in-put (fi.nar=ial SUWOrt of the System).
'!he sec:om throst c::onfrontin;J those who would justify high failure rates
in the ranks of students - scholars is the realization by the PeOples of the nation an::l state that the infonnation age an::l high tech awlications are upon us. '!he:future eJq)eCtations for Georgia cannot entertain a serious loss-rate
aIOOn:3' the educatable Part of its pc:p1latial. "Dropouts" are lost invest-
ments. In the first instance, the previously experrled academic time an::l furrls can not be used for their i.nten:led fulfil1Jnent; in the secorrl instance, the productive capacity of the missin.;r student-graduate is tmavailable for potential support to society.
'lWo objectives nust seI:Ve as the acx::eptable goals for public higher education: "the setting of high eJq)eCtations" for all who influence arrl teach; the nonitorin.;r on scheduled cx::casions of the procedures designed to implement the fonnalized eJq)eCtations.
settin.;r such eJq)eCtations an::l nonitorirg these eJq)eCtations with positive procedures for raisin.;r <Jraduation an::l :retention rates are a necessity if improvement in these areas are to obtain. Provisions for facilitation of "re-entry" into the mainstream of student life also should be reviewed. Tracking students' progress with follow-up conferences with students shall continue to be a major help for those on the borders of scholastic separation.
Partial success can be tunled into genuine sua:::ess through implementation of these "high eJq)eCtations". '!he latter, however, nust be pre-set with fonnality an::l publicly acknowledged as the initiation point upon which to activate the ltK)nitorin.;r procedures needed.
248

'JBE B!\RAIXlX OF IHIRINSIC VS. ~ C REJiARIE
'!he dertlarDs of academia inpose a profam verdict on the academic pcp.tl.ation: '!he steady, oonsistent academic perfonner is not always
sufficiently regarded, while the risirg star, perfonnirg tmique research am
p,lblishirg novel fi.n:!in3s, is often rewarded primarily for being different.
'!he university System has no clearly recognized reward system for those
who "starrl am team".
Admi.nistra.tive preference for acaderni c professionals of national stature
am reputation, based on published research, nms head.-Ion;J into the need am
affection for the case of the oonsistently active tead1er, a veteran of years of diligent service. '!he latter naturally expects rewards for her or his labors in the classroan.
In the teadling profession pride of PersOnal effort am applied
stan:lards of professional practices too often have been their own rewards. IIrlividual dedication (dem::>nstrated by IOn;J hours, arduous teamer
preparations, am total commitment to the task. of instruction) does not
en;Jerrler autanatic recognition. Prestige, prc:aootion, pay increases, am
ackn<::Mledgments of PersOnal worthiness are the expected goals of a great majority of those PersOnnel urxlert:akirg academic careers. '!hese goals are the visible "yardsticks" by whim the professional records the personal progress made in career pursuits.
since the veteran who primarily commits to the classroom am the star-
quality, nationally recognized perfonner are both needed, a dilenuna exists,
am a paradox emerges.
"Psydlic income" was the phrase used in describing academicians'
introsPections through the past years of lean budgets am Southern poverty
cycles. '!he "love of the profession" was the main force which supported dedicated Southern teachers through their life times at near-poverty levels
of PersOnal existence. Pay for college teadling am administrative duties
has inproved over the past three decades. Eam gove:mor has striven to
further this inprovement. outside am matdling :furrls have been available in
growing anounts am varieties to supplement state tead1er salaries.
'!he SOUthern Regional Education Board (SREB) reports, however, indicate a presently less favorable pay scale in the current position of the University System, relative to other state systems in its region. Dr. Joe Marks' data from SREB reflect the "average salary" of all fifteen SREB states.
249

'!he ranki.nJs for Georgia, relative to other SREB states average

salaries, are as follows:

Year

Rank

1978 - 5th

1980 - 2n:i

1982 - 1st

1989 - 6th

(Data received July 1989)

'!he eqilasis of this dilenuna is not the anomt of pay in each case. Pay scales are not always the only item of enployment ooncem.. certain disciplines placed great weight on "load reduction" in consideration of benefits when choices were available; pay was placed sec:orrl, in such cases, to the
prilnacy of "time-off" for scholarly pursuits.

Also, in some instances incame was not as inp:>rtant a factor, in meeting the stan:iard of accreditation, as the reduced teaching load representing classroom enrollment.

'!he veteran teacher's brief argues proven loyalty to the institution and
steady classroan perfonnance. '!he owosed position emphasizes reputation and
expertise in advanced research. '!he issue can become both highly emotional
and divisive. Are classroan teaching am students' concerns, in and out of
the classroan, as inp:>rtant to the department as the fact of maxinn.nn research
effort with a mi.niJmnn time spent in teaching, or in the time spent for con-
tacting of students? Both of these two sets of capabilities are sought after
in one professional life. Which set of characteristics am abilities pre-
dominates in the personality of the applicant poses the dilenuna to the
employing authority when limited funjs obtain, or when special needs appear
in opp::>rtunities to choose between future academic programs.

certainly, the possession of research record prominence, with
publications in current circulation, am currently perform:in:J in a recognized
leadership role in the discipline are the characteristics which prevail most often in the employment competition. But what happens to the pay scale of
the long-service employee when both types of professionals are already employed - sometimes in the same deparbnents?

Another element of this dilenuna is the recently adopted remuneration
practice in some System areas of ''marketability'' as a factor in assessing
scholarly perfonnance. '!he "rewards" system historically operating in faculty contract, tenure am pay negotiations was not dominated by comparable
pay-scales, then on-going, in a given discipline's identical ranks nationwide. To the contrary, for many years the system's employee was infonned of
this region's less vigorous economic resources am that subsequent appro-
priation of fewer tax dollars for higher education could be expected
annually. '!he lack of funjs for the System was discussed freely. OUr
region's erwy of other, richer sections of the nation was stated frequently and expectations of shortages of funjs were realized too often.

In this era of more available tax dollars for public higher education's support, the position is reversed in part. '!he veteran teacher, in this

250

example, erllfilasizin} student contacts ani classroan teachin;J, is made aware that ''market-wise'', in tenos of her or his replacement theoretically, the department must consider CClll'pClrable salaries in profile with national pay scales of similar teachers with similar rank experience ani credentials.
'!he elOOtions of the long-servin} professional are stimulated by the subjective concem that herjhis next fiscal year salary may have been limited because the noney, otherwise available for the veteran's salary, is believed to be utilized as renu.meration for the star-quality perfonner. In addition, at the time for the initial hirin}, carparisons with beginning salaries experrled on other campuses, in similar situations, are used to justify the new ani higher salary scale designed to iniuce the new prospect to join the faculty.
'!he generalfeelin} discovered through this assessment points to the need to publicize ''marketability'' as one of the criteria to be allied with sel:Vice, research, etc. stro.cturin} the exact corxlitions precedent to the securin} of eligibility for raises ani establishing their dimensions are becoming matters of grave import to faculty IlDrale.
In addition, any academic \.Dlit of the System offerin} a Ph.D. program must have faculty heavily involved in publishable research if the unit is to prepare (teach) its doctoral students for a sourrl academic career. '!his fact of academic life deItlal'Ds that teachin} ani research be inseparable.
To acxxxnplish the aforesaid objective, the ilnbalances found in the System's salary schedules are necessary. Without personal ani professional scholarship in the ranks of the research-publishing faculty membership, scholarly discovery fades from the realm of expectations.
At the same time each teachin} \.Dlit in the System requires steady and quality classroom perfonnance fran cx::mni.tted professionals whose individual perfonnances result in the inspiration ani instruction of their students. In practical tenos, the need to publish ani to engage in scholarly research is given greater weight in many \.Dlits; teachin} takes secon:l place if one desires professional acknowledgment in that particular discipline and department.
'!he problem is highlighted by the fact that each discipline and each unit of the System oPerates its reward system on a self-developin} basis. At the time of original employment, the new employee may experience administrative errphasis on classroom teachin} ani beneficial student-teacher contact. However, the passage of time can brin} changin} educational policies to bear in the fonn of new criteria in the support required for merit raises, leavin} the heavily involved classroom ani student-oriented professional behin:l. With such change in errphasis, the veteran faculty member's skill and professional style are not the focus of new policies when the college's ~ are repositioned.
No University System policy was discovered which directly addresses this question of the honorin} and cultivatin} of professionals with merit pay
251

provisions who are emphasizing the time, effort, ani use of classroan skills in lieu of following the research ani publishing track.
Georgia needs this presence of teac::hin:J skills pIt into action through
experienced academicians whose dedicatioo to the task are essential to the
state's population's iIrprovemant. A ''Partial success" exanple is the fact of
the existence of the high illiteracy rate in Georgia. However, it is certainly troe that even a small success is better than no success at all. '!he Atlanta Jounlal/constitution, SUn::3ay, April 30, 1989, editorialized the continuance of wide1y-fourxl illiteracy as listed in the state's latest statistically publicized figure: Page (6-D) contains the figure of "1,700,000 persons" as being not functionally literate. Various suggestions are given for the issue's solution ani paradoxically great efforts are being attercpted by all levels of public ani private education in this area of public concern.
Georgia needs both teaching ani research fran its faculties. can
Georgia pay for both? With the growing rn.nnber of emowments and special university System recognitions, salcny "canpressibility" becomes an increasingly harmful problem for the non-publishing segment of the faculties. Loss of valuable and experienced teachers, ani their early retirement, teni to became a growing trerrl.
salcny iIrprovement occurs annually at Il:St levels on the System's pay scales. Recognition of ou.tstarxling achievemant ani responsibility utilize ccmnensurate1y higher aIOOUI1ts. In canparison with other states, however, the loss in relative position of Georgia's publicly-supported pay scales is set forth in the previously referenced report by the SOUthen1 Regional Education Board: the figures therein call for immediate iIrprovement. Conscious awareness of the need to be competitive with other states is the first step. Financial forecasts admit to the probability of negative economic conditions becoming a reality in 1990's. '!he build up of the bases of all salcny schedules is essential. Unless the base salcny position is given attention, the able classroan teacher, who has chosen one avenue of service for PersOnal professional emphasis, will suffer Il:St when furxls are restricted ani salcny canpressibility occurs.
'!he university System must provide q:p::>rtunities for increased rewards for the classroan perfonner.
252

When furxiirg is provided for a time ani then abruptly withdrawn, the upteaval ani lost nanentum often leave institutions in greater disarray than was the case at the initiation of the experience.
''We the people, in order to fo:rm a lOOre perfect mUon, establish justice, insure dcmestic tranquility, provide for the <::XJnm)n defense, prarote the general wrel.fare ani secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves ani cur posterity . " (Constitution of the
U.S.A.)
withaIt federal ani state furxiirg, higher education's past ani present would have entirely different dlaracteristics. '!he c:x:rrplexions of college
ani mUversity enviromnents would not be recogniZable, ani academia's reality could not satisfy the <ieJnanjs ani desires of the present day population. In
this l..U'rlerstan:l lies the educators' confidence that such support will
continue.
'!he issues for presidents, deans ani directors of development is a continui.rg dilemma: "How to raise m:>ney beyorrl allocated furxiirg ani please all the constituents siImlltaneously." '!he paradox arises from the fact that operations of the mUt require llDre m:>ney than the ancunts fun:led by the state ani federal sources. '!his need reflects the high level of competition anx>ng ani between institutions competirg for the same donors, foundations, ani potential enrollment populations. 'Ihese prrsuits are accomplished in part, through educational "marketirg" techniques, ani such techniques make non-goverrnnent :furrls necessary. Marketirg the institution with dynamic social ani educational enviromnents is financed through donations and take the fo:rm of hospitality.
'!he tuition source for public educational financing is another paradox: '!he best scenario for students, low ani ever-lower tuition charges, is at variance with educational management's needs. Educational management would appreciate retainirg arrj savings from operations. In years past, a university System president was reported as sayirg, "It did not pay him (the president) to be a good business manager (of the institution)." His meaning, though misun:lerstood, was that savirg from operations were not allowed to accumulate for future campus use, but such saved :furrls were returned to their
source.
Another paradox merges when alten1ative tax or government-sponsored income plans surface. Recent debates concemin:J legaliZed lottery operations fourrl that experienced educators reacted slowly to projected income for taxsupported institutions to be so derived. Educators consider that an alten1ative source of education's financi.rg may result in the reduction of other taxes ani that the college's i.nccme substitution will result in no growth in the total operatirg budget.
253

-:.;".'!":
sane mrlts propose chargin;J ''premium'' inccme to pay for special course content am instJ::ucti.on. In addition the premium inccme can produce a
potential surplus fran such operations. Added to the concept's attractiveness is the plan's objective of the unit's right to acannulate such savings for the optional use by the unit's awz:q:>ri.ate later decision. "Premium" tuition is a favored altemative to many System leaders. SUch programs must
justify their claiJns of excellence am, if successful, will stimulate other
disciplines to uniertake si1nilar course upgrad:irg.
Tuition income in the University System is designed to produce 25 percent of the total System budget. System executives believe that this
benchmark creates a grid-lock which the future course of events will
chal.lerge.
Another dileJ1Ulla faces the presidents. A one-time wimfall gift conlitioned on its maintenance or the receipt of :furx3s for operating a project cannot be financed with certainty in the following annual institutional budget. '!he dileJ1Ulla is IOOSt pronounced if the gift requiring further or special upkeep is valuable but its presence is not "costproductive". 'lhe principle is clear; state financing is too restricted for all educational promises to be fulfilled.
'!he emphasis in this context bears on the quez:y: will financial support be increased through federal furxling provisions to justify high expectations
in the pursuit of excellence for America's colleges am mrlversities?
Federal furxling of education is of cnrparative1y recent date. Meaningful support began in 1934. Specifically the initiation of the Public Works
Administration am the National Youth Administration in the 1930's provided new buildin;Js for the canp.1S am paid the way through college for thousands
or erstwhile students trapped in the worst of depressions.
World War II furxled laboratories, technological equipment, buildings and personal financing for program participants in the 1940's. It can be noted once again, that the driving force of our National Purpose in preserving peace through preparedness, is the source, in:lirect in many cases, of the support provided to higher education generally.
'!he latest data, exerrplifyin;J direct support of Georgia Tech's capacities for these Jd.njs of seJ:Vices, are reported in the Atlanta Joumal/COnstitution, (A-15,page 1), issue of July 2, 1989: OVerall Research was listed in the amount of 120 million dollars; 88 million being sponsored by the "Pentagon". 'lhese furxls support staff personnel for general
project preparation am other seJ:Vices. 'lhe report i.n::li.cated the essential
nature for Georgia Tech's success in research by the presence of these latter
fuOOin:Js (FY 1988).
Anong federal aid programs for education, the G. I. Bill was the premier success in the long histo:ry of federal furxling with its multiple effects on post-secordary education. 'lhe tenn correctly applied was, and is now, the ''multiplier''. So many benefits accnled to the national ranks of vocations, occupations and professions through the activities prom:>ted by this fom of aid that a united states without its influences is hardly conceivable. In
254

the absence of G.L Bill benefits, no national reservoir of human skills am.
cultural attitudes, so llIlCh in demani in the 1980's, ~d exist for the direct inplementation of our national goals ani cha11~.
A later ani JOOSt profourxi shot-in-the-ann given to general education was generated by the sucx::ess of SroINIK. '!he recent histo%Y of major furxling efforts to build a scholarly base for our SPACE program generally is well remembered. Ihysics ani mathematics ~ becx:me well-marked in forward
budgetin:J schedules. '!he hamessin:] of academic elements to the forwarding of the national purpose was an out:starni.n:J achievement of the space race.
Personnel in the university System oontributed to the national competitiveness in the space race.
NCM, in the 1980's, the furxling fran federal sources is slCMing up by the canparisons with higher eduction's needs as measured against other political appropriation decisions. with the exception of education programs
clearly qualifying umer the appropriate federally-:furrled "TITlE", designed
for the use of funjs to achieve a specific result, federal furxling has become
less available. same of the areas of support ani iITprovement of higher
education targeted by TITlE concems are:
Connmmity 8eJ:Vice am. Continuing Education Program College Li.b~ Assistance ani Li.b~ Training am. Research
S ~ Developing Institutions Student Assistance Educations Professions Development Financial Assistance for the Inprovement of Undergraduate
Instnlction Constnlcting of Academic Facilities Networks of Knowledge Graduate Programs Community Colleges ani Oc:x:upational Education raw SChool Clinical Experience Program General Provisions
Education Amendments of 1972
General Provisions Relatin:] to the Assigrnnent or Transportation of
students
Prohibition of sex Discrimination
'!hough not all of these programs provide financial iITpact directly on higher education gg se, their secc>n:3ary consequences are designed to render holistic ani positive results. '!he university System has arranged the proper iITplementation of the requirements for eligibility in the appropriate areas of assistance.
'!his national competition for federal dollars poses a genuine dilemma.
Global commitments, goverrnnent operations, am. national infra-structure
facilities require a considerable am:JUllt of the tax dollars. SUch on-going operations - plus agencies of defense, welfare, w::Dan grants, and capital constructions - take precedence over post-sec::c:n:3ary academics.
255

'!he el1Jilasis on the subject of federal ft.n'ni..nJ derives fram both it's
magnitudes, especially durin;J the past forty years, am the dilenunas it
presents. One of the latter is the federal ft.n'ni..nJ in large aIOOUI1ts for the
developnent of a specific outocme, or experditures budgeted to attain a targeted d::>jective. In the Jdmsa1 era, many pl:CXJLarns, especially for
specific neighbo:rhood am ULban efforts were offered to higher education to
develop potential academic-based solutioos to human problems, representin;J a wide ~e of national COl'lCen1S. For these m.nnercus projects money flowed aJ:Junjantiy. '!hen the furrls dried up, other matters concerned co~, or
the projects were victiJILs of their own operatin:J mistakes.
'!he dilenma lies in this "stDp-am-go" operatin:J style. After generous
ft.n'ni..nJ availability at the start of the project, the furrls began to cb:y up.
Like botanical specimens, heavily watered when planted am subsequently
allowed to cb:y out thereafter, the discouragement to the academic users and
beneficiaries of the early, plentiful ft.n'ni..nJ was tratnnatic. Where some
scholars were involved in these projects, lIDre grc:Jl.lni was lost than had been gained originally. '!he projects died. Personnel, hired to serve the short-
lived projects connected to the colleges am tmiversities were separated fram
their enployment.
'!he "stop-and-go" experience was encountered in ani after the Nixon era. EsPecially heavy was the ULban thrust ani, for the first ti.Ire, the term "plight of the cities" noted. '!he:funjs were plentiful early in the life of the furxied project. "Soft money" became a much used term. Academic interests were thoroughly stimulated and very heavy, basic, long-tenn commitments were concluded with reasonable assurances of multi-year relationships between the scholars ani the social-goal projects.
'!he ItDney was wanted ani needed by IIDSt participatin;J units in the System. New opportunities for service came into place. ULban areas began to receive the ki.rrl of benevolent treatment through educationally sound urrlert:aki.ngs similar to those enjoyed by the agricultural population. It was considered that the benefits of the CXllm1:y agent program for non-ULban areas could be replicated through "ULban agents."
'!he latest example of "stop-go-stop" federal ft.n'ni..nJ is the threat to
GeoLgia Tech's 88 million dollar goverrment furxied Pentagon research. In reference made to the July 2, 1989 article in the Atlanta Journall Constitution, restrictions are enacted into law govenrlng the offerings of contracts to higher education on a "lowest bid" procedure. Tech officials noted that the expense of staff salaries could not be carried under such a system ani such staffs are an absolute requirement in order to have on harrl trained personnel capable of properly preparin;J ani making the project bid.
'!he IIDSt competitive avenue of federal ft.n'ni..nJ affectin;J education's
fortunes is the financial provision in the united states for the "general welfare". Both academics ani welfare motivate the altnlistic instincts of the citizeru:y.
'!he theory supportin;J higher education's claim for more state and federal :funjs is fourxied on very nearly every political forecast statement
256

am businessman's criticism when on the subject of the future, in their declarations that education must solve the literacy problem am introduce the
pcpl1ation to the "high tech" 1990's. In short, if the population is educated properly for the 1990's climate, the pcpl1ation will not be irrligent, i.e., education, if furxied appropriately, can reduce the deperrlency on social programs.
Americans are :reactive to need. As lc:n; as social programs are needed,
p,lblic turx:Is will be split, am the resolution of these two horns of the
dilemma is the adjus1::lIEnt, IOOSt in balance, with their presences in everyday
life. '!he voters decide.
'!he cc:mpetition between the costs of Ul:Dan decay in the more populous
cities am the unmet needs of higher education can not be set aside. Dr.
'Iheodora Gross in the June/July issue (1987) of Qlange links illiteracy to the "general disintegration of the American citiesthat in every political crisis, these leaders (political officials) knc:M that voters consider education of secorrlary :inIportance "
'!he econcmic am cultural powers of the city are necessary for the
educational institutions placed aIt:>n;J them. At the same nanent, these Ul:Dan areas need the same support essential to the ~ of excellence on their campuses. Most of our pcpl1ation are I'lCM citizens of Ul:Dan aggregations and the colleges and universities must strive to make these Ul:Dan complexes
viable am beautiful experiences in human contexts.
'!he proposition may, be stated: If education succeeds in defeating
illiteracy, and makes available human am cc:mpetitive skills resulting in the
alleviation of poverty, the savings in social costs could free tax dollars for use by higher education. '!he burden is an education. How much higher education can be held responsible for failure to thrust back ignorance and illiteracy is a continuing question. '!he iJrprovements made in teacher
education by the units of the System for better am wider leanring for all
Georgians are results of conscious awareness of this need. Yet, the institutions producing the certified classroom instructor must assess not what is accomplished, but what must be done in tenns of outcome. '!he climate has changed. Earlier, the measure of evaluating teacher education, and other programs as Well, was "how much" are we able to measure in the fonn of
"input". Now it is the accountability thrusts which constitute the bases for
measuring success in the production (output).
'!his deperrlence, in matters of academic assessment, still justified at
present by the a:lOOUI1ts of monies, am on the quantity of other resources,
which goes "in" the project or program is based on tradition. Southern poverty fonnerly made this test of fol:Ward camnitment of resources a much desired measure of efficient decision-making, Today, University Systems' many constituencies seek a change: it is the outcome, the quality as well as the quantity of pro:luct, which is marrlated..
will academic reverse the respective position of "input" and "outcome" from the point of assessment as to which of the two benchmarks is the more
:inIportant?
257

~.. ,'"
When asked this question, one veteran scholar said, "we all talk about accountability. outcome is the proof of sucx::ess (or failure) where accountability governs Perfonnance rewards. But, in practice, we do not really wish to be measured arx:l be held aCCOlmtable. '!he graduated student must still prove herself or himself arx:l we (scholars) cannot be accountable for subjective treatment of previously taught material."
sucx::essful educational results can a::mvince the voters to weigh the prospects of higher education more positively. Academic "accountability" has yet to secure a sound definitional base. until this result becomes evident, federal f\.n'rli.Ig of higher education will remain insufficient for the demands of the 1990'5.
258

'!HE PAlWXlX OF EFFICIEILY VS. IK>FICIEILY
'!he proficiency of the teachers' academic c:oniuct is IOC>re important to the student than the efficiency of institutional operations.
Efficiency in the operations of organizations am Iilenamena in general, especially those subject to human invention am control, arouses personal
fee1i..n:1s of admiration, even awe, in its observers. Because the application of logical conception is translated into successful perfonnance as inten:led, the entire subject matter acquires a psychological aura of "rightfulness".
!rrlustJ:y's success in increasirg the efficiency of marginal-utility prcxluction concepts encourages in:iustrial scientists, ergineers and business leaders in general to cha1lerge higher education to perfonn IOC>re efficiently. Business leadership has urged higher education to be IOC>re efficient, to save
by minimizirg expense, especially to limit capital am real estate invest-
m:mt. Example of a positive response to the expressed business leadership position can be recalled: since 1945, sane colleges bought or rented basic,
easily noved classroans, foregoirg pennanent buildi..n:1s am academic equipment was rented; all other campus charges am expenses were eliminated which were
not "cost-effective". '!he savirgs were assumed to be used to ilnprove faculty salaries. '!he process of drivirg for IOC>re efficiency in the delivay of
academic services am course content deman:led that all "frills" be
eliminated.
In its Past, as an efficiency measure the University System experienced a major effort, in keeping with the then GoveJ::nOr's directives on the subject, to adopt the innovative "Zero-Based Budgeting" technique. All units in the System were to prePare institutional budgets, emphasizing a complete rebuilclin;J of the financial budgeting elements fram "grourrl zero" . '!he result, overly-silnplified, placed the pro fonna budget in a vertical order of prescriptive importance. '!he priorities were made absolutely clear on a descerrling "packages'" 1istiI'g of cx::.Il'parative institutional significance. '!his operation was inten:led to increase the effectiveness of the delivay systems utilized by Georgia's publicly supported higher education elements. '!here are positive values to be fO\.1Irl in usage of zero-based budgeting.
certainly, on the order of the priorities of values, am the importance of
the relationship to the whole of each segmented part, managerial reduction of budgeted costs can be acx:::amplished IOC>re efficiently.
'!he problem of ilnplementation of a priority-oriented budget is the operative factor of collegial traditions protecting all knowledge and the sources of knowledge. '!he sense of absolute equality of the worth of subject
matter, am the need to preserve all disciplines, are higher education's
sacred trusts. '!he demxratic process, joins with the equality of importance, to justify the expenses necessary to provide general support of
college am university courses of study. '!he widest latitude is given in the variety am rnnnber of courses able to be included in the curricula and each
serves to create the universal knowledge entity.
259

critics, relyin:J on the alleged inefficierx:ies of higher education, question the presence of many cultural, scientific, and artistic artifacts i.Ix::urrin:J expense of original preservation as well as the CXJSts of providing for such items to be housed subsequently. other criticisms attack the ~ inefficiencies as related to yeari:x:)oks, student newspapers, extra-curricula athletics, non-academic fees, etc.; "straight" academic functions only justify fees.
It is the field of institutional operations whim is IroSt likely to arouse speculations as to whether or not such operations' expenses, as budgeted, are cost-productive. '!he institution's largest element of expense in the luiget list is the item of personnel, incltldirg salary schedules, expenses of personnel travel, and the ma:t:c:hi.n1 institutional contributions to expense the annual budget.
Elsewhere in this work, the businessman's view is assessed. can the
college or university meet the tests of potential budget restrictions
expected in the 1990'S? strivin:J for efficiencies in operation is a constant
and daily un:iertakin1, as reported fran the canplSeS camposin:J the System.
'!here are several factors forcin:J this question of "cost-effectiveness", whim is posed constantly by same responsible American and Georgia leadership in cammerce and imustry:
(A) '!he p,lblicized success of American business leaders in getting "greater :ret:urns fran their investments". '!his is a major managerial accomplishment against considerable odds and fuels these leaders' views that higher education should do the same; Le., get 1OO:re qualified results with less public expense and input bein:J required.
(B) Public notice is acknowledged conce:min;;J the closin:J of Parts or all of
certain educational institutions in the period beginning with the constriction of available federal furrling and the en:ling of the era of easy and :readily available "soft lOOney". since 1961 through 1986, the Digest of Educational statistics 1988 (NCES, 1988) irxlicates 37 publiclycontrolled postsecon:lary institutions have been closed, one a 4-year institution. '!his figure excludes branch operations.
By way of explanation, the tenn, "closin:J", includes disciplines'
changes into other fonnats an:l the switc.b.in;J of the colleges' or universities' support fran private to p,lblic or vice-versa. '!he new college organization may have :retained the same name, but completely new financin:J an:l control arrangements now obtain.
Various :reasons are assigned to the discontinuance of educational organizations; nearly all :reflect the absence of availability of funds othe.I:Wise capable of stavin:J off the final decision. stringent operating procedures are initiated when financial exigencies appear. '!he degree of efficiency in the use of scarce resources places the academic entity urrler the cold harxi of audited rnnnbers. '!his means business practitioners, as creditors, trustees, or Regents nnlSt apply their financial starrlards of operational efficiency to the problem. It is considered by experienced operators of private and corporate
260

enterprises that, if efficien:::y ratios are plShed to the maximum, econanic failure can be minimized. 'Ihi.s result requires operating entirely "on the budget" - all else bein; secx:n;iary.
(e) Catpatition has never been so keen, an:1. the leaders of business are strogglin; continually with an:1. against local an:1. global opponents in the CClllpetition for econcmic advantage. 'n1e strain on management is heavy an:1. the ever-increasin; pace of econanic activity is exacting. Executives responsible for 1:xJsiness decisions every day carmot rationalize a less exactirg environment for education's leadership. A J;i1rase, evidencing the psydlology of the situation, was heard to have been stated: "Education's bosses are gain; to have to get with it."
In answer to these production an:1. distribution efficiencies needed to
compete in 1:xJsiness in the 1980's, college an:1. university values have long
st:arrli.nJ praninence. For hurx3reds of years, leStem scholarship am teaching have enphasized the "PerSOn-to-person equation" between instructor am
student. 'Ibis academic process which is the subject of business management concenlS is, or should be, founjed on PersOl'la1 sensitivities. 'Ihe successful
corrluct of the teacher-learner relationship requires a beneficent am
PersOnal experience to be completed by both parties to the learning equation.
'n1e educating processes can be speeded up, rnnnbers of students increased in the student-teacher ratios, an:1. short cuts in the time given to the
student by the teacher. 'n1e results would reduce cultural am scholarly
inputs, which justify the presence of the institution. All such supposed efficiencies denigrate the fact an:1. spirit of that cooperation between pupil
am teacher so essential to success in knowledge acquisition.
I.al:ge classes, multiple answer examinations, scarcity or absence of time available for student-teacher consultation, substitution for the professor by graduate teaching assistants, an:1. other practices of a similar pattern,
demean the college am university realities. Scheduled classes with the
teaching assistant fonnally assigned are excepted fran this judgment. '!he case in point is the absence of the teacher fran her or his scheduled contacts through unpublicized substitution of others. 'n1e student has the right to expect the PerSOn in whose name the course was scheduled to provide instroction. Costs of education are subject to sharp reduction if the expense of full-time, experienced faculty is diminished, but so is the "professional touch".
Proficiency of the teacher, in possessing am exercising her or his
Pedagogical array of professional skills, is ncre ilnportant to the student
than playing the institutional "rnnnbers" game designed to show a savings here
am there, or proving a ncre efficient cost-productive ratio in operations.
'Ihe institution's inpact on neqtlyte students is in direct relationship to
the c::anplete absorption of the student in the course as taught am in the
PersOl'la1ity of the college or university.
'n1e institution's goals-efficiency ratios relative to operations, on
the one hard, am the proficiencies operati.n:J through human contact, on the
other, are not mutually exclusive. But in buildirg the size of the
261

environments, exparxiinJ the numbers' bases of dollars am people, am inc:reasirg efforts to save on time am expenses, all can am do put these two
lNOrthwhi.1e concepts in conflict one with the other. since each of these concepts are "in action" all the tilDe, practice on the parts of the decision-makers is oocurrirg regularly.
savirg cn;t:s by elilninatirg canplS jeD; is predicted to be a reasoned expectancy which will ocx::ur at sane point in the 1990's. To eliminate
counselirg seJ:Vices, student seJ:Vices, maintenance seJ:Vices, am other seJ:Vices ancillary to teachirg am instructi.onal l:uiget will occasion the
loss of the essence of the very persala1ity whidl is i.ntemed to mark the college's or university's character.
HeM this matter is :resolved when finan::ial survival may be in question
is a parannmt matter for present am future study. 'Ihese firxlings do stress,
however, that the proficiency of human con:h1ct is nDre iJrp:>rtant to the student than the efficiency of institutional operations. '!he proficiency fourrl through contact with academic persala1ities will be rarembered by the alumni. when the operation's efficiencies are lost to lllE!IlDry.
In fiNery choice made in each unit's leadership counsels pertaining to its future direction, the subject institution will do well to recall these
often ~tirg institutional characteristics (am their lastirg impacts) and
choose carefully its future route.
~
Koppel, Ted. "Cormnencement address." DJke Magazine. (July/August, 1987). Kraft, Robert G. OJange. (June/July, 1987). Roberts, Michael M. Educom Review. (SUn'mer 1989). Rosenberry, Edward H. Key RePOrter. (Sprirg 1989).
262

'n1e Cllancel.lor's charge to assess "prospectively" the university System
requires the evaluation of academic am administrative judgements affecti.rg
the System's future. Judgements atteIIpt a c:onclusion of fact. Observations consider the facts as they inpi.rge on the problems at bani.
'n1e Obsel:vations set forth in this section relate sane of the peripheral
elements which inpi.rge on academi c decision mak:iIY:J in higher education. '!he
quick academic decision does not always aCCOlm't for its secoOOary
consequences which often awear in a later time frame am (frequently) in a
disguised fonn.
Each problem, or paradox, eIlCOlUltered by the educational leaders occurs in the contexts of its subtle con::litioni.rg patterns. Knowledge of these conditioni.rg factors enhances the decision makers' capabilities for effective executive detenninations.
'n1e managerial goal of the entire system's leadership is to make the "right academic decision in every case". An old maxim states: "Success has a thousan:i fathers, failure is an orphan". 'll1e parentage of academic failure must be identified to insure the best executive decisions. 'n1ese Observations
describe only a few of the realities which affect the Cllancel.lor's am the presidents' decisions nc:TN am in the future.
'Ihe variety of secon::!ary consequences caused by the problem's enviromnent is a1lrost unlimited. Reviews of higher education's data and the views of the System's presidents point to the role of these obsel:ved subjects. Observations in this section address con::litions requiri.rg executive analysis, rarqi.rg from the System's agei.rg process through academic perfonnance degradation to the confronti.rg of student anxiety. 'Ihese academic enviromnent factors can not be ignored if the university System is to advance. Each of these observed educational };ilenanena is potentially capable of serious, even profourxi, secon::!ary inpact. 'n1e Observations emphasize the need for higher education to employ. the IOn;}est look in the
analyses of the problems at harrl am ahead. 'n1e assessment team's
prospective analysis of the future of the System firrls that info:rmed vision is the prime factor insuri.rg the advance of Georgia's higher educational efforts.
263

~
INClF..ASII; ~ mRrICIlWl'.ICB
In (UH;E, (p. 276) 1987, Fonner U. S. o:mni.ssioner of Education, Ernest L. Boyer, states:
''We urge a renewed effort by urxiergraduate colleqes to identify minority students who are camidates for graduate and professional
schools, and :recamne.rxi that colleqes TNOrk closely with schools, am
that the effort begin by brin:Jin} lOOre minority students into college. We also :recamne.rxi that an increase in financial aid fi.Jn:}s - graduate fellowships and loans - be made available to enable minority group students to enroll in, and CCIl'Plete, further education". On page 39, the author specifies that ''by the year 2000 30 percent or lOOre of all students in the p.1blic schools will be from minority groups. and at the federal level, we also strongly recamnerrl that, to neet this need, the Pell Grant Program be exparxied, not diJnini.shed."
'!his quotation succinctly camnuni.cates the observation of these findings that extraordinary budgeting with specific :f1.mii.ng for minority students is the l1DSt practical means available, urder present conditions, to increase the present level of minority participation in higher education.
In analyzing the trerrls in the ratios of minority involvement in higher education, the authors have recognized that two principles for action emerge:
(1) '!he solution to the issue of minority urxiergraduate am graduate school atterrlance am completion is ma.inly a function of econctnic means; (2) the
attractiveness of an educational career and college deperrl on the urxlergraduate's "knowing what to expect", Le., the candidate, if prepared solidly, will not be "smprised".
'!he solution to the economic issue urderlyin} a potential increase in student numbers of college enrollments lies in a specific, long-range connni:t:IlYant of extraordinary :f1.mii.ng. '!he original financial aid should start with direct assistance in the recroiting envi.rormw:mt in order that the minority freshman will be able to enjoy a beneficent initial college experience.
'!he university System now erploys plans and practices designed to increase minority participation. Minority student adviseIrent operates on every System campus. However, sources infonned about the lack of minority enrol1lnents place heavy emphasis on other elements in the college ma.triculation and graduate school envirornnents. '!heir views are based on the practical assessment of the process.
Dr. Boyer, (ibid, p. 40) SOlU"X3s the l1DSt efficiently stated analysis of the camplete problem: "'!herefore, the first inp:>rtant step in ilrproving the un:lergraduate college is to help students ll'OVe fran school to higher education. What is involved is not new ma.rketin} procedures. Rather the goal
264

nust be to provide IlDre helpful infonnation am make it possible for students
to begin with confidence an educational journey that will lead them to the
right college am ext:errl far beycn:l the college years".
In addition to insurin:J econcmic support, the key to stimulating
minority enrollment is the fostering of self-assurance on the Part of the new
freshmen. ConstructiVely "helpin:;J students" to adapt to the envirornnent is an absolute prerequisite for success in attractin:J minority numbers. 'The psychological climate can then beo:Jme an illlportant detenninative factor. For this reason, constant awareness of each campus' "receptivity and assistance to minority students" are prime daily exercises for the institution's policy-makers.
Presidents Billy Black (Albany state COllege) am Ed Fort (North
carolina A & T University) stron;;ly recanmerrl the practice described by and which has been titled, "Intervention". President Black has proposed the basic
plan of contactin:;J 5th, 6th, am 7th grade students by conpetent college authorities in direct am PersOnal meetin:;Js in the students' school rooms.
'Ihese on-the-scene contacts will be used to explain to these students their
need to study, to do quality school work, am to urrlerstand that the proper
choice of course work in the next five grades is essential. Further,
students' goals should be defined am opportunities in college should be made known in a manner both urrlerst:anjable am stimulatin:J to lifelong
scholarship.
OJancellor Propst has foreseen the potential of intervention and the University System in this year's budget (FY 90) has funded six pilot "early intervention" programs. '!hese six "early intervention" pilot operations will provide the Cbancellor's Office with the infonnation detennining their future educational values. All observers hope that "early intervention" will adrieve the premises for increasing successful student entry into postsecondary education.
President Fort, at the North carolina University System meeting of its Trustees, september 6, 7, & 8, 1989 at Appaladrian state University, Participated in the seminar on minority educational matters. He stressed that
contactin:J 11th am 12th grade students for the pw:p:>se of encouraging
matriculation into postsecondary education will not be effective because these efforts occur far too late in the young student's career. '!he seminar stressed that unless this "intervention" cx::curred early in the students' careers (6th, 7th grade), the interned results would be lacking in their fulfillment .
Recognizing the mistakes of K-12 students in their avoidance of the preparatory college arrl university academic courses, Presidents Black and Fort have communicated to their constituent systems in Georgia arrl North carolina a practical solution. Instead of entering frestnnen arriving in college with less than a properly prepared possession of scholarly attributes
am previOUSly practiced learning skills am, subsequently being unable to
make the adjusbnent, the newcaner will have been assisted directly to begin acquirin:;J the academic inventory fram the 6th grade on.
265

In addition, to help the plan of intervention adlieve the hoped-for
success, full c::x:x:lperation of the ''middle'' school officials am faculties is essential. '!he colleges am universities llIlSt first help the middle school
rearran;Je the school's schedule to acx:;n!llu3ate the visitin;;J academicians. Special ca.msellors should be ert'ployed as pe.nnanent staff by the System unit
am the middle school, am the middle school's staff IlIJSt interface with the
postsecorrlaJ:y visitors.
'!he major feature of the program of intervention is the creating of student "access" to college. '!he substantive prOOlem derives fran the fact that to increase stinulation to enroll in college requires personal, physical
am visible collegiate-based de1tDnstration. "Aocess"deperrls, in tunl, on
"Admission 'lhresholds", Le., the technical educational requirements which are the requirements which detennine if the "entry door is q:>en." '!he minimum st:arm.rds for admission, bein;;J the main c:x:ntition of enrollment eligibility,
desezve 1<D3' am careful study by the System's authorities.
Of pr:i..Irmy concem about admission st:arm.rds is the need for the
universal enforcement am continuity of the predetennined requirements. Demoralization of marginally-prepared can:li.dates can result if am when
st:arm.rds are not certain or if the practice of their application gains the notoriety of bein;;J "adjustable". On the other ham, the minimum standards should be flexible within the limits of the stamard. Furt:hel:m:>re, the st:arm.rds should be justified on the basis of aa:xJIuuulation, not on the grouOOs of exclusivity.
'!he st:arm.rds, which should increase access to college or university, must recognize that which is the declared ''minimum'' '!he minimum also requires that no elements for admission :receive additional status once the stamard has been met in OJI'lpliance by the applicant. '!hus the minimum is also the maximum, insofar as the exact specifications which serve to conlition aa:ess to college or tmiversity.
In order to effectuate "intervention" in the middle schex>l, it will not be necessazy for every unit of the System to visit every 6th or 7th grade hane roam. '!he thirty-four units can CINer JOOSt of the state's middle schex>ls at three-year intervals if IOOre frequent visitations cause excessive costs.
'!he on-site middle school counselors, through appropriate am joint
trainin;;J with the System's persormel, would be available to adopt aggressive
academic roles with 6th, 7th, am 8th grade students, in c::x:x:lperation with the
work of the college interventionists persormel. SUCh creative efforts will demarrl IOOre inter-unit cooperation arrl great increases in collaboration between K-12 arrl System authorities.
In addition, the North carolina conference of trustees arrl executives added the followin;;J lists of the additional elements which, if translated into action, will best serve to increase minority enrollments: (a) Provide scholarships specifically designed to acx:x:rrplish the increase of minority participation as outlined by Dr. Earnest Boyer (see, supra). (b) Develop cooperative work-scholar programs allowin;;J the orientation of minority students to be acx::elerated in buildirg the necessa:ry "confidence" while
266

simultaneously solvirg the financial p:rct>lem. In:iustry, c:x:mnerce, finance,
am personnel services finns IlU.1St be made intentional am contractual parties
to the plan on a nulti-year cCillmi:bnent to the program. (c) Provide financirg of academic expenses for the regular school year in a pre-arran::red program of summer lNOrk. Available jabs in off-season, tied to subsequent scholastic en:leavors are stressed as an integral part of the proc31:am. If the aforesaid
factors are not operative, it is necessary to tmn to "grants, loans, am
other TNOrk- study" availabilities designated specifically to provide financial aid to minority students. President Fort stressed the data which he attributed to '!HE gIRONICIE OF HIGHER EOOCATION survey inlicatirg 80 percent of those att:errling college said the personal reason for atten:3ance was based on future employneIt expectation. 'Ihese data again highlight the economic influences functionirg in this area of national concern. In any event, advanced education is essential to practice occupations, vocations, and professions successfully.
To make these intervention concepts lNOrk for boys am girls in the 11-13 age bracket will require great effort on the college am university side. To
finance such urrlertaki.ngs, the University System will need extraordinary
funiin;J. '!he public am private grade schools will require a specialist who
will make all the difference in this program. Only well-prepared teachers,
princiPals, am superi.nten:1ents will be able to maximize the results of this effort to iIrprove the enrollment am graduation figures of this ilTIportant
population segment.
'!he needed extraordinary funiin;J is essential because visible and Iilysical professional contact is the harrls-on method operatirg most prominently in the intervention program. '!he b.Jdget is the governing factor,
am the university am college IlU.1St provide the paid time to free the System
PerSOnIleI to make the visits in order to provide the time to serve the middle school students.
As the histOl:y of the University System proves, increases in minority student enrollment into the freshman or transfer classes do not insure the ultimate graduation of such numbers. Mr. Michael J. Baxter, System SUImnary July 1989, Vol 25, NO.7, provides one of the best analyses of the dropout Iilencm:mon to be foun:l in the nation at this time. His article provides additional reasons, other than econanic factors, as the sources of the causes of dropouts. '!he author stressed the use of the tenn "attrition" of students. His tenn includes both voluntary withdrawals for PersOnal, career, or financial reasons as well as cases of involuntary separation.
'!he rate is dangerously high, am the followirg solutions, suggested as
a partial answer to the problem, are considered TNOrthy of financial commitment and subsequent inauguration as a practice for the System. '!he North carolina University System conferees proposed that each dropout would be info:nned of an officially-designated "contact" on the staff of the nearest
two-year or four-year institution, am, with the dropout's concurrence, the
data record on that particular case would be forwarded to the institution located nearest the dropout's residence. President Fort stressed the need for the secon::l institution to contact the fonner student.
267

'!he identical strategy should be applied to "tun1ed-down" students. '!he latter should be contacted by the official contact in the secorrl institution, after the first institution had made the decision not to grant admission at that particular time. '!hese two strategies will answer, in part, the charge of Dr. Boyer's "to help the students IOOVe fran school to higher education" in
general am to assist dropouts am tmSUCCeSSful applicants in particular.
In the intervention process at the K-12 levels, clearly stated and m::mitored contacts with all K-12 school authorities involved must be directed
fran am by each System unit. '!he North carolina Conference particiPants stressed that the public school participation must be voluntary, am the
conc:eption of the intervention process should be explained as a "relay" race. '!he K-12 school passes the baton to the next nmner on the team who is set to
c:::c::mplete the next lap. "Teamwork" am conscious appreciation of each team
member is encouraged. '!his exanple of one Perf0nner's (K-12) canying the responsibility for the team for a measured distance for the direct purpose of tumirg over the responsibility to the next academic authority (college) serves to magnify the necessity of the highest professional cooperation. '!he race, as one North carolina president stated, is not a c:::c::mpetitive 100-meter
"dash" between am among educational entities.
'!he iIrportance of the personalized intervention approach rests on the
fact that this practice promotes college personnel's contact am direct
opporbmities to acquire first-ham knowledge of the subject. '!he North carolina report stressed the need for the chancellor (president) of each unit to visit the middle schools personally. In addition, the view was expressed that the "regents should accompany the chief executive of the university on the latter's visit to the middle schools when such visitations are able to be scheduled" .
Two of the several advantages of in~ention are:
1. '!he middle school student is young enough am is allowed sufficient
time to l:lecxma academically prepared. '!he intervention will allow
the university president am her or his college to explain the
demands of scholarship, the choice of academic course work to be chosen in pursuit of college admission, and hopefully to fill the
middle students with both confidence am a sense of expectancy. One
fact is clear: time will be available to both K-12 students and faculty to build a college pre-admission academic posture.
2. '!he visitation inherent in in~ention will force the colleges and universities to assmne a measure of responsibility for the state of public school education in grades K-12. As this program develops, direct cormection between the effectiveness of intervention and poorly or well-prepared college freshmen will be apparent.
Minority presence in higher education depends directly on the
precorrlition of minority students, college am university scholarship
success. '!he student's connection to POStsecorx3ary faculty and staff positions mandates PersOnal dedication to the teaching-learning envirornnent.
268

Minority faculty employment growth is a product of econanic factors. '!his assessment obseJ:ves that the inllcations are that to increase minority presences in the ranks of the univesity System, extraordinazy fun:iing of student scholarship cantidates is required. It is essential that this extraordinazy fun:iing be initiated at the earliest stage fourrl to be the productive, in the minority scholar's career. 'Ihi.s fun:iing of the inllvidual career must continue tmtil the minority cantidate's e.t11?loyment.
'!he assessment team has fourrl IX) other predictable means to increase minority participation in college an:i university faculties. If fun:iing above present levels is not forthcan:irg fran state an:i federal sources with longterm cxmni.tment premise, the dearth of minority faculty employees will continue.
269

'mE AGEIl'l:; FOlKJIA
'Ihroughout the pursuit of the goals of this assessment, the assessment team encountered uncertainty about "the Formula" used as the basis for the
solicitation of appropriations from the legislative am executive branches of
state goverrnnent. 'the formula for expected allocations of overall funding for
the University System is based specifically on System enrollment reports supplied by the various units of the System. '!he System's EFT total student enrollment for the most recently-cCll1'pleted fiscal year engenders the bUdget for the System.
'the fonnalized view of the budget is based on the long-standing principle that the Formula is a formula for structuring receipt of state
allocations am it is not a formula for specific distribution of state
allocations to individual units. In conjunction with the State allocation, the System, with its self-engendered income (mainly through tuition), reconciles these two main funding sources to arrive at a "mix" designed to equal the fiscal budget's total financial support patterns.
The study of the reactions of the System's presidents to the funding question produced mixed results, a number of which can be described as subjective. Some of the units' leaderships propose that since the whole is made up of its parts, then the total mix represents the most exact figure for direct unit funding. The specific unit's budget therefore will reflect the units' self-generated numbers utilized by the System-wide fonnula for funds solicitation. SUch a sbnple solution through the funding of each System's campus on an annual basis however, has its problems.
serious short-falls in revenue are able to destabilize the allocations. The desire of the presidential col:pS to be able to advance their bUdgets' income figures on the expectation of a large, pertlaps temporary, enrollment base is not unreasonable. However, student numbers alone do not define the funding problem. variations in direct budget projections for funding of a units' overall budget are not limited to student enrollment fluctuations, no matter how sound their projections. In addition, it is possible that the
legislative am executive branches can not :fund the Fonnula at 100%. A major
enrollment short-fall throughout the System does reduce the amount of funding counted upon to originate within the System's units. Enrollment numbers are increased or decreased when changes in the student tuition are authorized. A rise in inflation also can deter the student's atteInance and result in a subsequent loss in enrollment income from tuition short-fall.
several phenomena occurred in the early 1970's which forced the financing of the System into a completely different funding and SPending posture. 'Ihe System, almost overnight, discovered its units were shocked financially by (a) the precipitous rise in campus energy costs due to the trat.mlatic increase in fuel prices, (b) the explosive jump in the direct costs necessary to increase campus security personnel and equipment, and (c) the demand for completely new and expensive computer capacity and modernized infonnation systems. These and other inflated costs patterns challenged the academic budget at the same time college enrollments began a decline.
270

Prior to the 1970's, colleges arrl universities enjoyed the comfortable assurance of their tacit assumptions that annual increments in energy and canp.1S security costs increases would remain within m:ini1nal scale ranges. 'Ihese two sel:Vices, energy arrl security, are necessities in the functioning of the System. '!he escalation of these, or other similarly budgeted expenses affected by inflation, illustrate the vulnerability of planned budget execution. At best, the Fo:rmula does not "translate" into the campus budgets with sufficient identification with all ele.nents operating in the University System.
'!he m::>St serious problem with the present University Fonnula lies in the fact that it is a 1982 year-based Fo:rmula. '!hat year (1982) was chosen for basing the fonnula on the average salcuy of faculty errployed in that period. All succeeding annual legislative additions have been accunn.llated since 1982 as yearly percentages added into the ~ed total for each elaPSed year.
'!he 1982 average salcuy base arrl the subsequent additions are not now sufficient to support the salcuy scale arrl meet all other current needs of the University System. '!he figures from the SREB irrlicate that the average System salcuy position was number one in 1982 when the fonnula was adopted. NOVl the Georgia System of Higher Education has m::wed from first to sixth place am:mg the fifteen states in the SREB region (1988-1989).
It is pertinent to the analysis of System fun:ling to recall why the System adopted the Fo:rmula. Vertal sources (from the proponents of the fonnula) were helpful in describing the development of the main thrust of this financing mechanism. '!he main justification was clear: '!he University System's numbers of students were growing at an increasingly rapid rate. To continue, year after year, to request money for realistic expansion necessitated a mechanism able to produce finite budget data from provable facts. '!he demand grows each year for the increased financing of higher education. Inflation in the costs of good, sel:Vices, arrl salaries is one factor. In addition, requirements for teachers to undertake graduate work increased, health education and the training of health professionals became an issue vital for Georgia's citizens, innovation in curricula required urban studies, research arrl product development activities grew exponentially, new programs flourished, arrl Developmental studies programs were initiated.
All of these factors have resulted in increasing student numbers. '!hus increasing enrollment numbers alone do not activate all of the costs of higher education. An additional factor was, arrl is, the increased costs of the programs' initiation and inlprovements in the quality levels of instruction, research, and salaries.
SoIre elements of the fo:rmula were designed to produce additional EFT faculty positions based on Education arrl Business student enrollment. '!hese fonnula positions were designated for staff arrl research efforts, but these fonnula provisions were not activated in that manner as originally planned [for relationship to direct enrollment figures].
When the student population's numbers are rising and expanded enrollments engender larger appropriations (in dollars), the Fo:rmula works at
271

optimum levels. When student mnnbers decline, the Fonnula tends to "lag" behirrl. '!he fonnula can thus appear to be "behirrl" or "ahead", but it can act best as a balance wheel arxi can reduce the strain of "swirgs" in the funding process. Elsewhere in this assessment the danger of "stop-arxi-go" financing experienced in the PaSt by dryirg up of certain federal funds has been described. '!his latter Iilenomenon has not happened urxler the lUllbrella of the System's Fonnu!a.
'!he major fact about the University System's present Fonnula is not whether it is the best method of financirg a state system of publiclysupported higher education, but that it has helped the System to avoid "line-item-budgetirg" by the appropriatirg authorities. '!he earlier studies of the System stressed the need for the University System to be responsible arxi, to ac:x::anplish. this objective, to be as irrlepen::lent as was practicable. A budget system directly controlled by authorities extemal to the agencies responsible for deliverirg quality education to the state's citizens would, in the event, be less successful than our present University System.
One view expressed widely in higher education suggests ''lnarketability'' as the risirg force dominatirg academic salaJ:Y questions. One way in which the market base can be developed for each unit in the System is to draw a "peer" institutional comparison with a similar institution. '!he choice of the peer, to be the stipulated salaJ:Y standard against which the member unit in the University System is to be compared, will require time arxi patience. '!his change in the system will allow a "market-referenced benchmark" to be used instead of a base-fonnula of a bygone year. If an equitable comparison can be achieved between institutions, conteIrporary realistic salaJ:Y standards will
result. '!hus, the System's budget requests will not be restricted solely to
the System's self-justification of those salaJ:Y arxi wage funds for which its solicitations are required annually.
Whether or not a foI:Im1 recognition of peer salaJ:Y scales receives System acknowledgment, individual academic positions arxi remuneration scales are in fact und~oing realistic comparisons with competing institutions. '!his practice is a new factor influencing the academic financial support for the appropriate provisioning of scholarly salaries arxi perquisites. "Faculty Position marketability" is the basis for establishing individual faculty salaries at a predetennined range by comparirg the individual position's description of duties with those in the peer deparbnent of a second institution. '!he matching process prcx::eeds in conjunction with the identification of the professional elerents fourrl in similar personal and academic experiences. Faculty members traditionally resist being compared with peer exanples chosen for the process without their sharing in this decision. Consequently the reality of the comparable market value system for salary detennination has yet to be perfected.
Another new factor is "salary compressibility". Annual percentage raises arxi ''lnarketbasket'' percentage salary improverents are viable elements in a scholar's career only if the base on which the percentages are computed historically is sufficiently large. compressibility occurs when the originating salary position's net pay represents in fact a SIrall amount. '!hereafter SIrall annual percentage increases do not maintain the pro-
272

fessional's purchasing IXJWer at a growth rate sufficient to equal inflation rates. Acquisition of goods arrl sel:Vices required by faculty arrl staff personnel becames ever IIDre difficult. '!he mnnber of personally disposable dollars becames less sufficient to maintain the current life style at the same time the purchasing IXJWer of each dollar decreases. Inflation in the cost-of-living expenses affecting personnel living on fixed incomes, which are controlled by narrow ranges in the scale of potential salary increases, is a fonn of "hidden taxation".
It is obsel:ved that teaching, research, arrl sel:Vice are the criteria for the merit pay increase system of justification for salary improvement now operating in the System. If ''marketability'' is to be included as a criterion for the salary raise decision, it is observed that a fo:rmal adoption of this element be acknowledged in a manner urrlerstood by faculty and staff and coupled with the setting of its liInits within the context of its allied elements: sel:Vice, teaching, and research.
salary compressibility requires a "one-tine" correction, the assessment team believes, and it is obsel:ved that extraordinary funding, specifically
designed to correct the original salary "base" mi.ni.mums, is essential. Among
the ranks of employees suffering from the lowest salary bases are instructors, assistant professors and research and teaching assistants, and other staff. All of these positions are in need of this remedial action by and through special extraordinary funding. SUch special funding must not reduce the allocations which othel:Wise would be authorized and budgeted.
It is obsel:ved by the assessment authors that only through this extraordinary funding effort for salaries improvements can these categories of System employees ever escape salary compressibility.
273

EI.amns IN '!HE E.'VAIIlATllC OF IR:JGRESS OF 'IBE ~ SYSIBI

"Assessments has becane one of the lea~ topics in
education in the 1980's. calls fran National am state
Leaders for Refonn ... led inevitably to the need for
lOOre assessment". Folger am Berdahl, "PattenlS in
Evaluating Higher Education Systems: Making a virtue out
of Necessity. " National center for Postsecondal:y
Governance am Finance. 1988. p.1

'!here are a variety of procedures listed by Folger am Berdalh. '!hese
are:

1. Se1f-evalation 2. Perfonnance Audit/SUnset Reviews 3. Special study Groups or Co.rmnissions
4. Comprehensive Reviews am Assessments. (ibid, p. 14).
Drs. Folger am Berdahl have produced the definitive analysis of some of the various techniques employed by the laws am authorities of several states
of the Union in seekin;J to discover "how well our large, important and expensive higher education systems are worki.nJ". Drs. Folger and Berdahl analyzed several evaluation techniques including "self-evaluation", Le., the evaluation of the governing agency by the agency's membership. References to
a variety of different approaches are ably described, am the practical advantages am disadvantages are made clear by these two outstanding
educational analysts.

'!he substance of the entire experience of assessment and evaluation is focused in one objective: to discover "evidence of effectiveness" (ibid, p. II).

Be the method "incremental evaluations of state higher education

(system)" or "comprehensive systema.tic assessment", (ibid, p. 13), the end

product is "the measurement of how effective is the gOVerrla11ce". Other

questions of profound importance:

Is the academic investment cost-

productive? Is there value added to the lives arrl careers of the system's

students? Arrl does the state population benefit in prosPerity am progress from the state's :Eundi.rYJ of its system of higher education?"

One of the authors of this University System assessment was selected to evaluate the state of Alabama's System of Higher Education and its Alabama Co.rmnission on Higher Education in 1979. OVer a period of nearly a year, infrequent visitation of three outside scholars and four distinguished Alabamians reviewed the Alabama Commission's work, objectives, and general relationships with all those designated institutions qualifying as coordinate units. '!his example of a special review team marx:lated by the legislature of Alabama to every four years is a "self-evaluation" effort, as Folger and

274

Berdahl define am explain, because the control of the choice of reviewers is
more or less the Alabama Commission's detennination.
other states are reviewed in their differirg approaches to the methods of choice available for system assessments as outlined in this most helpful
dc:x::ument authore::i by Folger am Berdahl. '!heir inspection of the history of
the developnent of "audits" relates the early origination of Perfonnance audits. other cost benefit evaluations began to be employed "as a better basis for decidirg among competirg policies" (ibid, p. 29).
Joining the foregoirg state analYSes lists is the effort to produce "effectiveness evaluation [which] necessarily involves questions of goals,
purposes am values am these cannot always be derived from statutes".
Effectiveness evaluation must push beyorxi, am not be confined only to
"quantitative" data but should "also use interviews, questionnaires, and other attitude measures" (ibid).
'Ibis assessment, authorized am directed by the C11ancellor and the Board of Regents, is, in Part, a modest urx:lertaking which can assist in striving
for an "effective" evaluation. 'Ibis objective is not easy to accomplish, and
Folger am Berdahl point out that Perfonnance audits, designed to measure the
factors of accountability, have problems of acceptance by some academic authorities. Academicians' strengths exhibit their effectiveness in situations that do not demand immediate or simplistic decisions. Professional educators are not time-conscious in analyzing academic situations, problems
am programs. Audits and assessments of Perfo:r:nances seek finality in their
conclusions am, in contrast, academicians terx:l to leave "oPen-ended" the
professional practices of scholarly criticism am classification. As many
managers are discovering, attemptirg to quantify every urx:lertaking is not always satisfactory. What starts out in one direction in higher education
envirornnents finds itself in the process both constricted am narrowed in
scale. Although their conclusion from two states' "Perfonnance audits" were described to be originally a "comprehensive program audit, each ended up as a more narrow management audit" (ibid, p. 30).
'!he Board of Regents of the University System is an outstarrling success story when measured by the experiences of a number of different states of the
union described throughout Folger's am Berdahl's excellent study. The
history of the University System is remarkable for the public faith residing
in its organization am operations. '!he political branches of the state of
Georgia's government have been loyal to the concept am function of the state
System of publicly-supported postsecorrlary education. Restraint has been the
fact am spirit of the interrelationship of the various state governing
agencies actirg in bannony with the University System.
In addition, the Georgia higher education authorities possess the advantage of the absence in Georgia of "sunset legislation. II Folger and Berdahl (ibid, p. 30) point out that "Beginning with Colorado legislation in 1975, most states have enacted some form of sunset legislation wherein state
agencies are scheduled for review am possible termination by a certain date
unless explicitly renewed." Also, Georgia's agencies for higher education entity, supplyirg educational services to the population, have not had to
275

eniure the trauma of California's proposition #13. '!he California referendum in effect in:lirectly took the fonn of an ultimate "assessment" of all tax-
supported senrice agencies in that state. '!he participations of all
constituencies nonnally active in educational policy deliberation were made less ilnportant by unified public action.
Folger's am Berdahl's descriptions of the assessment methodology used
by other states builds credibility with the authors of this assessment suppo~ the view that the i.mepen:lent yet cooperative Georgia System
enjoys resPect for its capabilities of meetirg the state's higher educational
senrice needs. '!he University System is able to avoid the burden of
continuous review am interPositions of tmreaSOnable proportions. To the
contrary, the referenced authorities in the foregoing paragraphs report the apparent concerns of policy-making leaderships in other states about the status of their public postsecondary cxmnibnents.
In:leed, the Georgia example of its university System continues to senre
as an example of how a University System should be stnlctured. '!his native
System justifies its self-reliance of governance am its Constitutional
status of separateness. In most of the experiences of the various states with
their systems of postsecondary education, Folger am Berdahl clearly
recognized a desire on these states' parts to reinforce their subject systems
with greater independence am agency authority. Georgia already possesses
these ingredients in the composition of its System in a balanced and productive proportion.
'!he organizatiOnal goal for the University System is the avoiding of tacit assumptions that all remains well with its day-to-day operations or that the System's progress to a high plateau of excellence is assured.
Chancellor Propst am the Board of Regents are to be commen:led for inviting
this assessment of itself. Future assessments will be called upon to detennine not only the probative results of the Georgia Public's investment in its tax-supported post-secondary educational committee, but also the development of the elements used in that process's equitable implementation. In short, tenns such as "assessment", "Perfonnance evaluation", "valueadded", "cost-benefit", "quality" as applied to education, "accountability", "incremental evaluation" , etc. , will need definitions acceptable to professional educators. At present these tenninologies tend to be self-
defining am their uses self-justifying on occasion. All assessment depends
on acceptance but the goal of the process is to detennine one essential fact among its many elements: ''What are we getting done"!
276

''Human consciousness, it seems, is able to create or to
discover a1llost any reality it focuses on lorg enough. we make the T,t1Orld in the image of what fascinates am
terrifies us."
Faces of the~, sam Keen, ~ am Row, 1986, p. 24.
Higher Education does not "terrify" the majority of the citizenry. It remains to be seen if the concerned pcpl1ation of Georgia becanes fascinated
with the arts am sciences to the degree that any potential uroerft.n'xling of
the university System's needs, as forecast for the 1990'S, can be averted.
Elsewhere in this assessnvant, the vital seJ:Vices am PerSOl'lIle1 with
their special extraordinary fun:ting requirements are descr:ilied. Solutions to
the dargers of waste, pollution, am atIoosJ;i1eric threats to global life patterns require inunediate fun:ting of scientific am educational research at
the postsecornary levels. 'Ib meet these life-threateni.nJ challenges, changes
in psychological postures in the awropriate areas of educational leadership must first take precedence.
Placirg the financirg of change am the prosPeCtive fun:ting for
ilnprovements of the university System aside, the research for this assessment encountered attitudes apparently lacki.n;J the capacities to initiate
awropriate ~es. Dr. Ean1est Boyer, in CDLUX;E, ~ am Row, 1987, p.
89, quotes a professor of science who resporrled to a debate regarding "adding a foreign language" to his institution's curricula with the ccmnent, "'Ibere is too nnlch disagreement arourx:i here about what the fOUl"rlations of knowledge
should be to support any requirement that is tightly stroctured."
On analYSeS of this quotation fran Dr. Boyer's excellent study, it should be stressed that the professor's reaction to the proposed course addition did not take the fonn of open OQ?OSition. In this case, the substantive issue of course addition, as is often the case in academic
debate, was skillfully avoided, am the sooght-for agreement was diverted by
challenge to fonn. "Tightness of structure" l:lecaIoo the focus of the resporrlent's criticism. "Process" is referenced once again as beirg too often
the successful competitor when process am "product" are c:x:::ItlparErl.
'Ibe authors recognize that "hc:1.v" operations are corrlucted is ilnportant
am that the best academic strategy can fin::l its subsequent failure through
poor execution. strategies for change are successful in execution if administrative agencies maintain a cliInate of "conscious awareness". Evaluatirg the potential sources of negation of new academic plans or discoverirg the basic causes of rejection of proposed changes for effecting ilnprovements is essential to successful plarming for ~e.
Two T,t1Ords penneate the critical writin:Js about postsecornary education:
"status quo" am "lethargy." Both tenns reflect the "If it ain't broke, don't
277

fix it" school of practical prilOSCJIily. In the firmament of higher education, m::>st of these difficulties :result fran the presence of sinple inertia. In addition, the attitude of academic personnel toward c:harge is urn.e.rstarnable because the "job descriptions" of m::>st personnel do not include the requirement for awareness of the c:harge factor. Prosecution of the daily
discharge of responsibilities of their offices aweared to constitute sufficient Perfonnance, am the requirements of the assessors in sane cases,
were not easily obtained. ('!hough delays were oocasioned in mak:in;J this assessment, am the ti1ne schedule necessarily altered, m::>st of the objectives were CCIll'leted successfully. Patience am un:lerstan:lirg were encountered as well, am the authors are imebted to the many sources am administrators who gave of their ti1ne am effort.)
In def~ the causes of difficulties encoontered in mak:in;J inquiries, the assessment team points to the absence of conscioos awareness of the need
for systematic am ti1nely in:piIy as the primary factor. '!he opposite corrlition obtains when conscious awareness gives way to administrative am
academic "tacit assumptions." '!he Atlanta JOl.lD'la1-constitution, August 4, 1987, reported the results of the first major assessment of the state of california's University System in twenty-seven years. Fran the c.han;fes the california assessment team demarrled, earlier tacit assumptions were fOUIXl to
be in error, am original assumptions were replaced by a new awareness. '!his assessment of the University System of Georgia is designed to stimulate interest in the self-examination of its present success am of its future
potentialities for the highest practical level of academic seJ:Vices.
Another inpediment to the developtelt of positive c.han;fe is noted: the absence of cognitive recognition of the possible need to innovate. At the same ti1ne, the preservation of proven academic elements nust be assured. Cognitive recognition is required to CCIll'lete all i.nterrled cxmnunication, but
semantic interpretations am tacit assmrptions can divert or dilute the original directive. For example, this assessment team, in pursuit of the
Chancellor's i.nstl:uctions, discovered several resporrlent estiJna.tions of what this assessment was designed to aCCClll'lish. SUch conceptions on the parts of others rarged fran the widely tmrealistic to the inprabable. Fran this
experience (am other examples), it is of parannmt iInportance that System
cxmnunications should strive to reduce the potential for the misinter-
pretation of its policy am practices.
'!his viewpoint, Le., that intel:pretation can divert or nullify policy
decisions is an organizational syntrane ~in;J in the cliJna.te surrourrlin:f
practically all public seJ:Vice errleavors. In the System, the point was stated that "the big institutions are able to get aromxi policy difficulties through policy intel:pretation". '!he authors could not fim ready evidence to support this claim, but the myth exists.
In the Period 1965-75, the educational leadership did not foresee the
need to plan c.han;fes, am feelings of the students co~ the draft am
the military activities in Southeast Asia went unrecxxJI1ized. Morale within the affected age groups became steadily ~rse. Protest activities on nost canpuses stayed within the limits detennined by judicial authority, but the excesses in the exercise of PersOnal freedan were not cognitively antici-
278

pated. Consequently, appropriate postures am practices enployed were often tardy am insufficient. student savices' personnel erxiured student confront-
ations for which no previous experiences had prepared them. SUbsequently
major changes in campus behavior c:x:des am student rights were enforced.
Predictirg successfully what will occur is patently very difficult to acx:x::m1plish. What is possible is the develqm:mt of managerial urrlerstan:li.ng through sensitivity to the need of remai.nin:;J consciously aware of the
challerge of change. '!he <l1ancellor am the Board membership will realize
quickly that these attributes are pe:rsooal leadership characteristics
prc:xrptirg again a definition of the role of the iniividual in the work am
history of the System.
At certain periods of tilne in the life of the university System, the
public support, consciousness, am appreciation of the System are at levels
of higher intensity than at another tilne. In other sections of this work this "plateau" phenomenon is described. '!he tenn status-guo may also describe a "furrli.n;" plateau position. Higher education, insofar as the dollar number federal furrli.n; is concen1ed, has been on "level" grourrl for a mnnber of
years in nost respects. Federal f'urxli.nJ for a significant number of purposes
has been reduced in the :recent past. '!hough the "aIOC>lD1ts" are higher or slightly increased by appropriations' li.st.in;J, the rn.nnber of persons and programs to be saved is increasirg faster. '!he dollar aIOC>lD1ts remainirg level in quantity do not satisfy the harmful reality fCJllni in the continuing rise in cost-of-livirg for student aid recipients.
In recognizirg the inflexibility resultiI'g fram this furrli.n; plateau, these observations iniicate that another paradox exists: '!he freedom and
flexibilities assured to the presidents, deans, am department heads are an operational tool to enploy both personal managerial perceptions am
perspectives. Simultaneously, the managenent of all resources and the
discovery am settlenent of all problems confrontirg tmits in the System
require abjective and equitable methodology. Added to the latter requirements is the approach of the 1990'S with the possibility of restricted resources and fewer students. '!he "plateau effect" can negatively ilnpact change.
'!he ten:lency to preserve unreasonably the furrli.n; status-guo can limit
the potential of the institution am prevents the institutional leadership fram the focusirg of eneJ:gies am resources. Focused intensity is the
recurrirg need for all managenent sooner or later. '!he ability to envision the cx:aning challerge of change cannot be translated easily into the capacity
for action without the executive flexibility am freedom fram the present jab
and budget limitations.
It is iniicated clearly that each tmit's management should possess all possible flexibilities to address the change that certainly can be expected,
that review of the state of the System be continued, am that all parties be
encouraged to go beyon:l the self-:inposed limits of jab and position descriptions in feelirg personally responsible for the welfare of the University System of Georgia.
279

'!HE IIlSINESS IEAlJiR'iHIP'S I:EHAND RJR
HIQJER lRDJCI'IV.rlY IN HIQJER mx::ATIQ{
Academia must emulate American Business Experience in its operations to insure greater reb.m1s on higher education's total invesbnent.
SUccessful national hJsiness executive.
Legislators, the Office of GoveD1Or, am the University System's Regents are vitally interested in secur~ sourd am. la.sti.n; dividen::ls on the invesbnerIt of taxes, tuition fees, am. bard proceeds in educational personnel, programs, equipnents, am real estate. "Ao::olmtability" is the
declaimed neasure by which current financ~ of education is detennined. '!he test ultimately is the "qualified IOOSt fran the relative least" in education input versus output.
Another active am. forceful voice has joined the issue of cost versus results: the imustrial-financial-cx:mnercial state am national leadership.
'!he decline of the dollar, worker-productivity, quality of product, increased
credibility of COI'lSl.lllVarS, am the international trade position, forced a dramatic turn around in industrial, cxmnercial am financial managementleadership behavior in the recent past. '!he results are validated, am
present private-sector managers claim ~ successes in increas~ly
efficient production of goods am services am. their distribution through
increased consmner services.
Now, the non-academic world is aski.rg why the colleges am. universities
cannot enact a similar scenario. Non-academic executives' charge is: "Academic management must increase return on its investment".
Georgia possesses outstanding hJsiness leaders whose claims are heard
am. noted. In view of world economic <::alt'petition, am in grow~ unerrployment due to automation am out-of-state cc:::mp=tition, the state's business management corps claims that reduced tax sources am the spread~ of
available public Ironies anong a grow~ rn.nnber of other needed services will force executive changes in the University System. '!he tenn "management", now
supposedly abhorrent to scholars am inimical to academic freedom, will, in
its proper practice, be the only means of sw:vival.
Business leaders have criticized higher education for its attitude that unlike business, which must change to better cc:::mp=te, state institutions don't need to compete; thus it is impossible to state that returns on investment are maximized.
FUrthermore, critics from in:iustJ:y assert that in the academic envirornnent there are no exist~ universal starrlards by which academic results are objectively measured. Non-academics charge that results in claimed educational progress, once announced, are not always subsequently
280

validated by later performance. 'n1e roost negative criticism (offered without proof in many instances) is that the educational efforts evidenced by surveys, statistics, new programs, innovative practices, ani other claimed inprovements are, in the event, not "reliable"; no clearly identifiable proof is fo:rthcaning to prove the inprovement in ~tions or through the adoption of the innovations.
'n1e followiIg quotation presents the constJ::uctive viewpoint of an out.starrli.rg dlief executive. ''Historically, the constitutional status ani prestige acx::orded the Board of Regents of the university System have been adequate to provide management leadership for higher education in Georgia. In critical m:ments ani in thoughtful times, we have assessed it as the 'best system in the nation.' In Periods of apathy toward needed change, it is evaluated as 'rudderless, ani sail-less, tossed abaIt by waves of conflicting opinions' ." '!hese conclusions do not c:btain aver the Period of the last decade into the present as needed dlarge is beiIg inplemented.
'!he vital question entertained by the leaders in the professions, vocations, ani occupations of Georgia is: ''How effective is our management/ leadership of colleges ani universities in the university System?" Is the System structured to function, ani does it perfonn adequately at present to
meet future needs (1990-2015)?
'!he stimulus for these concems is the awrehension due to the knowledge
that all profit management/leadership is urrler extreme testiIg in the united
states today, has been for a decade at least, ani will be for the foreseeable future. 'Ib maintain the nation's "c:anpetitiveness" in the world through the remairrler of this century ani into the next, education will be called upon to resporrl totally in developing htnnan skills, powers, ani focused intelligences which are able to function at levels equal to ani, hopefully, superior to global econanic c:anpetition.
Drawing on entrepreneurial judgments abaIt higher education the maj or criticism voiced is that the System cannot change ani the necessary flexibility is to change is in fact restricted.
However, the University System nust make the private sector aware that the acceleration of change through the info:rmation revolution urrlerlines the reality: "Tinkering" in education is not inprovement. C1larJe in nomenclature is not autanatic inprovement".
Although the assessment team developed perspectives which tern to refute these generalizations, two factors, if present, can contribute to the clilnate suwortiIg the claiIns of inflexibility against change in higher education's management. '!hey are:
1. Experience derronstrates that the major threat of maximiziIg optimum
utilization of educational Pers011I1el ani resources for the
objective of delivering higher education services is the exhaustion of the leadership's time "in keeping the house in order". '!he main authority of educational leaders is, as other writers point out,
281

"persuasive" Business leadership is able to use what others have described as coercive por.vers.
2. '!he functions of academic leadership do not place the eq;tlasis on the head of each echelon of collegiate instn1ction or administration. '!he awesane burden falls on just the chief executive office. '!he fonter, it is prc:p:JSE!d, should be lIDre "ac:x::omrt:able", the latter "responsible". No chief executive of a college or university serves a very l~ tenure withaIt receivi.n;J problems passed up the ladder by subordinates directly in dlarge of the function from 'Whid1 the problem originates. If the executive receives a mnnber of these referred problems sinul:taneoosly, the time she or he has in 'Whid1 to forge solutions or reconciliations of the problems' elements leaves no time for theorizi.n;J flexibilities.
Persuasive powers are slOlNer in function than coercive methods of
control. '!he fonter is in keeping with the idea of collegiality am "shared
leadership". '!he objective of System units is primarily the education of
young adults, am both this interxied service am inter-Personnel
relationships call for sensitivity in the largest practicable measure.
Business leadership should be contacted by university System personnel through effective camnunications, emr;ilasizi.n;J the "time element" in a 1,000year-old tradition reasonably can not be cc::arpll'ed to dissimilar functions of the state of readiness so needed in econanic decision-mak.in:J. In addition, the Board of Regents must continue to relate p.Jblicly how it reaches out to economic interests in a wide variety of contacts. UrDer the direction of the office of the O1ancellor, success obtains in the setting that frees the irxlividual leadership potential in the units of the System to serve
businesses am to react to their needs. Task forces, needs assessments of the
area the System unit serves, etc., whose successes are foun:i on the record,
encourage the utm:>st cooperation bebNeen am aIOOng the units. striving for
efficiency has resulted in prc>p:)Sa1s to "regionalize" units in the System as
a design to cut costs, increase services, am praoote better control of
System expen:litures.
Many business leaders terxl to infer that in education in the U. S., very little personnel training or developnent is given, especially in leadership development. Even business schools specializing in nanagerial developnent do not always consciously strive to develop leadership in their own fields. As one business leader claw, there is the terxlency "to c::x::Il'Ipete for the lIDSt theoretical, least practical, lIDSt c:crrplex jargon-laden awards rather than deal with the prosaic job of encouragi.n;J leadership for future executives". Colleges of Education strive tcMard the training of administrators, but exnphasis on techniques does not substitute for management proficiency, accordi.n;J to sane proponents of the non-academic view. .
What is inferred is that the "system" encourages "operational efficiency" but does not have the potHer or desire to insure "personal nanagement proficiency" '!his difference is the crux of the answer to business efficiency comparisons. '!he subjective nature of instruction defeats attempts to rerxler purely objective measurements of the process's efficiency
282

without a1Joost a lifele>n:J follow-up. ''Tracki.nt' the present student after graduation is examined elsewhere in this assessment.
Until the tenn "quality" is defined in a manner of easy definition am
with such definition possessin;J near tmiversal cognition, the idea of
increasin;J productivity in the form of quality inprovement fran limited
resources must remain an argument at best. Nevertheless, the University System exhibits a genuine desire to respon:i to the c:x::>nstzuctive criticism of
the private sector regardi.rg "increasin;J productivity" in the use of resources. Very few exanples can be fami to surpass the skillful leadership denDnstrated by the Board of Regents in maximizin;J the c:im.Jm retunl through the awlication of efficient operational ted:miques. In ad:tition, the means of increasin;J <Jlltprt fran fewer i.nprt: resources reveal stri.kirg differences
between i.rrlustry am academia. For exanple, the increase of productivity in
the private sector has been mainly attained by:
(1) Reducin;J personnel employment permanently or seasonally.
(2) Reducin;J operations whenever negative market corrlitions prevail without regard to consumer choice.
(3) Increased utilization of cybernetic ted:mique am electronic autanation equipnent am new systeus to decrease jabs am people.
(4) Widespread use of outside products am services thus reducing payroll am benefit costs.
'!he University System can not eliminate jabs when the student enrollment increases fNery year for the past forty years. Courses cannot be automated to
eliminate the teacher am destroy the daily ''human equation" with each student. Courses can not be abaOOonecl am degree progression destroyed by
cuttin;J down on the number of the degree's prerequisites.
'!he IOOSt pressing argument for the traditional fontS of instruction's bein;J continued, as is now practiced, is the overwl1e1In.irg value of a college
education which is the "beneficent experience" of am by the student, as the direct personal result of contacts with professional am personable teachers both inside am outside the classroc:m.
'!he Board of Regents is providing "Leadership For Tcm:>rrow". 'Ihirty-four separate tmits have led the way for other systeus to emulate. '!he thirty-four
catalogs of the System's tmits provide clear am practical fNidence describin;J how production of prepared graduates am the infusion of new ideas
are ac:x:xJllq;)lished.
Possibilities for inprovements in academic efficiency have been
identified, am, if adopted, these advances will enc:x:ll.1rage the System's tmits
to plan for achifNing the objectives listed below:
1. Require that all institutions receiving state :fuI'x3s for provision of academic credit relate the appropriations to ''measured
283

adlievements of tested ~'. ('n1anas J. Kerr, Sen. Editor page 16, "SChool & College" Feb. 1989)
2. Require the executive office holder to be :responsible in each department an:l all administrators to be "acca.mtal:>le."
3. Plan an:l execute nart:hl.y ''Management for Executives" seminars for all executives in the unit with programs designed for previouslyidentified prd>lem-solvi.n1 exercises, an:l with art:side professional assistance if needed.
4. Design the regular review of all projects urXlertaken with specific auditors leac:li.rg the review process.
5. Recognize leadership personnel based on the proven track record
earnEd fran within the unit or fran c::x::mparable recorded perfonnance in academic/staff savice positions in other duty stations.
6. Enlaxge recognition patterns for leaders an:l sucx::essful managers through the practice of substantially increased salary scales based on personaliZed merit values.
'!he list of assertions fran business critics of education is not brief. other private-sector clailns are that academic efficiency is :reduced through higher education's "over-deparbnentalization" , that the p..1blic education sector is too irxieperrlent, an:l that the vocational, the cotmty-city school systems, an:l the University System should be co-ntirgled. 'Ihese observers advocate that "centralizi.n1" control of all functions of the state-supported learni.Ig process will be m:::>re cost-effective than the present divisions
designed for the process. can such centralization alone sucx::essfully address
higher education's many challen;res? A m:::>nolithic stnlcture suffers fran inflexibility an:l experiences difficulty in focusi.n1 on essential causes. Healthy academic diversity beccmes vulnerable to a stultifyi.n1 regimentation. In:leed, the giant aa:::anplishments of this age of explosive knowledge an:l discovered infonnation are due to specialization. To save the ozone an:l to :reduce the ca.rtx:>n dioxide "hot-house" effect will require m:::>re, not less, irxieperrlence an:l specialization which do denlan:i high levels of special needs an:l trea1::rlwants.
It is noted that cooperation in Georgia anDn:J all elements in the educational prrsuits of greater knowledge an:l savice is factual an:l embraces private, proprietary, an:l special institutions as well as the state supported educational efforts at all levels. Business leader have CCllplimented these cooperative successes but urge even greater efforts toward this goal.
'!he non-academic considerations of state-supported Higher Education entail the oft-stated opinion that "leadership qualifications are not
stressed in the selection processes" an:l that the "traini.n1 for management/ leadership roles is inadequate". '!he assessment team notes that the careful
selection of officials is proven a1Ioost daily in the Systems' units' hirin:J
experiences. Fair assessment of academic leadership which deperrls on personal persuasion techniques can not easily be replicated in business contexts. In
284

addition, un:ler the Board of Regents' leadership attention to Affinnative Action, hirirg practices are beirg fulfilled in the intention of the
pertinent legislation am judicial rulinJs.
Concerns expressed by business authorities about the caliber of carxtidates for potential employment in academi c env:irorutents should be weighted against the relatively low pay scale daninatirg the hirirg climates affectirg teachin;J an:l staff professionals. 'Dle relative salcuy scale in the SREB 1istin;J of fifteen state systems (reported elsewhere in this assessment) illustrates the university System of Georgia's present relative "plateau" averages am a pronounced record of decline fran 1982's first place (arrong the 15 states) to the sixth position. Intifference of business an:l tax support elements are contributors to this drq:) in interstate canparison. only with a Profourrl conscious awareness of the short-fall in furxling of both the present an:l future needs of the System, coupled with a conscious ccmnit.ment to correct the deficiencies, can salcuy scales beccme attractive to the best an:l IrOSt experienced professionals obtainable.
'Dle private sector claim of the need for leadership trainirg is
respected by educators. '!he trai.ni.n1 of academic leadership is of prime
:i.np:>rtance only if the tenn "leadership" becanes fully defined an:l if such definition receives substantial am lastirg acx::eptance by the profession. In the graduate programs in the Colleges for Teacher Education, specific leadership <::XJllrSe work am practice are marrlatory. Likewise in Business Administration am Management the elements of leadership are stressed. However, leadership, in the institutional context, nust seIVe the interests of collegiality am observe the realities of the varieties of relationships with all of the many constituencies contributirg to the academic presence.
Ieadership as a concept in a professional environment nust be considered in conjunction with collegial "teamwork". 'Dle character of faculties inhibit personalized am detached solitcuy leadership examples, unlike the co:rporate or entrepreneurial climate. '!he te.amwork between the C1ancellor an:l the unit president places a premimn on the avoidance of the personalization of in:tividual Presidential ambitions. since the academic leadership force is a shared force, the avoidance of elitism in the executive management ranks is an interrled result of the process. In brief, "shared" leadership requires time, patience, trial-am-error, am sensitivity in harrllirg official errors in campus operations or judgments. without these "persuasive" powers' dominance in the daily discharge of official duties, the academic freedom of faculty to inquire generally am to speculate personally about their department heads, deans, and president will be lost or highly restricted.
caIlp.ls leadership is not lacking. '!he assessment team fourrl it in the
fonn of subtle application am official pat1:en'lS of IOOdesty. If "leadership" of the whole higher educational process is the subject of the business' constructive criticism, it is because when in this <XllU1try samethirg goes awry or fails expectations, the drivirg force is held to account. Personalizirg "drivirg forces" focuses attention, energy, an:l the critic's intelligences on one issue - hmnan perfonnance am wisdom, or the lack thereof, of the criticiZed academician. It's easier to blame the in:tividual or the position managirg academia than to attack concepts or to examine the
285

un:lerlyi..rq causation of negative ~ am issues. Elsewhere in this
assessnent, the drivi..rq forces are treated not in hmnan diInensions but in the
reality of their presences am powers. societal forces do detennine ~, am it's difficult for an
intiviclual leader to make a significant inpact on an entire system of CCIlPrehensive education. Nevertheless, the sense of responsibility of the professional managenent corps of the united states with its ever-high aspiration for the realization of the American dream for our IXPilation, rightfully insists on the ilrprovement in the level of superior managerial leadership anorg the ranks of educational decision-makers. Professional
business leadership should never stop criticizirg ~ unsuworted experrli.ture
am short-tenn solutions not designed for lasti..rq inprovement of the
lea.rni.rq-teachin;J process. '!he criticisms fran other successful operations
are positive sources for assistance to higher education, am the fonner's exanple of PerSOlla1 leadership's 1:aki.RJ full responsibility is a practice
much needed in academia.
286

"Perfo:rmance Degradation occurs in bJsiness when the executive's passion for the new product or service depreciates the old ani tried profit-maker; thereafter, executive focus, energy ani :resources are :redirected to the new, the proven profit-maker becx:anes neglected."
- senior COrporate Executive
"Perfo:rmance Degradation" is one entitlement of a synjrcme widely eIlCOlIDtered by in:lustrial, financial ani amnercial bJsiness activities in the united states. 'Ihis phenomenon occurs IOOSt often on the oa:::asion of the enterprise's undertaking new product or service developnent. Such new e:rrphases now placed on other objectives result in the detriment to the well-bei.n;J of its loI1g'-starxlirg or original ani basic creation ani distribution of that product for profit. other causes of the degradation of lOI1g'-tenn profit patterns can be traced generally to chan:Jes in management concentrations of effort.
In higher education, a.ssessnents should be required on a continuing basis to insure that the class roan delivery of the "basic" courses for the first ani second year colleg-e ani mrlversity offeriI1g's are maintained at the highest level of practicability. To engage in new Pro9rall'lS at the expense of other elements in the institution's educational fonnat tends to weaken the curriculum's effectiveness.
'!he University System's basic ani advanced research programs are in need of extraol:'dinaIy furrli.ng. Geo:rgia has been said to have entered the age of in:lustrialization late (circa 1900), but the state is said to stand in a "take-off" position insofar as the requirements to succeed in the age of science and high technology.
Geo:rgia's scientific research needs are not bei.n;J net in that manner demanded by those parties desiri.n;J higher rn.nnbers of enployees in high-tech and in science-dePencient businesses. In order to increase capital investrrents within these borders, more eJIl)hasis should be placed on shifti.n;J furrli.ng to pure and applied scientific research. Has science and teclmical education been limited by the needs to serve many differi.n;J constituents of the University System through such la:rge numbers of educational SPeCializations? science and technology education, because of the rapid rate of inventive chan:Je, can suffer Perfo:rmance degradation. '!he ability to keep up oa:::asions continuing concern aIOClI1g' science ani technology educators. '!his basic issue of movi.n;J the balance of :resources was analyzed by Califonria's first assessnent of its total University System in recent years. In questioniI1g' the neglect of the unde:rgraduate curriculum, California's assessment team reported that when research was placed in competition with that state's general education developments, negative results surfaced.
287

'!he very inportant fi.n:tin;]s of the state of califo:rnia's special
assessment team, as reported in the Atlanta Constitution, August 4, 1987, p. GA, specifically noted the degradation of the basics an::l liberal arts courses as the result of giving precedence of effort to research. '!his report stating the cause an::l effect of the decline of liberal arts was concluded after 27
years had elapsed since the last official overall i.rquiry of that state's
system. '!he califo:rnia assessment team made profcmn recc:mnerx3ations as a
result of these dramatic discoveries. In particular TNere the analyses of the corxlition of the two-year institutions that noted the "state's once highly-regarded but recently troubled two-year ccmmmi.ty college system would be substantially upgraded".
'!his assessment fi.rrls no data that e.IIphasis on research in the University System of Georgia has degraded the general education subjects as was the case in califo:rnia. Imeed, the System's scientific t.lu:usts deseJ:ve IlDre, not less, financial an::l resources SlJRXlrt. Georgia's scientific research prograns are healthy an::l growing, an::l increased, direct assistance for all peer-tested science-related discovery an::l development programs are assessed as worthy targets of System interest. At no point in this assessment does the assessment team firx:l cause to enter conclusions which are negative to the united state's research efforts. What is being aa::amplished in these tll'Xlertakings on the campuses of the System is not receiving the positive public acknowledgement which is so rightfully deserved.
'Ibis assessment obsel:ves that research in the University System of Georgia has had a positive effect upon Georgia's two-year colleges, an::l all evidence justifies IlDre research effort, not less. However, the System's two-year institutions' leadership irxli.cates a need for special tll'Xlerstan::li.ng, support, an::l furrling. '!he leadership of these institutions has expressed the need for System acknowledgment of their special problems. '!he california "reappraisal" treated the 106 ccmnunity colleges as a whole, an::l the assessment officials declared that a unity of control was needed as well as a raising of the academic standards of this category of state educational resources.
'!he Institutional Assessment Program for the Georgia System now in its
third year in service, is one positive vehicle to guard against the loss of
vitality in the overall delivery of academic effort.
Two connected practices are in the optimum position to recognize and
reverse possible "perfonnance degradation." '!he regional and professional
accrediting agencies possess the capacity to develop standards designed to discover this negative phenomenon and the means to police those standards.
"Institutional Effectiveness" is a Southern Association priority.
In addition, and IlDSt inportant of all, are the routine self-studies by all institutions which are members of the accrediting associations. Special self-studies by irxli.vidual departlrents an::l by colleges preparing for new professional degree programs can meet this challenge of insuring that the
long-starxling or basic courses are not suffering degradation because of new
directions being tll'Xlertaken.
288

Di.m.inishirg perfonnance in academic :functions does not begin or occur openly, nor does it result from machinations pn:posed through administrative intention. Intividual students in the degree process an:! graduates from System institutions can recall classroan situations in which less than effective teaching, unrewardin;J course structure, an:! limited PerSOnal academic results for the student were experienced. Responsibility for placing the i.nstJ:uctor rests with the official urder whose aegis the experience transpired. '!he instructor is acx::ountable, an:! the "teacher-evaluation" tec1mi.ques, institutionally required or voltmtarily solicited by professional i.nstJ:uctors, is an appropriate tool for measuring instructor-perfonnance patterns. sincere debate surrourrls the teacher-evaluation subject, and critics of teacher-assessments by students recognize the possible occurrence of subsequent "grade inflation".
"Perfonnance Evaluation" can also be a budgetary consequence. Numerous administrative paradoxes challerge the Presidents an:! Deans in making sure that all academic course requirements are included in the curriculmn, that new an:! innovation course-work be made initial offerings, that research is supported, that infonnation systems are IOOderni.zed, that stipulations by accrediting agencies for SPeCial "correction" be acccmplished institutionally, an:! that budget resource be provided in support of the auxilicuy arx:l ancillcuy :functions of the institution. No certain tec1mi.que exists, as this assessment discovered, to serve as a st.arrlard toothed to reconcile many of the strong arx:l traditional forces c:arprising this academic scene.
Diminished Imp::?rtance Of Basics Classics And Ethics
Does perfonnance degradation have historical reference arx:l measurement in the histo:ry of higher education? unforbmately the affinnative response to the question can be based on the diminished status of Basics, Classics, and Ethics. '!he reduction in the classroan of the i.np:lrtance of these subjects serves as a warning to the University System of Georgia. Some of these examples are in the process of receiving careful attention arx:l forceful rebuttal.
Intercollegiate Athletics
'!his assessment noted the questioning by a significant mnnber of educators of the validity of sports c:arpetition between higher education institutions as such activities are now practiced. Public awareness, through extensive reporting in the national conmmications IOOdia arx:l findings of official athletic governance sources, has revealed a histo:ry of rule-berrling arx:l breaking by institutions in higher education. In fact, abuses of their self-:inp:lsed rules by campus athletic organizations are recorded. '!he downward (abuse of rules) t.rem. is well-marked by the degrading of the spirit of sport, although the new eJ'!Ilbasis on ethics constitutes a growing and beneficial effect.
Grade Inflation
'!he Atlanta-Journal Constitution report of the California state assessrrent stated that that system's colleges, at the canununity level,
289

"lowered academic st:arx:1ards arxl offered marginal programs in an effort to keep up enrollment". A siIrplistic analysis of this problem of instructional grad.:inl patterns of students produces in::c:aIplete finllngs. '!he instructor atte.npts to "take the student at the point where the student is". Grades are vital to the future graduate student's eligibility for advanced degree admission, but it is often the den'Iarni.ng tead1er who is remembered as having contributed significantly to sourx:i academic results.
only by a fonnalized IIDnitoring system can this menanenon of possible inflation of student grading patterns be judged. An objective arxl total record of grade scores can avoid the clan:Jer of the di1ninishment of the value of the degree received fran that college or tmiversity. '!he issue grows nore iIrportant in the public's perception as to what is being taught arxl how well. Rumors of smveys about the ignorance of college :freshmen or college seniors float in the public's consciousness. In addition, ~tition between University System tmits, offering the same degree, is based on the various course requirements arxl the mnnber of credit hours needed for that degree. '!he assessnent team have all had career experiences with these comparisons of the irxiividual units' differing degree values. Diversity anong arxl between the System's tmits has public acceptance but inconsistence in the degrees' values does not strengthen the total system. However, the Developmental studies in the System's offerings was designed to remedy uneven academic preparation patterns arxl provide direct tutoring to those students who require additional assistance. An even start on the degree ladder is the objective of these programs of assistance in order that classroom perfonnance will not suffer degradation.
By no means should inference develop that grade inflation is a problem ~ed to the two-year institution. '!he assessment team observes that no campus is free of the possibility of the di1ninishment of grad.:inl starxlards. On the other harxl, no incidence of grade inflation in the Georgia System appeared to warrant the conclusions that this is a problem of the magnitude as was reported in the quoted source, ~.
rncreasim Displacement of Regular Full-time Faculty by Part-time Teachim arxl Graduate Student-teachers
Many .in::lividual part-time teachers are as good, arxl same are better, than the full-time faculty such auxiliary personnel replace. Given the truth of the declaration, students do prefer a top professional whose main thrusts of personality arxl professional efforts are focused on the specific knowledge area. In addition, the full-time teacher exercises the advantage of the continuous practice over the years of pw:poseful pursuit of optimum results through these practices of the teaching arts. Another advantage of full-time teaching comnitments is that research in the subject matter is able to be a continuing professional growth experience as well.
It is observed that a part-time instructor arxl classroom arxl laboratory graduate teaching assistants are necessary to the success of the University System. '!he latter are needed directly, arxl their pursuits of graduate degrees lllaI'rlate their presences on the instructional scene. '!he use of the fonner can increase the tmit's budget's efficiencies, arxl because such
290

professional help is inexpensive, i.nst:ructi.onal costs aggregates are kept cxxnpatible with the total allocations to the institution's instru.ctional budget. OVeruse of these auxiliary persormel should be avoided. othffiWise these parties are both necessa:ry arrl. beneficial to academia.
Absence of Reinforced I.eami.ng
'll1ere appears to be no relief fran the flood of writin3s on the subject of the poor quality of American higher education. F'Urt:hel:m:>re, careful analysis firrls factual bases for developi.rg premises able to serve as reasonable means of prcduci.rg m:>re positive results fran the academic capacities already available. Resources are now in operative POStures, ready to be utilized if employed in st.ren;Jth arrl. if used with intensified application. 'll1e result will be "reinforced leamil'g".
'!he siInple example is the degree requirenent, or the use of student's elective choices aIOOIg the courses available, after which the si.rgle course experience is never rePeated. Elsewhere in this assessment, "corrpart:mentalization" of subject matter is examined.
One solution to corrpart:mentalization is the opportunity provided to the students to take from a variety of course work spread over the entire curriculum. 'll1e "shoppirg" for courses outside the area of maj or academic concentration provides stimulation to the scholarly mi.rrl but does not reinforce necessarily the advance toward the degree objective. Two results are measurable from this extraneous course "shoppirg": 'll1e emphasis on the central core of experienced knowledge could have employed the non-related course-time to reinforce the major. seconny, the one French course taken (for exanple) in an area of knowledge never to be used again in the academic life span of that student, never to reinforce any arrl. all leamil'g already experienced through the academic progress of the student, is a wasted opportunity of genuine significance.
Because of the negative publicity :regardi.rg the state of the nation's scholarship, the population terrls to believe that college arrl. university persormel do not know how PeOple leanl arrl., for this reason, cannot teach because the factual concepts of how students leanl remain unfathomed. On the other ham, the psychologists, in their lOIg-stan::li.rg POSseSSion of the knowledge of how leamil'g is aCCOlTplished successfully, provide sound reasons for practices to be undertaken to "reinforce" previous leamil'g experiences.
'Ib reinforce leamil'g is to prevent the loss of leamil'g. However, reinforceroont of leamil'g is missirg in many partial arrl. time-limited exposures to unstro.ctured delvirg aIOOIg disciplines by students. 'll1is ];i1enanenon concerned Bloom, ani his arguments are S01..1nied in '!he Closing of the American Mind with reference to the characteristic described as "unstructured" leamil'g.
'!he assessment team does not advocate course restriction ani agrees with the rebuttal authorities opPOSed to "stnlctured" student course pursuits. Elsewhere in this assessment arguments made in opposition to Bloom's findings are discussed. Nevertheless, since the higher education entity in the United
291

states is viewed in sare quarters as being in a "cross roads" dilemma, could not the unrelated elective student e>cperience be given academic emphasis in at least sare of the several courses to be uniertaken? Why should a student e>cperience a single course which provides no expectation of that course's contents serving a future academic p.npose? Must the previous leanri.ng be utilized only accidentally? On the other harrl, course work in a major program of study provides continual subject reinforcerrent.
It is observed that the full e.nploynelt of all knowledge should be an objective to be sought for in every course wherever possible throughout the student' s prcgress toward c::x::xrpletion of the campus experience. IDst knowledge, due to the lack of effective means to insure the "touching" and melding of separate course work, is detrimental to all educational constituencies
Tradition on campuses is noted publicly in oerem:mial exercises, and it
has always served as "sceneJ:Y", a back-drop to the action. On occasion,
tradition is served directly and honored as the guideline in detennining the academic decision. '!hese historical educational traditions of course matter, however, are subject to many rewrites and novel applications, sometimes so transfonned that their classroom production can be subject to objective question. Elsewhere in this assessment the need to support "basics, classics and ethics" in the curriculum is upheld.
one of the elements listed alxwe, ethics, now needs the widest
application. It is observed that every course, where practicable, should nultiply the efforts to translate ethics in hantDny with the course's subject matter. Dr. Clark Kerr, addressing the 20th anniversmy of Harvard's Institute for Educational Management, August 6, 1989, reflected that earlier in his career ethics was intentionallyanitted in the instructional fonnat of college course work. His present concen1 reflects the need for expanding micro ethics inteJ:pretation in as many areas of course work as is practicable. If ethics has been ignored in the past, it should be upgraded as an academic element in the 1990's.
Perfonnance Degradation also is capable of occurring in the work of the ancillary academic institutes and centers. centers and Institutes in the University System are analyzed elsewhere in this a.ssessrta1t. HOW'ever, the study of other states' agencies serves to reference the value of review of the creating authorities' intentions when the agencies' works were begun. 'Ibis System's ancillary agencies have been subject to review as well. other states' experiences are varied. mSIGHI', Vol. 5, No. 39 P.28 issue of september 25, 1989, analyzes the state of califonria's assessment of Boards and other agencies deperrlent in whole or in part on califonria state funjs. '!he original intention of the creators of such specialiZed and separate agencies is now being measured against interxled perfonnance. Some of these many entities' expectations were not fulfilled as the report on califonria noted. other states' e>cperiences with their Boards and Agencies revealed the problems of the challenges to the quality of their perfonnance levels.
'!he University System's units perfonning these Jd.njg of special tasks are ill'pressive in their records of work and the positive results flOW'ing from
292

their errleavors. '!heir JOOSt attractive features are revealed in the character
of their voluntary services. '!he centers am institutes' personnel are conscious of their special talents am achievements am are proud of their capacities to provide aid to the other personnel in the System am their plans am projects. '!he expertise dJservable in the System's agencies is the
JOOSt inp:>rtant element in their provisions for service, which to their credit are not self-lmted to their operational raItines. Elsewhere in this
assessment centers am institutes are listed.
one factor related to Perfonnance Degradation is the effect of secon:1ary
consequences affectirg the student's future academic progress. sequential
courses deperrl on the quality of previous classroan experiences. Arr:l lack of
groun:tin;J in courses taken in earlier time frames requires the advanced course instroctor to "pick up" the sb.nent at the point of student's
progress. In such an event, the current instroctor can be delayed in
executirg the course design.
Student !.Dan Rep:iyment crisis
'!he Association of Goverrtirq Boards p.1blication am other cxmnentaries
point out the growth in the rn.nnbers of defaulted student loans. '!he observers of this negative pattern of debt satisfaction fim the stafford !.Dan Program (previously referred to as the "Guaranteed student !.Dan [GSL] program") now possesses new restrictions for the participatirg institutions of higher leanrlrg. COntrols over the credit functions are beirg tightened
am the avoidance of an institutional default rate of nore than twenty
percent is JOOSt i.np::lrtant. I.Dwered Perfonnance in the repayment of loans can
damage the aid to student loan program am pennanent capabilty for the unit's
decertification is a renx:>te, but real possibility.
'Ib prevent the Perfonnance degradation of the delivery of student services, continuous nonitorirg of the subject area is necessal.Y. In the University System, students appear to be well-served with student counselirg,
satisfactory canplS envirornnents, am in the furtherirg of student cultural
objectives. Feedback fran continual nonitorirg is the major ingredient insurirg the success of the oversight process designed to prevent Perfonnance
degradation. '!he Systems solicitirg regular am timely opinion am
experiences fran the canplS PerSOnnel directly involved will serve to confront any loss of Perfonnance. In the event that systemic practices are not operative, the System's authorities at every level DUSt then provide the opportunities for participation in corrective action.
'!he measures described above will assist the System's units to continue
their present progress am will contribute to the System's pursuit of
excellence.
293

ImDlcrJK; :FUIURE GlWXlATE AND PR:>F'ESSICfiAL tummS '.ID SERVE 'DIE 1990'S

"Ninety percent of higher education's present difficulties TNOUld be resolved if ~ educators knew the
l1llIltlers am categories of professional, ocx:upational, am
vocational personnel needed for a sourd America"
A veteran enployee of the University System.

Dr. Joe Vail, Associate state SUperint:en:ient of SChools, Georgia
Depa.rt:IIent of Fducation, states that bet:ween 2000 am 2,500 new teachers for
the Georgia Public SChool needs must be recruited fran states other than Georgia for the Fall tenn 1989. His report states further:

1. Number of Student Teachers Prepared in Georgia

14 Board of Regents Institutions 20 Private Institutions

2,445 616
3,061

2. Number of Teachers Recroited fran out-of-State Sources

'Ihese data are unavailable but should be acx:essible later this
fall. Sources of "Hires" are new ccxles on the certified Personnel
Infonnation (CPI) Report in the fall, am the eatp.lter program is
be.in;J written.
3. Teachers Trained at summer Institutes -
Math/SCience/Foreign Ianguage

North Georgia College

12

Georgia Southern

16

Georgia state

23

Special Education

west Georgia

2.4
Total 75

Predict.in;J the rnnnbers of specialists required to SUWOrt the American
economic structure am to give serJ'ice to the national goals of peace I prosperity am progress is a supremely important exercise of the System's
leadership. 'Ihe efficiency of the entire operation of tax-supported
post-secorrlal:y learnin;J depen:ls on the adequacy of the rnnnbers of graduates
prcx:iuced am the concurrent curtailment of unnecessary educational expenses.

294

Balancing educational costs against a sufficient output of talent,
capacity, am willingness of University System graduates to serve the
specialized demands of the human enviromnent daninates academic management' s plarming functions. '!his predc:mi.nance of the plarming function governing the
college executives' uses of ti.ne, energy, am imagination originating in the
dilemmas about academic enrollment rnnnbers is analyzed elsewhere in this work.
In addition, neoc>ries still linger on the campuses fram a few years PaSt reflecting the frustration enc:::a.mtered by holders of newly-conferred doctoral degrees who could not get jabs in academia. Accepting large mnnbers of new students POSeS a m:>ral dilemma if the markets for the enrollees' skills are dried up. '!he paradox confronts the decision makers: Education in certain subjects, provided for "in the same old way", may be education for future
unemployment! Matters am events beyoni the careerist' s control negate the plarmed work ncM being prepared for in the un:iergraduate am graduate ranks.
'!he external force of obsolescence in jab preparation erodes the job market opportunities
Georgia's public am private POst-sec:x:>rmry teacher training insti-
tutions have failed to provide the required mnnbers of new teachers as demonstrated by Dr. Paul Vail's figures set forth above. In addition to the quantity factor, other specifications contribute to concerns about in-state teacher preparation. SUch issues are addressed elsewhere in this report.
Serious shortages exist in the rn.nnber of teachers prepared in areas of specialization. Even though overall mnnbers are short as measured against the state's needs for 1989, the lack of available teachers certified to teach in
the special education, SPeeCh pathology, mathematics am science fields, is
m:>st serious.
'!he various studies about Georgia's population, relating to the Per-
centage completing am K through 12, the losses through the dropout route in high school am college, the out-migration factor, the geographic population density factors, am other derographic analYseS, should be consulted
regularly. Georgia is growing in population so rapidly that data should be updated continually. In addition, the inpouring of global populations into Georgia is accelerating. '!he global student potential must be counted in the
preparations to serve Georgia's future student aspirations am to maintain
its present drive toward excellence.
It must be stressed that the overall student population issue, in the context of the potential mnnbers of students to be educated, must attain
balance in the mnnbers am kirrls of graduates to serve adequately the many
constituencies of the state. Dr. cameron Fincher has studied this question of
"how many" (specialiZed graduates) am "in what fields of service" (to the many publics involVed) to which Georgia should cannnit its present resources.
He points out the "temporary" nature of the well-being of the University
System am how annual state budgets can am do c.harqe directions replacing
long-range plarming with short-tenn diversion of resources. However crises do
apPear, am the authors applaud. the flexibility of leadership vision am
action by the Cllancellor am the Regents to correct the course of the System.
295

'nle Fincher fi.n:tin;s on the question of numbers of "home economists,
veterinarian medicine practitioners", am other agricultural SPeCialists is
that the "the IlDre Georgia is i.mustrialiZed, the deroarrl for agricultural SPeCialists will exceed the SUWly". In like manner, ergineering education was discovered to be a IOOSt attractive academic curricula to an everincreasing rnnnber of Georgians. 'nle sucx::ess of this curricula, Dr. Fincher says, is the attraction to Georgia c::xmnunities to establish science and tedmology urxiergraduate degree institutions in their locality. Against this appeal of the technical degree program for an area's citizens is the equally strong pl1.1 to fulfill the destiny of the historically-serving institution of tedmology - Georgia Tech. How many ergineerin;J graduates and SPeCialists will be needed in the 1990's is not predictable. 'Dle dilennna exists because
the IlDre economically attractive science am tedmology educational
institutions are, the IlDre the presences of such institutions are desired.
Dr. Fincher's study re-errphasized the decline in the mnnber of career-oriented teachers due to the "deterrents of the negative working conditions, status," and the general envirornnent characterizing the typical experience. His study also indicates the growing corrpetition for minority
scholars am the potential loss thereby on the part of the state' s
institutions.
In stnmnal:Y, the predicting of future work force rnnnbers depend on the
PerSPeCtive of the forecaster, am the results will be conditioned by
subsequent PerSOnal interpretation of the data. In addition, global driving
forces are removing population barriers, am the attractiveness of Georgia's
cities is reflected in population growth in w:Dan, sub-w:Dan, and ex-w:ban at a rate which is one of the nation's highest. Training and educating irrlustrial and service personnel carmot be a conclusive exercise. For exaIrple, though the national population is predicted to became stabilized by 2000, and the IlDre pennanent figures for the size of the public's mnnbers is assumed, a severe loss in the present ranks of college and university
teaching personnel also is going to ocx::ur. Retirement and irwoluntary
attrition rates are calculable in part, an:1 the instructors who entered the faculty ranks in the 1950's and 1960's will be leaving. Graduate program developments in the System must provide these replacements within the System's paran'eters of need.
i'l)RKFORCE 2000, Hudson Institute, 1987, is a comprehensive analysis of the many factors encountered in the unraveling of the facts and figures
surroun:linJ the subject. Clearly the "High-Eanring OCCUpations" are becoming
IlDre visible in the numbers of this classification as a percentage of the present (and predictably, the future) work force (ibid, p. 31).
Another thorough sw:vey of national errployment needs for the 1900s is
the coca Cola Corrpmy's reproduction of the National Alliance of B..1siness' s
publication, EMPlOYMENT :FOLICIES: lOOKING 'IO '!HE YEAR 2000 (1986). This
exceptional am connected anlysis dernams a comprehensive urxierstanding of all the facets of the work force picture am SPeCifies the actions
educational authorities must undertake to insure the strength of the national
purPOse.
296

'!his National Alliance of Business sttDy points to the ilnportant am.
basic facts. Some of these quoted data are: (ibid, p. 3) "Figures projected for the rest of the centw:y for
the entire econany point to a disruption in the labor market many times nore severe than previously" other serious TNOrk force problems predicted to confront future national policy-IlIaldnJ are basa:i on these data: "(ibid, 3-4) 23,000,000 Americans are :ful'cti.onally illiterate;
the nore skilled TNOrkers will retire earlier than at present am. also
retire in increasirg rnnnbers; the I'JUIIIber of grc:Mth enterirg the work force will decline; illegal inmigration will i.rx::rease; by 1990 it is estimated that three out of four j<i:Js will require sane education or technical trainirg beyorrl high school; by 2000 15 million manufacturirg j<i:Js will be restnlctured. An equal number of sel:Vice jobs probably will becane obsolete. '!he U. S. Bureau of labor statistics estimates 16 million new' jobs will replace lost j<i:Js between 1984-1995, nine out of ten of these new' jobs will be in the sel:Vice sector". '!hese reported analYSeS of the employment opportunities of the next
decade hold out opportunities for higher education, both for receiving am. givirg assistance to am. from the econcmy. "Private employers must see trainirg as essential to their productivity, am. business, labor am.
education must all work as partners (in meetirg this challen;Je) . "
Administrative solutions are suggested in the fonn of state am. local
"councils" charged with the authority "to coordinate all trainirg, education,
economic development am. placement activities in the state" (ibid, p. 10).
'!his total approach theme is sourrled strongly in this NAB plan.
297

1EVEIDBBm\L SIUDIES - VAIDE AIDD EDJCATlCE
"D:>n't let anyone tell you Develcpnental studies don't
work; it saved am helped make my dlild's academic career. II
(A parent of a fonner Develcpnental studies student, currently a successful college graduate.)
Elsewhere in this assessmPnt, the develcpnental studies prcgram operatirg un:ler Board of Regents authority on the canplSeS of the University System is analyzed by Dr. Joan Elifson, the current director of one of the University System's largest develcpnental studies programs. Dr. Elifson, has had lergthy am highly placed administrative ~ience in these operations am in the acquirirg of personal k:rlc1Nledge of the history of developmental studies' programs of work. Consequently, the authors will not duplicate Dr. Elifson's expert report which appears in this assessnsIt umer her name am title.
'!he assessnsIt's intention is to describe the values of these programs in the System's inventory of educational OQ;lOrtunities available to
in:lividuals who are eligible am willirg to pursue this avenue to qualify for
fonnal matriculation into the degree program of choice.
'!his assessment acla10wledges the analysis published in 1983 umer the title: '!HE EIGHl'IES AND BEYOND - A a:Mrr'IMENT 'IO EXCETJENCE. '!he docmnent resulted from the "needs assessment" for "Public Higher Education" conducted
by the Regents staff am unit personnel. one of the listed reconnnendations
(on page 12) for quality improv~t of future academic practices expresses the need to phase out Developmental studies. '!his reconnnendation to the Board of Regents is quoted as follows:
"'!he Board should adopt as a long-rarge goal the elimination of the need for Developmental studies as that prcgram is currently constituted; that this goal be adopted with the umers1:an:ling that the results of past deprivation of educational opportunity will
long remain am that the need for cc::mp::msatory education must be
met so long as necessary in order not to block access to higher education for those who are capable of eliminatirg academic deficiencies for which they may not be totally responsible; that close cooperation with the state Board of Education be made the cornerstone for achievement of this goal, recognizirg that academic problems are best addressed as they develc:p, not-after-the fact".
In weighirg the returns on invest:Ioont, a primary test for justifyirg tax-supported institutions' financial allocations, Developmental studies proves to be a worthwhile ccmni:bnent of the System. '!he considerable attrition of enrolled students, both voluntary (dropouts) am involuntary (dismissal, transfer, job precedence, lack of :furxjs, absence of opportunity to continue, etc.), is so manifestly negative that only an innovative,
298

attractive, an::l scum scholastic plan, will stim..l1ate the reenlisbnent of
these lost personnel. Develcpnental studies, in large part, acc::c:lrplishes the "reenlistment" goal.
What are the costs an::l penalties charged against a victim of pennanent attrition? studies al:x:lun:l highlightin;J the IlIJdl larger lifetime income earned by educated persons in canparison with that part of the population lacking scholastic training, skills, concepts, an::l cultural flexibility. Georgia's needs cannot be IOOt in optinu.nn neasure unless the missirg scholars can be attracted to reenter the pm;ui.t of higher education.
BellSouth's CED, John Clermmm, addressed the serious problem of education. He was cxmcerned about the ''millions of kids across the nation who quit school every year". His assessment is quoted fram the American
'!hought leader, winter 1989 Vol 5, No.1, p. 9, an::l defines the problem in econanic tenns by his projection that, "In fact, each year's crop of American dropouts costs this country an estimated 240 billion dollars of lost earnings an::l taxes over their lifetimes".
Reentry into the academic erw.irornnent through Developmental Studies becomes easier for the person with lilnited academic experience than a full degree-track program will require. In addition, the Developmental studies' applicant's lack of a positive academic rec:x:>rd is accorded an unusual degree of sensitivity. Age is not a detriment to canpleting one's education in developmental programs, an::l long absences fram the classroom are not a factor beyorrl redeIl"ption.
In addition, these development courses, designed to enhance the students' skills an::l attitudes corrlucive to the urrlertaking of degreeoriented education, possess attributes capable of conferring great benefit on the student seeking to continue an academic program. Aroc>ng these benefits are:
1. '!he teaching of English, reading an::l mathematics in close cxnnpanionship, each course in tarrlem with the others, reIOClVes the "comparbnentalization" factor. several leading American educators have given
reference to the fact that "courses should touch one another". "Access"
is based on helpfulness an::l sensitivity to human need.
2. '!he holistic teaching approach to all learning is stressed in Developmental studies. No assunptions, tacit or otherwise, are made which would elilninate the opportunity for the students' mastering the
basic learning skills am acquiring general knowledge. '!he psychological
posture of Developmental studies strives to prevent artificial barriers
to slow the "total" educational effort. '!he student's way into the
"subject's" mysteries is allowed the widest an::l most simplistic approach.
3. '!he learning processes are mutually self-supporting. Transfer of skills fram course to course is interrled, arrl the results are measurable in the "overall" personal student's acc::c:lrplistnnent. 'Ibis factor - the planned presence of "reinforced learning" - is one of the program's productive
299

dividerrls, ani this professional practice is worthy of wide replication.
4. As part of the Desegregation Plan Ame.rment of 1978, Dr. Joan Elifson (see, ~) points out that each Develcpnental studies program nnJSt, ani does, include a "I.eamin;J Iaboratozy". Fach Iaborato:ry, in pursuit of the objectives of collegiate desegregation, was directed to provide "tutors" for in:liviclual assistance to Developnental studies students. 'Ihese tutorial programs have euployed as many as ten tutorial professionals (for one of the progJ:am's with large enrollment). Personal
guidance, PerSOnal direction, ani PerSOnal assistance, states Dr.
Elifson, are assured insofar as such assurance derives fran this plarmed
one-to-one instructional experieooe.
5. students with leanri.rg disabilities are recognized ani helPed by Develcpnental studies' tutorial systems. '!he profourrl iInportance of this opporbmity for students to be given sensitive ani patient tutorial services is hard to measure. An entire future lifetime can be greatly
enhanced on a PerSOnal skills basis. '!he analysis of the student' s
leanri.rg disability alone is of inestimable value in establishing a new departure in the enrollee's lifestyle.
'!hese analyses of the benefits of Developnental studies reveal the need to "track" the students exiting during the course or on completion of their studies. Dr. Elifson, elsewhere in this work, writes of the need for this additional administrative operation.
It is observed that Develcpnental studies, in the overall plan of all total public service provided by the University System through the delive:ry of the nn.l1tiplicity of academic offerings to Georgia's population, is believed to be both a cost-effective ani a nuch-needed instructional success. Developmental studies serves as a stimulation to students othenvise untouched by traditional academic ''marketing'' . It is observed that the program is worthy of continued support ani academic iIrprovement with one proviso: '!he academic following-up of exited students ani the gathering of appropriate data thereon are necessa:ry objectives for the completeness of the program's claimed justification.
300

'!he question persists. LO academicians expressly desire to be held
accountable? Should such accountability reflect the success or failure of the
teachers and administrators? Should the measure of academic worth be based on the student rn.nnbe:rs produced or on the values in erudition and learning aCCCllplished? Should the mnnber of graduates as a percentage of entering freshmen and transfer students be the measure? Accountability of academic
elements generally de1tlarx3s "keeping track", and foll<:::M-t1p of the scholars'
achievements (or the :records thereof) is necessary to validate input versus outpIt.
Following the scholar's progress through tracking efforts is an intrusion in the PersOl'la1 future history of the subject. Notwithstarxling the
scru.tiny of the scholar's continuing Perfonnance, academia must chart the results of the uses of its resources in order to COI'l'plete the latter's justifications for its present status and further growth.
It is the conviction of the assessment team that the professional academicians are :ready and able to un:lergo accountability. However, other questions must first be answered about the method of gaging the progress claimed, the identification of the elements of assessment, the :reconciling of ancillary and IOOdifying factors, and, IOOSt inp)rtantly, an agreed-upon definition of educational objectives should :receive authoritative acceptance.
Dr. Boyer, <X>UEX;E, 1987, p. 105, states ''many campuses are to:rn between careerism and the goals of liberal learning." '!herefore, the first assessment of accountability or of ''value added" elements requires defining what educational ''value'' is in fact.
However, neither accountability as such, or the question of defining educational values, occupies the main objective of this section of the assessment. '!he inpact here recognizes one anission in the academic annory designed to do battle against ignorance and student "partial success" cases in the System. '!he references are directed to the serious need to "track" all students and all graduates with University System experience. Perfonnance :reality is the best proof of institutional effectiveness.
'!he electronic means for massive :record keeping are at hand, and to follow future career patterns of IOOSt graduates becomes a practical objective. Firding the reasons for high student attrition appears to be the IOOSt needed application of such practices. '!he tedmical and PersOnnel requirercent will marrlate furrling specifically allocated for this major
breakthrough.
In the area of Developmental studies in the System, a profound rationale persists for the following of students' academic progress. In his paPer, before the attendees at the annual m=eting of the Association of Gove:rning Boards, 1984, Dr. cameron Fincher, an author of this assessment, explained
301

the need for tracking Developnental students in the forward progressions of their studies.
Dr. Joan Elifson, the author of the definitive paper on the Developnvantal studies operations in the university System, also stresses the necessity of followirg the exited Developnental students. Dr. Elifson's proposals are outlined in her assessment of Developnental Studies found elsewhere in this work.
OXlsideration of practical aocotmtability for academic input, based on educational values passed on to the student by the i.nstn.lction process is difficult, if not :in'pJssible, unless an effective tracking of the student's
progJ:ess can be Perfected.
In the case of transferrirg students, the originatirg institution will be unable to fim assurance for its offeri.rr:Js unless grades ean1d at that institution can be CCIn"pared to the grade averages of the receiving institutions. within the System, this comparison is a reality, and Developmental Studies students are able to be tracked effectively if Dr. Elifson's plans
are executed.
Present systems of "follow-up" should be sought by administrators not only for the enrichment of the knowledge base of their own academic unit but also because of the System's Desegregation Plan. In the letter to the Office of the Goven1Or by Mr. William H. '!hanas, Director, Office for civil Rights, Region IV, dated Januaz:y 31, 1983, he dJserves:
"In addition, the system and each institution will establish a program to more fully detennine reasons for student attrition. '!his program is to include, but not be limited to, student follow-up, student exit interviews, and other necessary research studies. Each institution will con:luct annually faculty seminars on the unique problems associated with student retention".
'!he University System has exterxled its efforts to discover effective practices designed to include the highest degree c:x:Il"pletion rate percentage by enrollees. Elsewhere in this assessment, errpmsis on these practices appears.
Clearly, accountability's meani.n:J as a tenn applied to the presence of
academic values raises the question of probity. "Proof", or proving of efficiency of educational processes, has becane an increasingly visible objective. Rising costs, competition for the tax-dollar, and questions of efficiency of cost-effectiveness have led many states to put their systems of higher education to the test of maximizirg the retunl on the most efficient input.
Proficiency of PersOnal guidance and general professional assistance to students and faculty are the priZed elements in reducirg student attrition and for assuring success in leading students through to graduation. "A beneficent experience gained by the student in her or his relationship with the Wividual professional in arxl/or out of the classroom does more to deter
302

the student's failure to continue her or his academic progress than any other single factor. " other factors making up the students' experiences are inp:>rtant, but the factor representing the IOOSt lasting beneficence is the addition of genuine value to the life enridlment of the students.
'!he assessment of the worth of a college education is conditioned in part on whether or not ''value-added'' elements are in the student's possession as a result of all of the learning experiences. Because educators have difficulty in agreeing on "quality" of educational results, value-added
elements are not untisputed. Much debate must be reconciled am many academic benchmarks representing quality am added value questions must be accorded
general academic agreement. '!he central condition directly affecting academic assessment of value-
added education is the records made by the scholars produced. Tracking these scholars' records is essential. If the university System can accorrplish this
objective for its students, graduates, am students transferring out of the
system, proof of values added will obtain. '!he question of implementing student tracking focuses on the national
electronic possibilities. National networks are being develOPed for research,
am with their successful implementation, tracking students' progress
successfully is also possible. In sununary it is observed that students transferring within the System
are capable of foIIOlN-up. '!he System's desegregation plan calls for this follOlN-up process to be applied. Dropouts are in great need of the reasonable probability that these victilns of academic attrition can be contacted successfully, not only once, but on any occasion when the registration Period is open for enrollment at that (or another) campus in the System. Develop-
mental studies students need am deserve a systematic foIIOlN-up.
303

:IMl'HJfllH:; 'DIE SlOU!Nr JQJATIal
october 30, 1989
~ the i.n"portant develqments surfacirJ] in the higher education experience is the realization that students need to be infonned of the potential darl;Jers of casual sexual erra.mters, the tragedies of chemical habituation, ani the misery of alcoholic addictioo. COJpled with these needs it is essential that the inprrted infonnation be CCIrI'l'lmicated to the student
infonned in a way con:h1cive to a far greater de:Jree of sua::ess than those results recon:led in the recent past.
Great strides have been taken nationally in the disclosures connecting tabaoco abuse with IUl"g, throat ani nnrt:h cancer. 1.l1e ~t sophistication
fo:r:merly attached to the glaIlDr surrcAlI'rlirg social sm:>kinJ through the
dramatic enployment of media exposure I'1OVl is being rebutted with silnilar techniques of public sti.nu.I1ation.
1.l1e partial sua::ess of infonnation about tabaoco abuse is largely the result of the intensely personal nature of the wantirg. 'lhe personaliZed one-on-one ~roach is I'1OVl an absolute prerequisite in ccmnunicating with a college-age student reared on television's thirty-secom attention enviromnent.
Consequently, the assessment team was impressed by the direct approach by the institutional personnel in their attempts to insure intividual response. 1.l1e trerrl is away from audiences of students viewing videos, receivirJ] distributed harxl-bills, ani listening to assembly "lectures". 'lhese fo:r:merly-sua::essful campus communication devices worked because the student body ParticiPants had been the recipients of earlier experienced corxlitioning patten1s conducive to the success of these methods.
1.l1e university System must exterxi itself quickly ani efficiently to rrake a positive inplct on each student insofar as this c:bjective is possible. Life safety, personal health, ani the avoidance of possible cr.ilni.nal activity are the "real world" c:bjectives of the System makirg in provision for assistance to the Systens' students ani enployees. New methods must be designed to ann the student, female ani male, against these illicit, even deadly practices.
To ac:x:x::xrplish the objective of protectirJ] students ani enployees ani, at the same m:::ment protect their personal rights ani privileges, the intividual student or enployee receiving exposure must be prepared to rrake the right life decisions. SUch a result requires ccmnitment by the System's authorities to reject intifference by maintainirJ] conscious awareness of their personnel's w1nerabilities. 'lhese dangers, described above, must be dealt with by a harxls-on leadership.
It is c:bserved that wherever ani whenever possible the institution will invite in relatively small seminars all of their personnel to receive instruction on what to say, ani do, when confronted by the challenge of accepting or denying <:::oIrplicity in lif~ering or illicit behavior. 'lhe
304

actual ~logy to be employed is rehearsed openly, am role enactments
are carried out in dramatic detail. All helpful infonnation is given before
am after the verbal answers to the possibly occurrirq scenarios of dang'erous
involvement dialogues. '!his provision of a new vocal:W.ary based on knowledge builds confidence to reject life-threateni.rg invitations to become a participant in such experiences. self-esteem is built up in the student's personality.
For these efforts to corrlition the \Il'1Sqiristicated or the less concerned personnel, the best professional agents are required. In trainirq sessions dealirq with highly personal lan;uage, fonnal separation by sex will be of assistance.
'!he foregoirq direct am person-to-person sharirq of knowledge and
experience evidences great carirq on the part of the new and deeper sensitivity so needed in higher education than that level roN fOUl"rl to exist. One factor drivirq this heighteni.rg of the need for increased sensitivity toward students lies in the anxiety burden carried into the freshman year by
the enrollee. '!he latter does not feel "easy" in the relationship with the
college or university's awesome knowledge :reserves. It is this equation which, if it remains l.mbalanced, alienates the student.
It has been pronounced by others that "this age is the age of alienation". '!he subject matter of the student's studies is intimidating as are the canp.1S social and scholarly envirornnents. sensitivity to this and other feelings of "not being equal to the tasks required by scholarship" will
save many students. In any event, student anxieties arise am must be
reconciled or dispelled.
'!he problem of irrlucing students to enroll am to not drop out
voluntarily arises in part from the high degree of anxiety with which many students, especially among those with ma:rginal scholastic skills, matriculate. College level studies terrl to be the heaviest burden yet placed on these persons.
Sheila Tobias' article, "SUCX':eed With Math: Every Students' Guide to Conquerirq Math Anxiety" , in ACADEMIC mNNECI'IONS, Office of Academic Affairs, College Boani, winter Issue, 1988, deals with the highly personal
am distul:t>ing phenomenon of anxiety. Ms. Tobias is described as "being well
:known for her efforts on behalf of educational equity for women and minorities, and particularly for her work in helping IlDre students sucx::eed in
science am mathematics". Her analysis reported. as of July 15, 1987, at the
Institute of the College Boani's Educational Quality Project, stresses "that it is (not) always the specialist who best urrlerstarrls why newcomers fail or
have trouble leanring" am ''mathematics was, am still is, the critical
educational filter in detennining success in t:.hree-quarter of the majors at
college am in eventual career nd:>ility". '!he author stresses equalization of
opportunity for females and minorities am that "students at ease" make their
instnlction IlDre certain of aa:amplishment. Ms. Tobias favors fin:ling the answers to "what students are having trouble with but always why". Students filled with anxiety about the subject receive aCCOl'llOOdation of their concerns with this teacher's instruction.
305

'!BE lIES'!' SCWUO RR lIImJiR mDTIQ{
In evaluations of academic leaders, one characteristic is priZed highly. For an educator to be praised for possessi.n:I personal vision about the future of higher education generally is an accolade of great worth, especially when the earlier vision is realized in the event. Predictions by the academic decision-making executive corps, about the course of higher education, is a much-appreciated element in the scope of these persormel's activities in the discharge of their duties.
'!he intent of this section of this assessment of the University System is to point out a situation sourxled by President Fd Fort, President North carolina A & T. University ani Dr. Clark Kerr, University of california Berkeley. '!his projection of possible :future ~ is related now in
1989, in order to provide a reason for the practice of wariness on the Part
of the University System, ani of each of its units.
'!his cause for wariness is a problem situation which will appear in the fonn of a multiplicity of trenjs occurri.n:I over a Period of several years. Elements in the irxtividual t:re.rm; possibly will not result in immediate cause for <::han:Jes in the then present practices of the System involved with the subject area. of concem. Hc:MeVer, if ani when one or mre operating events as defined below occur si.multaneously, the result will be a potential financial crisis for that unit or for the entire System. '!hese negative possibilities are:
(A) A year in which the college-goirq population (ages 18-25) is lower
in number than in carparison to the higher number predicted am for
whcm a ~ cammitment has been budgeted:
(B) A year in which the admission starrlards are raised by the unit or by the System thus affecting the number of qualifiers for admission to the unit (or to the entire System, if all units are so affected) :
(C) A year in which all tuition charges are raised in an amount producing a consequential, negative drop in student enrollment potential:
(D) A year in which price-inflation rises to the level that "(C)" above is activated: expense of operation jumps with the most serious result to the academic budget. Increasirq price-inflation elevates campus costs of electricity, gas, water, air-corrlitioning, heating, transportation, equipnent replacerrents, insurance, repairs, renovation already urxiel:WaY, ani of all services ani goods required for the units' operations.
(E) A year in which the federal ~ of both higher education am
financial aid programs for college-level students declines or is tenninated. '!hese national budget reductions, as hypothesiZed,
306

will, in all probability, be reflective of the "balanced budget" thrust, subject to the political drivin;J forces now evident. '!he loss of federal ~ of student aid is now a matter of concern for the System's units. If the loan default rate exceeds the recently ac:1q)ted minimJm, the affected institution loses its certification for eligibility to execute this student aid program.
'!he assessment team sul::mits the thesis that not only is increased federal ~ of higher education a con:1ition precedent to the urrlertakin:J of the prrsuit of excellence in academia, DIt also such increases in federal financin;J are essential to the bare maintenance of the present status of higher education.
will these essential funjs be forthcc:min;J? At the July 17, 1989 meeting of the Rotary Club of Atlanta, the CC:I1ptroller General of the U. S., the Honorable C11arles A. Bc1.Nsher, spoke to the subject, as reported in the Club's Bulletin, ROI'ARY IN ATIANI'A , "'!HE DEFICIT CRISIS: BEYOND '!HE NUMBERS". '!he Club's bulletin related that Bc1.Nsher spoke about the need for the federal budget to reflect the requirement to invest in :both solvin;J current problems, as well as investirg in the nation's future well-bein;J. AIrong the areas that Mr. Bowsher lists as requirirg additional federal spenling are:
Rebuilding the nation's nuclear weapons canplex
lbiemi.zirg the air traffic control system
Replacin;J the nation's 240,000 deficient bridges
'!he war on dn1gs
Global wanning
Long-tenn nursing care for senior citizens
'!he foregoing list, it should be noted, does not include specific reference to the needs of higher education. Irrli.rectly, it is of interest to educators that all of these high priority objectives must rely for their
awropriate realizations on a highly specialized am scpristicated university
teaching-research national infrastructure.
Often overlooked in the analyses of societal problems - their causes and solutions - are the effects on human intentions of what has been described by
the econanists as the phenanenon of "sec:x:>1"Xlal: consequences". In order to
manage one problem, the political or social stnlcture is stressed by having to make an adjusbnent in the organization's raItine or in the manner in which efficiency of operations has been enjoyed previously. Irrlirect consequences designed to ''make up" the theoretical loss or to meet the intrusion of unexpected changes in operations often a~ as new difficulties whose solutions in tum can result in other strains on the organization. Classes and c:x:m:'SeS, as we1l as student services, can be affected negatiVely.
307

'Ibis TNOrst scenario for the University System will not transpire if each of the negative ex>rxlitions postured a1::xNe are closely m:mito:red with the conscious awareness of the potential <:largers of their consequences. However, two, three or four, of these forces, acting in concert, are capable of multiply~ the difficulty of the successful deliveries of the many seJ:Vices presently made available to the state's pc:pl1ation through the efforts of the University System.
'!he need to prepare for secoOOal:y consequences aris~ fran stressful corxlitions surfac~ in the ex>llege or university environment generally is not foreseeable, anj first :responses to d'lan3~ corxlitions ex>incide with the event. 'Ihus, it is irxlicated by this assessnent that sufficient effort be fOCUSErl on the early rec:x:xJt1ition of forces potentially injurious to the System's welfare, especially in initial anj secoOOal:y ex>incidence of occ:urrence.
308

Assessment am effectiveness in c::crcpmy with a<:XX:lUl1tability and
responsibility are terns currently receivin;J the JOOSt serious attention in
the higher education ccmmmi.ty. In the dlapter on the assessment of total system of higher education, "Evaluatin;J Progress of the university System, II
the drivin;J force of refonn was noted as the stimulus demarrli.n::J that the
appropriate authorities measure the scholarly results of ncnies invested in state-financed post-secomary education. Questions about whether or not tax
am tuition :resources are put to effective use in their input versus output results are 'f)CM paraIOClUnt issues for college am university authorities.
In:ieed, this assessment's firxIi.n;Js that ccmmmi.ty, state, am national
debates conc::ernin1 the alleged deterioration of krlowledge levels of college
am university graduates directly produced these social am political interests in academic fact-firx:ling. Assessment am effectiveness were bo:rn of non-academic am economic forces, and faculty conce:rns about this now-present
job security challenge require attention to the realities involved.
Responsibility, as a managerial concept, suffers from a separate and negative academic treatJnent, Le., its elenents are practiced but are seldom
spelled out unless a conflict over responsibility is at ham. Accountability
centers primarily on functions requirirg the presence of official authority,
fulfillment of the authorized duty, am the degree of success as it relates
to "how" the function is completed. Effectiveness requires measurement to
prove that professed official am organizational promises, budgets, plans and
publicized campus objectives were successfully realized.
'!he president of an academic institution is :responsible. '!he administrative officials servirg with and urrler the president are accountable. '!he purpose of making these distinctions is to focus attention on one of the most
ilrportant factors affectirg the operations of colleges am universities.
A secom source of the assessment team's heightened interest in these subjects relates to their past histories of leadership responsibilities in the University System of Georgia. '!heir experiences as decision makers in this System covered a distinctly differirg variety of duty stations: regent
am chainnan of the Board of Regents, executive vice-chancellorship and
tec:hnical university vice-presidency, directorship of an institute of higher
education, am a university presidency. In the experiences of the assessment
team in all of these positions of responsibilities, the questions relatirg to official responsibility and a<:XX:lUl1tability continually surfaced.
A college administrator's biggest official burden is made up of efforts to preserve an objective center for rational decision making, coupled with an
exquisite touch in preservirg all of the rights am privileges of the parties
involved in the contested issue. '!his concept includes exact knowledge of
am the applied protection of all due-process requirements for all parties in
309

a review or a hearing status. Similar certainty must be assured by the executive in holding her or his office objectively above the personalized elements CCI1'prising the problem. Effectively rebutting trooble or discord is one essential characteristic justifyinl the academic executive's remun-
eration. Solving institutional am personnel prablens, settling professional am "position" dispItes, am reconcilinl q:posed partisanship views are
vitally i1rp>rtant functions on the canplS executive's duty list.
In addition to solvinl the System's canplS personnel problems am
dispItes t:h.ra1gh the errploymant of the presidential executive powers,
administrative powers necessat:y to inplen&It budgeting am curricula decisions also are exercised by the president. 'Ihese executive am administrative authorizations are derived fran the Board of Regents am the
office of the System's Chancellor. All of the powers of the campus chief
executive also are limited by statutot:y am by-law specifications as well as
current directives issued. by the Cll.an::ellor's Office.
un:ler Chancellor Propst's wise leadership, a session of the University System's Advisot:y Council, on october 10, 1986, dealt with the subject,
"status am lMties of Presidents within the university System". Some of the
topics listed for discussion at this meeting of all the SYstems' presidents
were: (a) the authorized duties of the dlancel.lor as they relate to the System presidency position (Policy 201.0303); (b) status, authority, and
responsibilities of the Presidents (Policy 203.0204) am administrative
officers saving at the pleasure of the President (Policy 203.0302); (c) the
authority, actions, am orders of staff personnel or camnittees acting urxler
aegis of the Chancellor or the Presidents; (d) the President as the adjutant or the messenger - the harxUing of details".
'Ihi.s Advisot:y Council discussion ~ized the official character of the offices so referenced. '!he Olancellor reaffinned the principle that naturally all "presidential viewpoints" were not supportable in every case
am that usually staff personnel at the System level are actinl for the
Chancellor. '!he position of the Presidents to adjust the budget of her or his
institution was emphasized, am the Office of the Chancellor protected that
power subject to review. In addition, the holder of administrative offices does in fact "save at the pleasure " of the President. '!he Council discussion made note of the fact that "camnittees are not action units" but,
do constitute authorized "reportinl" sources, am, on ocx::asion, "findings"
are developed from their investigation or studies.
In SUIlIllal:Y, the authority, duties, am powers of the official positions were reiterated. However, to maintain efficiency am to presume ultimate
responsibility, the Chancellor Im.1St ''make final judgItYants" on the questions
am problems reach.i.r1 the level of the Olancellor's Office. '!he Chancellor's
Office faces a quaOOary when the problem of the issue has arisen t:h.ra1gh the channels of authority with no apparent solution in sight. since no solution to the issue had been forthcomin:J on the appeal ladder the Chancellor's Office confronts a de novo question. One fo:rIl'er employee active at the System's level analyzed such paradoxes as beinl either "i1rp>ssible or trivial", Le., "impossible" because no legal or rational solution could be detennined at the time and place of the issue's surfacing, or "trivial"
310

because of the appealed subject's past inability to c:c:xmnarrl efficient analysis or to receive rational settlement.
'Ihe mrlversity am college executive's problem arises when the
responsible authority is (1) either IUt into a position which himers a
rational conclusion of the issue because of the loss of official objective posture, or (2) the problem is in fact a paradox. 'Ihe latter requires slow, sanetimes difficult dlanges in the attitude of the officials or dlanges in
PersOllIle1. At the least, new elements IIIlSt be introduced into the affected
academic clilnate PQSSesSi.n;J sufficient positive influence to :remJVe the paradox's negative aspects creati.n;J the dilemma.
'Ihe item, mnnber "1", listed above also is the campus executive's prilnary vulnerability area because loss of objective posture canpranises the administrative appeal process. Executive powers rightfully are construed
strictly am the m:JSt difficult scenario for successful executive decision
rnaki..rg occurs when the aCCOl.mtable subonlinate passes ''up'' to her or his supel:Visor an issue or problem without a clear original decision. 'Ihe issue in question had been designed to be decided initially at that level for which
the office in question had been charged both with the duty am specific
authority to accanplish its decision. 'Ihis ~ has troubled IroSt academic officials for a variety of reasons:
(1) 'Ihe lack of an appropriate decision can cause a possible subsequent "heari.n;J" on the issue to be subjected later to great difficulty.
(2) 'Ihe acx::xJUIltable official has, in effect, ''withdrawn'' fram the issue leanriI'g an administrative vacmnn which is unjust to the student or eq;>loyee desiri.n;J a canpleted decision.
(3) 'Ihe offices of the administrators receivi.n;J the mrletenni.ned matter are p.1Shed into the necessity for the rnaki..rg of de novo fin:lings of fact.
(4) 'Ihe administrative decision-rnaki..rg stnlcture is made to appear either vulnerable or canprcmised to those unable to get initial decisions which can then be appealed properly.
(5) 'Ihe office of the president, once the issue rests at the campus pinnacle, is forced to :rerrler judgement, or take action on subjects
which her or his institutional statutes am by-laws have assigned
to other offices previously designated as appropriate for the issuance of the official decision on that specific issue.
(6) 'Ihe creation of an administrative vacmnn occurs.
(7) 'Ihe future work perfo:nnance evaluation of the non-perfonning administrator is made nv::>re difficult because non-perfo:nnance confuses the assessment elements in institutional practice.
'Ihis P'leI'lOl'le1On, "delegation upward", is not as present in academic life as was once the case. 'Ihe key to its avoidance rests in appropriate decisions
311

ren:lered in a timely am equitable manner within the scope of official
authority derived fran the unit's statutes or han::Ibook. 'lhe decision, once
properly ren:lerecl, can be appealed to the next awrcpriate statuto:ry
authority with the office of the president available for ultimate redress. Sinply because the president is institutionally responsible, the supporting office does not lose its duty to act with all the aCCOlD1tability of its decision making function.
'Ihe responsibility of the president, vice-president, dean, department
head, am director is based on oversight, Le., responsibility for selecting
am guic:lin; personnel, setting goals, naritoring the educational process, am
evaluating subordinates' progress am the professional quality of the
organization's productivity.
'Ihe president, in fNe:J:y case, IlI.1St be conscious of the reality that she, or he, is "setting the tone" for the entire educational entity. 'Ibis
organizational attitude will be set consciously or unconsciously am no
administrative vacuum will escape an attitude's developnent. All campus
elements are perceiVed by that campus' students am staffs in the contexts
set by the chief executive. Responsibility for the "climate" of the college's outlook is a profourrl duty ~ se because this outlook detennines the future of the campus postures relating to desegregation, quality of i.nstnIction, setting of standards, investing resources, etc.
Accountability for the responsibility of discharging all duties assigned to the specific administrative official is the daily practice of conscious awareness in action about the irrlividual elements CClUpOSing the output of that academic production center.
Assessments are encountered in a number of educational settings: (1) student assessment, (2) course assessment, (3) teacher-i.nstnIctor assessment,
(4) institutional assessment, am System assessment. 'lhe tenn itself denotes
''measurement'' am inplies "CClIlpll'ison" to the past record or the use of a
benchmark or standard to record charg'e in experience patterns.
'lhese ~ts are thought to be essential to the careful determination of institutional facts fran which a realistic data base can be
established am subsequently utilized. 'Ihe process depenjs for its success on
being accepted as a "lfNel playing field" am by the 1llal')jato:ry use of the
procedure system-wide. 'lhe procedure then can be validated am applied to all
constituent parts of the System. 'lhereafter data gathering am evaluation can
be relied on to guide administrative decision making.
Regardless of the system of assessment's predicted success, faculty members have strorg reservations about the attenpts to neasure classroom
perfonnance through the student assessment of the i.nstnlctor am of the
course. One problem surfaces iInmedi.ately am is dE!lOOnstrated by Dr. Roger
Hannanson's research. He reports that his firrlings irrlicate that in using student sources for course assessment grades terrl to becane inflated.
Assessing teachers am their courses' productivity raises questions
about the methodology am the scope of the CCItI'leteness of the information
312

gatheri.n;J. How the assessment infonnation is utilized is the question which

occupies the mi.rrls of faculties when assessment issues surface. Experience

with assessnent methods reveal that the earliest recognized faculty-posed

issue is whether or not the assessment tedmi.ques are to be applied

institutionally; system-wide unifo:rmity is considered to be even more

desirable.

If any plan (or a part thereof) of assessment can not be

administered universally, faculty COOPeration can be hirrlered.

one of the reasons that accountability is not :iJmnedi.ately seized upon by
academicians as a better way of scholarly existence is the fact that acx:ountability requires a certain kirrl of leadership. Faculty members have the capacity for wide speculations on analyzin;J ~, arxl they possess sincere attachment to the fullest exhaustion of their analyses of data and other positive evidence. Time is on the side of the scholar. Likewise academicians are not designed by personality arxl training to engage in a direct att:enpt at an ":iIrm=diate" solution. SCholars need time arxl opportunity for contemplation of conclusive data in order to compreherrl or measure a
total result. It is keeping "OPen" the errl of discussions arxl debates about
the nature of things arxl of the hllI1aIl cordition which allows the scholar to
reach for the highest point in the final assembly of those elements necessal:Y for the consistent search for truth. It is a mistake for the non-academician to conclude that there is not a reason why academic accotmtability is not supported universally.

Nevertheless, the errqi1asis on effectiveness in education is a product of the driving forces of refonn affectin;J post-sec::onjazy education's costs as cc:xrpared to its productivity. '!he drive for refonn of higher education (see chapter No.3, Observations, entitled "Elements in Evaluati.n;J the Progress of the University System") calls for the assessment of all educational inputs measured against their efficiencies of output. '!he teclmique, now much used by state systems, relies on ratios derived from academic effectiveness through the process of assessment.

'!he Southern Association of COlleges arrl Schools adopted the criterion of "Institutional Effectiveness" as one of the criteria controlling eligibility for accreditation by the association. (Criteria For Accreditation, commission of COllege, 1989 edition, S.A.C.S., pages 13-15, Section III, 3. 1 arxl 3.2). '!he Southern Association's objective in stipulating these self-disaJvery exercises is the establishment of defined educational goals by the member institution. Self-detennined evaluation techniques must be develOPed which are capable of ascertaining how these designated educational achievements will result.

'!he Association stipulates that such required procedures must originate from involvement of faculty arrl staff, adoption of clear institutional purpose, the creation of institutional goals consistent with the stated purpose, proof of goal-achievement through use of SPeCific procedures, and canmitment to improve institutional effectiveness as a result of the findings
develOPed by the exercise.

'!he choice of procedure arrl the techniques appropriate to its implementation have not been settled upon insofar as this assessment can

313

detennine. '!he main value from institutional effectiveness experiences will be derived incidentally through the process itself. By doi.rg the exercise, by exami.nin;J the overall institutional p.rrpose, by involvi.rg large segments
of the faculty, am in seei.rg hc::M far off the mark are their goals'
realizations, the institutions will realize dividen::ls from their efforts to arrive at self-discovered truths. Relevant infonnation gained will lead to
correction of unrewarding practices am needs for improvement will be
stressed.
Institutional research, nRlch referenced in this assessment as a subject of COnc:enl, will be enhanced significantly as provided in sub-section (III, 3.2) of the CRITERIA. '!he University System has been assessi.rg institutional
effectiveness for the Past three years through self-studies initiated by each
unit. on April 18-20, 1989, the sec::onj annual. University System's Conference
on "Assessirg Institutional Effectiveness" highlighted the need for the irrlividual System units to urxiertake continuin:J studies of the units'
purposes, policies, procedures, am programs (CRITERIA, ibid.). Many definitions of the process am of the various elements comprising the
procedure were explained. Simply analyzed, the assessment procedure should detennine if the institution actually kept its promises made to its constituents. If held to the letter of its stated purposes as measured by appropriate procedures, the unit's claim to an acceptable level of institutional effectiveness is confinned.
'!hese procedures are far-sighted am will strergthen all organization
urxiergoi.rg the experience. Again, no panacea which is capable of providing automatic proof of the positive achievement of campus purposes exists for measuri.rg institutional effectiveness. It is the detailed discovery process required by the exercise of the effectiveness procedure ~ se which renders the added value return of this total campus investment in time and resources.
As in the Southern Association's CRITERIA, the self-detenninations by faculty and administrations, working together, to discover what needs to be done by academia to improve the delivery of educational sel:Vices is a nR.l1tiplyirg collegial experience. All constituents, alumni, students, private enterprises, government agencies, social organizations and ethic
representations can am should share in the detennination of the local campus
effectiveness.
System effectiveness is bei.rg increased by SPeCial efforts of both
extraordinary funding am SPeCialization of purpose am personnel. "'!he
SPecial FUnding Initiatives", FY 89, provided allocations for additional quality improvement. '!he "funds were to be used for programs and projects designed to enhance key areas and promote cooperation among the institutions of the University System".
In the April 1988 meeti.rg of the Board of Regents, the $10 million was allocated as such:
1. University level Initiative - $4 million
314

2. Equipment Matcl1im Initiative - $2.5 million Distributed through a competitive process, based in part. by an institution's ability to secure matcl1im :funjs.
3. Nursin;J/Health care Program Initiative - $1 million
4. Teacher Education Initiative - $1 million
5. Non-university Research am Develcpnent Initiative - $500,000
6. Foreign IanguagejCUlture Initiative - $500,000
7. Extension Program Initiative - $500, 000.
A question about its effectiveness arose in the University System in 1989 regarding the practice of non-disclosure by the governing body of the names of carxlidates for high office, especially the disclosure of applicants' names for unfilled offices of a college of university presidency. '!he
Association of Governing Board, NarES, June am July, 1989, issue, page 3, reported on the issue am pointed out, as in the Georgia case, the
presidential selection process was I10IN urxier serious scrutiny by the news media. '!he Atlanta Journal-Constitution prevailed in a suit seeking release of names on the applicants' list for presidencies in the University System. As a result of judicial proceedings, the carxlidates listin;Js were disclosed in the instances of both the Georgia state University and Savannah state College presidential searches.
'!he issue revolves a.rourrl the principle of protection for the privacy of the applicant's position. In the issue of NarES, Harland Cleveland, Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, author of an AGB Special Report of the "Sunshine laws" involved says that "governing board members generally should not attempt to fight such laws. Rather they should maintain a balance among the three competin;J interests - the public's right to know, the
irrlividual's right to privacy, am the University's right to be governed
effectively" .
It is observed that the employin;J authorities can be placed in a vulnerable position in complyin;J with these disclosures of applicants' names. Executive sessions can provide privacy protection in PerSQrmel matters. '!he question is, can the presidential search be made more or less "effective" in canyin;J out disclosure?
Higher education has difficulty in keepin;J these ilnportant concepts properly defined and effectively separated in its considerations of Responsibility, Accountability, Assessment, etc. Effectiveness, ~ se, is a product resultin;J from responsible insurin;J of the accounting for the canyin;J out of functions as the result of the assessment of the total, planned process. Mixing these intentions incorrectly confuses educational
authority and overlooking their appropriate am defined functions insures
ineffective managerial analyses.
315

In summary, "what is easy to measure, gets measured; what is not easy to measure is overlooked". '!his assessnert team believes nore measurements of progress are needed at the levels of the primary functions of each System unit. Comparison of the changes in the various factors of the innnediate operations are the nost important elements of measurement.
'!he University System does not need to adopt the System-wide assessments
techniques described in chapter mnnber 3 of Observations. one reason for
the present success and high starx:ling of the Board of Regents is that wise consideration kncJws that an outside "expert" can only tell the insider what the latter has first told the fonner. Likewise, there is Imlch debate as to whether or not faculty wish to have i.np:lsed upon them "accountability" for "productivity". '!he assessment team could not readily fini strong evidence supportin;J faculty affection for accountability.
'!he University System is assessed to be an outstanding System sensitive to faculties and students and working in hannony with the other branches of state gove:rnment. '!he University System I'lOW resides on a high plateau of public appreciation which is conscious of the efforts of many devoted System personnel. One way to further this high state of institutional success is the renewed connnitments of all units' leadership to increase their efforts to act only in unison under the Chancellor's leadership.
'!he Board of Regents must preserve its constitutional separateness in company with its cooperative among and between all of its constituencies.
:REFmEHCJ!S
Boyer, Ernest L. College: '!he Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.
Folger, John and Berdahl, Robert o. Patterns in Evaluating state Higher
Education SYstems: Making a Virtue Out of Necessity. University Park, MD: National center for Postsecondary Governance & Finance, 1987.
Cleveland, Harlan (NOI'FS, June/July, 1989)
'!he Eighties and Beyond: A Commitment to Excellence. A Report of a statewide Need Assessment for Public Higher Education. Atlanta: Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, February 1983.
Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st centw:y. Indianapolis, ill: Hudson Institute, 1987.
316

APPENDICES
'!he contributions presented in the follC1Ni.n1 section were prepared by professional colleagues with extensive experience in their respective professions anj with many years of set:Vice in either the university System of Georgia or other units of Georgia's educational system. Each contribution represents the first-bani Jmowledge of practitioners in various fields of professional errleavor that are not included in the areas of expertise of the assessment team.
'!he contributed papers generally. reflect the areas of concern expressed by PreSidents of university System institutions anj attest to the many different anj difficult issues with which units of the university System are confronted. '!he topics discussed in each of the follC1Ni.n1 sections are representative rather than inclusive of all areas of interest anj concern to the university System anj its thirty-four units.
Contributors are identified by the institution or educational organization with which they are affiliated at the time of this study. Each individual was asked to address a particu1ar topic in light of his or her experience anj to express PersOnal viewpoints as each thought best. Not all contributions have been presented. Printing schedules anj costs dictated that some contributed papers be omitted.
In presenting the following contributions, the assessment team is pleased to acknowledge the COOPeration of so many professional colleagues and to ask that the contribution of each be read as a valuable addition to the viewpoints expressed in other parts of this assessment.
317

'lEAaIER EIXX::ATIW IN 'lHE tlNl:VERll'lY SYSTEM OF GEXR;IA
by
Dr. Jerry H. Rdi:>ins, Dean, College of Fducation
Georgia state university

Introduction

''Teacher Erlucation" in the University System of Georgia means Imlch more than siJrply the preparation of persons to becane classrocm teachers. In this paper, "teacher education" will be used in a very broad sense, as any program of studies, or portion of a program of studies, that leads to fulfilling the
requirements of the Georgia state Boani of Education for licensure to
practice some asPect of the profession (e.g., teaching, administration,
counseling) in the public K-12 schools of Georgia.

Every institution in the System has sane role in teacher education under this definition. '!he two-year institutions provide general Erlucation, certain course work toward the ''major,'' ani, in many instances, introducto:ry work in the pedagogical sequence. '!he senior colleges provide all that the two-year institutions do ani, in addition, each offers work in various ''major'' fields ani various pedagogical sequences. '!he senior colleges, in. many instances, offer "teacher Erlucation" at the master's and even educational specialist levels.

'!he two comprehensive universities, Georgia state University and the

University of Georgia, offer the full array of course work, from the

baccalaureate through the doctoral level.

Even the specialiZed

institutions--Georgia Institute of Technology ani the Medical College of

Georgia-are involVed, in a limita::i way, in the production of educational

PersOnnel for the public school of the state.

'!he Regulation of Teacher Education

"Teacher education" is one of the IOOSt regulata::i of all fields of study, not only in Georgia, but elsewhere. Sane ~nents of the progrannning are subject to state law. For exanple, all prospective teachers in Georgia ImlSt cornplete a five- quarter hour course dealiI'q with exceptional children in order to be eligible for a T-4 (T=teaching, 4=based on a bachelor's degree)
certificate [Le., "license"].

Many other components of the progrannning are regulata::i by the Georgia Board of Education. '!his occurs in two fonns. One such fonn is through the
"certification" process. Especially when an in:ti.vidual has not cornpleta::i a prescribed course of study under an "awroved program," the irx:lividual is subject to a transcript review ani Im.1st present certain rnnnbers of credit hours in certain patterns of course work. Obviously, if the System institutions are to seJ:Ve the needs of the clientele, the course work likely

318

to be taken by such intividuals must meet the expectations of the certification requirements.
Another CXI1lpOnent of the regulation of the Georgia Board of Education is the "approved program" process. In order to be eligible to be considered for a "certificate" fran the Georgia Depart::ment of Education, an in:lividual (other than one submittin;J hisjher credentials for a "course by course" review) must have cc:rnpleted an "approved program." criteria are established by the Georgia Board of Education on a program-by-program basis. '!here is a Periodic review by a team of persons representin;J the Georgia Depart:m:mt of Education to insure that an institution's progranmi.n;J sufficiently m=ets the
criteria for "approval" in that teac::hi.rg field am at that degree level.
With only very infrequent exceptions (usually due to the delay between the
start of a program of studies am the review for approval), the System senior colleges am universities enjoy cc:rnplete program approval by the Georgia
Department of Education.
All eligible institutions in the University System are accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) , the national accreditin;J body for "teacher education" programs at all degree levels
(baccalaureate am above). NCATE staI'rlards, recently revised, provide
additional structure to the "teacher education" programs. NCATE Standards also call for the meetin;J of the criteria for the preparation of educational personnel of a number of professional organizations.
'!he university System Academic Ccmnittee on Teacher Education from time to time initiates action, which, upon approval of all the appropriate System authorities, becomes a part of the total set of regulations. For example, the System Teacher Education cemni.ttee sane years ago initiated a set of
minimum requirements affectin;J master's- am specialist- level teacher
education progrannning.
In addition, "teacher education" programs Im.l5t m=et the requirements of the University System Core eurricull.nn, System transfer of credit policies, criteria of the Ccmnission on Colleges of the Southern Association of
Colleges am Schools, institutional policies governin;J all academic programs, am so on. In addition, there are a few specialiZed accreditin;J associations
which regulate portions of the total program of teacher education. For example, the COUncil on Accreditation of Counselin;J Related Educational Programs (CACREP) accredits school counselor programs at certain degree levels. In addition to all these extemal agencies, institutional faculty,
urrler institutional governance procedures may (am are, in many cases,
expected to) add program detail.
Selected Issues Affectim Teacher Education in the University System
SUpply am demarrl issues. SUpply am dernarrl issues typically focus on entry-level positions am on the classroan teachin;J force. Various studies am projections, especially those of the National Center for Educational
statistics, inticate a considerable shortage of teachers throughout the country by the mid 1990's.
319

'Ihe teacher shortage situation in Georgia is probably even rrore serious
than at the national level. For sane years, the p.1blic am private
institutions in the state have not produced enough teachers to fill the vacancies in the p.1blic K-12 schools. It is highly likely that this situation will becane worse over the next decade, if current deJoogra.phic trerrls continue.
Policies of the Georgia Board of Fducation penni.t alternative routes to certification in order to address the necessa:ry rn.nnbers of teachers when the Board firns that shortages of rn.nnbers of available teadlers are such that the supply situation has becane "critical." SUCh fields as secorrlary mathe-
matics, secorrlary science, am foreign larguages have been fQl.1Dj to be in
"critical" short supply in the state.
'Ihe school districts in Georgia are filli.rg the vacancies in the classroans by various cc.anbinations of (a) recroiti.rg teachers fram other states, (b) persuadi.rg persons who have previously taught to return to the profession, (c) assisti.rg persons in invok:in;J the alternative preparation
program, am (d) other such means outside the employment of persons who have
recently c:::eatpleted a teacher preparation mooram.
System institutions have little control at the present time over the supply situation. Most system institutions could harrlle larger rnnnbers of persons than have been presenti.rg themselves to the teacher education programs in recent times.
To what extent do the System institutions have a responsibility for recroiti.rg persons into the teachirg profession? If there is a responsibility, at what organizational level does it primarily exist? System-wide, with fun1s to support recroitment for any teachi.rg field at any institution? At the institutional level, with resources made available to recroit persons into any teachi.rg field offered by that institution? At the level of the education unit (college, school, department of education)? At the program level (i. e., prospective teachers of mathematics)? What is or should be the incentive or the reward for an institution or an education program to urrlertake such a recroitment effort?
Minority teacher issues. 'Ihe proportion of the school-age population of Georgia that is minority continues to increase. At the same time, the
proportion of minority teachers am other school persormel in the work force
is decreasi.rg. Few would argue against havi.rg awropriate numbers of minority persons in the public schools to represent our cultural diversity, to provide role rrodels, etc. However, the System institutions are produci.rg relatively few minority teachers.
SCIre observe that various st:arrlardi.zed tests seem to terrl to eliminate disproportionate rnnnbers of minority prospective teachers. More important, though, seems to be the fact that minority persons (especially blacks) present themselvas for entrance into CXJUrSes of study leadi.rg to becoming a teacher in far fewer rnnnbers than was previously the case.
320

'!he issues involved with the lack of mnnbers of minority teachers are closely related to the teacher supply am demarrl issue in general. To what extent do the System institutions have a responsibility for recnli.ting minority persons into the teaching profession? If there is a responsibility, at what organizational level does it prilnarily exist? System-wide, with :ft.lros to support recnli.tment of minorities for any teaching field at any institution? At the institutional level, with resources made available to recruit minority persons into any teaching field offered by that institution? At the level of the education mrlt (college, school, depart:nent of education)? At the program level (e.g., prcspective teachers of mathematics) ? What is the incentive or the reward for urrlertaki.ng such a recruitment effort?
0Jes the University System, collectively or through its individual institutions, have a responsibility to provide extraordinary services for prospective teachers who are minority? Should there be special financial aids? Should there be special :instnlctional opporbmities? Should there be separate or special policies? Are there discriminatory policies or practices that should be cl'lanJed? Is the responsibility for preparing the bulk of minority teachers in the state that of the TBI IS, or, if not, what is the responsibility of traditionally white institutions, especially in areas of the state where relatiVely few minority persons live?
Assessment issues. Policies of the Georgia Boani of Education call for
the passing of a paper-am-pencil test, the Teacher certification Test (TCI') (generally a measure of subject-matter knc::Jwledge), before receiving a license to teach. In addition, a perfonnance test, the Teacher Perfonnance
Assessment Inventory, is required to be successfully completed in the early years of teaching before a renewable certificate is issued. Some System institutions require or strongly encourage the passing of the TCI' as an exit examination before exit from a preparation program. Many System institu-
tions provide instruction on am require successful completion of a ''mock''
TPAI before program completion.
'!he Georgia Deparbnent of Education gathers am maintains infonnation on the pass rates on these two instnnnents, by institution. (In the past, the "preparing institution" has been identified by the person taking the test, with no attenpt made to verify the accuracy of the assertion. As a result, some institutions have found that the accuracy of the infonnation has been less than desirable. However, an "auditi.nt' system is currently being put into place.) '!hese data are ~lic infonnation am, on at least one occasion, TCI' scores, by institution, were reporta:l in the press.
Further, several years ago, System authorities used pass rates on the unaudited TCI' data to place certain programs on "probation." (Assistance was
provided to these programs to stl:'e!n3then them. In some cases, the probation
was eventually lifted. In other cases, the program was discontinued. In a few cases, probation continued over several years.)
In the early stages of implementation by the Georgia Department of Education assessment procedures were for experienced. teachers am other
321

school personnel. It is likely that, within the fairly near future, the results of these personnel assessneU:s will be available by institution.
Is there a System-wide :responsibility for the quality control of persons
going into teaching am other educational fields? Or, are quality control
issues prilllarily that of inlividual institutions? In either case, what is
the best way of assuring the p.1blic am policy makers that only quality
"products" are emerging fran the System's teacher education programs?
Should preparation programs am licensure be kept as separate as
possible, with the PasSing of examinations sanething that cx:x:urs after carpletion of the academic program, as is usually the case with such
professions as law am medicine? Or, should exit fran a preparation program am eligibility (as measured by one or IOOre i.nstroments) for entrance into
practice be the same?
Pro:gam admission issues. 'Ihrough the initiatives of the System Academic COnnnittee on Teacher Education, there are unifonn mi.n.inn.nn requirements for admission to the urxiergraduate teacher education sequence. '!hese
include a 2.5 grade point average, a "c" average in the freshman English sequence, a "c" in the introduction to education aJUrSe, PasSing core curricultnn requirements, PasSing the Regents Test (of reading am c0mposition), am additional requirements set by each institution. '!hese
requirements meet or exceed conventional practice throughout the COl.ll1try.
However, little infonnation is available nationally or within the state to inlicate the appropriateness of these requirements. Are these the proPer ones for predicting success as a teacher? What would be the ilnpact-on the
number of teachers am on the quality of teachers-if the requirements were
higher or lower? '!he mnnber of hours, the aJUrSe work involVed, the age of
the aJUrSe work, am the rigor of the aJUrSe work used to c::onpute the grade
point average varies anx:>ng the System institutions. Should there be greater
unifonnity on this criterion am, if so, haY should it be defined? Are there
appropriate alternatives ways by which an applicant to a teacher education program might deIlX)nstrate potential as a teacher? If so, what might they be? Enforcement of the admission criteria is largely left to individual institutions. Should there be a mechanism by which unifonn iInplementation of the criteria is ensured?
It is possible for a person cami.ng through an alternative preParation program for initial certification or for a person preparing as a teacher after having received at least a baccalaureate degree not to meet all these criteria. Should the System take initiatives to insure that all prosPective teachers have ~le backgrourrls?
Similar issues exist for graduate-level (Le., master's, specialist) admission criteria.
Program content issues. At the initial preparation level, program content issues fall into three categories. '!hese are: (1) general
education/liberal arts backgrourx:i, (2) the content of the ''major,'' am (3)
the content of the pedagogical sequence.
322

1. General education/liberal arts backgrourx:1. Should the prospective teacher have the same ano.mt of general education/liberal arts
backgrourrl as arrj other baccalaureate graduate? If not, should it
be llDre or less? Should the prospective teacher have the same content in the general education/liberal arts as arrj other bac-
calaureate graduate? If not, how should it differ? Should the
qualitative aspects of the general education/liberal arts backgrourxi be different for prospective teachers than for others? If so, in what way? Should there be differences am:mg the grade levels an:! the subject fields in the general education/liberal arts backgrourrl or should this generally be the same for all prospective teachers?
2. Content for the ''major. " For the "academic" secorrlary teaching fields (e.g., mathematics, Erglish, science, social studies), should the content be quantitatively the same as for a liberal arts
graduate in the same field? If not, should it be llDre or less?
For the same group, should the requirements for course TNOrk be the same or should they be shaped llDre toward the advanced study of the content taught in the secorrlary grades? In the sciences an:! the social sciences, should the E!1\lilaSis for prospective teachers be on depth in one field (e.g., chemi.stIy, histo:ry) with supporting work in one or llDre additional fields (e.g., biology, geography) or should the ert'IJ;hasis be on breadth across all the branches of either science or social science?
For the "non-academic" secorrlary teaching fields (such as business education, harre economics), what is the appropriate aIOOUIlt an:! kind of content for the ''major, " vis-a-vis the content for the "academic" teaching fields?
For the K-12 teaching fields (foreign language, physical education, music, art), what is the appropriate ano.mt an:! kind of content for the ''major,'' vis-a-vis the non-teaching major in the same general field an:! vis-a-vis the grade-level specialists (Le., "secorrlary," ''middle grades," "early childhood")?
What is the appropriate major for those headed toward teaching in the middle grades? Should this consist of a strong liberal arts major an:! a strong minor? Should it ensure breadth across several liberal arts areas an:! depth in one or two? Should it be pedagogy based because of the special needs of this age group?
What is the appropriate major for those headed toward teaching at the early childhood levels or toward teaching special education? Is it a traditional academic major (Le., French, histo:ry, chemist:ry, psychology) with additional TNOrk in appropriate pedagogy? Is it a carefully structured interdisciplina:ry major in liberal arts? Is it the traditional major in "special education" or "early childhood education"?
323

3. Content for the pedagogy sequence. For prospective teachers, how nuch an::l what kin:i of pedagogy is ~ropriate? Should this be essentially minimum state certification requirements or should institutions add those tq>ics called for by NC'A'l'E, the literature in the field, an::l generally accepted "good practice"? In addition to student teacl'lin;;J, how nuch an::l what kin:i of "field experience" should be included an::l at what point(s) in the program? Is one quarter of student teacl'lin;;J the ~ropriate annmt?
Where an::l umer what c:omi.tions (an::l supervised by whan) should the field experiences ocx::ur? In any classrcx:m where the student teacher or other student is TNe1c:x:ma? Only urrler SPeCially trained K-12 teachers? Un:ier the joint supervision of both college and K-12 PersOnnel? Only in ''professional developnent" schools, where the System institution has a SPeCial an::l broad-rangi.rg working relationship?
studies are urxierway c:x::arpn-i.rg the conventional preparation of teachers of mathematics, science, an::l foreign lanJUage with the
state's "alten1ative certification" 1OOdel. Umer the "alten1ative certification" model, for a person with a liberal arts degree in an
~ropriate field (an::l who meets a few other requirements), sufficient Pedagogical studies can be canpleted in a summer (or the equivalent) such that the individual, with ''ne1.tori.rg'' an::l certain other experiences duri.rg the academic year (none of which has to be taken for academic credit), can be eligible for full, renewable T-4 certification by the errl of the first year of teachi.rg.
If the studies should shOW' that the "alten1ative certification" model is equally (or llDre) effective an::l efficient, what should be the System's position with respect to traditional preparation
programs (esPeCially for the secomary academic fields)? If the
studies should shOW' that the "alten1ative certification" model is less effective an::l efficient, what should be the System's position
with respect to participati.rg in asPects of the "alten1ative
certification" model?
I.e.ooth of program issues. ~ sanewhat contradictOl:y trerrls are being
debated am::>D1 those col"lCen1ed with policy affecti.rg teacher preparation. One trerrl, advocated by such groups as '!he Holmes Group (of which one System institution is a member), is toward five years for initial preparation, usually culminati.rg in a master's degree. ~ variations are POSSible-a "five year" program, in which there is an integrated patte:rn of studies (general education, content for the major, an::l Pedagogical studies) over the entire five years-an::l a "fifth year" program, which consists of four years of study toward a traditional liberal arts degree an::l a fifth year of Pedagogical studies.
Another trerrl, dramatically illustrated by the "caps" on the number of credit hours that can be included in a program in such states as Texas and Virginia, is to insure that all necessary preparation ocx::urs within the space of a conventional four-year baccalaureate degree.
324

Many System institutions have initial preparation programs that can be completed at or only slightly above 180 quarter hours. However, in vazying annmts, sate programs in sate System institutions require as many as approximately 215 quarter hours to c::x::arplete.
Increasingly, those fonnally admitted to a teacher education program already hold at least a bachelor's degree. At one System institution, for
example, for the Past several years over 50% of those so admitted held at least a bachelor's degree (am often a higher degree) at the time of
admission.
Should the System take sate position on how lorg or how short a preparation program should be, or should this remain a matter for institutional detennination? If the System should take sate position, what should that position be? For the increasing numbers of prospective teachers who hold a baccalaureate (or higher degree) at the time of initiating pedagogical studies, should those studies be at the baccalaureate or the
graduate level? Should they be the sane (quantitatively am qualitatively)
as the requirements for those c::x::arpleting a baccalaureate-level teacher preparation program? If they should be different, in what way should they be different?
Numbers of available Proorams issues. Especially during a period of
rapid growth during the 1960'S am 1970's, many teacher education programs at
all degree levels were established throughout the state. However, as the number of persons in teacher education programs has diminished considerably
am as certification am supply needs have shifted, :relatiVely few programs
have been abolished. As a result, there is an apparent proliferation of teacher education programs amorg the System institutions. Some programs have
very low enrollments am few people complete them. Some programs are of questionable quality. SClll'e programs have very limited faculty am other
resources to support them.
At the same time, there is a considerable oversupply of certain kin::1s of professional personnel. For example, m:>st of the senior institutions in the state prepare persons at one or llDre graduate levels to be educational
administrators. '!here are 'f'iCM many llDre persons who have received the training am hold the necessary credential than there will ever be openings.
As a result, the System's resources have gone to prepare large numbers of people for a type of position to which they can not reasonable aspire.
Should the System attempt to reduce the numbers of preparation programs
am concentrate resources in a fewer number of locales? If so, what criteria should be used to detennine those programs that are retained am those
programs that are eliminated? Should these criteria be primarily quantitative or should they be primarily qualitative (or sare combination of both)? Should the System place a "quota" or a "cap" on the numbers of persons that can participate in a given teacher education program? If so, should these "quotas" or "caps" be :related to the resources that are available to support the programs?
325

Financial issues. For sane System institutions, teacher education
programs are apparently ''looney makers" un:ier System am institutional fuIxli.ng arrargements. In such cases, it is not unusual to fim relatively low paid faculty, relatively heavy teachi..rg loads, relatively large classes, am the
like. Should the System "upgrade" fuIxli.ng fonml1a provisions such as to provide for the financial support of teacher education at levels comparable to that for other professional preparation programs? Should the System lIDIlitor institutional ~ practices such as to insure that at least the anDUnt of fuIxli.ng allcx::ated for teacher education actually is spent on teacher education progranunin:J?
staff develognent issues. It is now both possible am c::anm::m for
Georgia teachers to renew certificates imefinitely solely through local district provided "staff developnent" units, without ever taki.rg any course work t.cftlard an advanced degree on for academic credit. As a result, many System institutions have lost large mnnbers of credit hours, especially at the graduate level. Should the System work to reverse this policy of the state Board of Education? Should the System provide "in load" credit for faculty nenbers who teach non-(academic) credit "staff development" courses?
Should the System relax policies against havin;J academic credit- am staff
development unit-seek:in;J persons participatin;J si.Im.lltaneously in the saIre leanriIg experience?
Resp:?nsiveness to changing corxtitions; experimental am pilot projects issues. Georgia is facin;J both a considerable shortage of teachers am a
considerable shortage of minority teachers, as noted above. CUrriculum requirements of the K-12 schools iIrpact on personnel needs. (For exaIl'ple, when a foreign language became part of the high school graduation :require-
ments, many lIDre foreign language teachers were needed, with no particular provisions made as to where these teachers were to cane from.) Several national, regional, am state 1lDVements are uniez:way such that preparation
programs for school administrators are likely to need to change dramatically. '!here is likely to be a need in the near future for a relatiVely large m.nnber of elementary school counselors.
'!he need for additional teachers of English as a secorrl language (ESL) is i.ncreasin;J as the population of the state changes. As Georgia becanes lIDre involved in international trade, there is a need for teachers of
languages other than Spanish, French, am Gennan. M.1ch of the population growth in Georgia is occurrin;J in am arot1I'rl the larger population centers
with declines in many of the rural areas. As a result, the current teachin;J
force is, to sane degree, both maldistri.buted am not highly IlDbile. At the
saIre time, there is a great need for certain kirrls of teachers (especially
secornary mathematics, science, special education, am foreign language) in
the rural areas, especially for teachers who are "certified" in lIDre than one teachin;J field.
More am lIDre children, because of changin;J social corxtitions, are
bein;J identified as "at risk." As a result, there is or will be demarrl for lIDre teachers of harxticapped children; for school counselors, school psycholCXJists, am school social workers; for teachers of ESL; am for many other
kirrls of specialized personnel to work with this group of children am youth.
326

Does the System as a whole have a responsibility to address these personnel needs of the state's schools ani, if so, how should the System
address these needs? or, is this a matter for each institution to address,
based on whatever resources it can brin;J to the "problem" areas?
If there is one ''best'' way to prepare ani to keep current educational
personnel, it is not yet known or generally agreed on. Does the System have a responsibility to ~rt experimental ani pilot projects in educational persormel preparation (not lmlike efforts that have been made by various parties in the state to investigate ani iIrprove agri-bJsiness practices, technological advances, ani certain kirrls of bJsiness/imustl:y/trade activities)? If so, in what way ani to what degree? ('!he System has supported in FY89 four sets of activities at four different institutions interrled to iIrprove educational practice, especially in the locale of the institutions. Are these the apprcpriate nOOels for continued ani expan::ied activities in this realm?)
SUpply ani Denarrl
1. '!he System's data gathering ani recx>rd-keeping system for the "supply" of educational personnel should be expan::ied to include (a) all persons (not just those obtainin;J a degree) who <::arplete a program of studies that makes the person eligible for a :recomrnermtion for certification* ani (b) all types of K-12 educational personnel, not just beginning teachers.
*"certification" is the tenn used by the Georgia Department of Education to mean the "licensure" of persons to practice sane aspect of K-12 education in the public schools of Georgia. Because of its CCll1ItDn use in the state, "certification" (ani variations of the tenn) are used here instead of "licensure."
2. '!he System should work closely with other educational agencies (e. g. , the Georgia Department of Education, the Professional Stardards cemnission, the Southern Association of COlleges ani SChools, ani the SOUthern Regional Education Board) to d:>tain valid short- ani lon;r-range
"d.emarrl" infonnation ani to obtain "supply" infonnation fran the Georgia
i.roeperXlent higher education institutions.
3. Based on the "supply" ani "demarrl" infonnation obtained in reconunendations 1 ani 2 above ani, allowing for such factors as reasonable annmts of in-migration of teachers, the System should establish ani maintain annual (for up to, say, ten years in the future) SYstem-wide "targets" for the "prcx:luction" of various k.i.rrls of K-12 educational personnel.
327

4. Each year, the System should ask of each senior college am university
its projections for the "production" of the various kin:1s of K-12 educational personnel for each year of the rolling ten-year plannirg period. "Production" generally should be defined as the rnnnbers of persoIlS,by certification field, not necessarily cx::mpleting a degree, who cx::mplete a program of stlxlies leading to a recx::mnenjation for certification.
5. For those certification areas where "supplY" (System am non-System
"production" plus in-migration plus teachers retunring to the
profession, etc.) is expected to be less than "deman:i," the System
should take steps such as to in::rease "production" within the System institutions. SUch steps might include, either through direct Systemlevel involvement or through incentives to institutions (or both), specific recruitment efforts, provision of f~ial aid to students entering the targeted programs, the "orchestration" of additional financial aid through other agencies, the establishment of additional programs, the re-training of existing personnel in an oversupply field
for the high-demarrl field, am so on. SUfficient "lead time" should be
provided such as to allow for institutions to p.lt into place the necesscuy "delivery" mechanisms arxl for students to have Iml1.tiple years (in ItDSt cases) to IOOVe through programs. All steps taken should insure that no dilninution of quality of students or quality of programming
occurs am that, in all possible cases, quality is increased.
6. For those certification areas where "suPPlY" (System am non-System
"production" plus in-migration plus persons returning to the profession, etc.) is expected to be more than "demarrl," the System should take steps such as to decrease "production" within the System institutions. SUch steps might include, either through direct System-Ievel involvement or through incentives to institutions (or both), the scaling down or the phasing out of preparation programs, with a reallocation of resources to
high-demarxl areas. SUfficient "lead time" am transitional resources
should be provided such that institutions can acx::anplish any necesscuy
c.han:Jes in an orderly fashion.
Minority Personnel
7. Each of recx::mnenjations 1-6 above should be treated as a special case with respect to minority personnel. '!he goal should be to have a percentage of minority educational personnel in the public schools that awroxintates the percentage of the K-12 student body that is minority.
Assessment
8. In a manner not unlike the j oint efforts of the Board of Regents am the
Georgia Board of Education to make System freslunan admissions require-
nents am high school graduation requirements highly consistent, the
Board of Regents/System staff should take steps such as to reach agreement with the Georgia Board of EducationjDepartment of Education to
328

the effect that exit requirements fran a teacher preparation program both are highly consistent with an:l satisfy eligibility for an unqualified, renewable certification. 'Ihese provisions should aR;>ly not only to begi.l'lni.n;J teachers but to begi.l'lni.n;J COlUlSe1ors, administrators, an:l other types of educational personnel. Further, these provisions should take into ac::xnmt (but be adapted for non-teachi.n;J PersOnnel) the rec:x:mneOOation of the National carmi.ssion for Excellence in Teacher Education that
''before [cnnpletion of an aR;>licable preparation program] every carxlidate should deJronstrate his or her knowledge an:l skills on three measures: (a) a test of knowledge of the subject field to be taught [or the profession role to be practiced]; (b) a test of knowledge an:l aR;>lication of the famdations, science, an:l processes of teachirg [or the professional role to be practiced]; an:l (c) ability to teach [or to practice another professional role] effectively."
Program Admission
9. Program admission requirements for initial preparation programs should be st.ren:Jthened by (a) insurirg that successful applicants have a general education back.grounj consistent with the University System's Core Curriculum (even if the general education was obtained at a nonSystem institution); (b) by definiI'g the categories of course work an:l rnnnber of hours to be COIl'plted in the required grade point average; (c) by establishirg a rronitorirg or enforcement mechanism such as to insure that all System institutions are in'plementirg the requirements consistently; an:l (d) by adoptirg other admission requirements that at least satisfy the mi.nimum admission requirements established by NCATE.
10. Program admission requirements at the graduate level for teacher education programs should be strerqt:hened (a) by requirirg institutions to dem:>nstrate that such requirements are generally ~le to those for other graduate an:l professional programs at that institution; (b) by establi.shiI'g a rronitorirg or enforcement mechanism such as to insure that all System institutions are in'plementirg the requirements consistently; an:l (c) by corrluctirg Periodic studies to ascertain that the admission requirements are both reasonable predictors of success in the program an:l reasonable predictors of sucx::ess in practice an:l, if they are not, m:xlifyirg the admission requirements.
Program Content
11. 'n1e System should insure that institutional policies an:l practices are such that all persons cnnpletirg a program of studies leadirg to a rec:x:mnen::iation for certification as a teacher shall have cnnpleted a pattern of general education consistent with the University System's Core Curriculum requirements, irresPective of the institution at which the general education was taken.
329

12. '!he System should insure that institutional p:>licies arx:l practices are
such that the content for the "major" for the secomary "academic"
fields for any person recx::nm:m:ied for certification is comparable to (both in quantity arx:l in rigor) that for the institution's B.A./B.S. degree in that field, alt.hcu:Jh the ''major'' may (arx:l probably should) differ to reflect certificatioo requirements, aa::reditation requirements, arx:l the advanced study of the content to be taught at the secxn:1ary level.
13. '!he System should insure that institutiooal p:>licies arx:l practices are such that the content for the ''major'' in the K-12 fields, special education, middle grades education, the vocational fields, early childhcxxi education, etc., for any person rec::cmnenied for certification,
is comparable to (both in quantity arx:l in rigor) that for the secornary
academic fields, although it may (arx:l prtiJably should) differ considerably fran a conventional liberal arts sirgle-subject field major such as to reflect the professional role for which the person is preparirg.
14. '!he System should insure that institutional p:>licies arx:l practices are such that any person recc:mnerrled for certification has canpleted a program of pedagogical studies that is consistent with NCATE Standards for such.
Length of Program
15. '!he System should corxiuct studies (or, preferably, provide support am;
or incentives for institutions to c:::ornuct studies) of various IOOdels of program len;Jth arx:l structure for the initial preparation for teaching. Should carefully c::ornucted, lon;Jitudina1 studies, supported by data from elsewhere, show that sane one pattern of program len;Jth or structure is superior to others, then steps should be taken to i.Irplement that IOOdel throughout the System.
Numbers of Available Programs
see Rec::::ommen::)tions 5, 6, arx:l 7 above.
Financial Issues
16. '!he System should make IOOdifications in the fuIrlin;J fonnula such that institutions are given the same arrnmt per credit hour for education <::nlrses as for other clinical arx:l laboratory courses arx:l the same amount for students in education as for students in other professional schools. Further, the System should take steps to insure that internal allocations within institutions to the education units reflect the allocations to the institution for programmi.rg in education.
330

staffoevelcpnent
17. '!he System should provide policy d1an;Jes am incentives to institutions such as to pennit am enc:::aIrage faculty meni:Jers, for "in load" credit,
to provide nutually agreed upon seI.Vices to lcx:::al school districts,
especially in the area of staff develqment for faculty am professional
staff.
Responsiveness to chamim conlitionsi experim:mtal am pilot programs
18. '!he System should provide initiatives amjor SUR;X>rt institutions to take initiatives to address both chan3in;J cxn:litions (many, but not all,
of which are addressed in the recc.mnermtions above) am selected institutional efforts to establish experiJDental am pilot activities
related to school in'provement. In terms of process, there should be considerably expan:ied fonnal c:x::IlI'lImi.cation between System authorities
am representatives of the Geo:rgia Department of Education, public school districts, am other state agencies am organizations.
Am:>1r;J the initiatives that shc:M pranise that should be addressed by the System amjor one or llDre of its institutions, in collaboration with other educational agencies, are:
A. 8URX>rt for vast!y different leadership preparation programs that are in line with recent national administrator organization reccmnerx1ations for such.
B. creation am ~rt of plblic school sites that seI.Ve as
"demonstration" schools or as "professional develcpnent" schools-locations where one or llDre System institutions and a school district have a special worki.nq relationship for clinical experiences for prospective educational personnel, for applied
research, for IOCldelin:J am derocmstratin:J ''best practices," etc.
c. Establishment of policies am practices that (i) place
professionals-to-be only with specially trained am qualified
school-based clinical supey:visors am (ii) appropriately reward the
school-based clinical supey:visors for their service to the preparation program.
D. creation of a "center," seI.Vin:J all the preparation programs in the state, for excellence in teacher preparation.
331

'IEAaJER EDJCATICH IN '!HE 2lSI' <:::ENlURY
Dr. werner Rogers
Georgia SUperi.nten:ient of SChools
July 21, 1989
A1Ioost every aspect of eduction has urXiergone major refonn in the past five years. OUr purpose has been to guarantee the highest possible quality school experience for students. So it DUSt be with redesignirg teacher education: our ultimate goal ll'L1St be to pIt into our classroans "Teachers who are reflective, critical an::l inquirirg. who are c::anfortable with problems for whan genuine discussion an::l irquiry with students is valued... for whan the science an::l technology of teadlin;J (are) continually developirg an::l for whan the job is fur'rlamental.ly an art which they study, reflect on an::l refine throughout their careers. ,,*
SUch teachers can reach the classroan by several routes: indeed, some are there rKM. '!hey are the Marva Collinses an::l the Eliot Wiggintons, the Mary Bicouvarises an::l the Ten:y weeks, the i..ncarrlescent lights of our profession. Some we k:now because the media spotlight shines on them, or they becc:Ine National Teachers of the Year. others because we had such a teacher ourselves, or our children have been lucky. Many llDre such teachers are needed, an::l I believe it is possible to fim them an::l educate them if we are willirg to look at how we prepare teachers. We need to look at the structure an::l governance an::l at the content of teacher preparation programs.
A few states - Arizona, Massachusetts an::l california - have shifted teacher preparation fran urxlergraduate to graduate level. I believe this is a valid idea that would solve some problems: e.g., one of the reasons we do not have enough science an::l math teachers could be that urxlergraduate teachers of these subjects could not take enough content courses to feel comfortable teacl1inl math an::l science. More time for content durirg the urxlergraduate program, aloDJ with some teacher preparation courses in the junior an::l senior years, would llDre effectively prepare people for a fifth year of teacher education.
A content-rich teacher preparation program would answer much of the criticism that has been leveled at teacher education in the United states.
For too lODJ there has been a preporx:lerance of education courses an::l too little content. '!he content has not been based on valid research or demonstrated needs: rather, it has been based on the in vogue textbook that may or may not address needs in a particular content field. Master's an::l higher level VJOrk had been less that strirgent. For example, a master's degree in business administration is a full two-year or lODJer program. A master's in education may (or may notl) have only 25 quarter hours of work in the specific content field.
*Teacher Education in Ontario by Michael Fullan an::l F. M. Connell 1989.
332

A plan for restrocturi.rg teacher preparation should be developed which
takes into ac:x:xJUl1t a broad, general education (includi.rg the arts, human-
ities, science am mathematics), ex>ntent of the teac::hirJ field, am professional education. '!he program shou1d be aligned with the ex>llege of arts am
sciences so that students will have a content area as their maj or program focus. '!his should be done for those ~ will prepare to teach in grades
three through 12. For grades K through bo'o, the program should be designed for early drlldhocxl education without a heavy E!llPlasis on a specific ex>ntent
area, l:ut rather the ertP'Jasis shou1d be placed on develcpnental leanrings am activities for yc:JUI'g children.
SUCh restructurin:J TNOUld help tead1ers by providin;J practical, harrls-on help fran the beginning. HistoIY am theoIY TNOUld cane later, after the teacher has had an opportunity to be involved am to mature in the profes-
sion. 'IheoIY means very little to a 22-year-old who has never had a dlance to develop his or her own prilClSO.(i1y about life arDjor education.

until teacher education bec::x::m:!s a "real" course of study that is well-
planned am based on actual needs, there will ex>ntinue to be a lack. of
respect for it. one only has to read the vast differences in requirements in
a ex>llege catalog to see the disparity between an education degree am a
liberal arts or business degree.

sane alternative ides on ways to restructure teach preparation:

am Offer urrlergraduate, postbaccalaureat

master's routes for

initial teacher preparation. 'Ihese should be different lOOdels.

Offer preparation (am recruit a diverse multicultural group of
personnel) through a variety of alternative lOOdels of delivery not
tied to the academic calerx:'Jar am usi.rg the latest in interactive
satellite tecl1nology. All lOOdels should be ~tency-based.

Provide different preparation lOOdels to attract a variety of
awlicant pools into education teachi.rg, leadership am service.

Chm:Je leadership preparation to include a team leadership lOOdel which allows for structures opportunities for teacher/leader/
support personnel talent to be utilized.

What shall we teach our teachers after they are thoroughly groun:led in ex>ntent?

Because the derocgraphics of the sb.xient popiLation in American schools
are d'lan;Jin:J drastically, prospective teachers should study educational theoIY am :research fin:iinJs that will help them deal with teachi.rg am
leanri..n;J in the various ethnic groups. Teacher preparation programs are
presently stnlctured arourrl teachi.rg "the ideal" student, am this ex>nflicts
with what camidates firxl when they enter the real world of teachi.rg.
Teachers can am should become key figures in tumi.rq arourrl students who are
in a failure pattern. Relati.rg to such students is a vital skill that must

333

be leanted. A drama course designed especially for teachers might help in this regard.
Instructional technology should be a part of any new design for preparing tead1ers. '!he focus should be on using interactive technology in
teaching. sane carx:tidates should be training specifically to teach via the
use of technology in teaching all d1i.ldren. Presently, technology in the
classrcx::m is used to rerre:liate students am for drill am rote in classroom
leanrin.;Js. several lOOdels aroun:i the coontry could be used for designed such a course in technology use.
Teacher preparation programs should also include a course in the administration of the educational enteq>rise. Presently we reserve the <:XlUrSeS in administration an:! supervision of education for graduate level
study, am very few teachers cane out urrle.rgraduate school umerstarrling the educational system am how it is administered, financed am ultimately how it
functions.
we should exparxi lOOdels of preparation in the colleges beyorx:l the
clinical 100del to include those based on major challenges: fostering academic
leanting, teaching in heterogeneous classroans; praooting personal am social responsibility am professional decision making umer corx:litions of I'lI.l1tiple am c:::e::Ilq:leting demarx:ls am expectations. '!here should be lOOre field-based preparation at the school site for teacher, leadership am support personnel.
What dlanges should we make in how teacher education is delivered to students?
Professors in schools of education preparing prospective teachers should be required to retunl to classrooms at least every five years for a full academic year of teaching arx:l/or research. 'Ibis will help bridge the gap between the theory that youI'J peq>le in teacher preparation programs are
exposed to am the reality of the world that they ultimately will enter in
teaching. Many professors in teacher preparation programs would be unable to deal with the realities that they are preparing prospective teachers to eventually encounter.
Another lOOdel is for colleges to have teacher training institutes attached to them. with the faculty canprising teachers who are on leave from the classrcx::m for three or four years. SUCh an approach would go a long way
toward professionalizing teaching am answering the criticism that education
professors are out of touch with the real classrcx::m.
Another way to increase collaboration between schools am colleges in
preparation programs is for school faculty an:! college faculty to be jointly-
appointed am shared {X)Sitions.
A well-conceived laboratory c:::arp::>nent should be developed for personnel preparation programs. Only didactic an:! clinical canponents exist currently. Preparation programs should have laboratories, including videotape simula-
tions am protocols of diverse situations; inter-active video wired to the
live classrcx::m: technology for micro-teaching; instructional software labs:
334

teacher assessment centers for demonstration ani analysis: application of electronic infonnation: ani connnunications technology.
Effective teacher preparation programs should follow through with more irrluction support for all persormel, especially in the first year of employment, utiliz~ trained veteransjllSltors to provide this support. We should make wider use of support specialists, includi.rg retired teachers and professors: we should also provide i.rrluction support for leadership and service personnel
Teachers in the next century will need a IIDre collegial atmosphere of shared responsibility. Urrloubtedly they will need sabbaticals for renewalto enable them to brin:J a sense of reality to the classroom as they return.
A key to the success of all these ideas - emphasis on content, interpersonal skills to deal with all kin:is of children, skills to use tectmology, a variety of delivery models ani methods - is the concept of quality control. '!here must be checks in the preparation process rather then in the employment process - a sort of warranty on teachers. OUr current practice is for the colleges to turn out the teachers ani leave quality control to the schools. '!here must be built-in ways to predict with reasonable accuracy whether a teacher will be successful before enterin:J the classroom.
Teacher preparation programs for the 21st century will be driven by clear conceptions of education and teachin:J. Shared beliefs will be held by faculty and reflected in the program. Programs will be rigorous and academically challengin:J. An appropriate balance ani relationship will exist among general experience designed to promote pedagogical development.
we must develop high expectations, clear ani concise goals and obj ec-
tives ani a body of required knc.:Mledge that is secorrl to none. We awn this
to our children, to curselves am to the future of our state am nation.
335

RESlHJCIURING 'mACH PREPARATIW AHII6T RISl}I; mHAND, IB::I..INIH; SUP.PIH AND ESCAIATDC IUBLIC ~(H)
By
Dr. Alton Crews SUperinten:lent Gwinnett COlmty Public SChools
Georgia needs m:>:re teachers, better teachers ani soon. last year some 7,000 new teachers were employed in the 186 p.1blic school systems in Georgia. About 2/3 of these teachers were imnigrants fran other states. '!his source is fuyirg up, however, as children of WWII baby boaners fill the schools arxl student enrollment rises across the nation.
Georgia lags only behirrl Florida, califonrla ani Texas in population grcM'th. Half of Georgia's 70,000 public school teachers will :retire before the tmn of the century. '!he demarxi for teachers burgeons while the supply dwimles.
sane public policymakers at the state level support policies that force
early exit for marginal teachers, but give little thought to who will :replace them. '!he public's demarxi for better schools cannot be met unless we staff schools with better teachers ani managers, but lethargy seems to prevail in efforts to i.Irprove teacher recnrltment, preparation, ani in:luction.
Obstacles to i.Irprovirg teacher preparation are broad based ani complex. Neither colleges, school systems, nor the political arena - acting unilaterally - can solve the problem. But:furx3amental public school i.Irprovement cannot occur without providing every Georgia student a competent teacher. My closing statement to governor Harris' Education Review commission, at its final meeting, was ''who will teach our children?" '!he answer to that question still evades us.
EX'I'.ERNAL BARRIERS 'IO TFAaIER RECRUI'IMENT
It is difficult to attract our IOOSt talented youth into an occupation that has low pay, declining occupational prestige, abrasive public criticism, arrl escalating social demarxis.
Demarx:ls on teachers m:>unt as every major social malady is added to the school agerrla. Drug abuse, teen pregnancy, suicide prevention, child abuse, ani parental neglect require the school to be instruments of social refonn. Dealing with alienated youth, the victims of these societal ills, undercut the ability of teachers to cany out their primary mission - education.
Historically, blocked paths for college-educated women ani minorities guaranteed an attractive teacher awlicant pool to the schools. A steady stream of bright yot11';J females flowed into our school system. '!hose days are gone forever. career mobility has lured women ani blacks into m:>:re lucrative ani prestigious jobs. Broadenin'::J women's ani minority rights, though
336

eminently justified, has ironically taken a heavy toll on the occupation of
tea~.
Amidst these circumstances, the rnnnber of college entrants opting to pursue teacher-preparation programs has cb:ClpfSl by 50% in the past decade. '!hose who enter teaching do not exhibit the academic scholarship that teacher education majors had a decade earlier. '!his Plenanenon poses serious problems for collegiate institutions who either 11IJSt tolerate lower admission
st:a.mards for teacher canlidates or face decli.n:irg enrollments am revenue
for their tenured faculties.
But the gut-wrench..inq issue remains - who will teach our children?
INTERNAL ~ 'IO EFFECI'IVE TFAamR PREPARATION
Education, at best, is an i111mature am struggling profession plagued by uncertainties am inconsistencies. sane would conterx1 that it's not a
profession at all but a craft or trade characterized by amateurish practices
am outright :incarrpetence. In either case, if it is to ilnprove significantly, the PeOPle who teach our children am manage our schools must markedly ilnprove their competencies, skills am Perfonnance.
But teacher preparation programs have dem:>nstrated an amazing resistance to c.l1arge. Internal lethargy, institutional diversity, lack. of common
beliefs, am institutional turf guarding have thwarted JOOSt, in my opinion,
external forces to bring about c.l1arge in teacher preparation. Many hurdles must be overcame.
Pedagogy, as a professional discipline, has been slow to gain acceptance
in multi-purpose colleges am universities. '!his bias against teacher
preparation as a professional study has became ll'Ore pronounced in recent years as the K-12 refonn movement has unfolded. Reluctantly, the university has admitted Pedagogy into its ranks, but only then as an academic rather than a clinical study. '!his POSeS a maj or barrier to restn1cturing.
As long as teacher preparation is treated as an academic discipline in a theoretical framework, devoid of clinical experience, it will continue to ill
serve the practitioner. '!he sequence of courses am their content have
remained relatively unchanged for several decades. An introduction to education is followed by social fOllI'rlation courses, a dabble of psychology, a
rn.nnber of methods courses am a far too brief practice teaching stint. '!his
short clinical experience is con:iucted with minimal assistance from either university PersOnnel or public school teachers. But to substitute a broadbased clinical experience under the direction of university professors is a
costly am time consuming process.
Teacher training programs are generally locked into FIE funding fonnula. Oft time colleges of education have high FIE head counts that produce more funds then they receive. Revenues are shunted off to other programs to
offset low pupil-teacher ratios in graduate programs. Clinical am research-
based programs are subsidized by the high head count, didactically taught
337

sw:vey courses in cx>lleges of education. Costly, yet highly desirable clinical teaching practia.nns, are reduced to a mi.ni.nuJm.
'!be reward system in higher education favors the researd1er who spins off p,lblications. Publish or perish, while maybe an over-statement, still strorgly influences the financial reward system of the university. Excellence
in pedagogy am exhibitirg superior teac::hi.rg strategies to future public school teachers is seldan recognized am rewarded in cx>llegiate circles.
Teacher preparation is notable for its absence of cc:mron beliefs. Here in Gwirmett we annually enploy sane 500 new teadlers fran dozens of cx>llege
am universities. Widely held differences of opinions about teaching strategies am techniques make it difficult to canmmicate ideas am cx>n-
cepts. '!here is not a cx>re of cc:mron beliefs nor even a CCIlU'OC>n laJ'3llilge to dj SCIJSS the differences. Many different methods to reach reading, science, or mathematics are advocated. It's remi.n:iful of the efforts of old testament Hebrews tryirg to erect the Tower of Babel to climb up to the heavens. '!bere were rerxiered ineffective when they could not c::cmm.micate because of a profusion of laJ'3llilges.
I once heard Bunny smith, a noted teacher educator, say that cx>lleges of education are split into so many rival factions that it would be like a
medical school staffed with surgeons, chiropractors, osteopaths am faith
healers. '!be lack of cammon pedagogical beliefs reduces this uncertain profession to flounderirg cx>nfusion. Research fi.rrli.rgs are questionable and often cx>nflictirg. School boards and superinterrlents, who enploy the teacher graduates, justifiably ask, ''Who can you believe, what is for sure and certain?"
stagnation seems to have set in am cries for teacher-preparation refonn
fallon deaf ears. Neither the cx>lleges nor universities - p,lblic or private - have the will, means or desire to make mean.:irgful inproven-ents. '!be Board of Regents occasionally gives metorical support but too soon this fades into oblivion. Internal barriers are fonnidable.
But the gut-wrenching issue renains - who will teach our children?
SUGGESTIONS FOR RFSTRUCIURING TEAaIER mEPARATION :P.RCX;RAMS
Several years ago, I was invited to address the deans and department heads of teacher preparation programs in Georgia's three dozen public and
private cx>lleges am universities. '!his presentation was made shortly after
QBE's inplementation was Ul')jerway in Georgia's 186 school districts. As the chainnan, a praninent Georgia teacher-education leader,' introduced me, he strayed from the nonnal routine of citirg my credentials and inserted the observation that teacher preparation in sane states may need inprovement but it was in good shape in Georgia.
338

'Ihough I was taken aback by this self-sezvirg claim, it did not deter me from proposirg sc:me specific suggestions for ilIprovirg teacher preparation in Georgia. Like many who have ventured on this course before, my suggestions were politely received, but sunnnarily rejected. Like a Parishioner belching
in the pew on S\.1n3ay no~ am havirg his intiscretion politely ignored,
the deans' response irrlicated that they too thought all was well in the halls of academia where future public school teachers toiled.
'!his experience st:rergthened my belief that teacher educators cannot "heal themselves" for the reasons earlier cited. It also remi.med me that higher education desperately needs to enlist the aid of those who E!11l'loy
their teachers am the business ccmmmity who shows genuine signs of recogni-
tion that its future econanic welfare is influerx::ed by the quality of public
schoolirg am the product enE:girg from it.
Specific problems need specific solutions - not fuzzy generalities nor pleas for nore nonies to continue present practices on a larger scale.
FIRST Specific: Corporate C.E.O. 's of major Georgia irrlustries must
barx:i together to convince the presidents of colleges am universities, the Board of Regents am its C11ancellor that producirg quality teachers is just
as ilIportant as creatirg new research kn<Jr..1ledge, Nobel laureates, engineers with high level skills or supportirg winnirg athletic teams. No university in Georgia will ever be any stron;er than the students who enter from Georgia's public schools, nor will Georgia exparrl economically until we rachet up markedly the quality of our human resources.
SEmND Specific: 'Ihose who educate our collegiate population must
ilIpart to their chargers the skills, kn<Jr..1ledge am behavior that insure
E!11l'loyability in the marketplace. Many collegiate academicians will refute
this "trade school" philosophy am argue that their prilnary function is to produce new k:nc:Mledge through research am prepare their graduates to en;age
in this practice. I do not disagree that this is one of the functions of a multi-purpose university. But I conterrl that a university also has the responsibility to tunl out productive graduates who can staff the market-
place, fuel our economy am preserve our free ente:rprise system - whose
philanthropy enriches the university.
In a third of a century of school superi.nteI'rlin:J that has required me to
E!11l'loy thousarrls of rookie teachers fresh out of college, no dean, no college president, nor college professor have ever asked me or the public school
board for wham I work, to define the skills, kn<Jr..1ledges am behavioral traits
that we the E!11l'loyer ~ these hew hires to possess. What a strange, almost unbelievable, irrlictment of the educational irrlustry!
It's high tilne to convene a group of the best public school leaders in Georgia to interact with the nost innovative collegiate leaders to define the
skills am k:nc:Mledges that a beginnin; teacher should possess. We propose to measure it with the TCl' am TPAI, but we have done little to reach agreement between the university am the E!11l'loyirg school system about the teaching
skills needed at each grade level in each subject area for helpin; rural, inner city, or affluent suburban children.
339

'Ibis is a miler-plate basics for inprovirq school teacher preparation.
'IHIRD SDecific: we have yet to adlieve the alchemist's dream of
producirq gold fran base metal, nor have lNe been successful in turning a
SCM'S ear into a purse. we will cx:>ntinue to have difficulty in producirq top
flight teachers unless we can draw fran the top quartile of our nation's high school graduate can:lidates to enter teacher preparation programs. Each time I advocate this, inevitable I hear fran teachers who fume at such self-
flagellatirq statements. But the tnIt:h is urrleniable, lNe draw IOOSt of our teachers fran the ICMer half of the intellectual spectrorn of college
graduates.
I suggest three specifics to deal with this issue. First, establish in every Georgia high school - public or private - a Future Georgia Educator Club. Recruit the brightest teacher on the faculty as a sponsor arrl go after the IOOSt creative, intellectually talented, arrl human service oriental students to join this group.
secorx:I, firx:I business partners in each of Georgia's 186 school districts
to supplement the salary of this faculty sponsor at a level equal to the supplemental pay of the football coach.
'Ihird, expand the financial aid program for high school graduates who will agree to teach in Georgia's school with liberal loan pay-back plans arrl loan cancellation for those who will work in rural areas or critical teaching fields.
FOORIH Specific: Producin;J scholarly urrlergraduates with a broad-based arts arrl science academic irornersion is far IlDre inlportant than exposirq an 18 or 19-year old to the history arrl prilosq;:hy of education or methcrls courses. '!he mastery of a basic core content in science, mathematics, logic, geography, literature, history arrl the arts should be a pre-requisite to Pedagogical exposure.
When a 21-year old has a basic un:ierst:arxlin of man's tortuous climb
fram savagery to civilization, then arrl only then, can he/she begin to learn how to teach.
FIFIH Specific: Admit, up front, that colleges cannot train an effective teacher in four years in a college classroom where pedagogy is viewed as an academic study as if it were general education. In this settirq, Pedagogy is taught by lecture-discussion with the study of the textbook as the prbna:ry learner activity. Learning to teach effectively can, in most instances, ocx::ur only in a classroom where the teacher interacts with live students or observes such an interaction. Teachi.rq is leal:Tled best in a clinical, not theoretical, settirq. But preparirq teachers in a clinical settirq is expensive arrl not a favorite assigrunent of the college prof or the supervisirq public school teacher. SUpervisirg on the jab trainirg is, pertlaps, the IOOSt inlportant pre-service Pedagogical function, yet it is provided in the IOOSt casual arrl amateurish manner.
340

Specifically, I reccmnerxi that every tead1er have at least a year of supelVised, on-the-job preparation prior to licensin:J.
SDrnI Specific: I.en:Jthen teacher preparation to a five-year program for
a baccalaureate degree with a one-year paid practia.nn included.
sane advocate requirin:J a Masters degree as a pre-requisite to teaching. I disagree. Little evidence exists to SUWOrt the claim that advanced degrees ensure better teachers, addin:J a fifth year as a pre-requisite to enployment is not very logical. But, payin:J an intern a reasonable salary
for the fifth year offers sane prani.se.
Specifically, I suggest we adq1t a version of the co-op program so successful in preparin:J ergi.neers. In the last three years of a five-year program, provide the student three quarters of in-school experience. In each quarter, pay the intern a salary c:::anm:msurate with a para-pro. In the final quarter, :reimburse at a rate of a begimring teacher.
Each quarter the intern is required to assume a Iro:re sophisticated classroan role, climaxed in the third quarter with a full six weeks of full-
time teachin:J urrler the co-direction of a master IrlJlic school teacher am a
college professor. '!he college supelVisor l1U.1st acca:npany the intern into the
classroan as an observer, mentor am derronstration teacher.
'!he college furxling mechanism would give colleges of education budgetary autonany so that the added cost of on-the-job trainirg would be born fram the FTE head count of the teacher preparation program. '!he reward system would favor those professors who corxiuct "action :research" in the public school
classroan where they supelVise student teachers am deIronstrate teacher
strategies
'!he IrlJlic school supelVision teacher would be granted steps on a career ladder or supplemented salary wise at least as much as a football coach. state furxling would urrlerwrite this supplenent.
'Ibis five-year fonnat ac::cormt'X:1ates several desirable improvements:
> A year's preparation occurs in a clinical settin:J.
> '!he college professor denonstrates to his students theory which he now teaches in academic studies.
> '!he intern :receives a "livin:J wage" for the exter:rled 5th year.
> Furxling for colleges of education bec::cmas canparable to other
programs where :research am clinical studies occur.
> Research occurs in a live settin:J, it is action oriented am thus
Iro:re meaningful than much of the irrelevant :research now drawing dust in educational ardrives.
341

> IDeal school personnel are actively involved in the clinical
trai.ni.rxJ thus offering greater qp:>rbmity for the public schools
to influence teacher preparation. Bridging the schism between the public schools an:! universities is enhanced.
> '!he collegiate reward system can be nudged toward financial i.rx::entives an:! tenure status for those who denalstrate superior teaching skills an:! action research in the marketplace - public schools.
> Ext:errling to five years, replacing pedagogical fOUl'X3ation an:! net:hods course \YOrk with arts an:! science academically rigorous content, an:! ncving college personnel into the marketplace - the p,lblic school class:rocm - is an altered teacher fonnat that is
doable an:! in my opinion an inprovement aver existing programs.
SEVENIH Specific: In-seJ:Vice or continuing education for teachers, once on the jab, is a task beyom the scope of the University to assume. Some 70,000 Georgia teachers need to be involved in a program of renewal an:! continued improvement. To provide this service, we need to borrow a page fran the business sector. '!he largest an:! perhaps IOOSt effective educational program in America is coniucted by the private sector for \YOrkers in field, facto:ry an:! office.
'Ibis program is jab SPeCific an:! umerwritten by the employer. It is viewed by private sector management as essential to their success an:! as a wise invesbnent of corporate :furxls. 'Ibis managerial Iirilosophy is seldom subscribed to by local school governing boards or state p,lblic policymakers.
In the educational profession, the teacher has traditionally bont the cost of hisjher own skill 'llp3rading an:! relied on the umer-staffed university to provide the training. Degree p.1rSUit rather than SPeCific jab skills
has driven these efforts. '!he em result - a degree-rich profession with
course content often far rem:wed fran jab-related needs.
In Gwinnett <::amty, 85 cents of eve:ry operational dollar pays personnel
salaries. Yet we SPel'rl less than 1% of our operational budget to 'llp3rade the
skills of our labor-intensive system. Many corporations here in Gwinnett
SPel'rl 10% of their operational budget for skill 'llp3rading of its employees. A C.E.C. of a Forbes 100 Corporation recently told me that the most valuable
asset his c::anpany owned was not its !ilysical plant, not its high tech equipnent, not its data base, but the skills an:! knowledge "in the heads" of his \YOrk force. Public education l1I.1St leant this lesson.
Public policymakers an:! political budget makers at the state level l1I.1St set as a priority furrling for staff developte.nt for teachers an:! school managers. IDeal schools with assistance fran the university an:! the private sector l1I.1St nnmt massive in-seJ:Vice education programs for teachers. SUch efforts must be jab SPeCific an:! fim ready awlication in the \YOrk place.
342

Perllaps the mst pranisirg fonnat is for master tead1ers to be errployed
on annual contracts to teach tead1ers durirg the SllllIner IlDnths at public expense.
Here is this boc:min;J, pioneer subw:ban e:::atmmi.ty, the ''University of Gwi.nnett" is staffed by our best teachers who i.nstJ:uct their peers in job specific skills. It's payirg off in inproved perfonnance.
EIGHIH Sp3cific: we face a serious teadler shortage in Georgia. Demarrl
exceeds SUWly, particularly in :rural Georgia am in sane critical teachirg
fields.
Recnti.tirg am errployirg persons holdi.n;J ex>llege degrees in non-
educational fields offers pranise. Farly retirement incentives in the private sector makes available a pool of mature pecple who, with minimum t:ra.inin;J can be ex>nverted into effective teachers. Career private sector personnel often are attracted to the teachirg profession because of the lure of job satisfaction associated with servirg youth. '!hey seek mid-career
changes am often can became good tead1ers.
Unfortmlately, same educators overtly or covertly resist this practice. Teacher unions openly oppose the licensirg of oon-educators. But the practice has pranise. New Jersey's program has been cited as a ItDdel for attractirg non-educators, ex>llege trained personnel to the teachirg field.
It has pranise. I prqx:>se that Georgia exparrl its efforts in this arena.
Many of the inprovements suggested here will surely be resisted by
educators at both the ex>llegiate am p.1blic school level. Unilaterally,
neither the ex>lleges nor IXJblic schools have deroc>nstrated a willingness or capability to restructure teacher preparation. '!he force to do this must cane externally fran the business leaders of this state.
When the ex>llege presidents, the Board of Regents, the Governor and General Assembly ex>nclude that restructurirg of teacher preparation programs are a critical next step in inprovirg Georgia's schools, we will have change. But like QBE, the ilrpetus for that change will not bubble up internally from
the ex>llegiate am university.
'!he business comrrn.mity will have to provide the ilrpetus, and be the ItDtivators to push an entrenched institution toward restructurirg.
***
343

I. Tcp five states, in tenos of PTI11atial gain fnD 1985 to 1988:

GAIN

1) california 2) Florida 3) Georgia
4) Texas
5) Arizona

1,812,000 1,008,000
425,000 396,000 304,000

SOOrce: U. s. census Bureau

II. Teacher SUWly far Georgia PUblic Scbools:

AwroxiInately 7700 teachers were needed for school year 1987-88, about 2700 came straight fran educational department at Georgia universities and colleges, the "shortfall" of 5000 was made up of teachers from Arts and science depart:lrents from Georgia institu-
tions, from teachers CCIll..irg fran out of state, and from the
recycling of in:lividuals who had once left the profession and then
:retun1ed.

SOOrce:

'!his infonnation was obtained from Dr. Joe szutz, University of Georgia System: and fran Dr. SUe Harrison, Professional
st:arrlards cemnission.

344

Dr. Janes B. Mathews vice Chancellor for Infonnation Technology
University System of Georgia
Introduction
.no one can doubt that infonnation tedmology, as one of the great achievements of the twentieth century, is a maj or cultural force arrl a significant instrument for the :i.nprovement of the arts, the sciences, arrl the quality of hmnan life. '!he aspiration of a major system of higher education should be to develop an educational strategy focused not on COIIplters for their own sake but on their use as tools allowin;J an extension of the human Illim into all erneavors of human existence.
e:atpIters are not just for CCIlp.lter scientists; they are for everyone who engages in intellectual lNOrk; they have 1::>eo::me an in::lispensable tool of modenl life, a tool which everyone must learn. to use. (1)
Education is an infonnation based enterprise. Institutions of higher education acx:omplish their missions primarily through the generation, storage, arrl sharin;J of infonnation.
Infonnation technology is critical to the roles of higher education. '!he essential functions of the university in carryin;J out its roles are not only enhanced by infonnation technology, but will be significantly changed, arrl new functions based upon the technology will emerge in the future. Infonnation tedmology must be assigned a high priority in the planni.nJ arrl operation of the University System of Georgia arrl each of its institutions.
Infonnation-processin;J tec:hnology, particularly in the academic erw:ironment, is :furrl3mentally different, in both character arrl ran;Je of inpact, from other technologies, past arrl present. ..'!he
truly unique capabilities of the digital caJP.Iter came from the
tremen:ious generality arrl power of its uooerlyin;J basic processthe manipulation arrl transfonnation of abstract symbols with extraordinary rapidity. . .. (T) hey are in fact infonnationprocessin;J systems that rival existin;J educational delivery systems for many applications. (2) 94f
'!he econanist/Iirilosopher omiel Bell speaks of the inportance of institutions of higher education to econanic arrl technological developnent. In the past tedmological developnents terrled to be based upon irrlividuals "tinkerin;J" with devices to discover scmethinJ new (e.g., Edison arrl Bessimer). Now, technological developnents are derived primarily from the use of codified knc:Mledge employed by teams or "networks" of specially trained
345

individuals. Universities IOOSt often provide the enviromnent for such develcpnents, arx:l provide much of the infonnation sharirg upon which the econanic developte1t of tec:hnology deperx1s. universities have becane the hub of econanic arx:l tec:hnological develqment :replacirg water arx:l transportation. Infonnation tec:hnology is cnIcial to this role. (6)
'!he University System of Georgia has recognized the strategic inp:>rtance of infonnation arx:l infonnation tec:hnology to its mission for a rnnnber of years. In 1970 the University System CCI1p.rt:er Network (USCN) was fonned. '!he network connected all schools to central processors at a central site for the sharirg of carp.1ter resources arx:l infonnation, arx:l for the i.nplementation of central aR>lications. '!he role arx:l :i.np:>rtance of infonnation technology was again enhanced in 1988 with the aR>Oinbnent of a full-time vice Chancellor for Infonnation Technology to head a new Office of Infonnation Technology.
Much is beirg done arx:l planned in the University System to take advantage of the benefits of infonnation tec:hnology. Perhaps the best way to establish a perspective for Ul"rlerstarx:ling present contitions arx:l plans is to review the history of this type of activity within the System.
meN/An Overview ill
lata processirg in the university System of Georgia had its real
beginn.in:J in the late 1950s. sane of the larger schools havirq the
furrls available installed electronic accountirg machines to haOOle the increased volume of records generated by an escalatirg student population. Research conp.1tirg was also initiated durirg this period.
In the 1960s, c:onp.Iter tec:hnology was gettirq better, cheaper, arx:l easier to use. At the same time, several factors were havirg profourrl i.npacts on universities arx:l colleges across the country: aggressive research programs, increasirg enrollments, arx:l exparxiin;J :insb:uctional activities. At the larger institutions in the nation, administrators were naturally expenling their e::atpl'ti.nJ resources to haOOle the abl.1OOance of records created by these factors. '!he larger universities in Georgia also follCMed this trerd.
Enrollment increased greatly at the larger schools durirg this time, an::l other schools heretofore regarded as small experienced rapid increases in student population. Many new colleges were constructed, particularly the junior colleges built in a well-conceived plan to put higher education near every ccmnun.ity in the state of Georgia.
'Ihese schools, with limited facilities, staff, arx:l noney, could not afford to install effective ex:atp.ltirg facilities. Yet they also were experiencirg an increased need for carp.1ter technology. Recognizirq this deficiency, the carp.1ter center directors of the University System's three main universities began discussirq ways to exterrl their CXIlpltirg resources to users at other University System schools. '!he idea of a carp.1ter network was born.
346

In 1967 six re:m:>te tenninals TNere connected to the TIM 360/65 at the University of Georgia on an experimental basis. other cormections followed to CCIl'pIters at the Georgia Institute of Technology am Georgia state University. In 1970 an NSF grant provided the seed l1Dney for the University System of Georgia eatp.rt:er Network (USCN). Its mission was clear: to give University System schools without CCIlpIters access to the same level of c::anp.rtinl power available at institutions with on-
canp.1S CCIl'pIters.
Besides buildinJ a finn equipnent base at the dlosen central site, (the University of Georgia), USCN officials instituted a plan to prc:m::>te awareness of the canputer's actual am potential uses. '!hey held seminars, open houses, am ~tive educational programs, thereby establi.shi.Ig a secorrl mission: seI.Vice to the user c:x:mmmi.ty.
By the late 1960s, the Network had grown to the point where serre organizational structure was needed. Network members drew up a charter detailin:J operational am administrative prcx::edures am outlinin:J organizational structure. 'Ih.is doa.nnent also established an administra-
tive body, the Executive Ccmni.ttee, elected fran the body of canpus
Coordinators (appointed representatives of each member ca.ITPJS)
With a finn organizational structure in place, the Network began to
nature. USCN members met armually to share expertise am experience.
'!he central site installed a larger canputer (the ax: 6400) am a
telec::xmmmications system. '!he decreasin:J cost of CCIlpIters nade it possible for many schools to prrchase starn-alone systems or systems which they could use to access the CCIl'pIters at the central am host sites. 'Ih.is growth am c.hanJe brought the need for a dedicated staff to administer the Network program. In 1977 such a group (Network services) was established to provide support for central site equipment, progrannni.rg support for System administrative awlications, am the acquisition of various software products for academic users.
In the years since the begi.nn.in:J of the USCN, the Network's role-as
well as the role of data processinl in general-has grown at a rate that can only be described as explosive. Startin:J with 27 re:m:>te tenninals in 1970, the USCN today supports several thousam tenninal devices linked through a sophisticated date c:xmmmi.cations network involvin:J statistical multiplexers am wide-ban data c:xmmmi.cations links to host CCIl'pIters at the University of Georgia, the Georgia Institute of Technology, am Georgia state University. Renotel.y located users of the USCN have access at these supportinl institutions to modem lIM, CDC, am DEC nainframe systems.
Use of Network resources can be fourrl in all aspects of university operation. Faculty employ the canputer for both instruction am research. In instructional use, teachers often use canputer-assisted instruction lessons in such classes as physics, chemistry, nathernatics am even lan;JUage skills developne.nt. Many professors author their own lessons to meet specific needs.
347

Administrators are abtai.nin;J substantial support for their business-
related activities. A centrally developed am SUR?Orted personnel/
payroll system is in use at virtually all university System institu-
tions. Similarly, central developnent am consult~ SUR?Ort have been provided for an account~ system, bJdget system, inventory system, am
student financial aid system.
Via the university System's extension programs, the usrn has extended
its usefulness to senrice programs am state taxpayers. A family
blDgeting system is used statewide; a cotton petiole program helps
analyze soil types am detennines fertilizer requirements for famers arolU'rl the state; am a dairy feed fomulation program is used by
Agricultural Extension service personnel.
'nle 34 member units of the USCN have, in effect, merged their two
original missions. 'nley share a wide variety of CCl'lplt~ resources am offer senrices to meet the instnlctional, research, am administrative
needs of the University System institutions. TOOay, each school in the
System has access to lOOre <XIl'plting power am expertise than any one
school could possibly afford.
TssIlf'S Ani T.reJDs ill
Microprocessors are caus~ a revolution which is br~~ computer
process~ capability into the user's office am harne, whether by on-
line tenninals or microcarp.rters, with sqiristicated cammunications capabilities also made possible by microprocessors. 'lhe errl results of
this are difficult to predict, although it is entertai.nin;J am sonvatimes
necessary to try. It does not seem adequate si.nt:>ly to extrapolate from present COllpl.t~ in higher education.
Micrcx:xl1'plters are becaning starmrd equipnent in instnlctional comput-
~. 'lhey are also very praninent in the research laboratory, am increas~ly so in general office use. same of their primary advantages are access, speed of response, personal adaptations, am local control.
'lhey can play the roles of dumb tenninal, intelligent tenninal, or
inieperrlent system, am are effective in reduc~ camnunication costs in many situations. 'lhey are portable, am can be integrated into systems alorg with other media. 'lhe software is generally easy to use, am the
l1UIltlers of packages available on the market is grow~ rapidly. Many locations are finting them to be cost-effective, particularly in i.nstructi.on.
Even though microcamputers are relatively easier to use, sonva institu-
tional SUR?Ort senrices are i.nt:>ortant for IOOSt effective am efficient use am resource management throughout the canplS. For example:
Stamarcls for acquisition and SUR?Ort
Tra~ am consultation
Software developnent communications Interface with institutional systems
348

Resources for support Responsibility assignments
An increasing rnnnber of students have their own micrcx:::anputer, am it has been predicted that at least 30 to 50 percent of students am
faculty will have personal systems during this decade. '!his porterx:1s a
continuing am acx=elerating decentralizatioo of e:atp.tting resources on
canp.1S. What does this do to the CCIIp1ter center? Will demarrl for the
larger systems be diminishej? In fact, deman:i for midis/minis am mainframes will continue to increase also, am p::>ssibly acx=elerate as m::>re canputer literate users evolve am additional large system func-
tions are needed to support needs of the micro stations. Let's consider a breakout of possible uses of the various system levels.
Personal e:atp.tting needs are met effectively am efficiently by micro-
processor-based systems, operating i.n:1epen:lently or networked for resource sharing. Computing needs at the PerSOnal level typically
require a relatiVely lCM level of file storage am processing capability. Micrcx:::anputers provide adequate capability in m::>st cases am offer
the advantages of acx::ess, portability, etc. described above. Examples of the functions effectively Perfo:nned on microcamputers are:
spreadsheet calculations
editing text material
electronic mailbox bibliographic references
local financial am invento~ records
interfacing with other instnnnents
centers with large mainframes provide large-scale processor capabil-
ities, large-scale file storage am retrieval, specialiZed I/O facilities, am data cormnunications facilities. 'Ihese will continue to be
required for large-scale problem solving for scientific purposes,
administrative uses, am large databases. '!hey will provide specialiZed (sharable) software am other functions not economical to obtain on a
decentralized basis. Ani they will increasingly provide cormnunications,
resource sharing, am large-scale processing am storage functions for
the microstations. General-p..u:pose timesharing will continue to be a function. '!he mainframe will tern to service multiple organizations, as e::x:ttpU"ed to the micros serving iniividuals.
starxling alone, minis tern to serve a single organizational unit. '!hey
are effective for "han:1s-on" applications; e.g., engineering am
CCIIp1ter science. In networks, midis/minis will serve specialiZed
functions, e. g., communication, am as host processors for software development am moderately sized databases. '!hey are also effective in
sc::aoo situations for timesharing services.
One can see the variety of choices available in configuring a system to meet the various needs of the academic institution. Today's technology offers several p::>ssible approaches to a solution, which requires
weighing economic, organizational, behavioral, am other factors in
349

addition to the technical consideration, sane of which will be discussed later.
other developrents in related t:ec:1lIx:>logies are inpicting upon our canp.1SeS. several technologies are converging to create an "infonnation t:ec:1lIx:>logy" basai upon canputer technology; e. g. ,
c:x:mm.mications: carp.rt:er-contlled switching, transmissions ilnage processing: converting analog to digital infonnation
am processing to fom, manip.l1ate, am enhance pictures,
~, etc. TNOrd processing: text editing, electronic mail, etc. data processing
'!he CXl1lbination of microconprt:ers am AV systems will have considerable inpict as tools for the teacher, student, am scholar. New systems for
the delivery of education will evolve.
with i1rprovements in electronic c:x:mm.mications, a trerrl to very highspeed, long~ c:x:mm.mications via satellite transmissions is seen.
As solid state storage develops with inproved cost, speed, am reliabil-
ity, large on-line da~ organization will be enhanced. Remote access to unique collections of data should becane cannnonplace, and should be of significant benefit to educational institutions.
As hardware systems continue their rapid advance and take on the
qualities of a utility, software am data management will be rising in
prominence as the challenges or bottlenecks in obtaining needed and desired computing services. Software will becane a larger item in a
typical college computing budget, am management of the institutions'
data resource will require m::>re effort of administration. '!he relevant
constraints in managing the costs am capabilities of future systems will increasingly involve software, data, am people, rather than
hardware.
Visualize the scope of what we have diSOJSSed: microcomputers allover
campus, minis in deparbnents am specialiZed functions, mainframe
perfonning large-scale activities am support functions for other processors, office automation, audio am visual technologies interfacing
with computers, am conununications am canp.rter technology converging.
How is all of this to be integrated am coordinated in some efficient
am effective manner? '!he relevant technology for answering this
question is "networking."
Networking, involving reliable, high-speed communications am::>ng computers, will facilitate the distril::lUtion of the TNOrk to the m::>st effective source for its accomplishment, while providing access to other
computers am peripheral devices for data, resource sharing, specialiZed
functions, am large-scale activities. Developing and managing this
network will be a major function of the central service organization. In effect, the walls of the canputer center are being exparrled to the l:::lourrlaries of the campus.
350

Obvioosly, the management of c::x:rtp.Iter activities will have to c.han;Je to
aCXXililliodate the many changes in tedmology am services described above.
As the l:xJurx1aries of central c::x:rtp.Iter services chan;Je, so will its
:resources am organization stnlcture have to ac:x::x:moodate those changes.
Microc:::arprt:er support services lII.1St be provided; c::x:rtp.Iter networks must
be established am managed; am varioos types of consultirg must be
provided to many areas of the canp.1S. IBta management Im.1St be atterrled,
incluclirg database administration am security, accuracy, am privacy
considerations. Convergirg tedmologies lII.1St be incorporated into the
institution's plans am organization. Clearly, the effective management
of these activities requires the attention, influence am stren;Jth of an
administrative officer who is a full member of top institutional administration. '!he organization will need to grow beyorrl the traditiona! data processirg organization.
On:rent Pl.ann:im (5)
'!he fonnation of the new Office of Infonnation Technology provided a need as well as an opportunity to develop updated strategic plans for infonnation technology application within the System. OIT led a plannirg effort, involvirg representatives from throughout the System, as well s the central
Office, to set direction am guidance for numerous critical issues.
1. '!he present ''USCN'' (University System eatp.rt:er Network) organization stnlcture should be replaced with an Administrative committee
on Infonnation Technology urrler the Bylaws of the University SYstem
Advisory Council.
Q"mnent: '!his will require a revision in the worc:ti.nJ of the Bylaws, am a restructurirg of the USCN. Along with this, the
roles of the present "campus coordinators" must be updated am
redefined as "institutional representatives," which in scme cases may lead to the aRX>i.nt::loont of different irrlividuals by the presidents. '!he scope of "infonnation technology" is somewhat
different am broader than that of "c::x:rtp.Iter network" in the Past.
2. '!he varioos perceiVed responsibilities am functions of the OIT
(Office of Infonnation Technology) were reviewed am delineated, without recatnreJ'rl.in a SPeCific organization stnlcture.
o ''''ent: '!he responsibilities am functions identified included
providirg essential central eatpltirgjinfonnation technology services, facilitatirg campus eatpltirg through support functions
(e.g., consultirg, training, am site licenses), inlplementirg an
up-to-date, systeJn-wide data ccmnunication system, am facilitatirg
the sharirg of infonnation throughout the system. '!hese respon-
sibilities am functions are seen to awly to administrative,
instructional, am research activities.
351

3. Administrative processes inpleneltin:J central policies should be centrally defined ani related administrative software should be centrally developed/selected. Also, a data element dictionary maintained by the OIT should define items required by the central
Office, ani other it:em; required to ~rt collaborative efforts
anaq the institutions. Further, a mrlfied awlications environment should be developed at the central Office level.
""HIt: A feelirg here is that the central Office should be
involved very early in definirg its requirements relative to any significant administrative systems deve1qment on or for the canplSeS. 'nlese ~tions ~d reduce the annmt of work
required of the irrlividual institutions ani provide for better infonnation in the central Office.
4. In'proved carm.mication between the OIT ani the academic community should be developed. Better communications ne::hanism.s would facilitate: sharirg of infonnation on software, participative decision making regarding software, adequate representation of academic interests, ani the dissemination of policy on matters such as software copyright. Also, collaborative procedures should be developed for such benefits as System-wide pJrd1ase agreements and site licenses, ani unrestricted use of servers placed on the communication network.
a ""HIt: Rather st:rorg feelirgs exist regarding the need to address academic interests on many canpJses.
5. Infonnation resource sharin:J within the University System should be praooted, with all shared resources beirg accessible from any
location on any canplS. Infonnation resources external. to the University System should also be made available to all locations.
o ''''HIt: 'nlese ~tions will require a System-wide communications network such as the proposed PeachNet. In addition to IlX)re effective programs, many lorg-ranged efficiencies would result, in areas such as: trainirg, databases, software, teleIi10ne line costs, ani interpersonal ani interinstitutional communications.
6. 'n1e services of OIT should be managed on a business-like basis with adequate cost ani benefit evaluation, quality st:a.rrlards, etc. Also, a stable ~ base should be established with recognizes the need for growth, upgradirg, replacement, ani maintenance. Users should participate in the plaI1J"lin;J ani evaluation of OIT services. Various user group organizations may be of assistance in
this regard, in addition to the Administrative camnittee.
O''''HIt: since OIT provides ~tional BUI:POrt to JOOSt of the
schools, maintainirg quality services matching the needs of the
schools is critical to their operations.
352

B. SYS'ID{ SIRATElil FS:
1. Administrative software systems should cpmite (reside) as close as possible to the administrative cpmition beirq supported. '!here is a need to unify at each. level the functions appropriate to that level.
o "'ISIt: While the continued "distriJ:JUtion" of administrative
prcx::esses to local an:l desktop devices is :recx:moorrled an:l desirable, it should not be allowed to result in the development of unwarranted isolation of CCI'lpltirq in any one area. Networking is essential to prevent the creation of islams of CCI'lpltirq.
2. '!he university System should proceed rapidly with the iItplernentation of the proposed Infonnation Technology camv.mi.cations Network (PeachNet). Networking of the units within the university System is regarded as a basic utility.
O.illsIt: Effective ccmnuni.cations an:l networking is critical to the successful iItplementation of many of the other reconunerrlations, an:l is critical to the future of c::anp.Itirq in the University System. It will facilitate the distribution of functions, the sharirq of resources, the coordination of actions, efficient access to outside resources, an:l effective interpersonal an:l interinstitutional ccmnuni.cations. It will also facilitate access to data essential to the functions of the central Office. '!he institutions are networking their canpJses, an:l expect to have interconnectirq links provided by the university System. Finally, the necessaIY replacement of exi.stirg outdated, failirq equipment provides the opportunity to establish principle components of PeachNet with reasonable additional cost.
3. An effective COI'CII'rOn electronic mail envirornnent for the University System should be iItplemented.
O"Irr!pnt: '!he use of electronic mail within laI:ger institution and on national an:l regional networks is growirq rapidly. Many faculty an:l staff are fi.I'rlin:J electronic mail to be valuable in their work. At present there is no CCIlllOC>n an:l effective way to provide linkages aItDnJ the various mail systems to facilitate efficient communications within the System to support System functions. Also, available mail systems are often too difficult to use. ('!his recammendation also deperrls upon the system-wide network.)
4. '!he System should move to a CCI'lpltirq envirornnent that protects future investments in application software an:l allows flexibility in selectirq hardware by adoptirq tools based upon non-vern.orspecific starrlards wherever possible. A non-proprietaIY operatirq system which. will operate across a wide raD;Je of equipment should be a future goal (e. g., UNIX/EOSI). Also, Structured QueIY Ianguage (SQL) should becx:me the administrative application envirornnent tool for query an:l ad hoc reportirq.
353

O''''Hlt: cemnercial product availability, am the CXlSt of major
oonversion, may not allow rapid m::JV'ement of these starrlards.
However, major dlanges am new system acquisitions should incor-
porate such starrlards as soan as practicable.
5. A c:x:moon relational distrib.lted data base management system should be adopted for administrative awlications. '!he system chosen should not be oonstrained to a sin:Jle ven::lor's hardware.
o ''''Hit: '!his recamnen:3ation am the one above regarding SQL would
lead to an up-to-date (foorth generation) awlication development erwirornnent throughout the System. A uniform erwirornnent would
exist for System-wide applications, am effective tools would be
available for institutions to tailor further applications to suit their inlividual needs.
6. A stan:3ard electronic ccmnuni.cations am networ~ protocol should
be implemented for System-wide ccmm.mications. In the near-term, the stan:3ard should be ':OCP/IP, a widely followed stan:3ard for which cx:mrercial products are available. '!he lOIl3'-term stan:3ard should be the <:lSI stan:3ard of the International S't.aroard Ol:ganization.
Crmnent: 'Ibis will provide eveJ:Yone with a known method of ccmm.micating on a System-wide basis. ':OCP/IP is the protocol S'tardard for PeachNet.
7. '!he OIT should select am aI'U'O.lllCe equipoont am software for which
central technical support will be available. '!he support services
should be defined am sufficient to serve as an incentive for most
institutions to choose fram the supported platfonns.
o IIl1ent: 'Ibis is essential to implementing starrlards. '!he
starrlards must be supported. Options are needed, but must be
limited to the support potential of staff am other resources.
Volume purchase agreements for items conforming to the staroards
gives an economic incentive to the starrlards, am offers to save
resources for the System.
strategic Direction
It should be clear fran the above dj SOJSSion am planning recamnen:3ations that am networ~ canmunications are strategic to infonnation technology in
the University System. '!here are several reasons for this, but perhaps the
best surmnary statement is that current am evolving hardware arrl software
technologies are pacing computing power in the haI:rls of inlividuals throughout the institutions, arrl an increasingly large percentage of the data
resources am functions are stored arrl managed electronically. '!hese resources am functions will also have to be linked electronically to
complete the systems evolution arrl to realize the full benefit potential.
Increasingly such linkage will be expected am deman:ied as an ordinary means
of accorrplishing one's work, whether research, instroction, service or administration.
354

statements contained in IOn;J-rarged plans fran one of the institutions within
the System will help paint the picture of need am potential:

CCltpItin3 will continue its inexorable shift fran the "tenninal.-
to-mainframe" enviromnent to a distril:uted am networked environ-
ment. Perl1aps the IOOSt critical elemant in aCXXilllodatin3 this shift is the canplS-wide data oarm.mi.cations network. It provides the linkage aItDn;J the university's cx:mp.rt:inJ resoorces, allowin3
acx::ess to extensive bodies of infonnatian (both on-am off-canp.1S) , to peers am instructors, am to an array of services. In this
environment, the TNOrkstatian (typically a microcarp.1ter) becanes
the acx::ess point, the network am all its nodes becanes the "system", am together they form the cx:mp.rt:inJ utility.

'!he canpJS network will be a network of smaller networks intercon-

nected by stamard interfaces am protocx>ls.

.Access to

external networks will be available fran the canpJS network

... '!he network will allow arrj node (TNOrkstation or server) to

acx::ess arrj other node, except where access is restricted.

'!he TNOrkstation user will be able to select arrj available service
fran a menu am may not be aware of whether the service is bein3
provided on the workstation or on one or IlCre of the network's
servers. Typical services available on the network will include
electronic mail, file transfer, library catalog am search service,
on-line assistance, electronic teleconferencin3, as well as the
services typically foun::l on micro, mini, am mainframe computers.
In addition, it is anticipated that the existence of the network
will spawn services am interactions that have not been previously
considered.

Each faculty member will have access to a TNOrkstation, connected to the network, in their office. .. (6)

Qxd.usians
'!he effective use of infonnation tedmology is of strategic i.Irq:lortance to the university System in all of its functions. Although much has already been done within the System for the effective deployment of the technology, much IlCre :remains to be done. '!his is a rapidly d1an:Jin3 field, which must be
continually IlCnitored am att:e.rrled. Each institution am the central Office should assign a major i.Irq:lortance to the subject, am it should be acx::orded a special place in plans am evaluations for institutions, academic programs, am the System, in all areas of activity: instruction, research, service, am administration.
'!he infonnation resource am its associated infonnation technology, are
equally as i.Irq:lortant as other resources required for the educational enter-
prise. '!hey should be acx::orded a status am structure equal to those of
other major :resources.

355

REFERENCES (1) ''Renewirg the Vision: carp.rt:ers in the 8eJ:vice of Higher Education in
Georgia. " Report of the Information Technology Task Force. october 31, 1985. p.1 (2) M::rErli.e, J W (Ed. ) Ganp.1s CcItpItirg strategies. Bedford: Digital, 1983. (3) Taken fran ''University System of Georgia Ccrrp.Iter Network: overview,"
UGA, not dated.
(4) Taken fran Proceedings University System of Georgia Executive Synp:>sium - eatplti.nJ in Higher Education, CdnItta I..cxige, Olatsworth, GA., July 26-27, 1983, pp. 41-44.
(5) StImmaryjRec::amneOOations at central Plannil'g camnittee, OIT Plannin;J
Project, April 12, 1989.
(6) strategic Plan for University CCIlpItirg am Networking 8eJ:vices for 1989
- 1994, UGA, February, 1989. pp. 5-6.
356

by
Dr. 'Ihanas E. stelsan
Executive Vice President Georgia Institute of Tedmology
'!he state of Georgia has been in transition for several decades fram an economy that was prilllarily agrarian to a IOOdern iniustrial society. IUring the same several decades, the higher education institutions of the state have also been in transition to better serve the needs of a IOOdern irrlustrialized society with expaIrled programs of graduate study am:research. I.eadershi.p in l.ll"liversity research in the United states is concentrated in the northeast, the midwest, am the west coast. '!he south has always lagged national
program levels am continues to do so today. on a per capita basis,
l.ll"liversity :research in the south is about two-thirds of the national average. A recent analysis of National SCience F'oorrlation ful'rjing shows that three irrlividual states - Massachusetts, New York, am california - each irrlividually received greater :research ful'rjing than do the aggregated activities of twelve southeastern states.
'!here is a natural ten:iency for new technologically oriented irrlustries to originate am be nurtured near sources of technological innovation am support. silicon Valley in Northern california am Route 128 near Boston are typical exanples of the interacting affinity of l.ll"liversity :research and the dynamic developnent of technological irrlustty.
'!he state of Georgia is becaning a notable exception to the deficient l.ll"liversity :research traditions of the sa.lth. With pr:iInaI:y leadership fram the University System of Georgia, the :research l.ll"liversities in Georgia have m:wed fram a typical deficient position of about two-thirds of the national average to a level above national averages. 'Ibis develcpnent of l.ll"liversity :research has been CXlUpled with the transition of the state's economy fram the fonner predaninant agrarian economy to a IOOdern iniustrialized economy, where manufacturing employment is currently above national averages. 'Ibis partnership of l.ll"liversity research am developing irrlustty has served the state well am is a pr:iInaI:y element in the expan:ting economy of the state of Georgia during the past fifteen years. Despite a significant m:wement of people into the state, W1elTIployment in Georgia has :remained significantly below national averages.
Of further significance is the changing character of the iniustrial economy of the state. '!he pri1nal:y irrlustries of the state have changed fram less dynamic mature iniustrial operations to an exciting mixture of tech-
nologically advanced irrlustries. sane lead the world in IOOdern levels of
productivity that are increasingly capital intensive. '!hey continue to develop am expaIrl in the face of increasing national am international
357

canpetition. Georgia in:iustries have IlkJVEld to a new level of world stature that contributes greatly to the lorg-tenn econcmi.c strergth of the state.
Corwersely, the growirg tedmical cxmmmity in Georgia contributes
greatly to the growth am strergth of the tedmical activities in the
mrlversities. In:lust.ries that operate on the forefront of technology require
mrlversity partners that provide the crucial education, research, am technology transfer that nourishes am develop; i.rrlustl:y. since I1DSt
iIrlustries operate on a national if not international basis, they search
nationwide, or pertlaps worldwide, for the talent am technology essential to their future growth am develc:pnent in the face of international canpetition. As Georgia, am esPeCially Atlanta, develop; as a hub of international cx:mnerce am i.rrlustl:y, the research mrlversities in Georgia not only interact
with local i.rrlustl:y but have assumed an expan:led role in partnership with
national am international i.rrlustl:y. As iIrlustries arourrl the world consider locatirg new facilities in Georgia, they relate lOOre am lOOre to the research universities in the state to develop the educational am technical support
for their activities. As the university - i.rrlustl:y partnership in Georgia
develops am achieves success, the in:iustries relate the mrlversity research
base in Georgia to their worldwide operations.
In summary, University Research has cane of age in the state of Georgia
am has established not only a statewide, but a national am international
reputation as an effective partner with progressive in:iustries that contribute to the econami.c develcpnent of the state in a IOOdern envirornnent of worldwide canpetition.
UNIVERn'lY RESEARCH JEVE[DIMENl' IN GEXR;IA
Table I shows a summary of University Researd1 expentitures in Georgia for a Period from fiscal year 1974 through fiscal year 1986. 'lbtal mrlversity research expentitures increased from $59,661,000 to $284,933,000, a growth of lOOre than four times. '!his growth rate is far in excess of increases in the COIlSl.lI'ler price Wex or other smlar econami.c in:iicators. ~irg the same Period, however, there was a relatiVely dramatic increase in the overall federal fu.rrlin;J of university research in the united states. '!he total of all mrlversity research increased from $3,022,642,000 in fiscal year 1974 to $10,570,638,000 in fiscal year 1986, an increase of lOOre than a factor of three. In the right-harrl colmnn of Table I is shown the percent of mrlversity research in the united states corrlucted in the state of Georgia. It has increased from 1. 97 percent in fiscal year 1974, to 2.70 percent in fiscal year 1986. According to the 1980 census, 2.41 percent of the people in the United states live in the state of Georgia. '!hus, on a Per capita basis, mrlversity research in Georgia has in twelve years increased in relative position about 35 percent, from an overall level substantially below national averages, to a level SCllteWhat above national averages. University
research has now cane of age in the state of Georgia am we can carry our
fair share of this ilTIportant activity in the united states.
358

'll1e :future of the econanic vitality in the state of Georgia is heavily deperrlent upon the human resources contrib.1ted by the university System. In researd1, the heart of the contribItion is graduate trai.ni.Ig at both the masters ani doctoral levels. sin::e the doctoral degree is the research degree, it is the llD:re critical progzam area. Table II shcJrNs the enrollment in graduate science ani en:Jineerirg in the state of Georgia for the past eight years. Total graduate science ani en:Jineerirg enrollment in the united states cluri.rg this period has increased fran 333,669 to 388,681. Enrollment in Georgia durirg the same period has increased fran 5,672 to 6,928. Although graduate enrollment has increased by 22 percent durirg these eight years, the percent of Georgia students, as a portion of the total enrollment in the united states, has only increased fran 1.70 to 1.78 percent. Furthenoo:re, sin::e the per capita portion of the u.s. pcp.l1ation in Georgia is 2.41 percent, the 1987 level graduate student enrollment of 1.78 percent is only 74 percent of the national average. '!hese data clearly show that graduate student activity in science ani en:Jineerirg in the state of Georgia is still significantly below national averages for the united states ani is seriously deficient fran the starx3point of suwortirg new leadership in the developnent of a progressive irxiustrial base for the economy of the state.
Graduate science ani en:Jineerirg enrollment is one i.nticator of academic vitality, but the crucial research :related programs a:re at the doctoral level. In the state of Georgia, the prilnary doctoral institutions a:re Georgia Tech ani the university of Georgia. Table II also describes the enrollments in these institutions for the period fran 1981 to 1987. Graduate student enrollment at Georgia Tech has increased fran 1,998 to 2,666. At the university of Georgia, enrollment has increased fran 1,779 to 1,809. '!he percentage of total enrollment in the state of Georgia has increased at Georgia Tech from 34.6 percent to 38.5 percent. At the university of Georgia, it has declined from 30.8 percent to 26.1 percent. 'll1e two institutions together account for about 65 percent of all graduate enrollment in science ani en:J.inee.ri.rg in the state of Georgia, ani especially they would ac:cc:mrt for IOOSt of the doctoral enrollments. At Georgia Tech, the doctoral enrollne1t increase has been the daninant element in the growth whe:re almost all of the students :received stipenjs ani nost of the llDney CClll'eS from sponsored researd1 programs.
A high priority for the state of Georgia, ani especially for the researd1 universities in the University System of Georgia, in the system should be an increase in the number of graduate students ~ ca:reers in en:Jineerirg ani science at the doctoral level. A goal of increasing the rn.nnber of graduate students by 50 percent and the rn.nnber of doctoral students by 100 percent would be consistent with the growing needs of the state and of the technical organizations that a:re contributing so much to the in'proved econany of the state.
In addition to total graduate student enrollments in science ani en:Jineering by state, data a:re also collected with respect to doctoral grantirg institutions. Table III shows such data for Georgia Tech ani the university of Georgia. In eight discipline a:reas, the percentage of the u.s.
359

total enrolled in those mriversities varies fran a low of 0.69 percent in
psychology to a high of 2.00 percent in ergineer~, with an average of 1.15 percent for all disciplines. When c:::cxcpm:rl with the pcpllation percentage of the State of Georgia - 2.41 percent, the deficiencies in enrollments in these doctoral level institutions vary fran a low of 17 percent below national averages in ergineer~ to a high of 71 percent below national averages in
psychology. '!he overall deficiency in graduate student enrollment in all eight disciplines is 52 percent. In SUllIlIa1Y, even though. research funiing in
mriversities in the State of Georgia has climbed to a level of national averages, the develc:poont of graduate study progzams, especially at the doctoral level, are still seriously deficient arxi should be increased by about 100 percent.
Recent large increases in research activity in research mriversities in the State of Georgia are sc:meti.mes oc:mne:nted on adversely, along the lines that there is too much research arxi too little education. SUch cxmnents are both inacx:urate arxi mislea~. At the graduate level of .instnlction, research arxi education are so intertwined that they cannot be separated. Furt:hen1Dre, the pr:ilnazy function of the research funiing which largely comes fran external sources such as the federal goverI'U'leIlt or i.rrlustry is for the SllJ;p:)rt of graduate students, primarily doctoral students, arxi for the SllJ;p:)rt of faculty arxi equiptent that relate to those student activities. In this sense, the research mriversities in the state of Georgia are still seriously deficient arxi substantially urrleveloped c:::cxcpm:rl to national
averages. one of the high priorities for the future of the University System
of Georgia should be the continued developnent arxi expansion of graduate programs, especially at the doctoral level.
'!he National SCience FOl1J')jation, which has the designation by the federal government as the agency responsible for collect~ infonnation about mriversity research in the United States, has c::arpiled data show~ research arxi developnent experrli.tures at Georgia colleges arxi mriversities by eight areas of disciplined activity. Table IV shows this infonnation for the four research mriversities reported ~ the top 200 research schools in the United States. '!he four mriversities are the University of Georgia, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Eroo:ry University, am the Medical College of
Georgia. rata fran the table show that in overall research funiing, these four institutions have activities 7 percent greater than the average Per
capita activity for the united States. '!hese levels of research c:::cxcpm:rl to national averages vary fran a maximum of 96 percent above national averages for areas of ergineer~ to a mi.ni.mum of 54 percent below national averages
for the Iilysical sciences. '!he last column on the right is the collection of all other science activities not contained in the seven discipline areas of
the table. In this area also, which would be a neasure of 1'OC)re esoteric am
less conventional discipline areas, the State of Georgia has funiing 56 percent below national averages. '!he summa:ry corrli.tion of the experrli.tures of these four mriversities for the fiscal year 1986, shows an :i.npressive achievement that is above the average of all states in the united states. '!he lea~ discipline areas of activity are ergineer~, social science,
mathematics, am cc:mp.rter science. '!he deficient areas are physical science, psychology, am envirornnental science.
360

Information is also available as to the source of :fun:ls that are
experrled for college am tmiversity research, both nationally am for each
state such as the state of Georgia. Table V lists the source of research
~tures am cx::anpares those ~tures for the state of Georgia with
the national pattern that is an average of all research tmiversities in the united states. 'Ihese data are for fiscal year 1987.
In overall fuI'rl.irg during fiscal year 1987, universities in Georgia experrled 2.72 percent of the national total of all tmiversity ~tures
for research, am these ~tures TNere 13 percent above the national
average on a per capita basis. 'Ihe total fuI'rl.irg is then broken down into
five sub-categories listed as federal, state am local, irx:lustry, institutional, am other. 'Ihe federal government, which provides 61 percent of all
mriversity of research fuI'rl.irg across the united states, provides only 46 percent to the mriversities in the state of Georgia. 'Ibis is 14 percent belOlN the per capita national average.
Nationwide, state am local govennnents provide only 8 percent of the
total of tmiversity research fuI'rl.irg. In the state of Georgia, this is 50 percent greater or 12 percent which is 64 percent above the per capita national average.
Across the united states, irx:lustry provides only 6 percent of the total of tmiversity research fuI'rl.irg. In the state of Georgia, this is 67 percent lOOre or 10 percent, which is 82 percent above the per capita national average. Institutional fuI'rl.irg of tmiversity research averages 18 percent across the united states, but is 28 percent in the state of Georgia. '!his is 81 percent above the national average on a per capita basis. Research
fuI'rl.irg fran other sources such as fQl.U'Yjations, authorities, am other pseudo
govennnental agencies totals 7 percent of national tmiversity research fuI'rl.irg. In the state of Georgia this is only 3 percent or 52 percent below the national average.
'!he lower part of Table V shows the distribution of fuI'rl.irg sources for
both Georgia Tech am the University of Georgia in the five areas for fiscal year 1986 am 1987. Exceptional areas of support are the support of tmiver-
sity research at Georgia Tech by irx:lustry. SUch fuI'rl.irg is 20 percent of all :fun:ls used to suwort research at Georgia Tech. It is also 70 percent of the
total of all imustrial research :fun:ls in the state of Georgia, am 3.09
percent of the national total of such fuI'rl.irg at all tmiversities in the
united states. Another positive factor is the state am local fuI'rl.irg of
research at the university of Georgia where $29,819,000 is 27 percent of the
research fuI'rl.irg at UGA, 89 percent of the state am local fuI'rl.irg for all research in all tmiversities in the state of Georgia, am 2.97 percent of the
national total of such fuI'rl.irg. '!he institutional fuI'rl.irg of research at
both Georgia Tech am the University of Georgia is above national averages am is respectively 23 percent am 40 percent of the totals at these institu-
tions. On the negative side, fuI'rl.irg fran other sources such as fotll"X3ations
am authorities is well below the national average of 7 percent. Funiing by
the federal government which averages 61 percent of all tmiversity research
361

in the nation is below this ann.mt at I:x>th Georgia Tech where it is 52 pe.rcE1t, ani at the University of Georgia where it is 28 percent.
RESEl\RCH EXIDID1'l.URES AT MATCR RESF.ARaI 'UNI.'VER>ITIES IN '!HE IAST FIVE YEARS
Table VI shows the research expenlitures ani sources of :furxls from federal ani i.mustry sponsors clurinj the five-year period from fiscal year 1983 through fiscal year 1987. rata are s.l'lown for the three largest university research programs in the State of Georgia; University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, ani EnDzy University, where they respectively rank 25, 27, ani 67 ~ all research universities in the United states. All three universities have had substantial increases in research furrl.in; over the five-year period for which data are shown. '!his inpressive growth is the basis for the national recognition of the substantial iIlprovement in university research in the State of Georgia in recent years.
Of special interest is the irxiustrially sponsored research at Georgia Tech which is the secon:i ~ program in tenns of sponsored :furxls in the United States. An analysis of all in::lustrial research sponsorships at universities was recently PJblished by msINESS WEEK Magazine in a special bonus issue called Innovation 1989. In an article on pages 56 ani 57, they list the "Academic Elite," ani show that twelve institutions in the united states daninate the $850, 000, 000 that i.mustry places in u. s. universities
for research ani developnent. '!he secorn ~ institution in this list is
Georgia Tech with expenlitures of $24, 000, 000 per year fmnished by irrlustzy. '!he first ~ institution is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a total of $35,000.000. '!he third ~ institution is Pennsylvania State University with irrlustzy furrl.in; of $20,000,000. Other institutions on the list are the University of Washington, Co:mell, carnegie Mellon, university of Michigan, University of California at Los Argeles, Texas A&M, Washington University, North carolina State University, ani the University of Arizona where i.mustry furrl.in; totaled $11. 6 million. '!hus the twelfth ~ institution had only one-third the furrl.in; of MIT ani only one-half the furrl.in; of Georgia Tech. A rather small rn.nnber of universities dominate the in::lustrial research relationship in the United States. '!his is the one area especially critical to the developnent of i.mustry ani the contribution of universities to econarnic developnent.
Another analysis of university research, shown in Table VII, shows the distribution of expenlitures in nine institutions in the state of Georgia in the national rank, ranging from 24 for the University of Georgia to 362 for Albany State College for the fiscal year 1986. '!here are a great many educational institutions in the State of Georgia including 34 in the university System. Most of those institutions have in their mission statement functions of education, research, ani service. AIrong these many institutions, however, only three do 94 pe.rcE1t of the furxied research ani developxrent c::x:>rrlucted in the State of Georgia. '!he same darnination is true at the national level where, out of 3,200 institutions of higher education, abJut 2, 000 of which have a research mission, only 100 do llDre than 85 percent of the organized furxied university research. '!hese 100 institutions make the primazy contributions to the e:xparrling knc1.Nledge base of the united states. '!hey are the primazy source of new knc1.Nledge, the translation of that
362

knowledge into hurran resources through graduate study programs, arrl the transfer of new tedmology to the developnent of i.n:3.ustry arrl economic adrieve.nent.
'!he state of Georgia has becane a notable exception to the deficient levels of mriversity research activity in the sa.rt:hern united states. Research expentitures are I'lCM above national averages ani growiIq at a dramatic rate. Graduate study PJ:CX3Lans, whidl translate these research activities into hurran resources to be used in education, i.n:3.ustry, arrl gove:rnment, are growin:;J IlDre slC7tlly arrl are still substantially belC7tl national averages. Expanjed graduate student programs, esPeCially at the doctoral level, are essential to effectively utilize the benefits of the exparxied mriversity research programs. Because the ~ of mriversity research in the state of Georgia has far IlDre than average interaction with i.n:3.ustry, the benefits in econanic developnent are esPeCially significant. '!he substantial :fl.mjs flC7tliIq into the state of Georgia. fran the federal gove:rnment ani fran i.n:3.ustry provide in itself substantial economic development for the state. 'Ihese i..ncc::Jne flows IlDre than canpensates for the expense of higher education. Research universities have becane "IlDney madrines," which lNOrk at the cuttiIq edge of i..rrlustrial arrl economic developrrent contributiIq to the improvement of the quality of life, improviIq man's basic
un:lerstarx:ii. at the forefront of knowledge, ani translatiIq these assets
into hurran intellectual adrievement.
363

TABLE I
COMPARISON OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH IN GEORGIA WITH U.S. AVERAGES

Ye3r 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86

University Expenditures for R&D
(Thousands of Dollars) Total U.S. Tatal GA 3,022,642 59,661 3,408,691 68,626 3,727,348 77,691 4,065,061 84,106 4,536,874 100,308 5,354,513 119,855 6,049,520 136,651 6,793,266 154,686 7,147,677 169,835 7,675,922 189,084 8,367,143 212,613 9,381,822 226,347 10,570,638 284,933

Percent
In
Georgia 1.97 2.01 2.08 2.07 2.21 2.24 2.26 2.28 2.38 2.46 2.54 2.41 2.70

364

TABLE II GRADUATE SCIENCE/ENGINEERING ENROLLMENT

U.S. Year Total

GA

% of

Total

U.S.

GT

1980 333,669 1981 339,968 1982 346,796 1983 358,063 1984 363,068 1985 372,022 198G 384,203 1987 388,681

5,672 5,766 5,913 5,892 6,437 6,199 6,584 6,928

( 1.70) (1.70) (1.71 ) (1.65) (1. 77) ( 1.67) (1.71) (1.78)

1,998 2,019 2,000 2,339 2,271 2,554 2,666

%of GA
(34.6) (34.2) (33.9) (36.3) (36.6) (38.8) (38.5)

UGA

% of GA

1,779 1,869 1,731 1,740 1,667 1,691 1,809

(30.8) (31.6) (29.4) (27.0) (26.9) (25.7) (26.1 )

% of Both
65.4 65.8 63.3 63.3 63.5 64.5 64.6

365

TABLE III
GRADUATE SCIENCE/ENGINEERING ENROLLMENTS AT PH.D. GRANTING INSTITUTIONS FY 1987

Discipline

U.S. Total

388,681

Engineering

98,018

Physical Science

30,960

Environmental Sci. 13,450

Mathematics

16,244

Computer Science 25,343

Life Science

96,556

Psychology

31,519

Social Science

76,591

GT
2,666 1,950
183 66 60 218 38 57 94

UGA
1,809 9
111 59 88 48 748 161 585

Percent of U.S. GT UGA Both
0.69 0.47 1.15 1.99 0.01 2.00 0.59 0.36 0.95 0.49 0.44 0.93 0.37 0.54 0.91 1.86 0.19 1.05 0.04 0.77 0.81 0.18 0.51 0.69 0.12 0.76 0.88

Ratio Per Capita
-52% -17% -61% -61% -62% -56% -66% -71% -64%

366

TABLE IV

TOTAL R&D EXPENDITURES AT GEORGIA COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BY FIELD: FY 1986 (dollars in thousands)

Toilli

Engineering

US

10,718,402

UGA GIT EMORY MCG

111,745 105,457 51,115
9,323

GATOTAL 277,640

0/0 OF US

2.59

DEVIATION FROM US (PER CAPITA) +7

1,609,093 3,541
72,683 0 0
76,224 4.73
+96

Physical Science
1,261,376
3,400 7,979 2,528
0 13,907
1.10
-54

Env. Scicnce
774,177
4,616 7,757
121 0
12,494
1.61

Malh & Computcr Scicnce
467,564
3,837 10,521
229 0
14,587
3.12

Life Science
5,746,125
83,113 686
47,036 9,323
140,158
2.44

-23

+29

+1

Psychology
180,453
1,793 1,198
196 0
3,181
1.17

Social Science
459,303
11,425 2,327
955 0
14,701
3.20

-27

+33

Olher Science
220,311
0 2,306
50 0 2,356 1.06
-56

(only top 200 schools arc reported by NSF)

TABLE V
RESEARCH EXPENDITURES AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BY SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR FY87 (except as noted by *) (in Thousands of Dollars)

U.S.

Amount

%

TOTAL

11,930,997 100

Federal

7,230,217 61

5tate & Local 1,003,499

8

Industry

764,088

6

Institutional

2,109,547 18

Other

823,696

7

State of Georgia

Amount

%

324,160 100

149566 46

39,603 12

33,568 10

91,946 28

9,487 3

% of U.S. 2.72 2.07 3.95 4.39 4.36 1.15

Deviation from U.S. Averages
+13% -14% +64% +82% +81% -52%

TOTAL Federal *State & Local Industry *Institutional *Other

Amount

Ga. Tech % %GA % U.S.

120,342 100

37 1.01

63,132 52

42 0.88

971 1

3 0.11

23,628 20

70 3.09

24,110 23

31 1.37

00

0

0

(* FY86 data)

Amount

UGA % %GA

124,442 100 38

35,261 28

24

29,819 27 89

4,982 4

15

44,776 40 57

606 1

8

% U.S. 1.04 .49 2.97 .65 2.54 .07

368

TABLE VI
RESEARCH EXPENDITURES {in Tnousandi of X'olTars}

Nat'l Rank

UNIV. OF GEORGIA

Total Expenditures

(25)

Federally Financed

Industry Sponsored

(45)

GEORGIA TECH

Total Expenditures

(27)

Federally Financed

Industry Sponsored

(2)

EMORYUNIV.

Total Expenditures

(67)

Federally Financed

Industry Sponsored

(71)

1987
124,442 35,261 4,982
120,342 63,132 23,628
58,889 36,698
3,350

1986
111,745 32,184 4,360
105,457 58,432 21,994
51,115 32,819
2,427

1985
91,253 28,403
3,729
90,445 50,349 18,730
30,706 26,136
2,395

1984
83,829 26,581 4,356
88,507 51,241 18,131
27,522 22,896 2,395

1983
70,665 22,434 4,486
82,924 49,533 13,255
24,284 20,163
1,957

369

TABLE VII
DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH EXPENDITURES IN GEORGIA FY 1986

Institution

National Rank

Total

Funding Sources in Thousands of Dollars and the Percentage of Total State Funding
(%) Federal (%) State & Inst. (%) Indllstrial (%)

Qther (%)

w
-...J

Univ.ofGA

0

Georgia Tech

24 111,745 39 32,184 26

74,595

67

4,360

15

27 105,457 37 58,432 43

25,081

23 21,944

74

606

9

00

Emory Univ.

72 51,115 18

32819 24

10,291

9

2,427

8 5,578 80

Medical College GA 173

9,323 3

7,331 5

1,120

I

955

3

766 11

Atlanta Univ.

217

4,115 1

3,890 3

NA NA

Georgia State

231

2,900 1

1,161 1

NA NA

Mercer Univ.

345

278

169

West GA College

347

280

22

Albany State College 362

96

96

Dr. Ahmed Abdelal Chairman, Biology Georgia state university
Units of the University System offer a wide raJY;Je of programs in the natural sciences. 'Ihese programs rarge fran introductory science courses at two-year colleges to doctoral programs at the four university-level institutions. In each of the natural science disciplines, a system-wide academic advisory cxmnittee reviews issues of cxmnon educational interest such as
curricular issues am professional developnent of faculty. 'Ihese academic advisory cxmnittees also serve to enhance cooperation am CXlOrdination of
educational efforts anJI'g the various units of the System.
A rnnnber of issues of interest to all System units deserve particular attention. 'Ihese issues are outlined below.
I. '!he Quality of LaboratotY Instruction. '!he laboratory in the natural sciences is where students gain insight into the scientific process. Acx::ordin;Jly, the :in;;>rovement of quality of laboratory i..nstruction is a prerequisite for fulfil1lnent of the role of the educational system in economic development. High quality laboratory i..nstruction is necessary for producin;J a sufficient pool in the state of Georgia of the most capable scientists. It is also essential for producin;J scientifically literate
decision makers am citizenry. In'provement of quality of laboratory instruc-
tions depenjs on two factors:
(a) Replenishi.rg instrumentation for instruction am research. '!he
University System of Georgia has already taken a rnnnber of steps in this regard, including the annual allocation of "Quality In'prove-
ment" :funjs for p.m:hase of equipoont am the allocation of
''Matchin;J t'urx:Js" for equiprerrt proposals that are submitted to federal agencies. '!he System should continue to provide these t'urx:Js
for replenishi.rg instrumentation for research am instruction.
(b) '!he need for increased fuI'rli.n:J for supplies for instruction. Laboratory supplies am chemicals increase in price by an average
of 5-10% per year. '!he supply budget for science departments should increase at least by the same percentage. otheJ:Wise, the quality of laboratory instruction would be progressiVely reduced.
II. Professional Development of Faculty. It is crucial that the Univer-
sity System develop procedures for routine am regular provision of leave of
absence for professional develcpne:nt. Many educational institutions across
the U. s. provide for a fonnal leave of absence with full pay every seven
years of service. '!he adoption of a similar policy by the University System
of Georgia is :iIrportant for maintainin;J continuin:J technical competencies of
the faculty. '!he continuing rapid expansion in our knowledge in the natural sciences necessitates that faculty members be provided with such opportunities for retrainin;J.
371

III. science Education Policy. '!he need to inprove college education in the natural sciences cannot be separated fran general inprovement of instruction at earlier stages. '!he University System plays a major role in this area through its responsibility in teacher education. Particular emphasis must be placed on rigorous tra.i.nirq in the natural sciences. 'Ibis report is based in part on "A Report on the National science FOlIl'rlation Disciplinary Workshops on Undergraduate Education", April 1989.
372

SlMtARY OF HEmE Em
ffimm EDJCATIaf IN AGRI<IJIII.tJRE -
I:MB!'Cr (II ~'S IAKiBS'l' IHIXSD
Dr. william Flatt Dean am Coordinator COllege of Agriculture University of Georgia
Progress in Georgia's agriculture has paralleled the unprecedented developnent of Anerican agriculture. '!he present fcxxi am agriculture system in the U. S. has stennned largely fran the science am education produced by the lam-grant universities.
Today, Georgia's agriculturejagribJsiness c:x:lTplex is its largest i.n::iushy, employing llDre than a fourth of the state's labor force. Agricultural enterprises occupy a1.nost 25 percent of the state's larrl area, arrl provide the bulk of raw materials for its prcx::essing arrl manufacturing finns.
Georgia agriculture is diverse, with current fann cash receipts of llDre the $3.5 billion, a1llDst evenly divided between crops arrl livestock. Agribusiness operations ptmp $15 billion into the state's economy every year arrl forestry adds another $8+ billion.
Georgia is an agricultural leader in a nation that leads the world in agriculture. Arxi in all of its programs; arrl all of its interactions with other groups arrl institutions, the University of Georgia COllege of Agriculture works to maintain arrl enhance our state's role as a leader.
'!hose who will lead Georgia's agriculture into the next century will come fran the institutions of higher education. Likewise, the science arrl education that will drive agriculture will emerge from the research arrl educational programs of the institutions of higher education. '!herefore if Georgia is to remain as one of the leading states in the southeast arrl continue to contribute significantly to the national arrl international output in agriculture, the state must focus attention on higher educational in agriculture for its citizens. It is llDst appropriate to consider seriously the future tlu:usts for the COllege of Agriculture programs.
Teaching
A recent needs assessment study showed an unusually strong demand for agricultural graduates in Georgia. Presently there are 3.3 jobs available for every agricultural graduate. '!his annual derna.rrl for over 1400 agricultural graduates is expected to continue through the early 1990s.
A recent strategic plan identified new thrusts for the teaching program. '!he new directions arrljor increased enphases are:
1. Strengthen faculty developnent programs.
373

2. Alter curricula am develop programs to better prepare graduates to
CCIl'Ipete in current am future :in:lustrial, CCIlUlerCial, public agency
am private practice careers.

3. st.ren;rthenej involvenent of faculty located on the Tifton and
Griffin canp.lSeS of the Agricultural ExperiInent stations am
Extension faculty at all canp.lSeS in urdergraduate and graduate instruction.

4. Integrate international eq::ha.sis in agricultural education.

5. Enhance the contriliution of the COllege to student development and
inprovement of faculty am stl.dent performance.

'Ib ac::x::x::mplish these objectives additiala1. furxlirg will be needed for the teachirg program. '!he needs are:

Instn.1ctional and Office Equipnent
SPecial equiproont for teadling am research
Renovation needs

$ 543,754 943,176 982,000

'lUI'AL

$2,468,930

Research
Research thrusts to keep Georgia agriculture strolXJ have been identified
by the Georgia Agricultural Experirrent stations. '!he priority research thrusts for early 1990s are:
1. New fanning systems (production efficiency, profitability, and environmental sustainability).
2. New market penetration, agricultural policy, value-added, new crops, and new product developnent.
3. Genetic inprovement am biotechnology (plants, animals, processed foods
am biological control of pests).
4. Natural resource management (use, protection am quality) .
5. Management of crop pests (disease, insects, nematodes, weeds, and wildlife) .
6. CCIIpJters, robotics, artificial intelligence, bioengineering am energy
systems.
7. Human food, nutrition, diet am health.
8 Aquaculture.

374

9. IlI'pact of cyclic weather patterns am global climate change on agricul-
ture.

'!he additional annual fun:l needs of the Georgia Agricultural Experiment stations for research to keep Georgia agriculture in a strong c::c:I'lpetitive position are:

New am expan:ied agricultural research
one-t~ constroction cost needs

$ 4,150,500 9.300.000

$13,450,500

Extension

'!he OXlpera.tive Extension Service truly seJ:Ves the entire state of
Georgia with county extension agents am a viable program in all 159 coun-
ties. Nine priority program initiatives (including nuJrerOUS critical issues)
guide the design, iIrplenentation am evaluation of extension educational
programs in Georgia. 'lhese initiatives ell'II;tlasize the efficiency, accoun-
tability, am clarity of extension's plblic mission, am ItJVe the Cooperative
Extension Service into a :roc>re proactive role as a generator of innovative
change for the 1990s am into the 21st Century. 'Ihrough these priorities,
extension is focusing its resources on issues critical to the economic,
social, am envirornnental progress of people.

1. Rural revitalization.
2. eat1;)etitiveness am profitability of agriculture.

3. Alternative agricultural opportunities.
4. Consel:vation am managenv:mt of natural resources. 5. water quality am conservation. 6. Building am developing human capital. 7. Inproving nutrition, diet, am health. 8. Increasing family economic am erootional well-being.

9. Youth at risk.

'!he additional fun:ls needed annually to iIrplenv:mt programs that deal with critical issues that iIrpact Georgia citizens are:

Exparxied or new programs One-t~ renovationjconstroctionjequipnent

$3,499,080 684.000

$4,183,080

375

'!he COllege of Agriculture has a critical need for capital inprovement :furrls to constnlct CCIIIprehensive agricul'bJral livestock facilities. '!he needs are:

!base II Pc:W.tJ:y Research center Extension Agricultural services Iaboratoty Animal SCience CCIIIplex Pc:W.tJ:y Diseases Research lab Addition

$ 4,000,000 1,900,000
15,925,000 3,750,000

'IOl'AL

$25,575,000

'Ibis <:x::itprehensive livestock prtp:)Sa1. reflects critical needs to successful CCIIIpletion of the mission of '!he university of Georgia to IOOet the research,
service am education needs of a major part of Georgia's livestock am
poultJ:y imustries.

'!he Modem r..am-Grant University
'!here is a continued need for new develc::pnents originating from the basic sciences to be exterrled to producers, processors, marketers and consumers of food and other agricul'bJral c:::c::nmn:tities.
A synergistic interaction exists between research and education in the agricultural sciences. 'Ibis relationship is so strong that research is enhanced greatly when comucted in corx::ert with educational specialists, and
graduate education can hardly be effective when students am teachers are not engaged in research. certainly science am education in agriculture is a
long-tenn i..nvestJrent. '!he rate of expansion of knowledge and tedmology is such that much learning achieved by people in their fonnal schooling is outdated in a vet:y few years. 'Ibis creates a need for continued research and
educational programs to keep people updated am ready to cope with change. Plans for personnel, programs, am facilities must continue within the
educational framework to assure that Georgia is al:::lllOOantly prepared to meet
future food am fiber challenges.

376

Dr. Tan Clark
~Dean
College of Business Administration Georgia state university
Issue of Demarrl am SUpply
'!he u.s. Department of Education :reports that approximately 24% of all
bachelor's degrees am 23% of all master's degrees awarded in the United
states in the latter half of the 1980's have been in bJsiness administration. '!his figure represents a significant increase since the early 1960's, when
only 13% of bachelor's degrees am 6% of master's degrees were in bJsiness. (SOUrce: "SUrvey of Degrees am other Fonnal Awards Conferred," National
center for Education statistics, u.s. Department of Education.)
A1m:>st every unit of the university System offers courses, if not degrees, in the area of business administration or management. Georgia state
university, Georgia Tech, am the university of Georgia all offer bachelor's, master's, am doctoral degrees, incllJdirg marketing, accounting, human resources management, operations management, am finance. '!he field of
carp.rter infonnation systems enjoyed a significant increase in enrollments during the first half of this decade, but the IXPtlarity of that major seems to have declined sanewhat since 1986. '!his decline may reflect the impact of
advance in ex:tIplter technology. As hardware, software, am conununications capabilities of miCl:'OCCllplters have increased in power am ease of use,
infonnation processing has increasingly becx:me viewed as a skill (similar to decision making or connnunication) that is required of all managers rather than a specialiZed business function. other fields of study associated with
specific bJsiness sectors - such as insurance, real estate, am health
administration - have experienced steady although relatiVely low derrarrl.
Clearly, curricula in business administration are in high demarrl by the
students of the University System, am the demarrl for graduates of these
programs is also stron:J. '!he capacity to SUWly quality degree programs in
business administration, however, is becani.ng severely overstretched for the
university System of Georgia am for institutions of higher leanri.ng through-
out the nation. As in:ii.cated above, a1m:lSt one-quarter of all urrlergraduate
am master's students nationwide are majoring in business. However, the U.S.
Department of Education also reports (same source) that only about 3% of new doctorates awarded in recent years have been in business administration. CCItp:Iurxiing this imbalance is the fact that an unusually large number of bJsiness school faculty, who entered the university System in the 1960's
during the period of explosive growth for universities in general am
business schools in particular, are roN retiring.
377

'!he forces cited above have canbined to create a significant shortage of
business faculty nationwide. SChools of business administration are campet-
in;J frantically to attract quality faculty. one:result in this campetition
is an a1Ioost absurd rate of increase in the startin;J salaries bein;J offered
to new Rl.D. graduates in business. In:recent years, this rate of increase expressed as a percentage has been rcA.lghly three to four tine; the average percentage pay raise provided by the University System to its faculty. New doctorates in business are l10W bein;J hired rather routinely at salaries
exc::eecii.rg the average for full professors in the same field at the same university. In business schools, "salcu:y c::arpression" is quickly becoming "salcu:y inversion."
Faculty tern to respon:i differently to the problem of salcuy compression
or inversion, depenling on their age and tenure. Older faculty have a strong
incentive to retire as early as possible and pJrsue a sec::om career, which
often involves teaching at an institution outside the University System.
Junior faculty are highly IOOtivated to concentrate on their researd1 and p.1blication productivity, not only to gain prcm>tion and tenure at their current institution, but also to maintain professional lOClbility. '!hey
recognize that they can keep pace with the rapid increase in business faculty
salaries only if they are willin;J and able to break the boms of their current errployment and become a "free agent" every few years. Faculty in the middle of their careers for whom the above options may not be possible or attractive, are likely to devote an increasin;J share of their time and energy to outside activities - such as consultin;J, training, or labor aJ:bitrationwhich supplement their incarre. In sane cases, the outside activity becomes
so suc:x=essful and consuming that the faculty member cannot afford the constraints imposed by a teaching schedule, so that he or she eventually abandons the academic career. Obviously, none of these alternative faculty strategies serve well the teaching mission of the business school. Further-
IlDre, each of these strategies terns to increase faculty tmnover and further
cc::anpourrl the faculty shortage.
Business schools are dealin;J with the reality of faculty shortages in
several ways. One approach is to increase class sizes and reduce the number
of classes offered. '!he reduction in the m.nnber of classes offered may siIrply be a matter of not offerin;J a given course as frequently as before,
thereby decreasin;J convenience and flexibility for students. Another way to reach the same goal, however, is to elindnate elective courses or entire
programs of study that attract relatiVely few students. By reducin;J their range of choices, we can "herd" students into a few large classes.
Another response to the faculty shortage is the use of IlDre instructors
other than full-time tenure-track faculty (graduate teachin;J assistants, part-time instructors, adjunct or other non-tenure track faculty). While such instructors are often IlDre than adequate in basic courses, their use in advanced umergraduate electives and graduate courses can erx3anger the quality and credibility of the academic program.
378

Issues of curriculum
'n1e core of today's business curriculum is organized aroun::l the student's need to urrlerst:a.OO:
1. '!he theoretical fQl.U'Yjation an:l envirornnent of business (e. g. , econanics, behavioral theory, business law).
2. 'n1e basic :functions of business activity (e.g., marketing, operations, finance, accountiIg, personnel administration).
3. 'n1e supp:>rtiIg skills of managenelt (decision sciences, conmn.mications, infonnation processiIg)
In a speech delivered to the 1989 Annual Meetirg of the American Assembly of COllegiate SChools of Business, Robert K, Jaedicke (1988-89 AACSB President an:l Dean of sanford university's Graduate SChool of Business) suggested a new way of visualiziIg the business curriculum an:l thereby identifyiIg its deficiencies. His roodel of the business sdlool is a matrix in which the coltmlI'lS represent the :functions an:l disciplines of business an:l the rows represent significant managerial themes an:l issues that cut across the :functions an:l disciplines. Exanples of the managerial themes an:l issues, which will be further discussed later in this section, include the globalization of business, managenelt of technology, an:l managerial ethics. Jaedicke notes that business schools have organized t.hemselves aroun::l the :functions an:l disciplines of business. Faculty are hired into acadeinic departments that are associated with a specific business ftmction of discipline, an:l their perfonnance is evaluated with reference to that ftmction or discipline. '!he managerial themes an:l issues, on the other harxl, do not fall neatly into one of the ftmctional or disciplinary areas. 'n1e rate of change associated with the managerial themes an:l issues is faster than for the :functions an:l disciplines of business. F\1rth.enrore, the managerial themes an:l issues "are nessier an:l lOOre ill-stroctured than problems found in nost disciplines," so that they are less attractive subjects for teaching or research. As a result, the managerial themes an:l issues terrl to be ignored, an:l Jaedicke believes that the business curriculum has therefore become excessiVely "inward looki..n;J." He is concerned that business schools are trainiIg :functional specialists rather than educatiIg managerial leaders.
Jaedicke's conunents echo similar concerns that were expressed earlier by Lyman Porter an:l I.arl:y McKibbin in a three-year study of managenelt education sponsored by the AACSB an:l published in 1988. '!he followiIg are brief disalSSions of selected current managerial themes or issues, nost of which were identified by Porter an:l McKibbin or by Jaedicke, that have not been adequately addressed in our business curricula:
1. Globalization of Business.
Business sdlools in the u.s. have traditionally taught students how to c:x:xnpete within the u.s. economy. '!his approach was perfectly reasonable in
years past, since c:x:xnpetition across international l:x:lurmries was relatiVely rate an:l limited in scope. As late as 1985, the President's cemnission on
379

Imustrial Cc:a'cpetitiveness fourxl that only 1% of u.s. in:lustry produced 80%
of this nation's exp:>rts.
As concenl grew over the international trade deficit, many business schools added courses in international business. In m::st cases, these courses viewed international business fran the perspective of a CClll'paIly in
the u.s. at1:en'ptin:J to exp:>rt its products or services to other countries.
'!his awroach represents a step fo:tWa.rd, J::ut it is already obsolete.
Business is increasingly corxiucted within the ex>ntext of a global
eex>nany. camnuni.cation am transportation technologies have made distance
irrelevant. Political leaders, even in c:xmmmi.st regimes, are recognizing
that there is no alternative to full participation, am therefore competi-
tion, in the econani.c activity of the lNOrld. National bourxlaries are becaning less ex>nstraining with respect to business (witness Europe 1992), so that international trade may scm3day be no IOOre cntplex than is interstate trade today within the United states. National eex>nomies have becarre so inextricably linked that one area of the lNOrld cannot prosper for long if others areas are suffering eex>nanic recession.
Business organizations are truly beginning to operate on a global scale.
Autatd:>iles that bear Japanese names are being manufactured in the U. s. by American lNOrkers, am computers with American names are being built in
Europe. Cc:a'cpetitors that a few years ago were located on opposite sides of the globe are I'lOW separated only by a fence.
In March of 1989, a ex>nference entitled ''Managing in a Global Competitive Envirornnent" was sponsored by '!he Joseph M. !<'atz Graduate School of Business at the University of pittsburgh. At that ex>nference, Mr. Timothy A.
Dreisbach (Vice President of Ibquesne SYstems, Inc. - a computer software
finn) made the following staterrent:
In the future, success in the international marketplace will require a IOOre global perspective. '!he distinction is made between
an international campany - U. s. based with international operations - am a global one that truly thinks am acts irxlependent of
national bourxlaries. For exanple, our ex>ncenlS cannot be
parochial, such as creating IOOre jabs in America. we nn.1St wony
about providing opportunities for employees lNOrld-wide, in France, Japan, etc. as well. '!he cc:anpanies that successfully establish
roots arourx:l the world am incorporate global thinking into their
ex>rporate culture will be the lorg-tenn smvivors.
(source: Conference Proceedings, w. 24-25)
At the same ex>nference, Mr. Anthony J. F. O'Reilly, Olainnan am CEX) of
H. J. Heinz canpany stated that, "A geopolitical education is no longer a
luxury for business leaders. It is an absolute prerequisite." (source: Conference Proceedings, p. 8)
'!he challenge to schools of business is clear. What is far less obvious
is how to best meet the challenge with respect to the curriculmn am faculty
developnent. Some business academicians argue for IOOre required courses
380

devoted specifically to the international <:line1sion of business. others
argue that international business does not represent a separate body of
knowledge, Wt that the intemational/gldJal. perspective should be integrated throughaIt the business core curricultnn. '!he latter group would prefer to eliminate arrj distinction between ''business'' am "international business."
2. Envirornnental LiInits am concerns
'!he l:xx>k LiInits to Growth (refererD3d earlier in this report) was pJblishe:i in 1972 am reported the results of a research study utilizing carp.rt:er s:i.nlllation techniques develcp:d by Jay W. Forrester of MIT. '!he study assumed that YJOrld population am imustrial cut:p.rt will continue to
grow exponentially as they have in the Past. One dlaracteristic of eJq;>OI1eI1-
tial growth is a constant doublirg time. For exanple, YJOrld population has been doubling every 35 years in IOOdem histo:ry. '!he study also postulated three finite aspects of the YJOrld environment that each represent a limit to growth. '!he three limits identified -were arable lam, non-renewable natural resources, am the Earth's capacity to absorlJ pollution. Once these three parameters are accepted as limits to growth, the outcane of the analysis is inescapable. If exponential growth continued unchecked, one or IOOre of the limits will eventually be reached, am the quality of life of Earth will be dramatically inpacted. Pert1aps the IOOre inp:>rtant conclusion of the study is that the limits will be reached very suddenly because of the nature of exponential growth. '!hus, by the time we recognize that we are approaching a limit, we will have insufficient time to take arrj action that can prevent the "overshoot. " '!he authors concluded with a plea to political am business leaders to assume responsibility for the management of growth in a finite YJOrld.
As might be expected, the l:xx>k was controversial all'Ong business prac-
titioners am academicians. same suspected that the entire researd1 project was a ccmnunist conspiracy to slow down progress in the capitalist economies
through fear. After an initial flurry of attention, the book faded into oblivion, since no limits to growth -were clearly in sight.
Recently, however, we have witnesses events am trerrls which may prove to be forewarnings of ilnperxling collisions between exponential growth am finite limits. same of these glimpses take the fonn of man-made environm:mtal. disasters, such as the nuclear reactor meltdown at Chenx>byl, the Union camide poisonous gas leak at Bhopal, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sourrl. Pert1aps of greater potential concem, however, are the IOOre gradua1 effects of our population am irxiustrial growth on the environment, including acid rain, the greenhoose effect, the depletion of the ozone layer, am the deforestation am decertification of the Earth.
'!his author knows of no course offered or required by arrj business school that addresses such issues fran a perspective other than the maximization of econanic profits at the finn level. If business schools fail to i.npress upon the business leaders of taoorraw their responsibility for the protection of our fragile envirornnent, the entire human race may suffer as a result of their lack of awareness arrl concern.
381

3. Managenvant of Technology
Instruction on the managenvant of technology in bJsiness schools for many years was limited to managerial ecx>ncIIli.cs, that is, the comparison of alternative technologies on the basis of net present values or rates of retun1. '!he alternative tedmologies lNere assumed to differ primarily in
tenns of their initial costs, expected lives, am costs of operation. '!here
was assumed to be no need for the manager to urnerstan:i the technology beyorrl
its econanic characteristics. scientists am en]ineers could be hired to
deal with the operati.rg characteristics of the technology.
Although managers still need the ability to evaluate the econc:anics of alternative technologies, the greater need today is to urrlerst:arrl the
strategic inplications of technology. Rapid am sweeping advances in
technology can c.harge the very nature of a finn's bJsiness a.1.m:>st overnight.
New technology can iIrpact the products, markets, operating methods, am even
the organizational form of a bJsiness finn. New fonns of c:::anpetition can
appear with di.sannin:J suddenness. Decision involving high degrees of technological COll'plexity am uncertainty, as well as financial risk, ImJst be
made quickly. Business schools must prepare student to urrlerst:arrl, evaluate,
am manage technology in a strategic context.
4. Managerial Ethics
Arry mention of ethics in business terrls to bring to mi..rrl recent cases of
insider stock trading, fraud, am other illegal acts by bJsi.nesstoon. It is
reasonable to expect that business schools would teach their students the
laws that govern business activity am inpress upon them the iJTp::>rtanee of
operating within that legal strocture. Some would argue that business schools have failed to meet even this mi.ni.mum expectation.
'!he reference to managerial ethics, however, transcerxls the law. Ethics
are based on a system of IlDral principals, values, am starrlards of con:iuct.
Few business schools have begun to address such issues in any depth. certainly schools of business cannot be expected to take responsibility for the behavior of their graduates throughout their careers, but they can be expected to equip their students with a conceptual framework within which to
identify, analyze, am resolve ethical issues.
Another recent criticism of bJsiness education is that it places too
heavy an elTIfhasis on quantitative awroaches to problem solving am decision
making. '!he assuITption seems to be that all inportant bJsiness problems are
well structured, so that they lerxi themselves to mathematical analysis am
the determination of an optinn.nn solution. In reality, of course, many problems encountered in business are characterized by lack of stnlcture,
c:::arplexity, multiple am conflicting objectives, am high degrees of uncer-
tainty. Critics argue that bJsiness schools are tunling out "rnnnber
cnmchers," who are ill-prepared to deal with real bJsiness problems or to
exert effective leadership.
382

Business Education in the Future
'!he business administration curricultnn of the future is likely to look very similar to the curricultnn of today when viewed fran a general perspective. Except for a few chan:Jes at the margin, many of the courses, in tenns of course titles, will be the same as today. '!he need to oover the three basic dimensions of the business core (identified at the beginning of this chapter) will not diminish in the future. '!he charxJes that can be anticipated are primarily in the fcx::us of the courses and the methcds of
teac::h.i..nq, especially at the rrasters level.
With respect to the shift in fcx::us, lNe can anticipate increased eItq)hasis on the managerial themes and issues associated with the rows in Jaedicke's matrix. AlthaIgh we might see the addition of required courses in SCIre
business schools on ''managirg in a global ecx:>I1CIllY" or ''managerial ethics,"
the preferred method for addressirg such issues will be to integrate them throughout the curricultnn. '!he other anticipated shift in focus will be sanewhat less e.rrphasis on quantitative methcds of analysis and greater eqtlasis on qualitative approaches to decision makirg that can assist today's manager in grapplirg with the ''messy'' problems so often encountered in business. More attention will also be devoted to the leadership qualities and skills necessary to ilnplement plans, decisions, and problem solutions.
To achieve the above objections will require that business faculty seek lOOre help fran their colleagues in schools of arts and sciences. In the past, business schools have recroited organizational psychologists to teach operations management, lawyers to teach business law, etc. TOOay, business schools need the assistance of sociologists, ];'hilosophers, geographers, and experts in foreign languages. Obviously such help can be obtained without brirgirg faculty from those disciplines into colleges of business, but there would be satE tmique advantages to doirg so. In some business schools, it is already happening. In addition to their involvement in teac.hinJ, such faculty would add a new dimension to business research, and they would contribute to faculty development as well as to the general culture of the business school. In addition, this resource could help alleviate the critical shortage of faculty in the area of business.
We can also anticipate a lOOre experiential approach to teac.hinJ business courses than has been typical in the past. '!he teac.hinJ fonnat characterized by classroan lectures, homework problems, and short-answer exams will be less useful in the future. Instead we can expect to see:
1. Greater use of case studies, especially those which grapple with envirornnental issues and ccarplex problems (as contrasted with traditional case studies that primarily require quantitative financial analysis) students and faculty alike will have to adjust to the fact
that such cases may have no "correct answer", pertlaps not even a "good
answer," and that the teac.hinJ objective relates lOOre to the process of analysis and the value system awlied than to the specific solution developed.
383

2. Advances in microc::onprt:er am audio/visual technology present ~
interestinJ q:portunities for carp.zter-assisted interactive business
games am simulations. CcrrpIters can present IOC>re realistic am dynamic
prOOlems to students than can be presented on a printed page. '!he student can experiment with variOJS strategies for dealinJ with problems
am develop an intuitive umerst:arxii.nl of the prdJlem itself am of awroPriate netDrization of a fontlJ1a to solve a siIrplified am static
prOOlem that does not exist in the :real YJOrld of business. 'Ihrough the use of such teachin:J devices, students may actually begin to develop an experience-based continJency awroadl to management. 3. We can expect to see greater use of business i..nternships for academic credit, especially for students with no prior business experience. CCq)erative education programs are likely to grcTW, not only to help students finance their education, but also to give them work experience in parallel with their fonnal education. 4. &1siness practitioners will be brought into the classroom IOC>re frequently as executives in residence or guest speakers (live or via videotape, teleconferencinJ, etc.) to share their values, business
Prilosophies, am experiences with students.
5. More q:portunities ll'DJSt be fourxi within c::x:::lUrSes to get students out of
the classroom am into the business YJOrld through field trips to plants, offices, am other business facilities. Of special importance will be
courses that include international' travel as a canponent.
While the above teachin:} methods are not new, they have not been
adequately utilized in IOC>St business schools. '!hey require IOC>re than a
classroom, an instructor, am a textbook. '!hey involve additional administrative coordination, faculty expertise, equipnent, am support from
the business community. &1siness schools ll'DJSt fin:! ways to support these
efforts in tenrLs of both human am financial resources.
384

Mary E. COf'May, Rl.D., F .A.A.N.
Dean ani Professor SChool of Nurs:in:J Medical COllege of Geol:gia Augusta, Geol:gia september 25, 1989
Introduction
'n1ere is a shortage of qualified professional nurses (RNs) in Geol:gia as there is throughout the united states. Various reports over the past several years have verified this fact. It is i111portant to note, however, that the shortage varies by region of the united states, by rural versus w:ban centers ani by type of practice sett:in:J. With respect to sett:in:J, the shortage exists in both conmmity public health, in hospitals ani in lorg term care settirgs with the hospital shortage acknowledged as the IOClre serious situation.
Mva.nced tedmology ani its awlication in medical care intensify the R.N. shortage in that substitution of lesser qualified PerSOnnel is lIDSatisfactory (ani lIDSafe) in the high tech envirornnent of the hospital. Not only does patient care suffer as a result of too few qualified nurses but the corporate boards of hospitals fi.rrl themselves at risk of malpractice suits if they fail to errploy sufficient rnnnbers of qualified nurses relative to the level of care they purport to give. For example, a hospital do:in:J organ transplant surgery must have R.N.s with SPeCialized train:in:J to provide care.
Definition of a Registered Nurse Shortage
A registered nurse shortage "exists when the supply of RNs is insufficient to meet the requirements for RNs. RN requirements can be defined based on either economic demarxi or clinical need. Use of the demandbased definition of requirement allows nurse labor shortages to be assess within the traditional economic fraIllE!WOrk of supply ani demand. ,,1
In its recently completed year-lorg study the Commission on Nurs:in:J awointed by the secretary of Health ani Human 8el:vices assess the RN shortage in four sectors: hospitals, nursing homes, home care ani ambulatory care. 'Ihe conclusion of the Commission was that the shortage is "real, widespread ani of significant magnitude". Again, referenc:in:J the Commission, it concluded that the current shortage of registered nurses is "prilnarily a result of increased demand as opposed to a contraction in supply. ,,2 'Ihrough analysis of data the Commission also fOUl"rl that the total supply of registered nurses grew throughout Irost of the 1980s, although within the past
385

three years there has been a decline in the number of new graduates. This national experience is mirrored in Georgia. However, Fall 1989 saw a modest
increase in the rnnnbers of applicants am admissions to programs preparing
registered nurses in the University System.
When asked "causes" for the present shortage of registered nurses one
factor emerges as the single m::>st i.np:>rtant driving force am that is the
Medicare Prospective Payment System (PPS). 'IWo studies that examined the nurse supply in the Period following introduction of PPS (Farley, 1988 ; Project Hope, 1988) concluded that the severity of illness as measured by
Medicare case Index increased hospitals' demarrls for registered nurses. 3 PPS
am the Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) system of reimbursing hospitals has
also had its iInpact on the demarrl for registered nurses. Hospital patients
terrl to be IOClre acutely ill am to be discharged earlier than previously.
'!he latter factor, that is earlier discharge, has created a serious problem in the nursing hOIll3 sector which historically has relied upon licensed practical nurses for its labor pool. Now there must be IOClre registered nurses in nursing hOIll3S to deal with the high acuity of such patients. To take only one example, it is not uncamrocm for nursing hOIll3 patients to be on ventilators.
Hospitals conterrl that the ceiling on rei.rnbursement for certain types of care in the DRG reimbursement system (PPS) has limited their ability to make
salaries sufficiently attractive am competitive for registered nurses. This
argument did not find full acceptance by the secretclly's Commission; they noted that hospitals have used a variety of arguments over the past years for not increasing registered nurse salaries to a level conunensurate with their
knowledge am skill. In addition, R.N. salaries in many instances have
failed to keep pace with the cost of living index.
Specialization in Nursing
Nurse SPecialization occurs at the Master's level of preparation. Common SPecializations include critical care nursing, gerontology, mental health, cardiovascular, oncology, Pediatric nursing, genetic counseling and Perinatal nursing. In general the demarrl for nurse SPecialists occurs rrainly
in urban settings am in large tertiary care hospitals. While there is a
demarrl for Master's prepared nurse SPecialists in larger hospitals in Georgia, salary schedules in general do not reward the nurse SPecialist more than the B.S.N. generalists. '!hus, again, lack of an economic incentive terns to peJ:petuate that particular type of shortage.
'!he Shortage in Georgia
Several models have been employed to forecast the future demand for R.N.s in Georgia. In a recently completed study for the University system of Georgia, Zwemer (1989) using a criteria=based model estirrated that Georgia
will need 42,600 to 54 ,840 FIE RNs l2Y 1990. 4 In this same study the
estirrated DEMAND for FIE RNs was 45,930. (see Table 1 for estimated supply.)
386

'!he outlook for the state Of Georgia (zwetner concluded) is a continuing shortage of nurse l1lal'1pCMer of sizeable magnitude.
usirg another ll:ldel-a historical tren:i IOOdel.-zwemer concluded that the projected requirement for nurses in Georgia by the year 2000 would by 46,97048,560 FI'E RNs. '!he variables on which the tren:i IOOdel. is based include: (a) an increase in the mnnber of HM:>s; (b) increase in the mnnber of Pros;
(c) increase in cost cont:airment efforts in health care; am (d) an increase
ion case managenert through an lH) or Pro envi.rormelt. 5
'!here is a considerable discrepcm::y between the two types of forecasting IOOdel.s. '!he DEMAND for R.N.s by the year 2000 as calculated by Zwerner (1989) is: 6
47,970-48,560 Historical Trend
47,300-58,00 criteria-based
An additional forecast of supply of FI'E registered nurses throughout the united states was made by the Division of Nursirg, health Resources and
services Administration, us Deparbnent of Health am Human services. (Please
see Tables 2 and 3.)

NOIE:

'!he Zwerner report "Assessirg the Need for Nurses in Georgia"

examined not only the pool of registered nurses needed for the future but as

well the pool of licensed practical nurses (vocational nurses) since both

together fonn the total nurse supply both in acute care settings and long-

tenn settings.

387

Table 1

PROJECTED SUPPLY OF NURSES IN GEORGIA, 1990

Active Nurses
Active RNs Active LPNs

26,800
= 21,110

(Table 10-22) (Table 10-19)

Full-Time Equivalent Nurses (FTE)

FTE RNs (U.S.)

= 1,454,100 = 1,739,100

83.6%

FTE RNs (Ga. )

=

FTE LPNs (U. s. ) =

26,800 x 0.836 =

608,000 = 693,500

87.7%

FTE RNs (Ga.)

=

21,110 x 0.877 =

FTEs/lOO,OOO Population

FTE RNs

=

431 x 0.836 = 360

FTE LPNs FTE RNs = LPNs

= =

-340 x 0.877 = -298 658

(Table 10-21) 22,405 (Table 10-18) 18,514
(Table 10-22) (Table 10-19)

Source: Fifth Report to the President and Congress on the Status of Health Personnel in the United States, March 1986.
338

Table 2

reulC'l'tll IIXlUllOD>tTS ",. nJLl. TII1: alUIVAL.""" 1l!X:1STDOm
KlIll!ICS I(XX)IiI)IC 'TO OU,",IA ISTULlste AS t.,O.ICIl fJCIJfC:l 1M OI'ITDlI" - lASe)
rcoCL It' cu:x;Ml'tfIC ...u. ##to ~Tl06 r-!7N!'AT1DM,
InO ..0 2000

~r...,n'C'.r. .

t" 11 \,ht

S U t. .

......, D'I:7\ard C~t.1CUT ..... no
"-~~~.
..., ~hlr.
~ '_1M'd V_""","t

Mtddl. ,\t1.ntte
N-.t J.c....,.
..... to'l"k
,...."h.n*a

ScuCh o\t l.nt.1c \JIel_.r. O'.U'iC't ot C o l ..._ U .
rLorlO6
4 e-orqa. J'\af"yi...-d .-:seth C.cnL 11...
SouU'l CaeoUne
VlflllnLa
....t vir".n...

_.1
1,711,710
---1,0r1..r"'n0
'.7%0 <1.,.0
6."0
1.0~0
',$10
--2r4r1..1m00 UO.t20 n.7%O
~ <.
~.560
".110 4%.'00
lO.'~
l&."0 ",no 11.'50 15.1<0

AD/tHp.
~.. ,010
ll'.''ro 1.000 !'.l'<l
2.. 110 %.4)(1 1.400
!t:~~
41., )10 X.,'60
It'm
"
%.100
n.7~
1).1)(1 lQ,DeO 12.310 040 U.I60
~.2:1O

_.1_
101,)10
g::~
'.'00 22.040
1.210 1.100
2.1~0
...lj%' ~~ ~.''<l lS,'lO
1%~:m
%. )40 l~. :no 2O.0.c H.nO
n.,~ '.l~
1&.010 ',!lO

.... t.
1",310
ll:m
1.,.0 010 l,UO 1.360
'%0
...".....-"m'" %2.660 H .. '60
-'1m . no
,~
u,no
1.'10 '.UO 7.790
:no
7.160 2,100

Doet.
%%,HO
-L.ffi ltO '10 10 160 ~
"m
1.1'<l 1.3)(1
~
160 no no 170 !>6lI 2'10
~~
l'<l

~I
1,1%7,110
Ill:m
Il.no
~.710 IC.%~o
1.160
',.'0
291.100 ~
1".910 'l.lItO
1'1:~ig
'.4~ 10',360
51. liD (;l.UO 5O.nO X.'20
~.ISO
1t.310

AOl'Oap
~
-r'1r:,-~r.nO 100 ".%)0 1.1%0 2."0 2._
n:m
C7 .'%0
n ...o
-1-1-%r..-3m40
I.no 22.610 11.220 11.750 1'.))0
7.7~
t'-,uo
~.110

_.1000
1,0",110
'1,700
"'Jr.m'
6,400 :1',740
'.110 '.C20
1.~0
DI.110 ~
" .'10 41.110
171:m
1,470
5O.~0
%7.070
".6~
:U.SoIO 1l.2'1O 2).00 1.&10

_to
~
--1r7:,6m'0
1."0 H.no :.200 1.710
l,.410
H:gg
%I.no 1I.6'<l
--no .,~. )60
"0 21.510
~.120
1.610 10.660
~.no
lC.7lO 1.'"0

Doet.
JI,910
~ %10 9<0 110 %30 70
- n o 6.0~ 2.110 160
5'I~
%10 1.%00
76O 560 ?1O
~OO
'170 %70

ran Sout'" CWnu.l
:\1.0.-
~.nc.UOly
"'.....appl T............
......... "___t South ~r.l L.oJbUlAa --01<1_ ~t Marth Ow'ltral
i ...... 100
IfthAn& "h:"l~ OhIo Wla.e"'QllWln
-'t. ""rth e:-.tral
-..-..-. -".~ou
"...,...,-ca:.u.r.1.
ItOC'th 0..-.-
Sout.h c.aou.

ll~. )60
-,.r.m
X."O 1t.%00 1I.7lO
190,610 ~
29.1)(1 lJ.7<O UI.UO
1(1 60 ~
I t . . .O " ;.10 ",0'0 (1.100
---Ur.'.-::SmO 20.00 )( ,no It.1l0 !'.SoIO 5.~10 '.520

-3r7..1m'90 1,77C '.lJO I).UO
...6..1....~-mto '.060 7 .~70 )&.270
lu:n~
11.0(0 22.170 29.710
n,wU,16O
U._I" Q
',U.o
1l.710 '.210 1.7)0 1.''<l

':.900
~
12.~lO
1.110 17 .''<l
",700 ~
11.1l0 a.060
~.2SO
1)1 20 ~
<l._ 11.'20
ll.''<l
2O.DOG
i"I'.m 510 ".200 1t.1SO
7,UO :. :l6O 2.6000

2t:~~
150 1.170 7 .1)(1
17'm <. '.l50 (.790
22.100
!i:iro 1.7)0 13.2:10 1'.110
1.620
'.nrm 140 '.I~ 7.llO 1.)(0 1.190 1.260

-~ 111 no
l'm 400 ltO 1.300
-(:.::tn10r !>6lI I~ 1.UO no
lr~::
120
(l6'"0
110 to 90

'Ili:m
lI.lItO
:IIi.no .',170
161.110 ~
1l.110 n.(OO l'l.nO
Hi:i: 52.040 91.010 Ul.'9O
'2.~~
-r1c1:1-.1m00 n.no ... 200 SO.~O 23.7)0 ..710 "UO

.,.llO
-rr:ntt
11...0 &.190
U.I20
-1r1.. m( l O 1),0(0
'.5SO
~1.010
1".020
"'1T."Jn
16.HO 29.,.0 (l.nO
2O,no
--~;':.n'IoO
l'l.0.0_0
16.lIO 1.670 2.010 2.210

70.290 ~
1'1,670 12.060 22.nO
1%5.020
'l1':'m
1'.7)0 1(.)10 ".710
- ;2r11..m nO
2'.220 41.'20 61.210 n.320
"."0
-rr;ToO
arnO 20.270 23.660 10.610 1.000
l,2ao

31.140 ~
1.no ~. '50 10.190
--~.':.n06oO '.190 6,aOO 1l.710
~,o~g .J
10.560 lI.no X.600 1l.7I0
-1;9:.n87o0
'.660 20 900
~.O80
1.560 1.710

~ 510 '80 110
~ ]70 610 460
2.J10
-7r.;1m<0
riO 1.(00 1.'(0 l.,OlO
.1.:..!!.!!
510 "0 510 no no ISO 140

"'Da'Iu1n ~
........... Coloc:..;o
-1. -

n.070
~ 20._
"(~
''..t1o4o0

..%...'..-2m60 ,.(SO
1.7'JO 1.llO 2.160

-r.m 31. ~tO '.400 1.110
2.'20 1.240

..... ....-:lCD

7.'10

1.140

1.520

Uun

10,440

3.130

"0

"r<aI"'l -";":"rS.U; oe .

',<&70 2JJ,700 ~

1.JlO
-7oI.7mlO

2.120
..I":',~

C&11tecni. "-II
'.'JO or..,.,
......,..nqt:on - )1.- ".oeo j)rlqu._ -r

170.200
21.~5O

".160 1.'70 '.770
10.560

70.'''' 2.'70 10.050

.sd to, toul t-=-~ of fCU"ldi"9_

-1r7..1m60 (.010 1..,0 1.120 1,<&10 1.720 1.220 no
"em
n.'40 1.210 (,.70
",040

- m 1,070
210 10 70
100 1)0 160
60
~ 1."0 70 2'70 )lIO

111. "0 ~
%4.710 10.210 1.100 11.210
'.010 U.410
220

1(.020 ~
7.150
2.no 2.no
3.110 2.160 4..210 :,4.10

...- '.500 1:7.110
---r;;m' 224,100
'.JlO
11.2~

101,m ... 190 l,UO
" .Ito

- r r : m 5 6 . n o U.020 710 1.'00 ~. )lIO 210 7.00 1.110
- r1;' 1m. 1 0-0
105._
.'so 1.900
14 2'7.620

2'. '70 ~
'.100 %.)lIO I.no 2.440 :.2)0 3.410 1.100
-"-.-2SmO
" .160 1.ISO 710
U.5'O

--1-.8m20 lID 170 uo 210 110 2'10 120
3,~g
2..640 120 ('<l 640

c.s. !D1JCZl PTo~lc:r- by tSW Dh1..'O'\ fit ..........., _ I t h _.... , . . .v,~ AOd"~.tw.tlClf\,

~I'~ of ....It.1' .-.d ....n "C'Vle-a troa

crh.c", pl-n.ud 1n Tabu .-' .,., ...\.

389

06

.a,..... -... -..&J

sa- tQt-.. JO ~ '*D '\D':l .I2_,UT-C'f

-"-to ..- ,.., -tcp-.,&, Ul ~.ad .t~'.,I,:)
~~. . ,.. .aa. . . . \Qt-.. '61.11&1_ 10 -- UolO e&A .oiQ . .t~~ I ~

eu,...... -- J '0 .-t~ ~~ 0:1

"- r<61ln

-_'1
au
k.",
:aIL
em:
-0'"
001: all
o.l: OL'
:l~'[
Mt
-oa:
or, 061'1
OAL
~'.
CIt"l 0"'[
-':
GtS"'T
=;1
000'1 llU. _'1 ~ 06'"

OCG'n Otl" OQ;'I
~'LS
2U.-
001'"
OCI': OlIY',
o_r.e:l
Olr'[
-Omt'l:,'i[[

c.("~[
OU'II
o(O'~
ocr',tl .2!.C-
06""1
016" CU" oo,'S
on" L
_'0 010"
ooo'n
~tnI

m'l or"l 040" ast'n OK'"
au', w..:J-.
OOI'U
_'n ott'u ou't[
_'n
~ ......'"
OCt'U oar'l
Ot,'n
m:.:..-
Olt'n

OLI" or,'c
~'n
OU"C
Ott'~
Ot,'st
m..:..u..-
CK"CII
OlI,'~
os:' 01
m'~
OtO'tt ~ OtC',"
ooetol
OLZ' '1
06"<;:
a_a'''.1.t.-

OtL't'% ou'tt _'I ors'n
:ih:n
lila'! 0"" cw.6': 0(' 't 0.0"( OL"[ OtI'1
:~;g;
-':
00': oK" OO,"U ocr'LI
m09:''n''
or['o;[
0("['
ou't( au'" ~ on'ul
OC,'OI _'tt O&L"1
:Hl

OIS'>L OO'U QU'Ol ocr,..1
0S"'f'
06,'CH
a.c'OI ocr' 'T OLl'T! (Kl"1 OlIO' 01 OlIL'n Oto'll ~ QU'ltl
- ' , OlIC'
OIO'OC
orL'~ OOO'~
001'[[
w.:JL-
au "It
oU"", ala' OL I OIt'l\l or[' "
ID.:.lI.l-
0'0"01
_'Lor OOL'" Ott' 'K
~ CK""I

OH OC, on OlI":
~
06 ou all at! ott OCI ott
~
Otl OCl orc on
"o'n"
~
090"1 Oll'l
00"1
.. aLi '~ a.o',
OOl'r OLI CIt,
. 001'~ 1

OCt "1
~S'S
Ol';''': OOI'It
~'K
06'" OLL'I OCl'l OlIL'l OC,'l 1Il"l o,o'S
:iNI
OC"I _'I aU" 060" OC,'I Olt'"
m;~
OOI'ot orr'u
06"" OIL"
m;g
OCX".t OL." 01'"
w:.L
OIt'Lt

OC['U OU'It Q.L,"t OU'SIlI
m.:L-
OU'HI

OLr'n 061'1 _'I
OU'U
~i'06

au': Ot,',
06''') OO{"
orl'[ cw.6 '[
or.'n
~';;~

or"l OK'[
. or,'[ OlIO 'I
OLt"t OU'[
06['L
m:.:-
OU''l

_'I OLl't OLC'OI orL ' , t
~"U
M,'n
.w.::>:I.-
061'14
_.~
Oll'~
as,'u aso''OZ
w.e.u.-
O'll'sn

DtO"t. OLO'I
an"
o(L'n CKL 'CI Ot,' L
wClt.S.':,.L. .
OlI"n OC[' " Ott'LZ OK'S! ~ .LI' ~'l

O'C:, OLl't!
(K"II
.w.:.D-
at( 'Ill

OIO'n 0(,'1 o,O"Tl
nt:l-
0([' I'

aLa,..
OU'U OOt'L o,s'nl ~ 0[1"16:
on"fi cwo'n ocr' ,
OU" OU'L OtY', on'o;[ ~ CK' 'tal
001' , 0'0' L o,s 'tt ocr'os OIS .. OlIl'lt
::;~;l
.. o~, ~
oll'nt otO'1I asl'l' ~ OlD',,,
ooo' .. t
GSa' 0( 060'1[
2iDL-
OIL 'Ctc

..u,~.
"-'0 11_
"IWIDllt"=' ~
~HI_
_n "'--"
CJ,..." .....
---......1
OC-JOto;:)
IIUOst.J'If'
~
no.., \ArDI
no~o ~XIIt
.....-lJ""",W
-~-"..l ...W .,.
t.u~ "P.JQ4~""'"
u,.......,"
0''lO "'r~,w
.wn.,t
noufItr
....... ywnwj ~.I=- ~..-:
"""f1llO
~,.,,..,
. . . . . . . -.zv
t.,n~ ~nov :l......

OK" CIOL 011
~ ors,
OC. OCO"
-'00' ,
OOl'l 0:."'[ 0"'1 OK
t-: U' ,. -
01"[ OTI',
llS.U-
CU"

_'n Ga',
:niaLI"

CKL'OC
ooo'tt
otl'a
II!l1.:.t:.-
00'[4

OK"
olt'n
OU'L OOl'n OK' III _'It
Ot.'~
061'1

oU'n
OlIL'Ol oU'n OfO'U O::S'o;[
OLI'"
OOlILO"'["

~ OUU

:;;~It

oc,'a 001"[
lI1Cll-
OLO'U

Oft'K 09.'06
lClKU" .:1X1 -

OI.'n oc,'
m:n (K;O't!
ate"
- ' ,06"1\
OU'II or, 'J[ OK'n Ot," " MY'C
:nu
_'K
Ot<l'K
m;ffi

06S'U on'[[ or[.,
llllt.:U..-
or,'KI
OK'a
O'tC)' .,
OL['l( au'"
_ u 001')0\
O"'~ll
CKT'L
w.:..t-
at( ':It
on'ort or" ..l
:l;i~1

OIL OOt 060
~
_OLZ
0" O(t au or,
OOl't Olt
m.r-
00'" oo"t
~

ott', au', ooe,
w.:.L-
aU'"
OU'[ 01.'"
oCItt,["" ,
0::,' L OU'OI
04['11 orl'l
~;I,
au'" O'o'U
._llL.O"L

0601'(%
(KL'tt 00"'\
lol(ioO u l-
0('" OtO')t OL:'n CK"[[ OU"1 00,")C OK'" a.c'[
g,IH'1
oc,""
0[0' "
~~;~I

on'S! 01[' L _'Ot
woU.:.'Jn.L

M"S 061'''tt

OS!' L Ot',',1
o,,'n

CIt,' 00'

'a1:

or['t

ur~OI

00"0( OOt"U
w.:.u..
~,."

OOS'" 0lI[' It _'tl
w.:.JL-
OIC'Ltl
OLZ'"
o,.,'n 00:' 't 0[0' "
oot"Ot OU'K
001(";0'",
~nH
0"'001 Ott' "1
Al..Ol_
OU',It

"""".....'w .........J.
ldd'
.-on)'
t.u...., IAnos 18'"
_,utA1,,, 1~
.,UlOHA 1N,10JW':t l.Atot wn0.Jr:) tnXlllt
p..t..ueow
n 6Joet"'J ~
I'9Ul.l
'~lo~ )lIII ~l.n.'a
o~. . . ,..,
... ~u.,.t~ \PtoI
.'VWI.o_l .1..,.........
A--Jr - ..
.:J'~U.ll't .tWIW

Otl
-0"[
ott ot,"
gin
O\['U

alL'l 001': ot"l O(t'H on'[
~;~I
OLJ:'a,

01"[ 06C', Oil'" aLl'" 00["
2lO.t-
CK, '01
iti"'ffiTi

06": 010'[ . aLL '[ OU'tl 06t'\
w.:l.L
Oll'C'
Olt'\u

Cltt' , GtC'tt oLl'n OCL'" on'll
~
Oll'n,':

ot or: on Olo't ott
.~
ott ')(

OCY', at( 't OU"'l oer'n 0"':
w.:L
_'tt
Ott IL:'

0",':
on""
01[" OU'll
ott', ~;;;
_'''0'1

OLL'1
oc,'c
Dt,'t OU"'U ot('C
m;H
OlL JOlt

MI't; OlD" 0[", o""u o"'n
2tL.ll-
OO( 'CCI
O>(ltl:'t

luoa.l_"
."J"1 \ "f~1,~. . .
.ll~.ftI
.. ,ow =PU.~"~'"
rr ..lWll ~11~

'~""O

.~-

......

"'d'QlCW

1""J.

ooor

.~

'~-

......

'''''allPt

tno,1

_I

. .n ~'~J~

oooc QO_1

=l'QU _.- -- -_ 'JIlOIJ.W'WG4 ...,..,.,rJ.O'ID CWf VJI"Y :UM.IW:x::rz:) u "'DCX)I a:zsw - 'Y1EiU.JlC

NI ~ .a~ S'f CDMSI~ 'flGJ,ll() 0.&. ::MIOICX:O'W J:UIlIf'll l:IlQ.lSI:DI ........,.11'01 :a<1~~ .... ...-a.I/lCIIlI

.....

: a1qe .r.

Registered Nurse Graduations in the university System June 1989
A small percent of the BSN graduates represent nurses who already possessed the RN but not the baccalaureate degree. '!hey represent less that
5% of the BSN graduates. ('!he schools am the number of graduates are found
in Table 4.) It cannot be assurt:!d that all nurses who graduate in Georgia in a given year remain to practice in the state of Georgia. However, according to info:rmation from the Georgia Board of Nursin;J approximately 95% of Georgia's newly licensed nurses do remain in Georgia at least for the first several years of practice.
Qualitative Factors Related to Shortage
In considerin;J the availability of registered nurses for Georgia's future, a number of qualitative factors llIJSt be taken into accolUlt. '!he
preparation am employment of sufficient I'll1I'lU::>ers of Nurse Administrators, Nurse Educators, am Researchers are three of these. '!he quality of student education both in the academic am clinical settings is deperxlent upon having
nurses prepared for these types of top leadership positions. Furthermore, the role IOOdelin;J provided by these highly educated leaders is an important recnrltment factor for yOUI'g persons considerin;J a career in nursing. (It is also a retention factor. ) Historically, nursin;J has been perceived by many yOUI'g persons as a career with little long-tenn future. '!hat perception is changing with the advent of more than 43 doctoral programs for nurses in the united states. '!he fact that the FbI) or rns is ackn<:Jwledged as the tenninal degree in nursing puts nursing in a parity position with all other professions for which the FbI) is the tenni.nal degree. In addition, more jobs have been created for which the doctorally prepared nurse qualifies.
Members of the study ccmnittee in the 1983 report "'!he Eighties and Beyond: A canunitment to Excellence" c:x:mnissioned by the Regents failed to understand the relationship between the discipline's having doctorally
prepared educators am scientists am recnrltment POtential. One of their
recamnendations was that the establishment of a doctoral program in nursing "be considered". '!hey went on to say "the establishment of this program, however, should be second in priority to assurin;J an adequate supply of registered nurses within the state. ,,7 '!his statement reflects a lack of
understanding that the problem of supply is, circular, am to a large extent
the attraction of applicants is dependent upon having teachers, researchers
am clinicians who are recognized as top experts in their resPective fields.
Doctoral preparation for both teachers am researchers assures the
students will be taught by persons on the cutting edge of newer knowledge and
those who have superior abilities in clinical practice am in research.
Fortunately, the study ccmnittee's recamnendation was given little weight by
the Regents am a doctoral program in nursin;J was established in 1985. '!he
FbI). in Nursing is a cooperative program between the Medical College of
Georgia am Georgia state University.
Additional factors in the decline of nursing as a career choice, cited by the secretary's canunission, include the following: ~ing career opportunities for women; non-campetitive compensation levels; decreasing
391

educational subsidies; difficult workin:J con:titions including arourrl-theclock work shifts; lack of autpnany for nurses in their practice; and negative plblic image of nursing. 8
Recognizing the rnnnber am c::ntplexity of problems irrpacting the supply
of nurses, nenbers of the secretaIy's carmission made wide-ranJing recommen-
dations am offered strategies for each of their reccmnerx:3ations. '!hey
pointed out that solutions to the nursing shortage will be foun::l only though
the <::xxJPerative efforts of nursing associations, goverI1l1Eltal am private
health insurers, hospital Boards of Directors, ec:x:>ncmi.sts, the Healthcare
Financing Administration (HCFA), am the Cc:nJress of the united state.
SPecifically they rec:amnerxi that the ~ should
"legislate a one-time increase in Medicare hospital rates for the pw:.pose of enhancing nursing c:arpensation. '!his adjusbnent is to be in'plemented through a specific separate increase in the discre-
tionary adjusbnent factor used to update PPS rates am must not be
offset by arbitrary reductions in other elements of the PPS update fonnula. ,,9
Given the rnnnber am complexity of factors involved in the nurse
shortage, it is naive to presume that the university System of Georgia can do a great deal to redress the general shortage of nurses.
'!he University or the Marketplace?
Is the shortage of nurses a university problem or a marketplace problem? '!he University System of Georgia has recx::gni.zed its responsibility to the
plblic by providing both technical am professional level programs for the
preparation of nurses. However, to suggest that the University SYstem can do very much about the continuing shortage of nurses is tmrea1.istic. '!he wrong question is too often posed: ''What should the University System do to relieve the shortage of nurses in Georgia?" '!his is the wrong question in that any university can have only a very small part in relieving a shortage of any type of professional in society. If one were to imagine a causal chain, the beginning of the chain is the lack of interest on the part of young people in choosing nursing as a career. '!his itself is a reflection of
society's values; that is, the IlDre lOOneY one makes am the IlDre material goods one can acquire the greater is one's prestige am status in our
society. Nursing is not a profession fran which can expect large financial rewards. In addition, the life of the so-called "bedside nurse" is
relatiVely short. '!he physical am em::>tional deI'llaJ)jg of hospital nursing
contribute to a relatively short span of active years for the nurse in that setting.
other professions harrlle the problem of the older worker am hisjher
diminished energy by lateral transfers to less de.marrling positions without the irxlividual's losing benefits. Another retention variable, in which hospitals are notable deficient, is the existence of adequate portable PenSion plans. None of these factors is new; they have been highlighted for many years but little remedial action has occurred in the marketplace.
392

Again, the factors cited here are beyorrl the oontrol of the University System to alter.
Qlanqes am Innovations in Nurse Education for Georgia
'!he university System of Georgia, while not "owni.n;J" the problem of short SUfPly of nurses, can a:>ntril:ute in sare appropriate ways to increase
the recnrltment of professional nurse applicants. sane initiatives are
prq:x:>sed below. A few of these will ca:ny only a IOOdest price tag-greater use of carp.rt:er-aided instruction (CAl), for exanple. others, especially denDnstration programs to test new approaches to basic nursing curriculmn, will be IOOre <:X)Stiy. costjbenefit rations will have to be considered before start-up. In addition, decisions, prd:Jably at eh level of the Chancellor's Office as to which school or sdlools shoold nomt these initiatives would need to be made.
sane Initiatives for Considerations
1. A CDOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR '!HE GENERIC BACC'.AIAI.JREATE SIUDENT.
Rationale.
A cooperative program traditionally is one in which a student
sperrls a semester or quarter in the academic program am an alternate
semester or quarter in a work setting. For the student nurse, the work setting would be a hospital with adequate supel:Vision provided. SUCh a
cooperative program has been prq:x:>sed am outlined by Dr. Mary Arm
Rogers, fonnerly of the SChool of Nursing at the Medical College of Georgia. '!he advantage of the cooperative program is that the student can help finance his or her education while at the same time receiving valuable experiential learnirg.
2. A PROGRAM rn NURSING lEADING 'ID '!HE MASTER'S DEX;REE FOR COUEX;E
GRAWATES lUSSESSING A B.A. OR B.S. DEX;REE
Rationale.
'!here are several m::rlels in the united states where such programs are in operation. '!hey have the advantage of attracting a hitherto nontraditional kim of student into nursing. SUCh students terrl to be IOOre
mature, IOOre canunitted to their own learnirg, am to a chosen occupa-
tion.
3. A 'lHREE-YFAR UPPER DIVISION NURSING m:GRAM.
Rationale.
'!he majority of schools of nursing in Georgia aa::ept students for the upper division major at the junior year (a six quarter major). '!he majority of students take core curriculmn courses in camnunity or four-
year colleges am transfer to a college or university where the nursing major is offered. '!he six quarter major is an extremely "packed" am
393

lock-step curricultnn which is not suited to all leazners. A th:ree-year (nine quarter) curricultnn -would aCCUlIlLXlate those students who need sanewhat lOOre time to integrate classrcx::m learnin;J ani to have exte.rrled experiential learnin;J in the clinical practice settirg.
4. OFFER ACCEIERATIOO/DECEIERATIOO OPfORlUNlT1ES FOR CERrAIN st.JB:;RCOPS OF
S'IUDENl'S m ONE OR K:>RE ESTABLISHED SCHX>IS OF NURSING.
Rationale.
one subgroup of concern are those extremely able students who could
progress faster than he traditionally stJ:uctured curricultnn allows. Another subgroup are students who need lOOre time to progress through the curricultnn. Both groups could have their learnin;J greatly enhanced by use of cc:.rrpIter-aided instruction (CAl) ani nDdular learnin;J packages. If such alternatives were available ani made known to potential students in the course of recruitirg, lOOre students could be attracted to nursirg, particularly the very bright ani able students. In SCIOO instances, particularly for the student who progresses at a slower rate, CAl curricultnn nDdules will require lOOre faculty time ani effort. 'Ihus, there may be an added dollar cost where such programs are in existence.
5. WEEKEND CDUffiE FOR REX;ISI'ERED NURSES SEEKING '!HE BACCAIAURFATE DEX;REE.
Rationale.
It should be entirely feasible for the University System to offer one or two weekenj colleges for the already employed registered nurse who wishes to earn the baccalaureate decJree. While the registered nurse student does not represent a "new" nurse in the total SUWly, he/she generally speaking is a nurse ccmnitted to the profession as a career. A fairly large percentage of students in this category go on to earn the Master's decJree thus addi.rq to the ranks of clinical specialists, teachers, ani administrators.
6. CREATE FIEXIBILI'l'Y 'IO A'ITRAcr R.N.s 'IO EXISTING BACCAIAURFATE PROGRAMS
Rationale.
More R.N.s will be attracted to professional programs that both (a) recognize their experience ani (b) accc:mm:::ldate their lifestyle-work demarxls. PRO-TRACK at the Medical College of Georgia is one such explicitly tailored program.
7. MAKE A CDNCERI'ED, SUSTAINED EF'FORI' 'IO RECRUIT AND REI'AIN WELIr-QUALIFIED FAaJIJI'Y
Rationale.
SChools known for excellent faculty ani high academic st:an:3ards have a greater potential for recruitirg students. Graduates of such
394

schools are lOOre likely to have higher rates of success in licensin;J examinations, as well as lOOre };XJSitive 'WOrk experiences on graduation.
8. DE.VEI.DP SOIHISTICATED RE<XJI'lMENr MATERIAIS 'ID BE USED BY SYSTEM SCHX>IS.
Rationale. Nursin;J is only one of many professions c:x::IllJetin;J for career-l:x:>uni
~ people. wanen who historically dlose nursin;J have lOOre options
q:lel1 to them. '!he career };XJSSibilities should be well developed in such materials.
9. ALIDCA'I'E KmE OOIIARS 'ID LIBERAL ARl'S CDTJ:FX;ES HAVING NURSING PRCX;RAMS Rationale. Faculty-student rations 1l'I.1St be higher in nursin;J than in the humanities or sciences. 'Ihus, lOOre :fln'Ds are needed than generally allocated in the 4-year college foDllllas.
'!he foregoin;J options are by no means exhaustive. However, they offer a ran;e of options sc:ne of which may have a significant payoff in tenns of
attractin;J am retainin;J potential carrli.dates for nursin;J. '!he Olancellor
(Regents) might follow the practice for the Federal govennrent by solicitin;J fram System schools prq:x:>sals (RFPs) for one or lOOre of the options outlined
above.
END NC1I'E: '!he author ac.knowledges the followin;J sources in preparin;J this paPer: Joyce Billue, EdD; Mary Ann Rogers, EdD; Beth Jones; Jack Zwemer, 0Il), Assessing the Need for Nurses in Georgia 1989 ; Final Report of secretary's Commission on Nursirg, IEHS, 1988; Vice Olancellor's Adviso:ry Committee on Nursin;J, 1988; Schools of Nursin;J, Georgia, for data on graduates.
395

~
1. u.s. Depart::loont of Health am Human 8eJ:Vices, secretary's commission on
NursiIg, Final Report, Vol. 1 (1988); Rockville, MD. 2. Ibid., p. 3. 3. Ibid., p. 7. 4. Zvsner, J. (1989) Assessirg the Need for Nurses in Georgia.
University System of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Ibid., p. 8. 6. Ibid., p. 8.
7. '!he Eighties am Beyom: A Ccmni:bnent to Excellence. Board of Re;Jents,
University System of Georgia, 1983.
8. U.S. Depart::loont of Health am Human 8eJ:Vices, secretary's commission on
NursiIg, Final Report, Vol. 1 (1988); Rockville, MD. 9. Ibid., p. 29.
396

TABLE 4
GRADUATES OF A.D., BACCALAUREATE AND MASTER'S NURSING PROGRAMS UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, JUNE 1989

Name of College/University
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College Albany State College Armstrong State College Augusta College Brunswick College Clayton State College Columbus College Dalton College Darton College *DeKalb College kFloyd College *Georgia College Georgia Southern College Georgia State University Georgia Southwestern College Gordon College Kennesaw State College Macon College Medical College of Georgia Middle Georgia College North Georgia College South Georgia College *Valdosta State College West Georgia College

Associate Degree
28

Type of Program

Baccalaureate

Master's

20

44

32

32

is

17

33

72

24

3

33

20

22

16

32

53

33

83

128

8

35

32

7

38

34

8

TOTAL GRADUATES

*Figures not available at t.his time. Thus, figures do not reflect the total number.
397

GEUGlA'S RmSl}I; SI'LI<mGE
Charlotte J. warren, R.N., Ih.D.
Associate Dean, College of Health sciences for the SChool of Nursirg Georgia state University september 1989
Def.ininl the Nursirg Shortage
Before any attempt can be made to discuss the nursirg shortage and its impact of health care delivery, the shortage itself nust first be defined. '!he nursi.n1 shortage that is beirg eJCPerien::ed in Georgia, and across the nation, is not a crisis caused by nurses fleei.n:J nursi.n1, by nurses' desire to leave bedside care, or by a contirnJal.ly dec:reasirg applicant pool for schools of nursi.n1. In fact, in Georgia, the number of registered nurses has grown from 36,255 in 1980 to 50,569 as of september 1989. '!his represents a 40 percent increase over a 9 year period. Approximately 65 percent of these nurses are employed in hospitals. sixty percent of nurses in Georgia are involved in direct patient care. seventy-five percent are employed at least full-time with an additional 12 percent worJd..rg at least half-time. If there are more nurses than ever before, then what is the shortage?
Georgia has provided an econanic envi.ronn:mt which has attracted millions of 'l"JeW citizens to the state. A first-rate transportation hub, upgraded schools and universities, risi.n1 persormel inccme, new in:lustry, etc. have all resulted in a net doubli.n:J of the population of Georgia from 1940 to 1989. Georgia is the third fastest gr'C.'Mi.n1 state in the nation. '!here has been a projected increase of 2.9 million by the year 2000. Unfortunately, health care resources are not growin;J proportionately. 'Ihat fact cambined with cost contairnnent policies in health care agencies, constant growth in technology, and an increasi.rgly agin;J population have all cambined to have a profoum impact on health care, and a tremerrlous increase in the dernarxl for nursi.rg professionals.
with new prospective payment systems in place, patients in hospitals are
much more acutely ill, with sick, but not as acutely so, patients relyin;J on home health care. Patients are no larger admitted to hospitals for rest
cures or diagnostic workups. Patients are admitted who demand. close attention and therefore require increased nursi.n:J care.
New technology allowing those patients a 'l"JeW chance at life who would never have had that opportunity in the past also contribute to the need for more nurses. '!hese critically ill in:lividuals add to the patient population and require an increased number of nursi.rg care hours. New technology saves lives, but it does not decrease work load for the health care providers. Additionally, new technology means increased lon;evity and so an increasin;J chronically ill and agi.rg population. In 1940 only 5 percent of Georgia's population was 65 or older. In 1986 that scnre population had increased to 10 percent, and continues to rise.
398

Additionally, the proliferation of alternative health care delivery systems has increased canpetition for nurses. Nurses are self-employed, employed by personnel agencies, insurance ccnpanies, in:lustry, public health agencies, physicians, etc. '!he q;:portunities grow fiNery day. Unfortunately
the growth in mnnbers of nurses does not match the growth in employment opportunities. Quite silnply, we have m::>re nurses than fiNer before, but need fiNen m::>re. '!he next section provides infonnation on vacancies in nursing in
Georgia.
Registered Nurse Vacancy Rate
'!here are an estimated 5000 vacant nursing positions in Georgia. Approximately half of these vacancies are in metro Atlanta. An estimated 3000 of the vacant positions are in hospitals. '!here are 3953 students enrolled in the 36 registered nurse programs in Georgia. '!his number appears to be stabilizing, perhaps fiNen sh~ a slight increase where furxling has been available. OJrrently the majority of nursing programs in Georgia are reporting full capacity. New faculty m::>nies \OUld be required to increase admission. It is easy to see fran this data that if all of those students graduated i.nm=di.ately it \OUld still be difficult to fill all of the current vacant positions, much less address the anticipated increase in mnnbers needed fort the future as the pcp1lation in Georgia grcMS an:l continues to age.
currently it takes an average of 60-90 days to recruit new nurses to fill vacant positions. it is obvious that new graduates from nursing programs are not sufficient to fill those vacancies an:l therefore health care agencies are silnply "borrowing" fran one another, an expensive dilemma at best. '!he bottom line is that m::>re irrlividuals need to be recruited into nursing an:l that current nurses must be convinced that they are appreciated an:l should remain employed in the profession.
cost of the Nursing Shortage
'!he actual cost of the nursing shortage, the lack of nurses to provide adequate health care, if difficult to detenni.ne. Inferences, however, can be made as to potential cost. Hospitals exist to provide nursing care. Most ancillaJ:Y services can be, an:l are, offered on an outpatient basis. Patients who require 24 hour attention are hospitalized an:l it is the nurse who
provides that attention. Home care agencies have also been formed on the same premise. When nurses, an:l therefore nursing care, are not available, the capacity of the hospital or home health care agency is them compromised. Some hospitals have been forced to close beds. '!he overwhelming majority
have resorted to the use of costly agency personnel. same are reducing the
registered nurse positions an:l hiring less qualified personnel to provide care. Nursing homes have become primarily staffed by unlicensed personnel. 'Ihese all have a major ilnpact not only on quality of health care, but also on the economy. cost within institutions is driven up. loyal staff nurses develop low morale in working beside higher paid agency nurses. '!his results in a sense of no reward for loyalty to the institution.
399

Shortages also ilrpact adequacy and availability of prenatal care, particularly for the in::ligent. Public health nurses provide much of the prenatal teaching and health care for expectant in::ligent IOC>tllers. Nurse practitioners and midwives may provide the only prenatal care available and in sane cases also deliver the babies. It is easy to see how a shortage of these nurses will ilrpact the already unacx::eptable fact that Georgia ranks 47th am::>rq 50 states in live infact birth rates. 'Ihirteen counties in Georgia already have an infant lOOrtality rate lOOre than twice that of the united states.
It is impossible to predict all of the fallout of the nursing shortage. It is obvious, however that it is bec:cmi.rg increasingly difficult, and in same cases inq:lossible, to provide adequate, nuch less quality, care for our unborn children, our elderly, and our sick. '!his is Weed a frightening state of affairs and one that MUST be addressed. '!he follc::Ming recommenda-
tions attenpt to blanket the problem with begi.nnin3' strategies. After much
careful and collaborative deliberation, many lOOre will certainly follc::M. After all, beinJ a transportation hub, havinJ good schools and high employment do not mean quality of life. Without health and health care, the rest is meaninJless.
RE~ONS
'!he issue of what to do about the shortage is a c:orrplicated one. Many of the agencies who employ nurses are in the private sector and should therefore take appropriate action. '!here are a rn.nnber of health care agencies 8Up{X)rted by state IOOnies, however, which could benefit from statewide int:enrention. Even though sane may ~ outside of the jurisdiction of the state, the influence state dollars can have should not be dismissed. A lot of things can happen when joint projects or de.11X)nstration projects are setup and f'umed.
1. Public rmagejMedia ~ign
'!he illlage of the profession of nursinJ continues to be a problem when tryinJ to attract new applicants into the field. '!here is a tremendous need for a well-orchestrated, well-financed long-tenn media campaign stressinJ the excitenent, dlallenge and opportunities within nursing.
2. caTprehensive research and planning program for nursing supply
A cx:x:JPerative network of nursing educators, nursing administrators, consumers, hospital administrators, etc. needs to be established in a fonnal stnlcture. 'Ibis group should work to encourage and support health care agencies detennining and i.n'plementinJ successful recruibnent and retention programs. '!he group should also address educational needs, both in tenns of projecting ntmlbers of graduates needed, as well as identifying appropriate content and stnlcture of nursing programs.
400

3. Financial aid opportunities for students
Financial constraints are a major deterrent to applicants to nursing programs. Increasingly, applicants are non-traditional students who are not supp::>rted by parents. '!hey are older, many are TNaDeI1 heading single
parent households, am they IIIJSt have an i.ncx:Ine. Admitte::lly, financial
aid opportunities have nushrocmed in the past few years, but what they have to offer is not adequate for :recruitment, only for retention. Most scholarship programs are not available to students until their last one to two years of education. 'lhese students have often been enrolled in time consuming coursework for one to two years prior to eligibility. If
rronies were available to :recruit students am to support them through
their program, nursing education would then becare m::>re attractive. '!he anomt of supp::>rt is also an issue. small scholarships may pay tuition, but often that is the least of the expenses in nursing school. Books,
mrlfonns, insurance, child care, am decreased availability for employ-
ment can annmt to much m::>re than tuition dollars.
4. F'lIrrl.in;J for irmovative nursin:] programs
With so many non-traditional students entering nursing programs, nontraditional nursing programs must follow. SUnuner sessions, night courses, weeken:i courses all offer the flexibility these students
desire. '!his sane flexibility is expensive am would generally require
increased :furrling.
5. Evaluation of educational program :furrling fonnula
Retention of students in nursing programs has been am continues to be a
prd:>lem. '!he curricullnn of a nursing program is extremely rigorous. '!hat canbi.ned with the stresses of functioning in a nursing role for the
first time, dealing with life am death situations am being responsible
for the outcome, places tre.me.rrlous pressure of students. '!he result may be poor grades, disillusiornnent with nursing, or fear of responsibility.
Professional am interpersonal relationships between faculty and
students are the best retention devices. unfortunately, with existing student/faculty ratios fun:led within the University System many faculty
feel those sane stresses am are unable to provide the support the
student so desperately need.
6. Establish mechanisms for direct payment to nurses for health care savices provided
Even when advanced practice nurses are available, particularly to rural J;XJP..1lations who have no other health care provider, lack of acknowledgment of the nurse as a primary care provider through re:iInbursement mechanisms negatively impacts that availability. Nurses should be covered care-givers and nurse-run clinics should be insured facilities
in all insurance plans, i.nclud..irg Medicaid am Medicare. SUpport of
savices not only makes them m::>re accessible, but also promotes a
positive iInage of nurses as care providers am is a viable recruitment
mechanism.
401

7. Financial am policy support of extemship programs for nursing students
Reality shock is in fact a reality for new nurses. '!he nxwe from
nursing school to enployment as a nurse is abrupt am extreItely stress-
ful. New graduates are expected to assume awesane responsibilities
often too soon am with too little support. An opportunity to ex-
perience this new work envirorment with support fran faculty with whom relationships have been build could make a tremen:lous difference in retention. '!his would mean policy support for students to be enrolled in special programs in the sunmers within their nursing schools while beirq enployed by a health care institution. It would also mean increased IrOnies for faculty.
8. Adequate furxii.ng for existirq nursing programs
'!here has been a tren:l to increase rnnnbers of nursing programs in Georgia rather than providing adequate resources for those which exist. '!he base coat for nursing education programs is extremely high when cc:mpared to non-professional programs. Specialized laboratoz:y space,
expensive jow:nals am other librazy holdi.r:gs, etc. should not have to
be continually replicated arourxl the state. '!he problem in Georgia is not the rnnnber of programs, but the resources of existirq ones. Monies should be focused on building the strorg programs with good track
records for graduatirq nurses, am with strorg reputations which
attracts good students.
9. CCI11petitive faculty salaries
Potential faculty are becani.ng increasingly difficult to recruit primarily due to poor salazy opportunities in Georgia. Educational institutions have not even begun to narrow the rapidly growing gap
between agency am faculty salaries. It has become a sad state when new
graduates earn a starting salazy higher than tenured, doctorally prepared, full-time faculty. CUrrently that gap is resulting in recruitment problems. It is only a matter of time before it becomes a retention issue for nursing education programs.
Again, these rec::::amnen:1ations only represent the tip of the iceberg.
Until issues such as nursing salazy, nursing autonomy, am inclusion of
nursing in organizational/policy decision mking within health care institutions is addressed by those institutions, shortages will continue to exist. In the neantime, the above rec:onunerrlation could serve to recruit more nurses into the profession while agencies work on keeping them.
rata Resources
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia COoperative Extension Service, University of Georgia Georgia Board of Nursing
Georgia Health care Association
Georgia Hospital Association
402

Dr. s. Eugene younts University of Georgia
A persistent theme runs through the last 150 years of the history of The university of Georgia-the ccmnitment of the institution to take its academic
resources to the people of the state am beyorrl. '!he rcx:>ts of the m::xiern
public service orientation of the university lie in the ambitious restructurin:J of the institution in the 1850s, a restructurin:J which reflected the
design of the trustees to reach out to the state am to promote growth and
m:xiernization. Although the civil War interrupted those plans, the post-war chancellor of the university, ArDrew Lipscanb, worked hard to continue the pre-war course.
In 1862 one of the most i.Irportant events in the history of the university took place: President Lincoln signed the I..arrl-Grant College Act, also known as The Morrill Act, which deeded to each state 30,000 acres of the
public danain for each of its Senators am Representatives aa:ording to the
census of 1860. '!he act was the means by which the federal government could mandate the state to make eduction available to the agricultural am rural interests of the state by establi.shinJ studies in the agricultural am mechanical arts. Although the years of the Civil War am endless state legislative conferences put off iImnediate acx::;eptance of these lam-grant :fur'rls ($243,000), finally in March 1872, the last year of Lipscomb's tenure as Chancellor, The state College of Agriculture am the Mechanical Arts was established on the campus at Athens. In May of 1872 it opened its doors free
of all tuition expenses for students - am of all entrance requirements.
In the years that passed after this event, however, little attention was given to agriculture on the canpJSeS, in c:x:xnparison with that of other
southern institutions, such as Virginia am SOUth carolina. Although in
1878, three degrees were possible in the Agricultural College, the university favored a curricultnn rich in the tradition of the classics am philosophy.
on the national scene at this time uman focxl needs for the growing
cities were becoming increasin:Jly critical. scientific agriculture had not taken hold on the nation's fanns. Agriculture still remained a low resource am labor intensive activity. One of the perceiVed causes for this state of
affairs was that those educated in A am M schools were not returning to the
fanns, upon completion of their degree, to awly what they had learned to increasin:J agricultural production. To insure that academic institutions
would be enabled to transfer the best am newest scientific methods to fanners to upgrade the quality am quantity of their agricultural products,
Congress in 1887 passed the Hatch Act, which established Agricultural Experiment stations at all lam-grant institutions. In 1888, the Trustees of the university adopted the resolution for the establishment of an agricultural experiment station on the campus. Research am instruction in agriculture were now large forces in directin:J the university to the welfare of
agricultural interests of the state am to uman focxl needs.
403

At the tuJ:n of the centw:y, another far-sighted chancellor, Walter B. Hill, sensitive to the needs of rural Georgian carnmitted the University to br~~ its instruction am research to the people of the state. His vision was prologue to the day when an array of outreach programs from the university would have an iIrpact upon human, scx::ial, am econanic needs am problems that detennine the quality of life in Georgia. '!hat day was not too far away. In 1914, dur~ the tenure of IBvid C. BarrcJvi, the Co~ passed the Smith-lever Act, which exparxied am fully established the Cooperative Extension Service, a delivery system for transferr~ the knowledge of the mriversities through a variety of educational processes to the people. Although it was initially recognized as a delivery system for agricultural knowledge (its acquired title of "Ag Extension" points this out), it soon exparrled into educational programs in haE economics, engineer~, am veterinary medicine. Hill's vision, m::xlelled in part after the University of wisconsin's public service activities, has today taken on a character am expansiveness that have set the University public service ideal as that of the Georgia Model.
'!his character am expansiveness are evident in the large variety am quality of public service am extension programs that currently emanate from '!he University of Georgia. Still the na;t extensive outreach program of the University, the Cooperative Extension, an integral part of the College of Agriculture, acts both as a delivery am a response system, encompass~ c::arrprehensive missions in agriculture, natural :resources, am carmnunity am rural development; home economics; am 4-H am youth development. 'Ihrough its off-campus delivery system of infonnal education, the Cooperative Extension Service serves as the tea~, carmnunication am facilitation link between the educational resources in these major progranunin;J areas available from other public am private agencies am organizations. '!he Cooperative Extension Service also serves as a referral system relat~ infonnation available from other mriversity units. It also provides an avenue for input from the public to mriversity departmental entities to guide am influence programs to the public benefit in the best IOOdel of the lam-grant mriversity system am purPOse.
Yet the dernanjs for education to Georgia's citizens am public am private agencies went beyon:l the :resources of the Extension SeI:Vice. As a result, in 1953, two public service units were established to meet these grow~ needs - the Georgia center for Continuing Education am the Institute of GoverI'U'CeIlt (initially called the Institute of law am Goven1ment). '!he Georgia center has grown to be the leading center nationally for continuing education am adult am lifelong learni.n:J.
'!he mission of the Georgia center for Continuing Education is to serve the learni.n:J needs of adults am to give leadership in the field of continuing education. In fulfillin:J this mission, the center provides learni.n:J opportunities for Georgians, as well as for audiences which are regional, national, am international in character. Moreover, the Georgia center provides leadership within the University System am extends this leadership to the region am the nation. Educational offerings are provided to adults through a variety of delivery systems which include residential conferences am community programs, conferences am short courses conducted
404

off canp1S throughout Georgia, in:tividualized l~ activities offered through a technology-driven l~ laboratory, group an:! in:tividualized l~ activities delivered state-wide an:! nationally via educational technology that includes audio an:! video satellite assisted teleconferences an:! audio an:! videotapes. Urxie:r:graduate credit classes are offered in the evenin;J an:! on the weekerDs. In:lepen:ient study is provided an:! administrative responsibilities for overseas credit courses are harrlled through the study Abroad Program, an:! graduate credit classes are offered at off-campus locations throughout Georgia.
'!he center also has facilities an:! expertise for producinJ educational media includinJ film, slides or slide tape, audio an:! videotape, an:! for developinJ an:! producinJ quality instructional materials via print media. It also owns an:! operates WUGA-FM Radio, which is part of the Peach state Radio Network an:! an affiliate of National Public Radio.
'!he Institute of Government as an in::leperrlent entity actually carne about in 1965. '!he Institute of raw an:! Government evolved fran the Institute of Public Affairs an:! the Bureau of Public Administration established in 1927 an:! 1954, respectively. Only recently was the Institute's name changed to the carl vinson Institute of Government.
'!he mission of the carl Vinson Institute of Government is to ilnprove the urrlerstarrling, policy making, an:! administration of government in Georgia an:! other states. In carryinJ out this mission, the Institute engages in a fourfold program of continuing education an:! sel:Vice for public officials an:!
canununity leaders. '!his includes traininJ programs an:! seminars: research on
public policy issues an:! laws affectinJ state an:! local governments: technical assistance to Georgia state an:! local governments, including school districts: an:! a governmental education program sel:VinJ students, educators, an:! the public at large.
Continuing education programs are offered throughout the state for an extremely large variety of local government officials. Education fonnats include management development programs, workshops, an:! SPeCial certification programs for locally elected officials.
'!he Vinson Institute maintains close relations with the Georgia Munici-
Pal Association an:! the Association of Colmty Commissioners of Georgia. With
these organizations, it offers orientation programs for newly-elected officials, continuing education programs at their annual an:! semi-annual conferences, an:! a Leadership Institute. It also supports their Joint Legislative Policy Committee on annexation an:! tax equity policy.
Public school systems are sel:Ved by short courses an:! workshops for teachers on Georgia studies, u.s. an:! state Constitutions an:! the Bicentennial, presidential elections, an:! law education. Textbooks for secondary schools are published on local government, Georgia history, an:! Georgia law.
'!he education, policy research, an:! technical sel:Vices result in several publication sel:Vices. '!hey include hanftx:>oks for the Georgia legislature, state agencies, mayors an:! city council members, county commissioners,
405

sheriffs, an:! tax cammissioners. A policy research series is published for the state legislature. Georgia an:! other state an:! local goverrnnents receive the state an:! IJ::x:::al Goverrnnent Review, a jOUD'lal for the interd1ange of ideas between public administration practitioners an:! academics.
'!he Institute of canmunity an:! Area Develq:m:mt (leAD) was founded in 1961 as a service unit of '!he University of Georgia. since that time, leAD has striven to PrOVide research, consultation, an:! other services related to the management of growth an:! develq:m:mt of COlIIl'lI.Uli.ties in Georgia with the objective of inprovin;J the quality of life of Georgia citizens. In other words, leAD concentrates the expertise of faculty members (on joint staff academic appointm:mts) fram 16 academic disciplines on activities which will better prepare the citizens, cities, an:! counties of Georgia for the challenges of today an:! t.c:m::>rrow by assistin;J canum.mi.ty organizations, local goverrnnent groups, legislative camni.ttees an:! state agencies.
In canyin;J out its broad multidisciplinary mission, leAD has organized its work into five content areas: canum.mi.ty develq.ment an:! growth management, economic development, natural :resources, recreation, an:! human resources. usin;J a team approach to project management, leAD faculty resources are used to support research an:! service activities within these six areas.
In 1953 the Marine Institute was established to inplement research programs for faculty an:! graduate students on sapelo Island. From this initial interest in marine work, '!he Marine Extension 8el:vice developed. It has worked since 1970 to define the needs of constituencies in six coastal C01.ll1ties and to generate and disseminate the kin:i of multi-disciplinary infonnation needed to solve the complex problems of seafood processors, c:ornrrercial and recreational fishennen, an:! the coastal tourist imustiy. '!his multi-disciplinary approach tailored to irrlividual needs also is used to provide marine education for teachers an:! students at all levels from virtually every county in the state. '!he Marine Extension activities in advisol:Y services, education and trainin;J, an:! field services are carried out fram Athens, Atlanta, Brunswick an:! Skidaway Islan:!.
In 1975 the College of Agriculture established an office for international programs because of the growin;J deman:l for agricultural technology throughout the world, especially in 'Ihird World C01.ll1tries. '!he deman:l for services fram the University caused the office to be transferred under the Vice President for 8el:vices in 1977, becaning then the Office of International Development. It presently serves as liaison between the University and ministries an:! educational institutions in other countries and initiates and facilitates the preparation of menoraOOa of agreement between the University an:! the foreign agencies. It seeks ways to answer academic an:! technological requests of developin;J COlmtries through the expertise available in the faculty, programs an:! services of the University. 8el:vices are delivered directly to potential recipients or through goverrnnental agencies, consortia, visitors' councils or private groups with united states government, private or international fun:ling. Management is provided for domestic
arrljor international agencies who place foreign nationals in u. s. univer-
sities for short-tenn and degree-trainin;J programs. In addition, the office
406

works with other units of the University to encourage am enhance an international perspective am the preparation of students to function in a global
econc:my.
In the same year, 1977, the small Business Developnent center, (SBI:X:) was established as an innovative, university-based service effort which provides counselirq, management trainirq, conti.nu.i.rg education, procurement
networking, applied am basic research, am advocacy to small businesses am prospective entrepreneurs through a statewide network of district am
regiOnal centers. In 1983, the Institute for Business was f01.lIXled to serve
as the cxx:>rdinatirq unit for the statewide networks of the SBI:X: am as a
corporate education program to develop relationships between '!he University
of Georgia am the business c:anmmi.ty. 'Ihree of its st.roI'qest efforts are in minority business developnent, rural econanic develop:nent, am technology
transfer.
'!he J. W. Farming leadership Developnent center was established in 1983. Its stated mission is to facilitate the developnent of effective c:anmmi.ty leaders throughout Georgia. In fulfillirq this mission, the leadership center is involved in a variety of leadership developnent activities. '!hese
include assisting c:anmmi.ties in establi.shin;J new leadership programs am enhancirq existirq ones. It also involves planniI'q am con:luctirq canununity leadership conferences, workshops, seminars, am retreats. '!he leadership
center also serves as a link with c:anmmi.ties involved in leadership develop-
ment programs am those individuals am institutions best able to meet the educational am trainirq needs identified by a:mnunities. '!he leadership
center serves the newly established Georgia Association of Community leadership Organizations (GACID) as staff for p.1blishiI'q newsletters, overseeing
the planniI'q of an annual conference, am assuring the continued existence of
the organization. '!he center also focuses on minority leadership development.
Finally, two organizations serve the p.1blic in a unique manner - 'nle
University of Georgia Museum of Natural History am the state Botanical
Garden of Georgia.
'!he seven scientific collections that constitute the Museum of Natural
History represent the definitive base for the historical, cultural, am
natural heritage of the state of Georgia. '!he Museum is the third largest in
the southeast am one of the top fifty in the nation. '!he collections
annually provide thousands of specimens on loan to researchers across the
nation am resporxi to thousands of infonnation am teclmical service requests
throughout the Southeast. '!he collections are visited by over 400 scholars each year in pursuit of their research.
'!he University's Botanical Garden has been named by the Georgia Assembly as the state Botanical Garden of Georgia. It is the crown jewel of the campus. '!he 293 acres which carrprise the Garden contain over five miles of hikirq trails so that the thousands of visitors who visit annually can
experience the variety that make up this worxier of lan::iscape am horti-
cultural development. '!he garden's 10,000 square foot Callaway Buildllq is
the settirq for conferences, seminars, receptions am garden club meetirqs.
407

'll1.e magnificent Visitor's center/Conservato:ry, canpleted in 1984, is a glass palace that contains more than one-half acre of floor space which includes a conservato:ry housing tropical ani semi-tropical plants. Close to 100,000 people visit the Conservato:ry annually.
What has been presented up to this point are those programs - but for the Cooperative Extension Service - that are the direct responsibility of the Office of the Vice President for Services. yet, IXililic service programs exist in all the University's schools ani Colleges (except the Graduate SChool) .
As has been nerrtioned, the largest ani oldest service program is the Cooperative Extension Service, which exists Ul"rler the College of Agriculture. Following this in size is the service program of the College of Education.
'!he College has programs ani activities for continuing interactions with all 186 school superinten:ients in Georgia ani with the Georgia Department of Education. '!he College also comucts extensive service activities, including off-campus ani cooperative programs. Included aIt::>n3' the College's service goals are efforts to provide for staff development, curricul'lml development, advisement, research, ani evaluation for institutions ani organizations
engaged in education, including schools ani other settings where tea~ am
leanring are a significant focus. Collaboration with government agencies
(including the state Department of Education am the state Department of
Human Resources), with local schools ani agencies, ani with school ani agency personnel for the improvement of education is an important vehicle for addressing this goal.
'll1.e service program of the College is the focal point of collaboration with schools. Included in this catego:ry is the College's commitment to providin:J educational opportunities at the three resident centers in Gwinnett County, Macon, ani Dahlonega. Each unit of the College of Education has an
opportunity to identify with am contribute to the centers. A special effort has been made to define the faculty role in public service productivity am to develop a reward am recognition structure for public service accomplishments in orner to place the service mission on a secure am consistent
footing.
'!he SChool of Forest Resources in cooperation with the Cooperative Extension Service is involved in service programs vitally important to the economic development of the state - Extension Forest Resources ani Extension
Aquaculture am Fisheries, both of which are departments in the Extension
Service.
'!he mission of the Extension Forest Resources Department is to educate
Georgia laniowners am their advisors, lani managers, loggers, wood products processors, agribusiness finns, arborists, harreowners, am the general public on pertinent forest:ry forest products am wildlife management topics. 'll1.e goal of the Aquaculture am Fisheries Department is to be the focal point for educational services to facilitate the growth of the aquaculture indust:ry am
provide leadership in the development of programs that will aid in a steady
am progressive growth. In developing am inplementing educational programs
408

of CCIIIl1Dl1 interests, deparbnental staff cooperate with other research
teachin;J ani sel:Vice units within '!he university of Georgia, federal am state agencies, am professional am private associations.
'!he College of Hane Econanics is vitally involved in sel:Ving the people
of Georgia through programs of consultation am tedmical assistance that are
carried out through the Cooperative Extension 5eJ:Vice. In addition, the
faculty cxmtribute to am provide leadership for graJpS am organizations concerned with each facet of a family's life am problems, including excep-
tional ani mentally retarded d1i.l.dren, adolescence, marriage, ani gerontology.
A further thn1st of the college is the develcpnent ani inplementation of continuing education programs such as conferences, institute seminars, workshops, ani short courses. 'Ihese programs are designed for professionals ani paraprofessionals involved in hane-econani.cs related positions in
business, education, am gove:rrnnental am Professional organizations.
In a professional college such as that of the College of veterinary Medicine, the traditional responsibilities of teadling, research ani sel:Vice are very meaningful to the citizens of Georgia. A four-part sel:Vice program is offered by the college: diagnostic sel:Vices, continuing education
prograns, faculty consultation, am the animal health tedmician program with Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College am Fort Valley state College.
'!he college's diagnostic laboratories in Tifton ani Athens are deeply
involved in cases which affect the health of t:.housarrls of livestock am
campanion animals. '!he College carries out programs of continuing education
am off-campus workshops for Georgia practitioners ani animal groups. '!he
College also has a strorg working arran:;Jement with the Extension 5eJ:Vice to
provide infonnation am staff resources on an as-needed basis for livestock
ani poultry owners throughout the state.
A large ran:Je of sel:Vices emanate fran the SChool of Social Work to a variety of htnnan sel:Vice fields of social work practice. Programs include workshops for employees of child residential centers, consultation to
cannnittees regarding the nature ani extent of their social problems, am workshops for adoption am foster-care workers, child abuse am neglect
prograns, ani divorce mediation training. Many of the SChool's sel:Vice activities are provided through its continuing education prograns for professionals in social work.
'!he College of Business Administration carries out an active program of
p.lblic sel:Vice which interacts with business am professional persons in the
local, state, national, ani international ccmnunities. '!he College harxlles this interaction primarily through high quality ani highly visible continuing
education prograns that attract participants fran leading private am p.lblic organizations throughout the nation am world.
Although the College of Rlannacy has had a productive extension am sel:Vice program for many years, the program took on new meaning am responsibilities in 1987, when the Georgia state Board of Fhannacy marrlated
409

required continuin:J education for Jilarmacists for relicensure. New q:.por-
tunities for programnin;J am irx::reased Jilarmacists' participation resulted
fram this regulation. As a result, the College has intensified its efforts
toward meetirg the postgraduate educational needs of practitioners am has extemed programnin;J to se!:Ve the Jilarmacists am thus, the public good.
Currently offered certificate programs am those in plarming stages provide new am excitirg q:.porb.mi.ties for developirg practitioner ~tence am expertise. In addition to postgraduate continuin:J education for ~
macists, the se!:Vice Pl=ograDl offers educational cgx>rbmities to other health
practitioners, educational p~rams for the lay public, am se!:Vice to health related associations, organization, am local c:::ammrlty units.
other features of our se!:Vice program include a drug infonnation center con::iucted jointly with the Medical College of Georgia, clinical consultations se!:Vices, drug identification se!:Vices, career q:.porbmity programnin;J, and
public affairs messages pertainirg to phannaceuticals am health care.
'!he College of JOllnlalism am Mass camnunication provides se!:Vices for the c:arm.mi.cation irrlustries am professions, business finns, state agencies,
am secorxlary schools. '!he renowned Georgia Foster Peabody Radio am Tele-
vision Awards is a primary exarrple of the many institutes am conferences
that unite the se!:Vice am instructional functions of the College. Annually
the College sponsors such programs as the Georgia Association of Broadcasters
am '!he Georgia Press Association Institute. 'Ihrough the Georgia Scholastic
Press Association '!he College brinJs m:>re than 1500 ycJI.ln3' jOllnlalists to the canp.1S each year. In addition, faculty members also hold camrnuni.cation workshops in high schools throughout the state.
For many years, the law School has maintained three successful clinical
programs that have provided inportant camrnuni.ty se!:Vices am have se!:Ved as
trainirg grounjs for students-the I.egal Aid Clinic, the Prisoner Legal
Counselirg Program, am the Prosecutorial Clinic. '!he SChool also runs two
continuirg education programs, furrled fram sources outside the University. organized in 1965, the Institute of Continuing Legal Education has corrlucted programs for the continuin:J legal education of lawyers in Georgia. In 1984 continuirg legal education became mamatory in the state. since that time it has experienced a 250% growth in p~. '!he state Bar furrls all p~. '!he Institute of Continuin:J Judicial Education corrlucts a large variety of programs for judges throughout the state. '!he number of its participants are
equalled only by Michigan, New York am califonrla. '!he state SUpreme Court
furrls all programs.
'!he se!:Vice program of the School of Environmental Design provides continuirg envirornnental design education for the general public as well as
design professionals am public administrators through workshops, conferences
am seminars; provides t:echni.cal assistance to organizations, agencies am institutions through surveys, in-sexvice trainirg programs am consultations;
develops plarming am design concepts for camrnuni.ties; provides research on
envirornnenta1 design probleIl5; am develops new knowledge which will
contribute to a better umerstan:li.rg of the Iilysical environment am the
practice of laMscape architecture am historic preservation.
410

'!he nature of the school's activities is diverse. services may be provided directly by faculty Il'e.Illbers, or through students worki.I'g urrler the direction of faculty. Irxiirectly, the school provides sm:vice through faculty who are joint-staffed with such university sm:vice units as the
Cooperative Extension service am the Institute of cemnunity am Area
Developnent.
'!he Franklin COllege of Arts am SCiences, the largest academic unit on
cartpJS, plays a leadi.n;J role in the sm:vice program of '!he University of Georgia.
Faculty members fran the departments of the Franklin COllege sm:ve on
cannnittees am on governing l:x:lards of organizations throughout the state. In
addition, they are often called upon to act as oonsultants at all levels of
local, state am national affairs am by govennnent am in::iustry for answers
to particular problems. In same cases, the sm:vice is organized, as in the statistics department's statistical COnsulting service; however, most
consultation am teaching is done on an irrlividual basis, as is the case with instruction in various non-degree course conferences am short courses
offered at the Georgia center for continuing Education.
In addition, faculty of Franklin COllege are expected to participate on a regular basis in the activities related to their disciplines of secorrlal:y
education institutions am organizations, such as science fairs, social science fairs am accreditation am evaluation of academic programs.
Finally, faculty fran the division of fine arts are continually rerxiering cultural sm:vices in the form of Glee Club tours, ensemble perfonnances,
theatre presentations am painting am plastic art exh.il:>its throughout the state am region.
A rn.nnber of members of the Franklin COllege faculty are joint-staffed
with sm:vice units, such as the Institutes of Govennnent, cemnunity am Area Developnent, Ecology, am Natural Resources. In each of these institutes the faculty members are budgeted for sm:vice work am for academic teaching.
SUch joint-staffed faculty can thus bring the benefits of their disciplines to the entire state.
'!he psychology deparbnent operates a clinic which offers a variety of
psychological sm:vices to irrlividuals on an out-patient basis, am also provides psychological, intelligence am vocational testing for irrlividuals am various government agencies.
In many ways the public sm:vice am extension function of the University is responsible for the growth of the university System am for continually
worki.I'g with other units within the System. A1:x:we all else, the most formidable influence is the CCl\IDty extension director's office in every CCl\IDty in the state. It acts as a source of adult education for the citizens of the state. In addition to this, however, is the joint-staffing relationship that the Georgia center has with System institutions aroun:l the state.
Many two-am four-year institutions in the University System owe their
existence to the work of the Georgia center for continuing Education. In the same manner, the Small Business Developnent center has branch offices in
411

thirteen different cities throughout the state, the headquarters for which is often the local college or university.
Finally, the sel:Vice programs of '!he University of Georgia operate when feasible with other units of the University System, especially when their work involves the geographical area of the local institution. Examples of this can be fourxi in work with Georgia Tech, Georgia Southern, Valdosta state, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, am others.
:Knowledge is an intellectual resource for the welfare of society. In the case of '!he University of Georgia, it is true for the people of the state, for p.Jblic am private organizational developnent, am for development of a broad-based system of education that since 1931 has been known as '!he University System of Georgia.
ffiGHER EDJCATICE IN FURESIRY
A recently completed Southwide study provided a forecast of Georgia's ti1nberlam inventories, removals am future growth am revealed that the forested area of the state could decline from the current 23.5 million acres to 21. 8 million acres by 2030. '!he study revealed that several excellent opportunities exist to increase tiJnber supplies.
With an eye on the future, however, it is Georgia's fourth forest that is the subject of this report. It is the forest that is being established today to reach maturity beyond the tun1 of the centw:y. '!he actions taken now by foresters, lamowners, irrlustrialists am others directly involved will detennine whether anticipated demarrl for wood in the twenty-first centw:y will be adequately satisfied.
'IWo-thirds of Georgia's lam area is in forests am 64 percent of that vast acreage is the property of imividual lamowners. No state has a greater area devoted to forests or lOOre ti1nberlam owned by private citizens. '!he problem: no control over private owners-no education either.
Today, the high production of Georgia's 15 pulp am paper mills is an achievement that has made Georgia the nation's leader in the manufacture of paper.
O1an3'es in tiJnber resources in Georgia will be detennined in large measure by expansion in population, changes in ti1nberlam area, income and economic activities, am the intensity of management am the subsequent yield affected by that intensification.
'!he levels of activity am long-run growth of the inpJrtant tiJnberproducts markets are also deperrlent mainly on the overall strength of the U. S. economy. Analysis by the Bureau of Economic Analysis predicts a gross national product of $5,440 billion (1982 dollars) in 2000 and a further increase to $10,400 billion in 2030 - nearly triple the current level of nearly $3,575 billion. '!he associated projection of per-capita gross national product will rise to $20,300 in 2020, or 2.3 times the average in 1985.
412

Develq:mant of other panel products, such as structural wafe:ri::loard an::l oriented stram board, has resulted in displacement of plywood for many of the same uses in which it earlier replaced 1l.ll'liJer. Four oriented stram board plants are beirg OOilt in Georgia at the present time.
An analysis based on projections of the factors that detennine long-:run deman:ls for new housirg units--household fo:rmations, replacement of units lost fran the housirg stock, an::l mai.ntenarx:e of an inventory of vacant units
- inllcated that a high level of demand will continue through the ern of the
century.
Pcp.1lation growth will tern. to :reduce the tiniJer growirg lan::l base an::l an increased demand for in:lustrial products an::l fue1wood will lead to greater harvests an::l reduced inventory mlless other factors occur.
Between 1961 an::l 1972, ccmnercial timberlam declined by 1.0 million acres. '!he latest inventory inllcates that the declining trem is continuing an::l perllaps aa:::eleratirg. Commercial timberlan::l area dl:oppel by 1.1 million acres between 1972 an::l 1982. Commercial tiInberlan::l now totals about 23.5 million acres - slightly below 1953 levels - am covers 64 percent of Georgia's 1an::l.
Total tiInberlan::l in Georgia coold decline fran about 23.5 million acres in 1985 to 21.8 million acres in 2030.
Uplam hardwood acreage in Georgia is expected to decrease slightly in Georgia fran 5.98 million acres in 1985 to 5.65 million acres in 2030.
mGIER EDJCATICN IN AGRICIJUlURE
Today, Georgia's agriculturejagribusiness c::x:rrplex is its largest imustry, employirg Irore than a fourth of the state's labor force. Agri-
cultural enterprises cx::cupy a1.Ioost 25 percent of the state's lan::l area, an::l
provide the bulk of raw materials for its p:rocessirg an::l manufacturirg finns.
Georgia agriculture is diverse, with current fann cash receipts of Irore than $3.5 billion, a1.Ioost evenly divided between crops am livestock. In addition, the state boasts the largest camnercial forest acreage in the nation. Agribusiness operations p.mp $15 billion into the state's economy every year am forestry adds another $8+ billion.
But Georgia agriculture doesn't exist in a vacutm\, isolated from d~c, social, economic an::l political trerrls that affect the rest of society. Am:>ng those that are likely to have a continuing iInpact on the College of agriculture an::l the state of Georgia include an increase in population as a result of in-migration fran all parts of the CO\.ll1try, a decrease in the age group fran which the College has traditionally drawn its students, a change in fann stnlcture to fewer am larger operations with fewer full-time fanners, a citizenry that is generally older, Irore urban an::l Irore hea1th-conscious, an::l an increased dePenjence on TNOrldwide inten1ational trade with danestic prices of agricultural O::Xlillalities beirg influenced by export sales.
413

'lherefo:re, if Georgia is to remain as one of the leadi.rg states in the
Southeast am continue to contri.b.rt:e significantly to the national am
international outp.rt in agriculture, the state l\'I.1St fcx::us attention on higher education in agriculture for its citizens. It is IOOSt appropriate to consider seriously the future thrusts for the College of Agriculture programs.
A :recent needs assessment study showed an tmUSUally strong demarxi for
agricultural graduates in Georgia. Presently there are 3.3 jobs available for fiNery agricultural graduate. '!his annual demarx:l for over 1400 agricultural graduates is expected to continue through the early 1990s.
SCientists, engineers, managers, sales representatives am marketing
specialists will aCCOlD'lt for three-fourths of the total Georgia errployment
openings for new college graduates with expertise in food am agriculture.
Nesi 'IhnJsts far the '1'eacJl:iDJ Pnxu:am.
Alter curricula am dfiNelop programs to better prepare graduates to compete in current am future irxlustrial, ccmnercial, public agency am
private practice careers.
Integrate international ~is in agricultural education.
Research thrusts to keep Georgia agriculture strong have been identified by the Georgia Agricultural Experiment stations. '!he priority :research thrusts for the early 1990s are:
1. New Fanning Systems (production efficiency, profitability, am environ-
mental sustainability): '!his research thrust will dfiNelop new technolCXJies aimed at reducing costs per production unit, increasing the
value per unit produced am enhancing environmental quality.
2. New Market Penetration. Agricultural Policy. Value-added. New Crops, and New Product Development: Georgia's agriculture is primarily a raw product production agriculture. Diversification of the state's agri-
cultural iroustry must c:xx:ur. New crops am ccmoodities must be
identified for Georgia's agriculture. New markets must be found and
iIrproved, am agricultural policy must be dfiNeloped for the state and
nation.
3. Genetic InJProvement and Biotechnolcgy (plants, animals, processed foods
am biolCXJical control of pests): Exparrled research in the genetic inprovements of plants am animals am biotechnology is the key to
unlocking the dc:x:>r to a new agriculture for Georgia. New research tc:x:>ls
using :recanbinant INA, cell fusion, tissue culture, am other techniques I'lCM make it possible to identify am isolate genetic components respon-
sible for specific desirable traits, rerocwed from one species and introduced into another inportant agricultural species. New innovative
plant am animal breeding techniques, biolCXJical controls and irxlustrial
bioprocessing will inprove production efficiency, add to profitability
am provide for enviromnental sustainability.
414

4. Natural Resource Management (use, protection am quality): Research
efforts will be directed. toward develop:in3 an ~ of the
interactions between natural resources am agricultural systems for efficient utilization am protection of the state's valuable water, soil
am air resources.
5. Management of crop Pests (dj seases, insects, nematodes, weeds, am wildlife): Research will be aimed at lower:in3 unit production costs am reduc:in3 environmental am human risks by develop:in3 procedures to manage pest popJ.1ations, minimiz:in3 toxic dlemi.cal usage, am making full utilization of natural am biological pcp.1lation management
strategies.
6. carp.rters Robotics Artificial Intelligence Bioergineering am Energy
Systems: Research will fcx::us on the develcprent of c::arpxter-based
decisions suwort systems for new fanni.n;J systems; sensors am flexible
autanation with intelligent machines for crop production am processim; interfac:in3 of biotechnology am en;Jineer:in3 knowledge bases for efficient alternative processes; am autanatic process control for inprovim energy conservation am enviromnental quality.
7. Aquaculture: Georgia is ideally suited, geograJ;irlcally am environ-
mentally, for the developnent of an econanically viable aquaculture iOOustry.
8. Impact of Cyclic Weather Patterns am Global Climate Cbange on Aqri-
culture: '!he developlElt of appropriate technologies, adaptive species
am new production systems to ext:errl agriculture's ability to adapt to
altered envirornnental corxlitions is an i.nq:x:>rtant new research thrust and an essential part of assessim the security of our food. production system.
'!he nine priority program initiatives for Extension are multidisciplinary in
approach am brim together resources fran various extension deparbnents and
units.
1. Rural Revitalization: Diversity anv:>n;J roral ccmnuni.ties makes the task of designing roral revitalization policy difficult. critical issues include the diminishing econanic canpetitiveness of roral areas,
deperrlence on tcx:> few incane soorces, growim service demands ac::cc.arpmied by diminishing resources, adjustim to the impacts of ~e, need for skilled c:::cmmmi.ty leadership, am quality of the
natural resource base.
2. CClnpetitiveness and Profitability of Agriculture: Future profitability
will depen:l on maintain:in3 c::x:ttt:letitiveness in national am global
econanies. Educational prograns in production management, financial management, marketim, and public policy must be integrated and targeted toward the fanner if agriculture is to return to the high profitability of the 1970s.
415

3. Alternative Agricultural Ogx>rtuni.ties: Farm am roral youth must rethink their futures, am alon;J with current fanrers, consider:
diversification of practices anVor products; converting' to other enterprises, either traditional crops or alternatives; adding value to
products through enterprises such as on-fann processing'; am seeking
off-fann errployment.
4. ConserJation am Management of Natural Resources: Enlightened management am use of natural resources are vital in inproving' envirornnental
quality am the health am wel.l-beirg of families am camnunities. '!he
challerge is to integrate natural resources management-to enhance and exparrl natural resources while develq>irg their econanic POtential to
the benefit of people am CCIlIlI.D'lities.
5. Water Ollality am ConserJation: '!he potential for contamination of
Georgia's water supply is real. Millions of poun::Js of chemicals are used annually; sane of these reach grourxi water or surface water resources. Agricultural nonpoint-source pollution has been identified as a major cause of failure to achieve state water quality goals.
Critical issues include ~lic urxlerstanling of the nature am inpor-
tance of water resources, the ilrplcts of chemicals on the water supply,
am water conservation.
6. allldirg am Develgpi.n;] Human capital: Georgia's (am America's)
success :rests on the capabilities of its people. Families am fonnal
am nonfonnal educational systems ccmbine to build htnnan capital. '!he
nonfonnal educational process-provided by the Extension service-is the focus of this initiative. Critical issues include preparation and
transition (career decisions, updating TNOrk skills am exparrling
opportunities); preparing youth for responsibility; developing leaders;
am :renewing volunteerism.
7. Improvi.n;] Nutrition. Diet am Health: More am m:>re, diet is a possible
risk factor in health problens. '!his fact has two consequences: demand
for agricultural products has changed am the need for reliable advice
on diet has increased. Critical issues include dietazy practices
related to lifestyle factors am health; am confidence in the safety, quality, am c::c:rrposition of the food supply.
8. Increasi.n;] Family Economic am EIrotional Well-Bei.n;]: Families will
continue to face rapid changes as society adjusts to technological
advances, new errployxrent patterns, am demograIillc am economic changes.
Critical issues include family financial instability, family disruption
am dislocation; am responsibility for deperrlent elderly.
9. Youth at Risk: Children in families confronted with the stress of
poverty, Ul'1E!Il1?loyment, family disorganization, am inexperience are at
risk of abuse, neglect, academic unier achievement, am behavior
problens. Critical issues include poor self esteem, lack of ineffective
parenting skills, child abuse am neglect, career exploration, peer
inflUence, am camnunications.
416

CDrux;E OF mJCATIW
'!he university of Georgia's COllege of Education is one of the largest am IOOSt clistinJuished colleges of education to be fourrl in large, lam grant universities classified as Research I in the 1987 <::anlegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. For exanple, the results of two recent smveys of research am scholarly productivity placed the COllege of Education anor3' the top 14 such institutions in the nation.
with an enrollment of about 3,600 students (equally distributed between ~duate am graduate), the COllege awards awroximately 1,200 degrees each year. Six hurrlred of these are awarded to mrlergraduates, 500 of whom are in teacher education programs. Of the 600 graduate degrees awarded each year, about 120 are doctoral degrees, am the rest are master's am specialist degrees. Graduates of the COllege of Education receive about 40 percent of all the doctorates awarded annually by '!he university of Georgia.
'!he COllege of Education plays a highly significant role in elementaI:y
am sec::oroary education in Georgia. '!he teacher education programs of the
COllege are clistinJuished for their subject-specific orientation am their supervised field work. Because we offer advanced graduate am doctoral work, strorqly based in scholarship am research, the state of Georgia also looks to '!he university of Georgia for the conti.rn.rlrg professional develc:pnent of teachers am for the preparation am professional develcpnent of school leadership PersOnnel. '!he COllege has prograns am activities for continuing interactions with all 186 school superi.nterrlents in Georgia am with the Georgia Department of Education.
set:vice Goals
Artorq the service goals are efforts to provide for staff development, curriculum development, advisement, research, am evaluation for institutions am organizations en;aged in education, includ:il'J schools am other settings where teaching am learning are a significant focus. COllaboration with government agencies (including the state Department of Education am the state Department of Human Resources), with local schools am agencies, am with school am agency PersOnnel for the improvement of education is an important vehicle for addressing this goal.
'!he role of the COllege of Education in Georgia's lam grant university is to reaffinn the lam grant tradition of integrating the three functions of inst.ro.ction, service, am researc:h. AcccInplishing these broad goals means that the COllege is influenced by the two principles of CCI'l'prehensiveness am exemplariness. In the lam grant tradition, CCI'l'prehensiveness means that the COllege has the duty to utilize its capabilities to address issues of teaching, learning, am human resource developnent wherever they occur: in schools anor3' plpils of traditional age am anor3' adults as irrlividuals am within organizations such as irrlustry, cx:mmmity service, am the militaI:y. '!he principle of exemplariness refers to the developnent am refinement of IOOdels. '!he programs of the COllege are urrler constant m::x:lification, evolution, am experimentation.
417

As part of the lam grant mllversity in the state, the College has a special obligation to offer programs of instnIction, research, am sel:Vice to meet the needs of the citizens of Georgia. C11arges presently occurri.ng' in the college, mllversity, state, am nation provide a major cgx>rtunity for the COllege of Education to renew its mission in the light of these influences. Of the several such influences, four are aItlined here.
First, education at all levels (am especially K-12) is now perceiVed as both the drivi.ng' force am the 1i1ni.~ factor in econanic develq::ment am inproved quality of life. '!he challeRJe to educators is to help a larger portion of our citizens to reach higher levels of achievement than ever before. within the :framework of national efforts at refonn, Georgia's Quality Basic Education (QBE) law is the focal point of revitalized interest
in inprovi.ng' the quality of elementary am secomary education in our state.
'Ihrough its COllege of Education, '!he university of Georgia is obligated to provide revitalized programs for the preparation of teachers am school administrators, am to contribute in other ways to the successful inplementation of refonn efforts.
SE!CX>l'Xl, learning is becomin;J widely recognized as a lifelorq, developnental errleavor. '!he nature am scope of education am traini.ng' that is provided outside traditional school settirqs have ~ed dramatically in recent years. Business am irrlustJ:y, hospitals, p.1blic agencies, am the milita1:y all design am can:y out extensive instructional programs for their e.rrployees am clients. '!his expansion of fonnal education into settirqs outside of schools has created a substantial need for highly trained professionals who have the requisite knowledge am skill to design am inplement instnIctional traini.ng' programs in these I1E!W' settirqs. Moreover, traditional
elementary am secoroary schools are bei.ng' influenced by this trend. Although
schools were designed to be places where children lean1 am develop, they are increasi.ng'ly bei.ng' recognized as places where adults lean1 am develop as well. '!his changed persPective affects greatly how we think about teachers am other school PersOnnel, their roles, am their continui.ng' needs for professional develq::ment.
'Ihird, a major shift in enp,asis fran curative to preventive factors is occurri.ng' in all htnnan sel:Vice professions inclucli.rq p.1blic school education, health care, mental health, youth sel:Vices, am htnnan resource develcpnent. '!he emergence of the wellness IlJVement reflects this shift with its enp,asis on prevention. As a direct outgrowth of the demarrl for prevention sel:Vice, increasi.ng' clemarxis are bei.ng' made on the College of Education fran a broad rarqe of in::lividuals am institutions for the functional skills am knowledge we can provide. Although the College has always respoIXled to such demands consistent with the lam grant tradition, these demands have increased significantly in recent years. 'Ihese increasi.ng' demands affect schools significantly as the general society looks toward traditional education settirqs to address such issues as AIm education am prevention for dnlg am alcohol abuse, pregnancy, am suicide am::>rq youth. A growi.ng' demarrl for prekiIXlergarten am after-sch.ool programs that utilize school facilities also reflects this phenarenon. Recognizi.ng' that these issues are not confined to schools alone, it is not sw:prisi.ng' that educators fim themselves involved
418

i.ncreasin;JIY in providin; similar set:Vices to CCllI'l'I.mi.ty, business, and military groups.
In order for young people to be successful in later life, there is a nea::i to eI11.i1aSize education that occurs in early childhood and in the middle school. '!he patterns of educational ad1i.evement and IIDtivation established at an early age st.ron;Jly influ.erx:e develcpnent c:Ner a lifet.iIre. 'Ihis heightened sense of significance of early education is complicated by c.harqin;J corrli.tions in the state and nation (e.g. teamer ret:irem:mts, deJOOgraIiri.cs, c.harqin;J social con:litions). !ti:lreover, to achieve better results fran schools, \tie need to produce 11Dre successful classroan teachers. As a result, new m:::x:iel.s of public education are ~. Moreover, the state and national concern with early and middle childhood, \tie likely result in increased fun::li.n;J and an increased demaIxi for <:X:ll'petent professionals.
'Ihis initiative has a rn.nnber of facets. several programs and depart-
ments will be involved in developin;J m:::x:iel. programs for the general education of teachers. 'Ihi.s effort will be complemented by m:::x:iel. programs for the preparation and use of subject area specialists to team at the elementary
and middle school level.
Elementary schools in Georgia typically have not had counselors, but the state's ~ity Basic Education Act roN requires them. Not only will this create a new demaIxi, but different programs for sum counselors are needed to prepare these in:tivicluals for redefined roles in the light of c.harqin;J social corrli.tions. Additionally, programs addressin;J issues of health, nutrition, and fitness will also be engaged in the early childhood, middle childhood, and counselor initiative.
Focused programs for school leadership personnel at the elementary school level are also needed. '!hese are discussed 11Dre fully below.
Public schools are i.ncreasin;Jly becani..nJ sites for pre-kin:iergarten and
after-school programs. Federal legislation is acx:elerating this Iilenamenon. '!hus, nea::is and c::g:x:>rtunities are arising for pre-school and exterrled education. Programs for special education and ];i1ysical education will need to address education in non-traditional school fonnats.
strategic plarming at its best calls for the College of Education, as a professional school, to develop irmovative ways to interact with the schools and other external institutions and organizations it set:Ves.
'!he set:Vice program of the College is the fcx::al point of collaboration with schools. Included in the category is the College's cxmni:t::nent to providin; educational c::g:x:>rtunities at the three resident centers in <;winnett County, Macon, and Dahlonega. Each tmit of the College of Education will have an c::g:x:>rtunity to identify with and contribute to the centers. A special effort will be made to define the faculty role in public set:Vice productivity and to develop a reward and recognition structure for public set:Vice accc::mplishments in order to place the set:Vice mission on a secure and consistent footin;J.
419

A major service thrust will be in the area. of hmnan resource development, organization developnent, an:i strategic planni.rq. QBE marxtates that local school systens have strategic plans. '!he College of Education has developed specialists who are prepared to use the developnent of strategic plans by local school systens as vehicles for organizational develcpnent and educational inprove.m:mts. 'Ih.is thrust can be integrated with the school inprovement thrust we describe next.
'!he College is l.U'Xlert:akirY an initiative for educational reform and
inprovement in Georgia tl'1roogh the center for Frlucational Excellence. Envisioned here are a variety of university-school partnerships to develop restructured IOOdel.s for school~ an:i to address :furDamental curriculum, staff develcpnent, and instI:uctional developnent needs in nroel schools. '!he Program for SChool Inprovement (PSI) is already un:ieI.way. '!his program approaches inprovement tl'1roogh shared school governance (sanetilnes referred to as teacher empowerment). '!he three school systens with which PSI is working involves the participation of lOOre than 40 faculty members fram the Division of Developnental studies, the School of SOCial Work, the College of Agriculture, an:i the College of Arts an:i SCiences. '!he center for Educational Excellence will sponsor other prcgrams an:i i.ntro-depart:mtal and university approaches that hold pranise for inprov~ school perfonnance an:i success, incll.ldi.n:J the developnent of experimental schools an:i experimental prcgrams within schools.
'Ib assure the inplementation of the aforementioned inprove.m:mts and innovations over the lon;J term, schools will need to operate with a broad
urrlerstan:ii.n of leadership. 'Ih.is thrust, for the developnent of new school
leadership preparation programs, joins traditional approaches to the preparation of school achninistrators with current ideas about leadership (in contrast to manage.m:mt an:i administration) an:i organizational development. '!his thrust recognizes schools as places where adults as well as children lean1 an:i develop. SChool leadership requires not only the achninistrative skills to address J:::ludgets an:i schedules, but also the skills of those who can ItDtivate an:i empower teachers an:i other highly educated professionals. '!he fusion envisioned will integrate program activities address~ leadership issues in different departments in the College of Education with areas of organizational development, management, an:i p.lblic administration.
It was earlier asserted that the challen;Je to America is to educate a larger portion of our citizens to a higher level of achievement. Our economy can not afford to shunt aside a portion of youngsters into unproductive lives. Fran now on, our econanic well-be~ requires that everyone counts and everyone is productive. '!his will mean redoubled efforts to inprove access to education an:i inprove educational success. '!he key to doing this is developing an inproved capacity in schools to lower social, cultural, an:i Plysical barriers to education. Efforts also will be made to work with other CCI1Il'l'IUl1i.ty agencies to deal with at-risk students to address such problems as teen-age pregnancy, AILS, child abuse, latchkey children, literacy, an:i other problems.
'!he concept of lifelong learning requires definition and expression. '!he ag~ of the general population, the phenanenon of multiple career changes, the continuing need for re-training to keep pace with technological
420

innovations, am the am influx of \CIIleI'l inmigrants into the workforce highlight the need for active efforts relatin;J to adult education am
developnent. '!he major thrust we see as part of this initiative is the fonnation of a new program of Human Resource Develop:nent (HRD). 'Ihis effort
will provide orgoin;J cultivation am refinement of an eclectic program. 'Ihe
develop:nent of human resources has becx:me a multibillion-dollar en::leavor in
American goverrment am darrestic am nultinational cc:npmies. A persistent
need exists for "trainer trai.ni.n;J." several COllege of Education faculty
members have trai.ni.n;J am staff develop:nent experience am know firstharrl that the world of teac.hi.rg am trai.ni.n;J have a great deal in CCl1IIllX)n.
Ideally, the proposed HRD thrust will integrate efforts across several
program areas to design, develop, implement, am evaluate trai.ni.n;J am
developnent experiences for adults.
421

llGlTlUDS AND ~
Dr. Cameron Fincher '!he University of Georgia
'Ih.is chapter considers the role arrl scope of institutes arrl centers within mrits of the University System of Georgia. Board of Regents policies concerni.rq the establishment arrl operation of institutes arrl centers are as follCMS:
center: A center provides an organizational base for researd1 in a given academic area or closely related areas. It often provides a vehicle for interdisciplinary researd1 in a given area involviIxj faculty arrl students fran a variety of internal administrative structures. It
may be invelved in the offer~ of conti.nu.in:J education activities
related to its area(s) of interest. '!he "center" stJ:ucture may facilitate efforts of the college or university to obtain extramural furrling in specific areas. It serves as a formalized link between the academic camm.mi.ty arrl the professional camm.mi.ty in the area(s) of focus. A "center," however, is not an aut:ancm:Jus stJ:ucture within the internal statutory organization of a college or mriversity. It is administratively lOOSt often an ~ge of one of the traditional administrative structures, such as a department. A "center" is not invelved in the in:ieperrlent offeriIxj of credit courses or degree programs.
Institute: An "institute" shares the center's focus on researd1, provision of opportunity for interdisciplinary activity, involvement in conti.nu.in;J education activities, value in facilitatiIxj efforts to obtain extramural furrling, arrl service as a link between the academic arrl professional camrm.mities. It is, however, a far IlDre formalized stnlcture arrl may be equivalent to an aut:ancm:Jus mrit within the internal stJ:ucture of the college or university such as a deparbnent, division, school or (mriversity level) college. It will, unlike a "center," be involved in the offeriIxj of credit courses arrl may offer degree programs (Infonnation Item, Board of Regents, November, 1979).
'!he organization of institutes arrl centers for researd1, public service, or trainin:J purposes is a matter of institutional initiative. '!he establishment of an institute or center is an administrative decision involviIxj either the acquisition of external furrls or the internal re-distribution of institutional resources in staff, facilities, arrl equipment. All institutes arrl centers, however, nnJSt be established arrl operated in a manner consistent with Board of Regents policies. In addition to Regents policies, institutes arrl centers should meet st:arx:Iards arrl criteria that are explicit in institutional policies.
Gem:gia state University
Georgia state University has 15 institutes or centers for which EFT staff, Personal 5avices, arrl OperatiIxj Expenses are reported: (a) Center for Business arrl Economic Education, (b) Center for Higher Angular Resolution
422

Astronany, (c) center for Professional Education, (d) center for Public am
Ul:bm Research, (e) center for Research Education, (f) Georgia career
Information center, (g) Gerontology center, (h) Institute of Health Administration, (i) Institute of Irrlustrial Relations, (j) Institute of Interna-
tional aJsiness, (k) Institute of Public Administration, (1) SInall aJsiness Developnent center, (m) Orild Developnent center, (n) Instn1ctional Resource
center, am (0) Productivity center. 'll1e average full-ti.me-equivalent staff for GSU institutes or centers is 4.58 staff members. '!heir personal se:rvices
are budgeted (on the average) for $163,803 an:i operatirg expenses are $7,249 (on the average). 'll1e total budgets (n=15) have an average of $117,052.
'mB[E 1
Institutes am cent:e:rs at Georgia state

EFT staff

Personal Sel:vices

Operatirq Expenses

Total

aJsiness & Economic Educ.
HI Angular Resol. Astronomy
Professional Educ.
Public & Ul:bm Research.
Researd1 Education
GA career Information etr.
Gerontology etr. InstjHealth Admin.
Inst/Iniustrial Relations
Inst/Intemat. aJsiness Inst/Public Admin. SInall aJsiness Dev. etr. Child Dev. etr. Instructional Resource etr. Productivity etr.

1.64 1.69 14.00 4.07 1.20 4.00 6.78 4.97 2.56 2.17 7.72 1.50 10.58 4.82 1.00

54,828 53,859 376,529 190,285 31,334 157,886 240,332 268,157 117,689 46,950 423,230 59,080 296,403 116,138 24,350

3,175 5,000 12,000 5,925
335 2,174 10,000 15,400 7,650 5,600 11,850 4,600
16,576 8,450

58,003 58,859 388,529 196,210 31,669 160,060 250,332 283,557 125,339 52,550 435,080 63,680 296,403 132,714 32,800

Total

68.70 2,457,052

108,735 2,565,787

'!he University of Georgia
'!he University of Georgia has 17 institutes or centers: (a) Institute for Natural Products Rese.arch, (b) Institute of Ecology, (c) Institute of
Natural Resources, (d) Institute for Behavioral Research, (e) center for Applied Isotope Study, (f) Institute for aJsiness, (g) J.W. Fanning community readership Development center, (h) Advanced canputational Methods center, (i) SInall aJsiness Developnent center, (j) Bureau for Educational services, (k)
Institute of Higher Education, (1) Institute of Community an:i Area Developm:mt, (m) carl Vinson Institute of GovemI'l3I1t, (n) International Development,
(0) Marine Institute, (p) Office of Minority aJsiness Enterprises, am (q)
Skid-away Institute of Oceanography. '!he average EFT staff for UGA institutes
423

arrl centers is 14.57 staff members, with averages of $564,642 being budgeted for personal services arrl $89,803 for q:lerating expenses. '!he average total budget for these agencies is $654,444.
TAmE 2
lG\. InstibIt.es am centers

EFT staff

Personal services

Operating Expenses

Total

InstjNatural Prod. Rsch.
InstjEcology
InstjNatural Resources
Inst/Behavioral Rsch. Applied Isotope Study
InstjBusiness Fanning Connn. Idrshp. Dev.
NJv. Ccxrp. Methods etr. Small Business Dev. etr.
Bureau for Educ. services InstjHigher Education
Inst/Ccmnun. & Area Dev. vinson Inst/Govenunent International Dev. Marine Inst.
Minority Business Enter.
Inst/OC:eanography

4.71 9.97 8.26 11.97 2.92 4.00 3.00 13.00 48.10 2.25 13.75 21.13 36.80 2.00 22.32 8.10 35.44

231,051 376,525 395,919 342,317 152,468 240,868 132,318 593,312 1,490,069 122,586 617,820 1,020,305 1,689,020 111,274 590,686 226,475 1,265,895

18,985 25,424 17,210 21,828
43,210 10,700 75,000 58,482
31,245 60,437 83,280 16,519 352,003 107,500 604,823

250,036 401,949 413,129 364,145 152,468 284,078 143,018 668,312 1,548,551 122,586 649,065 1,080,742 1,772,300 127,793 942,689 333,975 1,870,718

Total

247.72 9,598,908 1,526,646 11,125,554

Excluded from Table 2 are Agricultural Experiment stations, Cooperative
Extension service, arrl other canpJS units representing 2,281.31 EFT Staff arrl
combined budgets of $69,590,882 for personal services arrl $16,962,977 for operating expenses.

Georgia InstibIt:e of '1'ectlrx>logy
'!he Georgia Technology Research Institute is the major administrative unit urrler which research is con:iucted at Georgia Tech. '!he total EFT staff (456.88) arrl budgeted :furrls for personal seI:Vices of $20,116,512 arrl
operating expenses of $14,958,929 bring the total budget to $35,075,441.
other institutes arrl centers of the Georgia Institute of Technology are:
(a) Agricultural Research, (b) center for Rehabilitation Technology, (c) Education Extension services, am (d) Advanced Technology Development center. '!he averages co.rrpIted for these four agencies are 29.94 in EFT staff am

424

$1.85 million for personal services an:i operati..n3' expenses. '!he totals for each agency is as follows:

'mB[E 3 other Georgia Tech Agerci.es

EFT staff

Personal set:vices

Total

Agric. Rsch. :Rehab. Tech. Educ. Ext. set:v. JlDN. Tech. Dev. etr.

17.36 12.02 66.98 23.39

796,722 519,611 2,046,025 987,033

190,368 367,313 2,270,688 248,382

987,090 886,924 4,316,713 1,235,415

Total

119.75 4,349,391 3,076,751 7,426,142

'!he research an:i service agencies regarded as institutes an:i centers at Georgia state, UGA, an:i Georgia Tech are extensive. In lOOSt cases agency missions are suggested by their titles, but the specific mission of some centers or institutes is not clear. Without mission state:roonts an:i other infonnation such as the source of :furxiin;J, it is inp:>ssible to detennine the effectiveness with which centers an:i institutes within the University System are meeti..n3' the ~tions of institutional leaders an:i :furxiin;J agencies. It is also i.np:>ssible to assess the ccanpatibility of institute and center missions with institutional an:i Board of Regents policies, a factor that should be paranomt in the periodic evaluation of each center and institute.
'!he same criticism can be directed to centers that have been established in other mrits of the University System. Mission-oriented agencies have been organized and funded in nine other institutions. '!hese agencies involved at least 45 EFT staff members and budgets totaling $1.45 million in personal service and a1.Irost $400 thousarrl dollars in operating expenses. '!he total budget for all such additional agencies exceeds 1.85 million dollars.

:Eblicies ani Criteria
'!he confusing role of institutes an:i centers within mrits of the University System of Georgia could be reduced by a careful re-working of
institutional policies that: (1) interpret too liberally Regents policies for
their organization and maintenance, am (2) violate well-established
organizational principles. Distinctions should be made between administrative
mrits, divisions within colleges, am silnilar canp.1S agencies (that are not
institutes or centers) and well-established centers, such as the University
of Georgia's center for Continuing Education, am institutes, such as the
carl Vinson Institute of Goverrnnent.

425

In clarify~ arrrent usage of the tenus, distinctions should be made:
(1) agencies that are strictly intra~ units am created priInarily
for internal convenience or prefererx::e; (2) inter-depart:me agencies that
are organized by schools or oolleges within an institution am where
directors sezve at the pleasure of an academic dean; (3) extra-deparbnental agencies that exist outside departJDental stnlctures but within oollegiate
lines of authority am responsibility; (4) extra-collegiate units with direct administrative am budgetary ties to a vice president; am (5) institutionallevel agencies with missions that are broad in role am scope.
Consideration should be given to the designation of IOOSt institutes as (priInarily) resea:rch, sezvice, or i.nstructi.onal agencies. Unfortunately, the
overlap in teac.hi.r1, research, am sezvice preclude a simple function-by-
level matrix in which university/oollege/depart:nent agencies can be designated by their :instruction/researdVsezvice functions. Major institute
am centers invariably have sane ccmbination of higher education's tri-fold functions of teac.hi.r1, research, am sezvice. Despite the difficulties of classify~ aJrre11t institutes am centers sane fonn of classification would be infonnative if it "placed" all institutes am centers in an organizational
chart of extra-deparbnental agencies. One value of the organizational chart might be in its identification of agencies that are unclassifiable. '!hus, an inability to classify an institute or center by prilnary function an::l organizational level may be a clue to its i.nc:a.tpatibility with University
pw:poses am mission.
Above all, Regents policies should errlorse criteria for the periodic review of all institutes an::l centers, irrespective of fluxiirg an::l other requirements for evaluation. '!he procedures of this review process should be Vv'Orked out at the institutional level but all institutions would be expected to address the follow~ criteria:
1. statement of purpose an::l functions;
2. CClrpatibility of institutional mission am program objectives;
3. Resources that are commensurate with stated pw:poses;
4. Competent am adequately supported professional staff;
5. Denonstrated methods of dissemina~ knowledge; 6. Contribution to the institution's mission;
7. Method of assess~ staff productivity; am
8. Procedures for inten1al review anjjor assessment.
426

Dr. steIben L. I.argston
Assistant vice President, Conti.nui.n::J Education
Georgia state university
Conti.nui.rg education ani public ser.vice are part of the pri.mal:y mission of the university System of Georgia with, eadl of the thirty four units of the System provid.i.n;J assistance for the ccmmmi.ties they ser.ve, whether these canununities are defined in tenns of geograprlc areas or as groups of professionals. In general, the smaller tTNO year institutions ser.ve the local canununities where they are situated while the llDre specialized universitylevel institutions such as '!he Georgia Institute of Technology ani '!he Medical College of Georgia define their ccmmmi.ties in tenns of the professional groups they ser.ve. '!he university of Georgia ani Georgia state university ani many of the four year colleges provide a mix of programs, with many of these being national or international in scope ani iIrpact.
"'!he canunitment of the University System of Georgia to public seJ:Vice ani continuing education was well expressed by the Board of Regents when it adopted a policy statement on public seJ:Vice in 1971. Noting the rapid growth of the System, the statement points out:
As this growth has taken place, conti.nui.rg education ani public ser.vice have ~ed as an extension of the traditional on-ca.rrpus learning process, available to adults wherever sufficient interest has been fourrl. Inlividuals in all walks of life must keep themselves abreast of new knowledge ani urrlerstan:1 how it can be applied effectively in solving many problems which they ani their canununities are encountering. Mrj system designed to achieve these objectives will be built arourrl an aggressive conti.nui.rg education program.
'!he statement recognizes the wide variety of programs of public seJ:Vice ani continuing education that are rDil in progress throughout the University System. In its concluding paragra{i1, the statement acknowledges the responsibility of the University System to provide 'not only the best possible educational experiences for yO\.lnl people, but also opportunities for continuing education for adults in all walks of life.' " (Quoted from the University System Harrlbook for Continuing Education, August 30, 1988 edition.)
At the System level, the Vice O1ancellor for service ani Minority Affairs chairs the Administrative Committee on service ani Continuing Education, which advises the O1ancellor on policy ani procedures pertaining to conti.nui.rg education. With the O1ancellor's approval, this cammittee detennines the conditions un::ler which continuing education programs are to be corxiucted ani reported to the System as part of an institution's total effort. '!he:fuI'xIamental measure for continuing education is the Continuing Education unit which is used both to recognize individual achievement ani
427

institutional effort, IlUlch as the Quarter Credit Hour is used with respect to credit activities. Because the CEll is not a generally 1..1nierstood unit of measurement, it is described in sane detail in the section below.
'!HE ~ H:I1C7a'ICH UNIT
Much of the material in this section is taken fran the University System Harrlbook for Conti.nuin;J Education, August 30, 1988 edition. Direct quotes fran that source are enclosed in quotation marks ani arrj such quotes are to be 1..1nierstood to be fran that document tmless another source is cited.
While the CEll is nr::M a nationally recognized ani used measurenent for continuing education activity ani achievement, it is of comparatively recent origin, with the SOUthern Association of Colleges ani SChools being the first
accrediting body to define ani authorize the use of the CEll in December, 1974. Since that first recognition of the need to have a stan::1ard measure-
ment for conti.nuin;J education activities, the CEll has evolved from a strictly
quantitative measurenent to one \Yhi.ch incorporates qualitative st:arx:lards for
the award ani use of CEll's. At the national level, the Council on the Continuing Education publishes a guide entitled "St:arx:Iards of Good Practice for Continuing Education, " \Yhi.le the regional accrediting bodies, nnst
notably SACS. define criteria for member institutions to follow. '!he
University System of Georgia, \Yhi.le a leader in developing uses for the CEU,
adheres to these national ani regional guidelines in promulgating rules for
its thirty four constituent units.
'!he nationally accepted definition of the CEll is that it represents "ten contact hours of participation in an organized continuing education experience 1..1nier the responsible sponsorship, capable direction an:l qualified instnlction" ('!he Council on the Conti.nuin;J Education Unit). '!he criteria for the use of the CEU adopted by SACS ani the University System are an elaboration of this definition ani seek to ensure qualitative as well as quantitative compliance by constituent institutions.
'!he University System utilizes two categories of CEU's to measure
institutional effort in continuing education, but only catego~ I CEU's are
awarded to irrlividuals in recognition of their achievements in such
activities. '!he guidelines for the award of catego~ I activities include both Administrative Criteria ani Program Criteria, following the lead of SACS. Generally speakin; the Administrative Criteria address the stnlcture
an:l syst:ens within \Yhi.ch conti.nuin;J education activities are planned am
i.n'plemented \Yhi.le the Program Criteria list specific corrlitions \Yhi.ch
irrlividual programs IlUl5t satisfy to qualify participants for the award of CEU's. Since these criteria are C01IIllDn to all institutions in the University
System, they will be dealt with in sane detail.
'!he first of the Program Criteria requires that the program be planned
in response to the identified needs of a target audience. '!his standard
assures that the participants will firrl the knowledge ani skills they acquire in the program will have a direct bearing on sane aspect of their lives. It also helps distinguish continuing education activities from credit-bearing courses which are frequently planned in response to institutional needs.
428

While the criteria do not specify procedures for identifyirg needs of the tal:get audience, sw:veys, focus gra1pS, professional associations and advisory councils are all used for this p.n:pose.
In reCXlgJlition of the fact that institutions shoold have specific objectives to be satisfied by the continui.rq education participant, the secorrl Program criteria requires that each activity have "clear and concise statements of i.nt:errled leanti..n;J CA.l.'tcxJnes." M::>reover, criteria five and six marxlate that there be requirements for satisfactory oc:rrpletion of these CA.l.'tcxJnes and that procedures be established for neasurirg adlievement. It is not i.ntemed that conti.nui.rg education participants be tested and graded, necessarily, but it is :int:eOOed that these participants c:ie.ronstrate in some fashion their mastery of the knowledge and skills central to the course in which they enroll.
'!he other criteria deal with instructor qualifications, instructional methodology and program evaluation by participants, the latter requirement havirg been a staple of conti.nui.rg education programs since the first adoption of the CEO in 1974. '!he practice of participant evaluation of the
program reCXlgJlizes the centrality of the student in detenni.ni.nJ the success
or failure of the activity. Generally speaki.rg, conti.nu.in:J education programs are lOOre advanced than their credit COW'1'taparts in this regard, in the sense that the success of a conti.nui.rg education program depenjs on the degree to which participants perceive that it meets their needs. other considerations are sec:x::>mary to this principle.
Finally, the University System expects that category I activities will have a serious purpose, one which addresses same issue beyon:l the irrlividual. 'Ihese issues might be the improvement of the work force in Georgia or the solvirg of ccmnuni.ty or societal problems, and generally serve to disti.nFish category I from category II activities. '!his latter classification often includes the so-called self enrichment programs which many Georgians use to improve the quality of their lives. 'Ihese activities are i.np:>rtant to the irrlividual and well within the mission of the University System, but they are not appropriate for irrlividual reCXlgJlition and award.
Conti.nui.rg education is a major effort of the University System of Georgia reaching into the lives of nearly a quarter of a million Georgians armually. In the 1987-88 Annual Report of CEO activities, c:orrq;>iled by the Vice Olancellor for seI:vices and Minority Affairs, over 11,000 separate category I and II programs were listed as servirg same 240,000 irrlividual participants. In this report the institutions reported nearly 375,000 CEU's with category I activities accountirg for same 76 percent of this total. '!he followirg table shows how these rnnnbers were awortioned all'Dn;J the three levels of institutions in the System.
429

rnS'ITIUI'IONAL lEVEL
UNIVERSITY SENIOR (l)II.E:;E 'lID YEAR (l)II.E:;E
SYSTEM 'IDI'AI..S

aBrIRJI}I; ~ctf

NUMBER. OF
mcxiRAMS

NUMBER. OF
PARI'ICIPANIS

3774 4990 2742
11506

109608 82719 48079
240406

NUMBER. OF CEIJS
166134 144674
64035
374843

rnS'ITIUI'IONAL lEVEL

PERCEN1' OF
mcxiRAMS

PERCENI' OF
PARI'ICIPANIS

PERCENI' OF CEIJS

UNIVERSITY SENIOR (l)II.E:;E 'lID YEAR (l)II.E:;E
SYSTEM 'IDI'AI..S

32.8% 43.4% 23.8%
100.0%

45.6% 34.4% 20.0%
100.0%

44.3% 38.6% 17.1%
100.0%

SCXJRCE: ANNUAL CEIJ REroRl', UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEX:R;IA, 1987-88

While it is inp:>rtant to note the overall size of continuing education
within the University System, it is IlDre meanin:Jful to c::cxrpare the level of
categOly I activity with that of category II. '!he reason this comparison is inp:>rtant is that category I programs, as noted above, treat inp:>rtant societal issues beyom the interests of the irrlividual while category II activities are of the self enricJ:nnent sort. In 1987-88, fully two thirds of
the programs were category I while sane three fourths of the participants am CEIJ's were category I.
'Ihese figures d.e1oonstrate that continui.n:J education encanpasses far IlDre
than the hobby or fun courses that so many people think of when they hear the
tenn continui.rg education. In fact, professional develcpnent for Plysicians, nurses, Ii'Jannacists, erqineers, emergency medical technicians, counselors, attorneys, accountants, law enforcement officers, business men am women,
teachers ani others account for a significant part of the University System effort. Without continuing education these professionals would have no way to upgrade their skills ani keep abreast of new krlowledge in their fields. Without continui.rg education much of the research effort of the University System would be without effect because it would have no way to reach the professional practitioner. 'Ihrough such professionals, continuing education
magnifies its ilnpact on the state am contributes to a better life for all
Georgians.
430

One i.nlication of the iInportance of conti.nu.i.n;J education to University System is the rnnnber of institutions which c:parate, or plan to operate, facilities devoted SPeCifically to conti.nu.i.n;J education. '!he foremost of these is the Georgia center for Conti.nu.i.n;J Education, one of the original
Kellogg centers, am the only residential, full-service center in the state.
'!he Georgia center is IlI.lCh m:>re than a J::W.1.d:irg, l'laNever: It is a dedicated
group of professionals who provide leadership on a state am national level am who have raised the state of Georgia to a pre-e.minent position nationally
in the field. While other continui..rr;J education centers may not be able to
match the University of Georgia center in tenns of resoorces am rep.Itation, they all provide i.ntx>rtant services to their carm.mities am institutions.
'!he Geo:rgia center for Conti.nuirg Education. '!he University of Geo:rgia, Athens. '!he only residential conference center in the University System, the Georgia center is currently umergoin;J major renovation which will exparrl the rnmiber of available square feet fran 161,000 to over 250,000. '!he Georgia center has c::arplete media facilities, includ.i.nJ video production facilities,
satellite transmission equipnent, am a plblic radio station. Additionally,
the center houses a Personal leami.n} lab with a rnmiber of computer work
stations for use by imepen:lent leanlerS.
'!he Url:lan Life Conference center, Geo:rgia state University, Atlanta.
'!he Url:lan Life Center c::arprises 16 meetin:J roans, an auditorium which seats 350 am a dining roan for 300 patrons. While conti.nuin;J education programs
enjoy a priority in schedu1in;J, roans in the center may be resaved by any canp.1S unit on a space-available basis. only conti.nu.i.n;J education programs pay an overhead fee, however. '!he center has a Ku bard satellite antenna and is host to an average of three to four teleconferences each m:>nth.
'!he c. W. Pettigrew Fann an:! Conmmity Life center, Fort Valley state
Collecre, Fort Valley. An iInportant asset in Fort Valley, the Pettigrew Center is used for community cultural events as well as continui.nJ education activities. With an auditorium which seats sane 600 i.nlividuals an:! a dining roan which can acccmoodate over 250, this center is one of the largest in the System. '!he Center is used prilnarily for conti.nuin;J education, but others may reserve roans. All activities ImJSt contribute to the center's operating budget, either by paying a $5 Per PerSOn, Per day fixed fee or by payin;J a flat rental fee, whichever is cheaPer.
'!he Southern Center for Continuing Education. Geo:rgia Southern College, statesboro. '!he Board of Regents has allocated sane $16.2 million to exparrl the center to provide additional meetin;J space, office space for Cooperative Extension, an:! space for the administrative offices for the Division of Conti.nuin;J Education of GSC. Features of the present center include a 412 seat auditorium, a 15 station micro computer lab, C an:! Ku satellite antennas
am a small dining roan in addition to eight general pn:pose meetirg rooms.
'!he center is operated by the Division of Conti.nuin;J Education, prilnarily for the benefit of continuing education programs, but other campus units may use the facility at no cost.
431

'!he Coastal Georgia center. Antstrorn state College am savannah state College. savannah. '!his center is jointly operated by the tTNO colleges am,
in fact, the dean of the center :reports directly to the two presidents. While the cx:;c is non-residential, it has access to a rnnnber of hotels in the
savannah area, giv~ it the potential to becnre a regional am national
conference center. Eleven general purpose mee~ :roans c::c:mplement a 362
seat auditorium, a dedicated microcx::mpIter lab, a lcu:ge ~ :roam am
office space for sane 24 staff lllE!Il'iJers. Sin::e the center is not on a campus,
it must provide for all savices it needs, includirg custodial am audio-
visual. Groups other than continu.in;J education may use the center but there
is a charge for all activities. Both Ku am C bani satellite reception are
available at the center.
'!he Rural Develognent center. '!he University of Georgia Cooperative Extension service. Tifton. Much llX)re than a conference center, the ROC is
headquarters for the Southwest District of CCq)erative Extension am also
provides space for a rnnnber of Extension Specialists. However, Abraham Baldwin College uses the conference space for its continuing education program so that the ROC fulfills the functions of a continuing education center, arrolg its other roles. '!he center has nine general purpose meet~
:roans, a 350-sea.t auditorium am a lcu:ge out:d.<:xJr (but covered) exhibit
pavilion. Teleconference reception is by either Ku or C bani.
'!he Elizabeth Bradley Turner center for Conti.nuirq Education. Columbus College. Columbus. IDeated on the corner of the Coltmlbus College Ccmpls, this facility c::c:mprises 18 mee~ :roans, a 200 seat auditorium, a 15 station
c::arrprt:er lab am 14 offices. satellite reception is via C bani link. other
campus mri.ts may use the center, but it is operated, un:ier the auspices of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, by the Division of Continuing Education. Nonnally, all activities which use the center must pay a Per
person charge which contributes to the maintenance am operation of the
facility, but there is provision to waive the charge for so-called public savice programs.
:r.ssms RR '.IHE FUIURE
Although there are many concerns arrolg continuing education profes-
sionals in the University System of Georgia, there are tTNO overarchin:J issues
that ~ the others. '!hese are f'uI'Ding am the role of continuing education am public savice in the System. Clearly, these issues are intertwined am involve many c::c:mplexities includirg institutional governance am autonany as well as llX)re general concerns for the state such as illiteracy am econanic developnent. To the extent these concerns are elucidated am dealt with, continuing education will continue to grow in
effectiveness
F\lrxlirg: To sane extent, a1.Ioost all institutions in the University System require that their continuin;J education programs be financially selfsusta~. Even though sane programs in the System receive llX)re state support than others, all continuin;J education directors are forced to make prograItll1li.rg decisions that deperrl in part on the financial marketability of irrlividual activities. If participants cannot or will not pay registration
432

fees sufficient to cover expenses, program; BUSt be cancelled, regardless of their value to the in:::lividuals or the state. 'll1is furrli..rg pattern makes it a1Ioost :iJTpossible for cx:mti.nui..n;J education units to address societal issues such as illiteracy in a systematic way unless sane outside source of furrli..rg can be fOlll'rl. Programs for 10lNer paid professionals such as social workers
am nurses may also suffer because these groups may not be able to bring top-
quality national speakers to their conferences.
It would be facile to :recxmnerrl a solution to this problem by requiring
that cx:mtinuing education be a separately fun:ied am aCCOl.mted for activity
that receives a level of furrli..rg consistent with the revenue it generates through the System Fonm.Ua. unforbmately, institutions are not on a fo:r:mula
allocation IOOde of furrli..rg fran the Regents am inlividual presidents have
been allowed great latitude in awortioning resa.trees am::>ng canpeting priorities. FUrther carplicating this issue is the fact that different institutions prrsue their cx:mti.nui..n;J education missions in different ways.
sane institutions have highly centralized conti.nui..n;J education units which
plan am carry out activities without regard to discipline lines or other
authority. other institutions e.nploy a decentralized IOOdel with all or 11'OSt
such activities being within the purview am responsibility of the irxtividual
academic units. Finally, institutions define their cx:mtinuing education missions in different ways, if they define them at all. SChools which are concerned with professional education generally recognize a responsibility to insure that practicing professionals have the q;:p:>rtunity to keep abreast of
new knowledge am tedmiques in their fields. SChools with a stroI'XJ com-
nnmity influence may define their conti.nui..n;J education missions primarily in
tenns of self-enridnnent am conm.mity seJ.:Vice activities.
Ern.nnerating difficulties in dealing with furrli..rg for continuing education should not be an excuse to ignore this issue. In fact, one beginning point would be to have the System itself fonnulate expectations for continuing education, pertlaps divided alOlXJ institutional level lines or by institutional p.rrpose. At present, however, there is no guidance fran the System on this point.
'!he Role of Continuing Education: Most System institutions have a fairly clear picture of their instructional missions as it relates to traditional academic program;. Institutions whidl have a research mission generally know what efforts are required to attain their objectives in this area of errleavor. It is only the thiJ:d aspect of the overall mission, public
seJ.:Vice, which suffers from lack of definition am clear p.rrpose.
other non-traditional activities, most notably developnental studies
programs, have been brought into the System, have been defined am cxxlified, am have bec:::are a regular part of institutional responsibility. Part of the
reason for acceptance of such programs have been societal pressures for them. FUrther, these programs have develcp:d aloI'XJ traditional academic lines with
courses am credits (albeit not credit tavard degrees) similar to other courses am credits. Finally, for the most part these programs have been
designed to seJ.:Ve the traditional COI'lSlIlTerS of higher education, young high school graduates. eonti.nui..n;J education on the other harrl, has no unified
societal lobby. Its courses am programs do not fit any particular 1lO1d, nor
433

should they. An:! the beneficiaries of conti.nui.rg education prcgrams are manifestly not traditional students. Instead, they are professionals from all walks of life, youI'J arxl old, rim arxl poor, arxl ev~ between. '!his lack of definition, the inability to make conti.nui.rg education fir into a traditional IOC>ld, makes it difficult for institutions, nuch less the System as a whole, to deal effectively with continuin;J education.
Given the tremerrloos diversity aIIDn;J continuin;J education prcgrams arxl the m:>re or less fragmented nature of its constituencies, is there a need for the System to define its expectations fran this activity. InieEd, is such definition possible? '!he answer to the first question is yes, without qualification or reservation. '!he solution to the sec::x:ll'rl is not so manifest, but progress can be made toward a clearer statement of expectations. Here are sane of the questions to be asked arxl answered in this process.
To what extent should System institutions provide for the
conti.nui.rg professional developteI'lt of professional practitioners in the state?
To what extent are System institutions ci:>ligated to provide q;:portunities for irrlividuals to increase knowledge arxl skills
outside the traditional degree prcgrams?
To what extent should System institutions address societal issues through conti.nui.rg education arxl applied research activities? To what extent should System institutions be involved in econanic arxl c:x:nm.mi.ty developrent activities, whether their involverrent is at the local, regional or state level? SUrmnary: '!here is no doubt that conti.nui.rg education in the University System of Georgia is meant to serve the people of the state. '!he questions
are to what extent arxl by what neaI'lS. Obtai.ni.n:J the answers to these
questions should be a System priority because they will ulti1na.tely detennine the effectiveness of the service.
434

Dr. John Marshall
Assistant vice President
Iegal Affairs Georgia state university
'!he university System of georgia has experienced a dramatic increase in litigation over the last twenty years. one reason for the dramatic growth is the developnent of certain legal rights of faculty nanbers pursuant to decisions of the united states Supreme CCAlrt. 'IW of the IOOSt pivotal decisions were Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972) am Perry v. Sirrlennann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972). 'lhese cases established for the first tiIoo that tenured faculty nanbers ent>loyed by state institutions have certain property interests protected by the Foorteenth AlEndment of the Constitution of the united states. For a rn.nnber of years, higher education litigation emphasized claims that property rights had been denied without due process. However, over the last decade the trerd in litigation in this area has emphasized claims that an irrlividual has been tenninated or suffered same other loss of ent>loyment rights or opportunities as a result of his or her exercise of First Amerx3ment Rights. Litigation in this area has brought mixed results in the University System. For example, in the cases of Lindsey v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia 607 F.2d 672 (5th cir. 1979) am Kemp v. Trotter am Ervin (1986), the plaintiffs won claims that their First A1ne.nlnEnts rights had been violated. In the latter case, a significant jt1dgrrent was retun1ed against the ent>loyees of the university of Georgia. on the other han:l, after the decision of the SUprerre Court of the united states in the case of COrmick v. Myers, 103 S.ct. 684 (1983), the University System was able to deferrl successfully a rn.nnber of actions brought by faculty nanbers who claimed that they had spoken out on matters relating to their own personal ent>loyment-related activities. In the COnnick case the SUprema Court held that only matters which involve issues of genuine public concern are protected speech un:1er the First ArneJ'rlment. 'Ihus, for example, in the cases of Ballard v. Blount, 581 F. SUpp. 160; aff'd. 734 F.2d 1480; am l)]ban v. Board of Regents, et. al., the university System of Georgia was able to prevail when plaintiffs raised claims that they had failed to obtain salary increases or had been non-renewed in violation of their First Amerrlment rights. In both cases the courts held that the speech involved was related to matters of personal COIlCel:T1 am not about matters of public concern am fOUl"rl for the University System.
'!he other area of litigation which has been significant over the last decade relates to claims arising un:1er Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Like many other ent>loyers, the Board of Regents has been sued because of claims based on race, religious, or sex discrilnination. While the university System has been successful in IOOSt of these cases, there have been isolated incidents where verdicts or settlenv.mts were reached where it was apparent that race or sex discrilnination had occurred. One new area of litigation which could pose problems in the future involves the area of sexual harassment. In the case of Meritor saving Bank v. Vinson, 106 S.ct 2399 (1986), the SUprerre Court held that sexual harassment was sex dis-
435

crimination am a violation of Title VII, am employers can be liable for
sexual harassnelt claims even if the c::x::rrpmy did not have clear knowledge
that the sexual harassnelt had taken place. An effective policy against
sexual harassment am a reportirg am grievance mechanism are actions which
can be taken by employers to prevent liability in this area.
'IWo recent develO{:lOOI1ts in Georgia Law may have a significant inpact on
the operations of the university System of Georgia. First, in the case of Martin v. Georgia DepartIrent of Public Safety, (1987), the supreme court of Georgia held that sovereign illm.mity does not protect the state of its agencies if any of the employees of the state or the agency have been covered by liability insurance procured by the agency. '!his waiver of sovereign immunity is effective only to the limits of the insurance which has been obtaine:i; nevertheless, it is not possible for a state agency to be subject to claims for negligence fran which it had been inmJne in the past. '!he need for efficient risk management programs will be greatly heightened as a result of this case. As in the operation of any large enterprise, the opporbmity exists for negligent acts of university System employees to cause significant injuries to in:li.viduals. '!he secon:i recent developnent is the expansion of
the Georgia Open Meetirgs am Open Records Laws. '!he Open Records law has
been ~ed considerably so that PerSOIUle1 records, including the evaluations of employees, are now subject to insPection umer Georgia law by any in:li.vidual. It is uncertain what effect this may have on the ability to hire
in:li.viduals now that the SUpreme court in the case of Cox Enterprises v. Board of Regents (1989) has detennined that even the records of a presidential search are subject to disclosure to the general public. It is also unclear whether this law will seriously impact the willin;p1ess of faculty
members to participate in Peer-review activities related to pl'."OlOC>tion am
tenure, now that materials which they prepare will be available to a dis-
appointed carxiidate or the general public.
In conclusion, the inpact on the university System of Georgia of the increase in litigation has been dramatic over the last two decades. Not only has there been litigation involvirg employees as described above, but a
rn.nnber of student-initiated cases have also been filed. In an age of increased student-coIlSl.IIter awareness, as well as increased competition for a
stable or even decliniI'g pool of college-aged students, it is likely that there will be an increase in the rn.nnber of cases filed by students against institutions clai.mi.rg breach of contract, fraud, or mis-representation. '!hus, it is essential that there be an emphasis in the University System on the practice of preventative law. Each institution must reco9Iri.ze the
potential for liability in all of its activities am plan to avoid problems
in those areas.
436

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM STEERING COMMI'ITEE FOR INCREASED
MINORITY PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC IDGHER EDUCATION REPORT TO THE CHANCELLOR
11/17/88
437

STEERING aHfi'lTEE RER:>RI'
UNIVERSI'IY SYSTEM
STEERING aHfi'lTEE FOR INrnFASED MINORI'IY PARrICIPATION
m IUBLIC HIGHER EWCATICN

Dr. David S. Spence, a:mni.ttee Clair Dr. Arthur nmnirg, Co-Qlair

Dr. Ernest Benson, Vice President for Academj c Affairs
Albany state College
Dr. '!hares J. Brewer, Vice President for Academic Affairs
Georgia state University
Dr. S. Aaron Hyatt
President Macon College

Dr. Louise McBee, vice President for Academic Affairs
University of Georgia
Dr. Betty L. Siegel President Kennesaw College
Dr. Edwin A. 'IhC8l1pSOn President Atlanta Metropolitan College

STAFF CXlNSUI11'ANTS
Dr. Mary Arm Hickman Assistant Vice C1ancellor
for Affinnative Action
Dr. Joseph "Pete" silver
Assistant Vice C1ancellor for Academic Affairs

438

Dr. Mal:y Ann Hickman Assistant vice Chancellor
for Affinnative Action
'!he university System of Georgia has taken significant strides in
exterxtin:J higher education og;x>rbmity to many first~eneration Georgia
college students. 'nle university System has been a national leader in
blerrli.nj excellence into a highly acx::essible network of colleges am tmiver-
sities.
For too many potential minority students am faculty, however, the
university System has remained out of :reach. For a variety of reasons, after
substantial progress through the 1970's am early 1980's, the enrollment of minority students am the hirinJ of minority faculty have stalled as is the
trerrl for the nation as a whole. If the university System is to keep its m::>ra.l premise to the citizens of Georgia, acx::ess to its institutions of higher education lTIllSt be exterrled further to the urrlerrepresented. '!he University System is ai.mi.n:J to be one of the nation's great systems. As minorities continue to grow as proportions of the total pcpl1.ation, the great systems increasinJIY will be known as those which succeErl in both expan:ling
minority participation while maintaininJ quality. '!he quality of the education experience is <::xlItpranised by the lack of ethnic am cultural diversity of the faculty staff, am students. 'nle University System's camnitment to ethnic am cultural diversity is essential to providinJ access am buildinJ excellence. '!he great systems will fim ways to increase both
access am quality am not use one foal as a :reason for not embracinJ the
other.
In August, 1987 the O1ancellor awointed the university System steerinJ cemni.ttee for Increased Minority Participation in Public Higher Education.
By this am other actions, the Chancellor let it be known that the university
System should have no higher priority than to increase both the levels of
minority employment am student enrollment at our institutions. 'nle conunit-
tee was charged to (1) review the effectiveness of existinJ strategies; (2)
examine exemplary efforts; am (3) identify new initiatives.
In urrlertakin;J this challenJe, the camnittee invited presentations arrl
disalSSion from University System faculty, administrators, am central Office
staff. '!he camnittee reviewed the :recx:mnerrlations in the 1982 Affinnative Action Task Force Report arrl the effectiveness of existinJ strategies established in the Plan for the FUrther Desegregation of the university
System of Georgia. '!he camnittee am staff sb.rli.ed the 1987 report: h.
Difference of Degrees: state Initiative to Improve Minority Student achieve-
ment p.1blished by the state Higher Education Executive Officers am two other
1987 reports: Focus on Minorities: Trends in Participation am SUccess in
Higher Education, a statistical presentation of the status of minorities in
higher education am Focus on Minorities: Synopsis of state Higher Initia-
tives, both reports published by the Education canmission of the states.
439

Followirg several lOOIl1:hs of :review, study ani diSOJSSion, the cammittee identified seven issues which provided a focus for the cammittee's work as well as its report. '!hese seven issues fall into three catEqories.
'Ihree of the seven issues are specifically aimed at increasirg minority student participation.
(1) increasirg the rnnnber of mioority sb.xlents prepared ani notivated to enroll in college;
(2) increasirg access to, retention, ani adlievement in urrlergraduate programs; ani
(3) increasirg access to, retention, ani adlieve.nent in graduate and professional schools.
'!he cammittee gave particular attention to increasirg the rn.nnbers of minority students. '!heir urrler.representation was considered IOOSt critical since low participation of minority high school ani college graduates assures an urrlerrepresentation of minority faculty ani administrators in the future.
'Ihree issues address efforts to enlarge the representation of minority faculty ani administrators:
(4) establishirg procedures to be used in hirirg faculty ani expressirg cammitJnent to racial ani ethnic diversity anDrq the faculty of the University System;
(5) identifyirg factors related to the progress made by minority faculty toward tenure ani pratDtion; ani
(6) establishing programs to increase the number of minority administrators
'!he final issue concerns ways to stre.rJthen the overall ani concrete
cammitment of the colleges ani universities to the high priority of increasirg minority participation.
440

In:teasiDj the M-..bv of M:i.lKxity stments
P.repn"ed am ItJtivated to Enroll in College
In 1986, only 10.9 percent of blacks over 25 had c:x::upleted four years of college or nore, while the rate for whites was 20.1 percent. In 1985, of the 1. 05 million high school seniors who took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) only 70,000 (9 percent) were black. Of the blacks takirg the test, 73
percent scored below 400 on the verbal. section am 64 percent scored below
400 on the math portion, while only 31 percent of the whites scored below 400
on the vet:bal. am only 22 percent had math scores below 400.
In the united states, the percentage of black high school graduates entering college has decreased fran 34 to 28 percent since 1978. '!he percentage that minorities are of the total student enrollment is not risinJ
am in sate cases is decljninJ. While the mnnbers should be increasing, they
are steady or decljninJ. '!he number of black high school graduates increased
by 25% over the past ten years in the U.s.; the number enrolled in college
declined by 2.0%.
A disastrous series of related situations is develcpinJ. Public high schools are becaning nore heavily minority. Minorities tern to drop out of
high school to a greater extent am T1Oil, when they do graduate fram high
school, they are less likely to go to college. Black males are hit by this unfortunate sequence. '!he facts are that the extent to which minority
students graduate am then enroll in college detenni.nes not only college
enrollments, but also the eventual develc:pnent of minority faculty.
In Georgia, the rate at which students who graduate fran high school arxi enroll in higher education is one of the lC1tleSt in the country; Georgia also has one of the higher high school <::h'q>-out rates. '!hese unfavorable participation rates apply to students of all races, but particularly to minority
students.
'!he University System has made progress since the 1970'S in attractinJ
nore minority students. '!his Fall, both the numbers am percentages of
minority students increased, which reversed a tren:l since the early 1980'S in which the numbers remained relatiVely constant while the percentages declines.
At the American Council on Education (ACE) conference in Januazy, it was conceded that colleges had "hit the wall" in attractinJ minorities. '!he American Council on Education referred to the increase of minority participants as the number one priority in higher education.
Effective approaches to increasinJ minority students arxi faculty must recognize the interrelated, ladder-like nature of educational preparation.
SUch approached need to address the preparation am nx:rt:ivation of students
not only after enterinJ college but while they are still in high school.
441

Colleges am mriversities must reach further than they have in the past. '!heir reach needs to exterrl beyom their walls am into the schools and ccmm.mities of minority students.
'!he ccmnittee has concluded that the University System should expand efforts to reach minority students while they are still in school. Some of these activities will Wild on what the University System is already doing because positive results are emerging.
College Preparatory CUrriculum
Of major i.np:>rtance is the continued eJrPlasis on publicizing and
refining the College preparatory aIrriculum, whien makes clear to all school students what courses to take to prepare effectively for college. '!he precollege aIrriculum is a cooperative effort bebeen the state Department of Education am the Board of Regents to ensure that high school graduates are better prepared for college level TNOrk. DJring the years leading to Fall 1988, the effective date for the required pre-college curriculum, several measures were taken to publicize the new aIrriculum requirenv3n.ts: (1) the pre-college aIrriculum booklets were distributed to all high school counselors in the state; (2) institutional discussions of the booklet were held with high school personnel in the CiR'ropriate sexvice areas; (3) counselor wol:Xshops sponsored by the Board of Regents am the state Department of Education were held throughout the state to discuss the 1988 pre-college
aIrriculum :requirements; (4) over 180,000 copies of the brochure "cut IDose" (explaining the pre-college aIrriculum) were sent to all high schools both
public am private; (5) posters displaying the pre-college aIrriculum were sent to each high school. '!hese efforts proved effective in notifying students am high schools that acceptance into the regular college program depen:3s upon satisfaction of the 1988 pre-college aIrriculum. '!he ccmnittee believes that these activities should be continued am even more contacts between colleges am high schools are needed to describe clearly the nature of the skills am knowledge needed to prepare for college. Minority students will benefit greatly.
'Ihe:refore, the ccmnittee :reccmneros:
that efforts to explain the pLe-COllege curriculum be ccn-
t:inJed am. i.rcreased to ild.me DDre direct aDtacts between colleges am. the m:i.ane ani high sdlool..s to desc:dbe DDre
clearly the krx:Jwled]e ani skills J'lf'Eded to prepare for college.
student Recruitment
Recruiting minority students requires aggressive plans for identifying, contacting,am inforntirg minority high school students of the opportunities available to them at each system institution. '!hese plans should be established to intensify recruitment efforts, which typically target those students who are inclined toward going to college am for wham additional
442

suggestion, persuasion am academic preparation WOlld help to assure their
effective enrollment. '!he foll~ ccmni.ttee rec::cmnen::lations refer to
activities already beinJ umertaken.
that University syste.IIl insti'bItials cxmt:.inle am inten-
sify planned visits to high sctxx>lS in their awxqn:iate ser.vioe cn:eas to CDJtact sb.dents lib> have taken the PSAT, SAT, or ACr:
that efforts be intensified to seek assi..st.ame fran black
dmrdles, social am civic arganizaticn;, am cxmqmity
leaders in recruitiIg miDJrity sb.dents:
that institut:i.als use miDJrity print lIIfrl;a am broadcast
lIIfrl;a to advertise their progLCIIIS:
that institutials pm:!lase the Qill.ege Board 1i.st:iD.J whi..dl identifies scare levels by race am sex for DBili.rg
the miDJrity recruitment brocb.Jre with the university System Arndem;c Program Inventory inserted:
that the University Syst:ea Arndem; c Pro:Jtam Inventory
cxmt:.inle to be sent to all plblic am private high
sdlools in the state:
that an cmilassador ptogLam to involve ex>llege stWents in recruitment efforts be devel.qlEd:
that altmni. be involved in recrui.1:ment activities,
i.Id.u:ti:rg host:inJ recept:i.als for prospective am admitted
sb.dents in their local areas.
Farly Inter.vention Program
'!he cx:mnittee is ex>nvi.ncej that even greater efforts are needed to
exparrl the number of minority stuients prepared am interested in p.rrsuing higher education. New initiatives are needed which exterrl further am which respon:i llDre directly to the experiences am backgrourrls of minority
students. '!he big challenge now lies in fin:iin:J ways to convince a wider
ranqe of students of the value of goinJ to college am the need to prepare
educationally to do so. Evidence suggests that llDre school students,
especially minority students, are not IOOtivated am educationally prepared to
enter college. A high prop:::>rtion of students of all ethnic groups need :remedial education; college retention rates are low; llDreover, higher percentages of minority students are choosinJ to do other t:l1i.n;r-; than goinJ to college, such as the military, proprietary school, or immediate errployment. It appears that college is not valued as much or is not seen as worth the cost or effort as other p,lrSUits, especially those that yield llDre iInmedi.ate llDnetary rewards.
443

As the University System seeks to interest am prepare a wider range of
students for college, it should be noted that those students who are most
prepared am interested in goirq to college have already been reached. '!hese are the students in the top one-thiId of their high school classes am typically are fran families am eooncmic backgramjs that reflect a high
value on further education. '!he vast majority of other students may not even be enrolled in college preparatory cuzricula rut in general-track or vocational programs. Minority school students represent a disproportionate
percentage of these "other students." Just as intx>rtant, many of these school students, perhaps IOOSt, grow up in family, social am economic situations in whim the value of am preparation for college do not have a
high priority. 'Ihese students do not have persons inmedi.ately arourrl them
who are personal, visible exanples of the value of college am who can
explain practically how to go aba1t preparirq for college.
Efforts to increase stamards for college ent.ran:::e in the public schools
have been am continue to be needed. However, to attract a wider range of
students into college, roc>re will have to be done to help roc>re student reach
these stamards. '!his applies to students of all races. SUperior am good students take the initiative in leamin:J or are taught am roc>tivated to do
so. '!hey will fin:l ways to rise to the stamards.
However, other students, students with as many leamin:J weaknesses as
strengths, require roc>re skilled, sensitive teach:i.rg am coaching. If these students are in environments whim can offer this encouragement am special attention through parents, relatives, teachers am so on, they will IOCNe toward college as well. Without this personal attention am direction, these students will likely not develop the educational values am preparation that
lead toward successful college study.
Many, if not IOOSt, college-school efforts in the past to reach disad-
vantaged students have focused on school students who already have higher
levels of roc>tivation am academic preparation. Ways must be foun:l now to
help schools ream a wider range of students who do not get the firsthand
personal encouragement am preparation for college. SChools need the help of colleges to prepare am roc>tivate these students because there is no substitute for the direct am personal relationship that canes fran school students beirq associated with college students, faculty, am programs while still in school. SChools sinply do not have the mnnbers of people am
resources to do this alone. '!his cooperative effort will have as its goal to
roc>tivate am prepare for college eighth, ninth, am tenth grade students who
are not IOCNing effectively toward college. '!he full range of a college's
resources will be used, including students, faculty am staff. Some of the
activities may involve the following:
Working with local schools to identify students who
without additional attention am help would not atterrl
college. '!his early identification must be done early
am involves PersOnal, in:lividualized assessment of strengths am weaknesses in a student's educational roc>tivation am preparation. Assessments should be developed that let school students know early am
444

continuously to what extent they are nrN~ toward college.
Consider~ the adoption, in oanjtmeticm with the p.1blic schools, of a fonnal. progl:aDl by which the university System's College Pla<:::e:lIEI1t Examinaticm, or related assessments, lVOUld be given to high sdlool jmrl.ors (as is now be~ done in Ohio on a statewide basis)
Provi~ school students with college tutors am
advisors who will personally CXJl'Ney the value of go~ to college while assist~ in additional academic prepara-
tion am advis~. Follow-through is critical. '!his
activity will SUCO*ld mst if the college pecple can stay
involved with in:lividual students am narltor their
progress tmtil college entry.
Establishing ~ Academic Programs on college campuses
for students early in their high school careers am for high school seniors am graduates who show pranise but
lVOUld othe1:wise be denied admission.
Creat~ special courses am programs offered by college staff am students which lVOUld help school students inprove their academic skills am test-takin;J abilities
which relate to college readiness. 'Ihese programs can be based on the magnet aR'roach, which makes students feel
special am inportant. Too often, the special academic
programs target only the better students.
Br~~ students to college campuses regularly to
participate in academic, social am sports events which
provide a view of college life.
staff~ study programs with college students in the
schools am cannmmity centers on weekerrls am at night.
Develop~ joint school-college career \Orkshops in which
school students can explore various careers, am hc1.tl to
prepare for them academically. 'Ihrough these activities, students will be better able to see the link aIIOn:J school
preparation, college study, am career goals.
Accordirgly, the COIlI1\i.ttee recanmerxis:
that the University System deYel.q> an early interventicn pI:OJLdID in Wdl the colleges ani mrl.versities lIlOIX actively ani directly with the
plblic sc:boals, their faculties, am. their stWents to prepare am.
DDtivate lIDre students to atterd college.
445

RE1Dl1'ICIl AND AaII::EVEJHfr OF JIDIRl'lY cmlB;R Sl\JIHf.lS
SUImTer Enridmv:mt Prcx:Jram
'!he sunmer Enridmv:mt Program was established as a pilot program at six institutions. '!he program was designed to ease the transition of minority students with academic deficiencies fran high school to college in an effort to iItprove retention rates. '!he prog1dIn has been :f\.lnied for the last four
years at a rate of $750.00 for each student in the program. '!he total annual aIroUnt :f\.lnied by the System has been $127,500 for 170 students. '!he institutions generally matched these system resoorces. Both the students anj the faculty who have participated int he program believe the program is effective
in givin] the students a better un:lerst:.anii. of what is expected of them in
college.
'!herefore, the canmi.ttee rec:x::mmerXIs:
that the SUIImer Dlridment Pn:xJtam be c:xnti.Iued:
that the nmiP.r of institutialS eligible to participate in the mcxuam be exparrled:
that <DlSi.derat:i.a be given to i.IK:reasinJ the aonmt of
DD1E!Y allocated for each sbldent.
Minority Advisim Program
'!he retention of minority students presents a special dlallenge for the University System anj requires particular attention at the institutional level. '!he Minority Advisin] Program (MAP) was establishErl in 1983 to address the special problems faced by minority students which ultilnately cause them to leave college. Many minority students experience cultural alienation, social isolation, academic problems, racial harassment anj financial difficulty. '!he consensus of students anj faculty is that the program has been effective in the retention of students. However, these programs have suffered fran a lack of financial Sl.lIP'rt, which is typical for
activities out of the academic mainstream. Consideration should be given to allocatin] special System furrling to these programs, which would highlight
these programs anj give them the priority they I1E!Erl.
'!herefore, the canmi.ttee rec:x::mmerXIs:
that the M:inJri.ty 1dYi.s:iJg Pnx;p:am be c:xnti.Iued bIt
DDiifiErl to fit the needs am aakess the special
prcbl.ems that surface as a :result of institutialal type (exanples: :residential versus lD1residentia1: mrlversity versus two-year institutialS):
446

that the president be ult:.bate1y respc:msible far the
progl:am am provide institut:i.alal. ccmnitment am suwort to assm:e the SIJCClE'SS of the pLlXJLam;
that each unit be coardinated ~ the office of AcadEmic Affairs ar stment Affairs em the respective canplSeS. If stment Affairs is cJn::en as the ocxmlinatiIg unit, t:bel'e shwl.d be a fm:.wal liaiEQl with AcadEmic Affairs;
that each institut:ial establ ish advisiIg units lllhi.ch will be ocxmlinated by specially t:rai.Ie1 faculty DlAI'ers;
that the pzogz:aDl SlJR)lement, net n;>lacP, the rxmnal acmemic advi.sar.y activities;
that the pzogz:am be geared t:cwam. :f:reshmen am sqilcDDre sb.dent:s, bIt be qet to any other m:incrity stment who feels that he ar she can benefit fran the pzogz:am;
that the Xinar.i.ty AdvisiDJ PJ:ogLda em ead1 canp.1S be set
up to provide ar refer the follawiDJ services: a careful follow-up of chcp-out:s; special in:ii.vi.dualized oamsel.:iIg far sb.dent:s placed em pz:dJat.ial; assi.st:ance to sb.dent:s in the select:i.at of academic lIBjaz:s; review of the vocati.alal :z:elevance of the vari.als i"'3iemi c progl:ans; arrarKJe bIt:ori.Jg; review fi.narK:i.al aid; sez:ve as a fad 1 i:tator far career oamsel.iIg; reinfaroe the regular advi.sEm:m: system; provide sbny skill activities' provide a fcmn in that SJXD"SSful zole mcXJe] s will Beet with the sb.dent:s to di SOJSS their educatialal am other
experi.e.m:es' am arrarKJe periodic meet::iDJs with depart-
ment dlairs, acmemic offi.cers,am the pz:esident to disolSS the MAP as it relates to the in:ii.vi.dual rnrrp1S;
that each instituti.em be given adequate finan::ial SURX>rt far its MinJrity Advi.siIg ProgLam activities;
that an anrnal.. syst:aIt-wide cxnference be held far the pnpose of staff deYel.CplEllt, i.nprcveDeIt of strategies
far mak:iD.J the pzogz:am m::>re sncxpssful, am general infmmatiem sharinJ;
that the MAP ocxmlinatar sul:mit an anrnal. zqxnt to the dfPIXt11::iate adm:ini.strator to be fm:warded by the pz:esident to the Vice CllaIrel.l.ar far Academi c Affairs:
that each instituti.em SlDDit an anmal plan, iIclmiDj a bri]et far the MAP, detailiIg the goals am dJjectives far the pzogz:am:
447

that cn-site visits to eadl ampJS be made peri.a:lica1ly by the awt:qaiate peman in the Office of the Vice C1laJ'De11ar far N'ademic Affairs.
Increased Represent:atial of Minarities in Graduate ani Professicmal Sdlools
A najor c:oncenl of the canmittee is the decreas~ rn.nnber of minorities
who are available for teac:hi.rg am administrative p:lSitions. From 1977 to
1986, the rn.nnber of American blacks holcli.nl doctorates drofp:d fran 1,116 to 820, a reduction of 26.5 percent. ~~ this same period, the cleInarxi for
black doctorates increased. Explanations offered to account for the decli.ni.n;J presence of blacks in graduate school include inadequate financial assistance, lack of institutional ccmnitment to recrui.tirg black students, too few black faculty to serve as mentors, mtinvitirg institutional climate,
inadequate college preparation, am faculty Wifference to the need for cultural am ethnic diversity am::>I'g the student body. '!he University System is responsible for educat~ graduate am professional school students;
consequently, it needs to provide leadership in increas~ the pool of
potential minority faculty, researchers, am professionals. Reversing the underrepresentation of minority students in graduate am professional schools
is the responsibility of each institution offering these programs.
'Iherefore, the ccmnittee reccmnerxls the follCMing conc:erni.n:J both the
strength~ of exist~ activities am the initiation of new efforts:
that the Regents' qprlmrl.ty Sdlolarship ~ogzam be
ocnt:i.rued, exparded, increased, ani lIJXii.fied to allClii the st:tdent to eam DDI'e DD1SYi
that Graduate Oglorbmity SEminars designed to aaprint
lIlinJrity stments with gradIJa1:e am professialal C4'PJL'-
tmri.ty in the system be ocnt:i.ruedi
that transpartati.al be prcNi.ded to all students interested in at:t:eniinJ Graduate qprlmrl.ty SEminarsi
that the CellLtal Office <XI'ItinJe to CCIIpile ani dist:ribIte the names of ~ urxJergraduate students in
the University Systemi
that each graduate insti:bIti.a1 analyze its retenti.cn of lIlinJrity graduate students to det.eI:m:i:re 'Why the students drcp art: ani then establish a plan far iDpI:ovi:oJ the attritial ratei
that each senior college am mdversity have a "Graduate
Sdlool A'waz8less Diy" to plblicize the graduate ani professicmal educatial in generali
448

that all miDlri:ty students lIilo are jmrl.ars ani seniors with a grade point average of 2.5 or IliqJer be identified so that they.ay be provided with infamati.al CDDell'l.iDJ graduate stmy within the university System: that an anmal LEpnot be :Ede to the Executive vice
Qmrellor ccnt:aini.DJ infcmaat:i.al at the ptOljLess made in the recm.i1:JlEnt ani :retenti.al of minority graduate am
professiaB1 students.
449

FAa:ICI.'Y AND ~
FAa:ICI.'Y
Hiring am Affinnative Action Procedures
Recnli.ting m:>re minorities into administrative, faculty,am staff positions is critical to achievi.rg a richer am m:>re diverse educational envirornnent in the university System. Affinnative Action programs are llDSt effective when a clear ccmnitment fran the top filters down to every part of the institution. '!he effectiveness of Affirmative Action plans depends on the attitudes of key administrators am the credibility of the affinnative action officers. 'Ihese programs should be stren;Jthened by errphasizing :results am acx::omrt:ability.
'Ihe ccmnittee ~ the followi.rg regarding current System efforts in Affinnative Action:
'that each institut:i.en prepare a new affir:mative acticn plan to be reviewed am updated anmally:
'that the Eq.lal. ~oyment:IAffir:mative Acti.en Officer np:at di.J:ectl.y to the president for these activities
involvinJ affir:mative actien: that the University level.
instituticms awoint a persa1 lllhcse full-time respcnsibility is 'that of Eq.lal. ~oy.mentIAffiDBti.ve Acti.en
Officer: 'that senior colleges am t:t.o-year col1eges
appoint a person lllhcse respcnsibility as Equal Dlployment:lAffir:mative Act:i..cn Officer is the major respa1":oo::r'Ilnnc::::lSibility:
'that the Assistant Vice ctlaI'olllar far Affir:mative Acti.cn visit each canp.1S at least every two years to norl.tor affir:mative actien efforts en the amp.]S.
Faculty Recnli.ting
'!he university system has established several programs for identifying am recruiting potential minority faculty. 'Ihe ccmnittee believes that these basic efforts should be continued am therefore ~ the following:
that the AJ;plicant Clear:injnlse designed to assist instituticms in i.dentifyiJg lIIinJrity faculty be c:xnt:i.:rued with adliticnal step; to be taken to iD::rease the n1JJ'ber of m:i.rxlri.ties available t:hrcu:Jh the ClearinjnJse:
450

that the RJsiti.cn 'Vacarx:y Li.st.:in:.J establ isbed to notify
:mi.rni.ty graduate st:ment:s across the natia1 of positialS available in the University systEm be cxnt:inJed;
that institutialS seek eupl.oyment of SJI Y'JPSSful. :mi.rni.ty professialals fran local cxmnllnities and the utilizaticn of .inmst:ri.es which offer to loan a professi.alal. far a year.
'!he Minority Recruit:Irent Missions represent a special set of activities in which System officials seek out lIlin:>rity doctoral students at the nation's tmiversities which produce the largest rnnnbers of lIlin:>rity dcd:orates. '!he potential of this program was not fully realized because of the lack of follow-through fran the identification of potential cantidates to the point at which System institutions actively consider the cantidates for faculty appointments. '!he ccmnittee rec:cmnen:1s that the followirq steps be taken to
st:reD3then am then resume the program:
that the MiDJrity Recruitment MissialS designed to establish a "netwol:X" of :mi.rni.ty graduate st:ment:s be caxt:i.nled, but the focus c:.harged;
that the recruitment missicn teaIIl iJd.uie cb:ief arndemic officers fran a university, a seniar cal.lege, and a twoyear cal.lege and zepLE!Selltatives fran the office of vice <1larD:ill.ar far services and ltinarity Affairs and the office of Vice Qlancellar far Academic Affairs;
that a University System. cxmaittee of <hi.e:f Academic Officers and Affi.J::mative Act:.icn Officers serve as a cxmnittee to screen the J:eSlJIDPS :received fn:D the MiDJrity RecruitneIt Missicn;
that the president zepatt in wrltirq the dispooiticn of all J:eSl1IIIf'S sent to the institut:.i..al as a LeSUlt of the missicn.
Faculty Retention am Growth.
A major problem in the retention of minority faculty is the uncertain
progress toward promotion am tenure made by many minority faculty after they
are hired. '!hese faculty are expected to carry major responsibilities in
advisirq minority students am in representirq minority interests on academic am faculty search conuni.ttees. In addition, they are expected to meet the traditional requirements for prarootion am tenure. In this regard, minority faculty often are not given clear direction as to what ki.rrl of research am
scholarship will meet the requirements, especially the extent to which these faculty can or should be encouraged to brirq a minority perspective to their
scholarship am research.
451

'!he prd:>lem of upward nOOility for minority faculty ll'OJSt be addressed
directly because many minority faculty are often caught in a very unfair am
unclear situation. '!he faculty of eadl institution should establish proce-
dures am policies that make clear, beg~ with recruitment am hiring,
the expectations for minority faculty with respect to the full ranJe of their
work in i.nstnlction, research, scholarship, am advising. 'lb reinforce these
tll'rlerstaminJ, a mentor~ system should be developed based on experienced
faculty working closely with new minority faculty to inteJ:pret the prcm:>tion
am tenure expectations am policies am to clarify how these policies apply
to the irxlividual situations of the new faculty. Acc:oJ:dingly, the cc:mnittee
:recarmen::ls:
that the instituti..als offer.iDj graduate ar professiooal lIlCl:k adqlt a "g:row-yaJr-ow" pLogLam;
that senior faculty be asked to mentor jun:i.cr faculty;
that a clear stat:eIEnt of tenJre ani pLawticn require-
lIBIt:s be given duJ:inl the i.ntervi.ew to ensure tbat the irxlividual will have an urrlerstaniin:J of institutiooal
expectaticns;
that visitiIg professorship; ani ~ cba.i.J:s be used
to recruit senior minority faculty;
that leadership develGpIEIIt pLogLaDiS be establ isberl at each instituticn far faculty, staff, ani adm:ini..st:rators to prawt:e ani enhance cultural diversity.
Ar.IIINISlRMlES
Nationally am in the University System there is serious underrepre-
sentation of minorities in administrative positions. '!he Regents Administrative Internship Program was developed to address this Particular problem.
'!he program has not met the expectations of the Participants or the Regents for a variety of reasons, incl\.rlin;J, 00t not limited to, the selection
process, the institutional programs, the expectations of both the host
institution am the intern, am the loss of time for the intern at the home
institution toward praaion am tenure. Most of the interns were not
tenured am just beg~ their academic careers. Moreover, the internship
actually may have served to delay the progress they were making toward establishing their faculty credentials.
'!he p.u:pose of the program is still i.np)rtant am the strategy soum.
'!he cc:mnittee :recarmen::ls that the program be restarted, this time with fewer interns chosen on a I1Dre selective basis. Selection should ensure that the faculty member has established his or her faculty status either by having
achieved tenure or by having made substantial progress toward prarrotion am
tenure.
452

'Iherefore, the camnittee recanme.nds: that the Regents' 1dDin:ist:rat:ive PrajraIIl designed to develop University SysteII. faculty far administ:rative positialS be caJt:inled, bIt su1Btantially DDdified: that the sel.ect:i.al process be revised significantly so as to give first ams:i.deratial to tenIr:ed faculty ani to establ ish a m:ini.Dun of five years in the University System of Georgia as a prerecJlisite: that a CXIIplete pLogl:da with clear cbjectives be develcp:d far each int:enl:
that a University System. CCIIIDi.ttee of vice Presidents am
deans serve as an advi.scn:y CCIIIDi.ttee to the vice
Olalnill.ar far Services am MilDrity Affairs:
that this CCIIIDi.ttee have as part of its respcI1Sibility sel.ecticn of the i.nt:e.nls, developm:::nt of programs far the
i.nt:e.nls, am an annual. evaluaticn of the IJLogl:am:
that the :int:.et:n part:i.c.:ipat: in an evaluaticn of bisjher program upon the CXIIpleti.cn of the pLogram: that the host administrator evaluate the :int:.et:n at the CXIIpleti.cn of the program.
453

lltiTl.'1ur.ICHU. a:HIl'.IMENl' m INCRF.ASm MlKJ.U'I.Y PARrICIPATICfi
Just about any goal can be reached if an institution is thoroughly camnitted to its value arrl its aa:atplishment. Institutional camnitment results fran having a clear arrl widely accepted urxlerstarrling of the purpose as a priority, including how it c:x:xcpares to other institutional priorities. Ccmnitment depen:ls upon an urxlerstarrling of why a priority is inTportant to society arrl to the institution. '!he st.ren1th of camnitment is seen in the extent to which an institution chooses certain CXJUrSeS of action or opts to direct :resources in a way that may prevent other lesser priorities to be met as iImnediately or fully. Am cxmnitment requires leadership fran the highest authorities, namely, fran the President arrl hisjher chief staff.
Each University System institution meeds to establish a stronger camnitme.nt to increasing the participation of minority students arrl faculty. Making this goal a priority is not only right norally but sourrl
educationally, esPeCially in light of how a diversity of PeOPle am their
ideas enriches the college arrl university experience. As our institutions
are canmitted to be the home for a nora diverse mix of students am faculty, then too will increasing rn.nnbers of such students feel nora at home in our colleges am universities, leading to higher achievement am nora positive
social experiences.
'!he camnittee recognized that it is dealing here with concepts that are
nonnally intangible, such as cxmnitment, attitude, climate, belief am
purpose. Each college arrl university needs to build a canmitment to this
goal of increased minority participation by making concrete am tangible
these ideas.
'!he camnittee has heard many different prop:>sals for increasing the mnnber of minority faculty at an institution. Some of these have involved the direction, or the redirection, of resources already possessed by an institution to meet this priority. '!he cammittee also received suggestions that the System should make f'urrls available on a categorical incentive basis to encourage institutional camnitment to this priority.
Faculty are at the heart of the academic enterprise. Accordingly, recruiting, hiring arrl supporting the continued develcpnent of new faculty are top priorities of all colleges an:! universities. As such, the recruit-
m:mt am hiring of nora minority faculty does an:! should reside with each institution. '!his is to say that the financing needed for hiring new
minority faculty should cane from an institution's f'urrls available for adding new faculty. '!his will require a conscious institutional ordering of priorities that would focus on hiring minorities. SUch priority can be directed through internal institutional management practices that provide incentives to departments that make this a priority. '!here are examples of such practices which have been established by several University System institutions. '!he University of Georgia central administration captures certain vacated faculty positions an:! holds them for redistribution to departments which hire minority faculty. Georgia state University
454

established our of its own resources a matc.hi.n] :funj which could be drawn upon by departments seeJdn;J to hire minority faculty.
In SUI'lI'llarY, the cxmni.ttee believes that the ccmnitment to increase the presence of minority faculty should flaN fran the institution itself, through
how it chooses to distribute its own rescm:ces. Each institution holds am
should be seen to hold the power to initiate action in this area.
'Iherefore, the cxmni.ttee reccmnen::3s:
that institutialS set a high priority at hi.riD.J mi.Ixlri.ty
faculty, SlWali.D] these efforts thrtujh expectatialS, in:srt:ives and resam::es frail within the institution
Wi.ch pzawte and highlight ~ful rec:mi.tment.
'n1e key to institutional action is the President. In this office
resides the authority to set institutional priorities am to urrlertake critical initiatives. 'n1e Board of Regents am Chancellor hold this office
acx::ountable for can:yin;J our System priorities.
'l\VO things need to happen llDre specifically am regularly. '!he Regents am the Chancellor should reaffinn a clear priority for the increased Participation of minority faculty am students. Ani it nust be made clear to
each president that he or she will be held acx:ountable for actin;J on this priority.
'!he logical vehicle for definin;J the specific goals for am subsequently
assessin;J presidential actions in this area of acx::ountability is the annual evaluation.
'Iherefore, the conunittee reccmnen::3s:
that the <llaIrell.ar sbcaJ1d. meet with ead1 president fonnally to disoJSS and ult:iDB:tely agz-ee at cax:r:ete
goals far iD::reasinJ the participatiat of mi.Ixlri.ty
stuients and faailty. '1hese ~ shoold :reflect the different cart:ext:s within whim ead1 institut:.i.a:l resides and shoold LEpLeSent a zeal.istic descriptiat of lIIIhat
shoold be aexmpli.shed over the ccm:in:J year. '!he
OJancellor should :iI:::llDa an assessment of the
president's suc::ress in meet:in:J these ~ as ale part of
the SlJbr:;epenl ovezal.l evaluatiat of the president far that year.
455

AFF'IlH\TIVE ACl'Iaf PR:X:;R1\K
Ms. Ann smith Director Administrator Affirmative Action Office Georgia state University
'!he Affirmative Action Policy of Georgia state University was adopted in 1972 to reveal a positive prilosqi1y of equitable am consistent treatment of all personnel matters fran recrui:bnent am hirirg lmtil tennination or retirement.
It was March 27, 1972, the president of Georgia state University, Dr. Noah I.an3dale, issued a statement to all enployees of Georgia state university sayirg:
In acx:ordance with the requirement pranulgated by the U. s. Department
of labor tmier federal Executive Order 11246, as amerrled, we are please to reaffinn that Georgia state University provides enployment on the basis of qualification, i.np:lsirg no requirements with respect to race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin.
It was on this same date , Calvin L. Kiah was narred to head the Affirmative Action Office. Shortly thereafter, '!heron Spencer was named to assist Dr. Kiah in this effort. '!he Affirmative Action statement adopted at that time read:
It is the policy of Georgia state University to provide equal enployment opporbmities, includirq provision for tra:ini..n] for personnel nobility, without regard to such personnel characteristics as race, color, religion, sex, age or national origin; all personnel actions involving enployees, students, am other personnel contacts will be governed by an Affirmative Action Program develcp3d in c:x:xrpliance with the statutes and rules of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia and Georgia state University am the awlicable federal Executive Orders, 11246 am 11375, as amended.
'!he first Affirmative Action Plan entitled Georgia state University's Approach to Affirmative Action, was plblished and distributed during school year 1973-74. '!he guidelines for establishin;J the first plan were governed by the statutes and rules of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Georgia state University am the federal Executive Orders 11246 and 11375 as amerxied. As federal EEX) laws am regulations were enacted, Georgia state University continues its cc:mnitment to affirmative action.
'!he followirg list represents the federal EEX) laws am regulations that govern the Affirmative Action program at Georgia state University and the University System of Georgia;
456

1. Title VII of the civil Rights Act. of 1964, as amerxied by the
Enployment <:gx>rb.mi.ty Act. of 1972 am the Pregnancy Disability Act
of 1978 2. Executive Order 11246, as amerXIed by Executive Order 11375 3. Equal Pay Act 4. h:}e Discrimination in Elrployment Act. of 1967, as amerxied in 1974
am 1978 5. sections 503 am 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. of 1973 6. vietnam Era veterans Reconstruction Act. of 1972 am 1974, as
amemed in 1980 '!he University developed a eatp.It:erized data file for all enployees to meet the cx:mp:ments set forth in the Higher Education Guidelines. '!he Department of labor's Revised Order No. 4 was used as a guideline for
~ an availability in:lex for females am minorities. Once the availability am the urrler-utilization for females am minorities were
established, Georgia state University preceded to develq> ways to set up
goals am tine tables to correct the deficiencies. Special recnti:bnent
efforts were made to gain parity in the areas in which TNe were deficient. It
was the support am cxmni.tment of the president, provost, deans, department, personnel, the Computer Center, am the Institutional Pla.nnin:l Office that we were able to inplement the Affirmative Action Plan am remain successful in
its efforts. For seventeen years, Georgia state university has maintained its
cxmni.tment to Affirmative Action. Females have benefited nr>re by Affirmative Action than any other protected class. Females continue to increase in rnnnber
am in percentage in llDSt areas of enployment. '!he highest percentage of increase for minorities has been in the secretarial/Clerical am the Profes-
sional non-faculty areas. For the past three years, extensive efforts have been made to increase minorities in the areas of ExecutivejManagerial and Faculty which resulted in a one percent increase in both areas.
457

AN IlEA lHEE 'I'1ME HAS <Dm (Instituticmal Effectiveness)
BY DR. JOSEFH J. szurz
ASSISTANI' VICE rnANCELIDR FUR RESEARCH
System Magazine Vol 24, No. 3
March/April 1988
'!he cover sto:ry of this issue of System magazine examines the assessment movemant, the collective efforts un:lerwa.y in higher education to detennine
how well students are leanti.ng am to demonstrate how well colleges and
universities are fulfilling their avowed purposes. With this new attention
comes the need to consider the place of assessment - its origins am probable
inpact - in the higher education picture.
Institutional assessment is in part a response to the modern need to
know am understand more about how critical functions work am how they might
work better. It is also partly a logical outgrowth of education, a profes-
sion dedicated to the creation, transmission am presenration of knowledge am infonnation.
In some quarters, however, there exists a suspicion that assessment is
merely a fad. In higher education, as in goverrnnent, business am indust:ry, a number of innovative movements have come am gone. So too might institutional assessment come am go, but the suspicion that it is a fad clouds the issue am haIrpers the progress of ilrplementation.
On the other ham, there are several good reason to believe that the assessment of institutional effectiveness is not a fad, but a significant, long-term trend in higher education.
First, the i1rpetus to engage in outcome based self-assessment comes from the highest leadership authority, the nation's governors, legislatures,
state higher education executives am regional accreditation associations.
8eCOrrl, there is a moral authority behirrl the movement that has been
articulated by such. qualified participants am observers as Bok of Hal:vard, Bennett of the Department of Education am Boyer of the carnegie Foundation.
'Ihird, the interest of our goverrnnental leaders is motivated by the
intimate relationship between higher education quality am competitive success am prosperity, a motive that requires no elaboration.
Fourth, the interest of higher education leadership in assessment is related to the ongoing quest for a revitalized general education curriculum.
458

Fifth, the current rromentum of institutional assessment is a direct outgrowth of the public school reform novement that has impacted all 50 states over the last 10 years. Except in a few states, the higher education effectiveness initiative has not yet brought marrlated changes.
Although such a development remains a possibility in any state, we in higher education can avoid it by taking the initiative ourselves.
Finally, a growing rn.nnber of institutions are enhancing their reputa-
tions am creating a cx:xrpetitive edge by clelronstrating their effectiveness.
'!he tiIne may be coming when institutions unable to show evidence of quality
will fin:i themselves at a disadvantage in recruiting am retaining students
am faculty, attracting external ftmding, am so forth.
Arrj or all of the foregoing reasons would seem to suggest that institu-
tional assessment is an activity with fundamental value am long-term
potential. Waiting for all the CCllIII1Dtion to subside am assessment to
disappear will almost certainly result in missed opportunities am lost
advantages . Even if the word "assessment" one day becomes merely a tenn associated
with a historical movement, it is very probable that its proven practices
will have become an integral Part of the conduct of higher education.
459

A PERiPECI'IVE at s.I.tJIH'Ir ADfiSSIat AND 'mARiFER wrIHIN 'IHE llNIVERrr'IY SYS'lHI OF GE['R;JA
by
Dr. Ernest W. Beals Dean of Admissions, Georgia state University
I was asked by Dr. Noah langdale, Jr. to analyze '!he University System of Georgia admissions. It should be understood that the comments, ideas,
reccmne:njations, issues, am topics included in this paper are those of this one person, am do not necessarily represent those of any admissions col-
leagues in '!he University System. I merely put forth sane observations,
ideas, am beliefs that I have witnessed am garnered over the past thirty
years I have been associated with the admissions profession. I have seen
many new am exciting advances in this field, am I have seen some regressions in our policies, practices, am procedures that bother me. Yet, I am filled with hope am expectations that the future will bring iIrproved opportunities am educational e.nhan<::e1rents for those students who enter our
university system institutions of higher leaming.
'!he University System, now 57 years Old, currently consists of 34 institutions: 4 universities, 15 four-year state colleges, and 15 two-year colleges. '!hose institutions enrolled 153,652 students in fall, 1987. '!he steady increase in students the university has experienced over the last
decade is projected to continue am will number about 160,000 students in fall, 1989, am possibly as high as 166,000 in 1992. 1 '!hese projections of
system's enrollment grcMth are made even though high school graduate numbers in the state of Georgia are projected to decrease rather sharply over that span of tilne according to the Western Interstate Ccmunission for Higher Education (WIaiE). '!hat agency projects Georgia's high school graduates to decline from 63, 718 in 1989 to 60,421 in 1992, representinJ a 5% decline over those three years. 2
'!he number of enrolled students is a drivinJ force when reviewing
reports am literature about '!he University System of Georgia. Numbers irrleed are important - in the past, current, am in the future. Yet there
are so many factors other than numbers that need to be identified, studied,
scrutinized, am acted upon. It is possible that this fixation on "numbers'
is a derivation or product of the spitting out of data by our sophisticated computer systems or the desire to generate more budget dollars for the institutions, or a combination of both. It seems to me much more important to look at additional issues that may impact '!he University System, the
state, am the students who atterrl our institutions.
460

ISSUES
Education am Enrollment of Minority Students.
I know of no other issue facing '!he University System of more importance
than that of in'proved education of this state's, am Weed of the whole
nation's, minority students. '!his tenet is not put forth only on the basis
of moral am righteous groun3s, although that is reason enough, but also because the Well-being am maybe even survival of this great nation as a
world leader may deperrl upon it. It is projected that by the year 2000, one out of every three high school graduates will be what is currently described
as a minority student. '!his state am this nation cannot afford anything
less than full conunitJnent to educating these students to the very best of our
am their abilities. I speak of vastly in'proved education for those students fran Jdnjergarten to secorrlary school, am everything in-between; then on to college am even beyorrl.
In order for this state am this nation to remain economically, irrlustrially, am politically cart'petitive, we will need a work force of very well-educated am trained young people. 'Ihe University System of Georgia must make this a top priority issue to be faced am resolved in this decade
prior to the 21st century.
'Ihe University System must increase the number am Percentage of
minority students enrolling in am graduating from its colleges am universities. Obviously, such a complex issue carmot be resolved by a few words in
a short paPer. However, some basic precepts am concepts can be identified
am noted for further scnltiny, discussion, am thought.
'!his is an area where two educational agencies must work together for the benefit of each of its constituency groups. 'Ihe Georgia state Deparbnent of Education am the Board of Regents of '!he University System of Georgia
have an ideal opportunity to coordinate efforts am strategies in moving
Georgia students from elementaJ:y school to secondary school, am on into
college am graduation from college.
'Ibis effort should be targeted at all of Georgia's public school students, but there is a SPeCial challenge in making it work for this state' s minority students. Not only is the dropout rate in secorrlary school of minorities significantly higher than that of majorities, but the college going rate is lower, arrl is actually decreasing over the Past few years.
'Ihe Deparbnent of Education arrl 'Ihe Board of Regents have already shown they can coordinate efforts by in'plementing the Quality Basic Education Plan (QBE) arrl 'Ihe University System's College Preparatory curriculum Plan (CFC). Even though these programs have been in operation for just a short time, it is already evident that they have had a positive iIrpact. Georgia's SAT mean scores increased a total of 8 points in 1988 compared to 1987. 'Ihat was the greatest growth experienced by any state in the nation. While QBE arrl CFC cannot be given statistically valid credit for that, it likely that there is a positive relationship.
461

SUch programs as QBE am CPC are steps in the right direction, but Imlch
Irore must be done. Georgia must strengthen its efforts to recruit talented
am gifted students to teacher preparation programs. Incentives must be
made, such as state Ironies available to defray students' college expenses,
waiver of educational loans if they enter the teach.irq profession, am higher
teacher salaries. '!he educational agencies should have a mandate to do whatever is necessa:ry to iItprove the image of classroan teach.irq by the lay
public as a revered am well-resPeCted professional erneavor. Minority students need to be recruited am enticed into teacher preparation programs since minority teachers would sel:Ve good role Irodels for younger students am help in the counseling of am retention of minority students.
Irxlividual university system institutions should also take Irore aggressive participato:ry roles in revising the lowering percentage of
minority students seeking am atten:ling college. Too often institutional efforts to recruit minority students are targeted toward juniors am seniors
only. For many minority students that is too late.
COOperative early intervention programs hold some promise. For exanple,
'!he Atlanta Public School System am the Georgia state University Admissions
Office are working together in establishing an early alert program for junior high school students. Visitation programs are already scheduled in several junior high schools for this fall. Both Atlanta Public School guidance
PersOnnel am G5U admissions staff will provide infonnation to am discuss with those seventh am eighth graders the ilrportance of a college education am how to prepare for it. '!he purpose of such an effort is not to recruit
students to Georgia state University Per se, but to encourage those young PeOple to think early about college in general as a real possibility. '!his
Atlanta Public School am Georgia state University joint effort has built into it programs to meet with the parents of these seventh am eighth graders in an effort to seek their support, interest am assistance in Irotivating
their children to consider atten:ling college.
Here, too, is a special opportunity for Atlanta's business conununity to make a major contribution in this effort to increase the rnnnber of minorities
atterrling am graduating from college. '!his makes good business and
economical as well as educational sense, for these ve:ry students will be the
ones to enter this area's am this nation's business am industrial sector in
the years ahead.
Already some businesses are taking such initiative. '!he Atlanta area Norrell Corporation has established a special scholarship fund to pay for four years of college education at either Dekalb College or Georgia state University for a rnnnber of students, IroStly minority students, at Cedar Grove high school in Decatur. '!he Norrell Corporation, with support from Dekalb
College am Georgia state University personnel, will work with those 1989 freshmen, following them through their high school career am hopefully onto
college.
'!here are other atterrpts similar in nature by the business community to help in assisting the educational progress of minorities. '!he University
462

System am business should explore together ways of cooperation in this most
vital area of college enrollment.
Financial Assistance for our System Students.
Another issue that relates to the one previously mentioned, but extends to all categories of students in '!he University System, is that of financial assistance to those who need it. Far too many students are graduating from
our system colleges am universities or TNOrse still, dropping out without
c::arrpleting their degrees, having a huge debt hanJing over their heads. Many dropouts fran college are caused by lack of:funJs. ~ of these students may retmn to college later, but many may never retmn because they cannot afford the additional costs. Even those who do c::anplete an urrlergraduate degree, but came out with a huge debt because of large loans they needed to repay, are kept fran continuing on to graduate school because of lack of
f'un:1s.
It is plain to see that not only does this affect the educational plans of our state citizens, but ilnpacts significantly our state's overall economy. Not only are we short-changing the educational process of these students, but
we are adversely affecting their ability to prrchase goods am services,
which obviously affects our economical growth am well-being. '!his state am
university system must be creative in resolving this negative force in our educational system.
Personalization of the Admissions Process.
'!his is one of the issues in the IOOdern admissions process that concerns me very nnlch. It is my contention, particularly within the public higher
education sector, that we have depersonalized, dehumaniZed, am mechanized
the admissions am selection process to the point of detriment to the student
am the institution. Yes, we have learned to "personalize" the acceptance
letter by addressing the student by first name, identifying the student' s major, providing the student with llrportant information, etc. '!his is
helpful am good, but too often it is looked at as a marketing ploy rather
than real personalization efforts. Of more concern to me, however, is the depersonalization of the admissions selection process itself. '!here was a
time when personal qualities am characteristics of the applicant were
integral components of the applicant's total file. Unfortunately, in my estilnation, we in '!he University System, as is the case in other states and other systems, have denigrated the process by utilizing only those variables that are easily measured, namely the SAT or Acr scores, high school average or class rank and the resultant predicted grade point average.
I believe there have been a number of events that have led us to this state of affairs: 1) with the tedmological advances in the camputer, it has
become "easy" to calculate whether a person is admissable or not; 2) the
setting of mi.ni.rnum standards of admission criteria has en;rerrlered the use of mechanical cut-off scores and grade point averages; 3) the O1ancellor's Office of the Board of Regents sets minimum objective criteria, and then requests the system institutions to provide feedback showing that each and
463

every student either met or didn't meet those few objective criteria, thus
rather llla1X1at~ that the process be quite mechanical in nature: and 4) the sheer mnnber of students seeJdn;J admission to system institutions lends itself to "process~ paPer and calculat~ figures" rather than looking at
each applicant as a total htnnan be~ with strengths and weaknesses, with particular experiences and personal circumstances that makes one different from another, with educational counsell~ needs that might be resolved by a personal interview between the students and professional admissions officer. '!he admissions officers need to reassess our roles, practices, and procedures and factor in the importance of each applicant's personal and htnnanistic qualities and characteristics.
Mobility of students within '!he University System.
I often fim perplexing and sanetimes worner at h.ow and why students enrolled in '!he University System weni their way fran one system institution
to another, to another, am maybe to another. Many times there seems to be
little reason or logic in their :rocwes. '!he University System is composed of
4 universities: 15 four-year state colleges, am 15 two-year colleges. It seems that the ability to :rocwe from one to another at a1.m:>st any ern of
quarter, assum:i.DJ leav~ in good starrling, is an enviable characteristic.
It sourrls good on the service, but Irr:I experience says that that is not necessarily the case. We have three tiers of institutions. Each tier has different missions, different constituencies, different academic programs, different admissions standards, different goals: yet it seems that in deal~ with transfers, they are all treated alike, at least at lOOSt of the system institutions.
'!he state of Georgia is fortunate to have at least one system institution within c::xmnut~ distance of just about all citizens in the state. '!his
allows citizens, assum:i.DJ they meet the institutions' admissions criteria, to
begin their post-secorrlary education at some system institution. Many will probably need to transfer to another institution at sane point(s) in their undergraduate careers.
It seems to this writer that this :rocw~ about should be done with more care, reason, am organization. If the three tier higher education system does Weed have different admission standards, different programs, and different constituencies, then why should transfers amorgst these institutions be treated as if they are all alike?
currently, again possibly motivated by the numbers syndrome, system institutions vie for each other's students. This is a fonn of "raidirg" even if not overtly done. '!he two-year colleges often are not really two-year colleges, but two-quarter colleges for some students. A student may be ineligible to atterrl a system university as an enter~ freshman, so may atterrl a two-year college, take 20 quarter hours and obtain a flat 2.0 GPA and be automatically eligible by policies for enrollment as a transfer at the university that denied him two quarters ago. I question this mechanical criteria approach to transfer admission. In all likelihood it would have been better for the student, the serrling institution, and the receiv~
institution to have the student complete the two-year associate in arts
464

degree program. '!he student would have better c::JPIX>rtunity to develop those academic areas that were weak, obtain at least a two-year degree, complete IOOSt if not all core courses in a setting IlDre corrlucive to his/her academic
readiness am competition, am then transfer as a full-fledged junior to a
state college or university. At that point in time thereafter they will be
taking courses primarily in their interrled major area am probably perfonn at a better level, attain a higher graduation GPA, am starrl an excellent chance
of receiving the bachelor's degree.
Mobility within the four-year sector am reverse transfers present less
problens than from too early two-year to four-year transfers.
'!he University System of Georgia needs to establish a fonnal. two-year to
four-year transfer articulation plan am compact. several other states are am have been successfully operating urrler such plans for many years. I
refer to such states as Florida, Massachusetts, california, Illinois and several others.
It would appear that Georgia is currently in a good. position to move to
such a plan. It has a single management am administrative stru.cture in the
Board of Regents. Many states have a separate administrative unit for the two-year sector and separate administrative for the four-year sector, making
coordination am agreements IlDre difficult to arrange. '!he University System
of Georgia is already ahead of the game by having a canm::m core of courses in place in all its institutions, so that transition from the lower division two-year college Associate in Arts degree program to the upper division
4-year program would be a smooth am complete transfer.
Exceptions would have to be made for students in such programs as engineering, same of the health sciences, agriculture, etc. SUch programs might necessitate transfer to a four-year institution after one year at a two-year college because of the prerequisites and sequence of sophomore level courses. 'Ihis would be considered only if academic readiness is evident by good. first-year perfonnance and review of high school credentials.
'!he benefits of a fonnal. two-year to four-year system-wide articulation agreement seem evident:
* A person can transfer with an Associate in Arts degree with no loss of time or credit, am enter as a full-fledged junior.
* A person who completes an A.A. degree at least has a fonnal. degree
awarded; if a person transfers before completing the A.A. degree, it is possible no degree will be awarded.
* SUch a program makes IlDre stable enrollment for both the two-year am four-year institutions.
* Helps maintain admissions starrlards and ilnprove retention rates at
both levels.
* Graduation GPA' s and graduation rates would undoubted!y ilnprove at
both levels.
* A student entering a two-year Associate in Arts degree program can
be assured up front that transfer will be guaranteed upon successful completion of the A.A. degree.
465

It TNOUld seem that the Board of Regents of the University System of
Georgia, provided it has the will, has the tools am structure necessary to
iIrrplement such a transfer articulation plan in the not too distant future.
SUch action \o1OUld create an organized am fair system of transfer mobility
throughout the system that would benefit the student, the sending institu-
tion, am the receiving institution.
SUpplementim EnroI1Jnent of the Traditional College Bound High School Graduate:
Most colleges are aware of the expected decline in the numbers of high school graduates for at least the next six or seven years, and possibly longer. It is urxierstaroable that this POSeS a dilermna for most of '!he University System institutions. However, it may also present us with some opportunities to be creative in supplementing the typical 18 year-old college l:x:l\.mi student. '!here are other constituency groups out there that may not have been tapPed to their fullest. I refer specifically to the non-traditional students (often referred. to as adult learners or retun1i.ng students), and the international students fram other countries. Also more can be done with recroitment of transfer students. If an institution admissions office corrlucts proper marketing research and develops will thought-out recroitment strategies, then it is in:leed. possible to not only maintain enrollment numbers during down tilnes, but actually increase the numbers and possibly even the quality of newly enrolled students.
Probably the constituency group that may hold the most promise is the adult lean1er group. '!his is a group that is increasing in mnnbers. Many institutions in the system already boast of having a large number of adult learners in their current student body. Where this is true, it may not have happened because of any Particularly creative recroitment efforts, but quite possibly by being located. in a Particular area.
Institutions can create conditions that would make their institutions more appealing to that market by such things as: establishing very flexible class scheduling hours; offering ~ive day-care centers; offer preenrollment seminars on "retun1i.ng to school"; provide pre-enrollment career
counseling opportunities; visit am work with large companies' and corpora-
tions' educational units; bring course offerings to the students at off-
canp.lS locations convenient to them; am provide financial assistance
programs specifically designed for the adult working student.
'!he adult lean1er usually does not need nor want all the frills that go with the typical college life synjrome of the 18 year-old entering student.
However, they want good academic programs am good solid teaching. TIley want
an institution that cares enough about them to cater to their needs as mentioned above. Generally, they want to be mainstreamed into the college educational process, but without all the student life activities attached.
TIle international student constituency group also offers much potential for '!he University System institutions. If one really thinks about it, the international student is a huge market, Particularly at the graduate level,
466

but also the un:'lergraduate level. Many institutions in the nation have
aggressively recnrited the intemational student am are not reaping the
rewards. Generally, the intemational student has :ft1ms to pay for hisjher education, making it even nore a~ing to a college or university.
However, for an institution to do well in this area, it must conunit
:ft1ms am services to a strong marketing plan that includes recruitment visits to various countries, specialiZed prcm::>tional brochures am materials, meetings with the foreign corrpanies, corporations, am consulates located in the institution's area, student am faculty exchange programs, am provide special services am programs on campus to meet their cultural needs.
Enrollment Management Is the Answer:
'Ihe recruitment am admissions processes are vital to our institutions'
well-being. But that is only a part of the solution. OVerall enrollment management is really the answer. To the best of my knowledge, no system
institution has fully established a fonnal, complete am comprehensive
enrollment management program. Some have begun some promising programs, some
are thinking about it, am some may be unaware of it.
'Ihere are many different definitions of an enrollment management program. 'Ihe one I prefer goes something like this: "enrollment management
is the interaction between the collegiate institution am the student from time of origin of contact, to matriculation, to graduation am even beyond, am everything in between." It includes recnritment, admissions, retention,
and post graduate involvement. Imbedded within those four categories are such areas as financial aid, records, academic advising, career development, counseling, academic programs, special programs, student life, intercollegiate athletics, etc. , etc. 'Ihe IIDSt :inp:>rtant ingredient, hOVlever, according to such retention ~ as Dr. vincent Tinto of SYracuse University, Dr. Patrick Terenzini, of the university of Geo:rgia, and others, is the individual classroom professor. It is safe to assume that nearly every
person am every unit on campus have :inp:>rtant roles to play in a well
operated enrollment management system.
'Ihere are four knOVln models of enrollment management operating in various colleges and universities throughout the nation. 'Ihe models are typically described as: the "retention model", the "coordinator model", the ''Matrix model", and the "division model". It is not feasible to attempt to describe these models in this paper, but any system institution wishing to see these models described in nore detail should rrake reference to the book entitled: creating Effective Enrollment Systems, by IXln Hossler; '!he College Entrance Board, New York, New York, 1986. In can be ordered from College Board Publications, Box 866, New York, New York 10101. 'Ihe price is $12.95.
Hossler also identifies am describes several nethods of planning and
implementing the various models described above.
In brief sununary, 'Ihe University System institutions are threatened by a seven year decline in the number of traditional college bound high school graduates. '!his neans that in order to maintain or increase the enrollment rn.nnbers they must: increase their share of their prilnaIy and secondary
467

markets; f:i.rrl new markets to tap; supplement the traditional students with an
increase in the adult learner am intenlational students ronstituencies'
increase their rate of retention (it should be noted that generally a 1% increase in retention is equivalent to a 5% or 6% increase in newly enrolled students); or all of the above.
With the will, the support of the legislature am Board of Regents, am good enrollment management, '!he University System of Georgia will grcM am
rontinue to be one of the leading higher education systems in the nation.
Refeu:n:es
1 Enrollment am Quarter credit Hour Projections - 1988-1992; Board of
Regents of '!he University System of Georgia; Haskin R. Pounds; June 28,
1988
2 High SChool Graduates: Projections by state, 1986 to 2004; Westenl Interstate commission for Higher Education, '!he College Board, TIM, Boulder, Colorado, March, 1988
468

By
Chief JaIOOS DeariIg Director, Administrator Georgia state University Police
In March 1966, legislation was passed by the Georgia General Assembly giviIg colleges an:l universities in the University System of Georgia the authority to eIl1ploy campus security an:l };X)lice personnel with the power of arrest. Notwithstanding the passiIg of this legislation, campus };X)lice and security d.epart:nents, for some ti:roo thereafter, remained nothing more than "nightwatchmen" operations. '!his belief is supported by the fact that the General Assembly, for example, only allowed campus security and };X)lice departments to make arrests on school property. '!he "nightwatchmen" trend continued in Georgia, as well as in the nation, until the late 1960's. In July of 1968 the University of Georgia eIl1ployed Edward T. KassiIger, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigations agent, as its Director of security in an effort to help briIg its security Department into the modern arena of law enforcement. Mr. KassiIger cl1anJed the security Department into the University's present Department of Public safety.
'!he hiriIg of KassiIger would help to signal a revolution that would not only cl1anJe the face of campus law enforcement in Georgia, but also the nation. As evidence of this cl1anJe, KassiIger's Department of Public Safety would later encompass the campus };X)lice, the envirorunental safety division and even the Regional North Georgia Police Academy (which would provide basic, mamated trainin:J for local law enforcement officers in Northeast Georgia). KassiIger's reorganization of the University of Georgia Department of Public Safety would also encourage all officers in the Public Safety Department to be college undergraduate students or seeking a graduate degree.
Although basic, marrlated training became a state requirement for the vast majority of law enforcement officers in Georgia in 1970, it did not apply to campus };X)lice an:l security officers until 1975. Many campus public safety departments, however, such as Georgia state University, Georgia Institute of Technology and, of course, '!he University of Georgia had previously chose to send their officers to a state regional };X)lice academy for the basic mamate course required for law enforcement officers in an effort to build quality campus public safety departments.
In 1974, the statute creatiIg campus };X)lice and security officers, Georgia Code Annoted, 32-168, was amerrled by the General Assembly. Georgia state University's Public safety Department has requested the amendment because the original stature only allowed campus };X)lice arrest powers on
property owned by the University SYstem in Atlanta. Ole to its metropolitan
(downtown) location, Georgia state's Public safety officials felt that an amendment was particularly necessary if the Georgia state campus };X)lice was to patrol traffic and make necessary arrests on those city streets pagsiIg through, an:l adjacent, to the campus. '!he amendment allowed the campus
469

police of colleges arrl universities un:ler the control of the University System Board of Regents to have jurisdiction to make arrest on public arrl private property within five huOOred (500) yards of any property under the control of the University System Board of Regents.
In 1975 the Peace Officer st:arx3ards arrl Trairlin3" Counsel of Georgia, which serves as the law enforc:enelt regulatoJ:Y agency for the state of Georgia, arrl the General Assembly marnated that state college arrl university canpus plblic safety departments were required to meet the minimum, mandated trairlin3" required of all law enforc::enent officers in the state of Georgia. Because many canpus plblic safety departments were already seeking to be consistent with law enforc:enelt trairlin3" guidelines, the transition to mandated trairlin3" did not necessarily prove disastrous for some of the State's larger colleges arrl universities. Presently IlDSt if not all, of the colleges arrl universities in the university System are in compliance with the Marrlate Trai.nin;J Act.
'!hough there have been changes, the standards now set for campus police officers seek to provide classroom as well as field trairlin3". '!he two requirements all canpus law enforcement officers must meet are:
1. all canpus law enforcement officers must be enrolled in a state approved regional or departmental police academy within twelve (12) months of his or her date of employment;
2. all campus law enforcement officers must complete a minimum of 240 hours of classroom arrl field trairlin3" at a state approved regional or departmental police academy.
Because the trairlin3" arrl education of campus police officers are essential to the health, safety arrl growth of each college arrl university, many campus law enforcement arrl plblic safety departments, through their departIrent training officers arrl field trairlin3" Pro9raI1lS, seek to take trairlin3" a step beyorxi the minimum requirements.
As previously mentioned, all of the University System's four year colleges arrl universities have well trained arrl competent police arrl security departIrents arrl are headed by highly trained directors. Presently there remains two areas of concern among carrpus police administrators in the university System. First, campus administrators are examining whether to allow :recently employed law enforcement officers to Perfonn law enforcement duties, on carrpus, prior to receiving the minimum training at a regional or departmental police academy. 8ecorx:l, the question of how to compete with local law enforcement agencies in recruiting, salaries arrl retention of PerSOnnel has been a focus of much discussion.
470

Mr. rrhanas J. ~ier Director, Financial Aid Office
Georgia state university
In order to evaluate the inpact of Federal :fl.mii.n:J decisions on higher
education in general arrl the university System of Georgia in specific, it is necessary to review the history of Federal involvement in the financin:J of
higher education. Fran the G.!. Bill to present, programs arrl :fl.mii.n:J levels
have expressed the state of the national conscience as well as the national econany. In response to concerns in the 1950's abaIt national defense, the National Defense student Loan was initiated in order to prcm::rt:e enrollment in higher education, especially in math arrl sciences. '!he program allowed borrowi.rg at a very low interest rate with liberal. repayment or cancellation provisions. '!he early sixties brought the civil Rights m:JVement arrl concerns about access to higher education for the econanically or socially disadvantaged. F'l1rrling was expa.rrled through programs of the "Great Society" to include grants, work-study programs, arrl federally insured loans through canmercial lerrlers. D.1rin:J the seventies, the federal programs were expa.rrled further to include middle income families. 'n1e intent was to go beyond access arrl allow students a choice in the type of institution of higher education they attend. However, with the late seventies arrl early eighties came the realization of the necessity for budget constraints arrl the reduction of the federal deficit. With this realization two major trends have highlighted the decade of the eighties.
'n1e first was the federal govennnent beginn.i.nJ to greatly influence the
delivery arrl receipt of student financial aid through procedural constraints ilrp)sed. by regulations. Despite what the original intent of the various regulations may have been, in fact the regulations often ilrp)sed. barriers to effective administration.
Specifically, regulations that marrlated starx3ards of satisfactory academic progress towards a degree; the i.Irp:xsition of required verification of reportai family financial data; the required collection of various certifications arrl c::x::I'lpliance statements fran all applicants; redesign of methodology used to detennine financial need; arrl the recent procedures for default prevention are areas that have seriously affected the ability of student financial aid offices to deliver aid to eligible students in a timely manner.
:IIrposed in 1983, the regulations of satisfactory progress required institutions to develop arrl apply starx3ards that would limit eligibility for aid to only those Inakin;J progress according to the Federal definition.
Institutions that already practiced a code of academic discipline approved by collegiate accreditin:J agencies were forced to in'plement and administer an additional review process for financial aid recipients. '!herefore, financial aid recipients meetin:J the starx3ards set by the univer-
471

sity to remain in atterrlance may be eliminata:l fran participation in financial aid arxl as a result not be able to continue their enrollment. Also the additional administrative burden creates delays in the delivery of student aid funjg on institutions such as Georgia state university.
Verification regulations were ivposed in 1978-79 for the Pell Grant Program arxl were exparrled in 1986-87 to include all other Title IV student financial aid programs. :rntemed to reduce fraud arxl abuse in the aid programs the regulations required detailed verification of selected data items suhnitted by slightly lOOre than 50 percent of the awlicants in 1986-87 arxl over 70 percent for 1988-89. As IDaI'Xlata:l, the verification regulations caused increased 'WOrkloads arxl costs for institutions. '!he impact at Georgia state university (GSU) was significant. GSU requires all awlicants to apply for aid through the College SCholarship service, an awroved need-analysis seI:Vice, that has an extensive edit procedure. In addition, GSU required all students to correct arxl reprocess 'Whenever conflict:in;J data was fourrl to affect eligibility. Since the original regulations, the process of verification at GSU was expanjed to include all selecta:l by the Department of Education whether discrepancies were fourrl or not. While errors are made am:mg our filing population, the costs incurred to detect these errors greatly exceeds the benefits.
Probably the nest burdensane task required by regulations is the collection of the students' signature arxl certification on what has become a variety of statements. Applicants for federal student aid are required to sign a statement of Educational PUl:pose; statement of Refunjg arxl Defaults; statement of Selective service Registration status; statement of Updata:l Infonnation arxl Anti-Drug Abuse certifications. '!he costs associata:l with revising fontlS, changing consumer infonnation, reprogranuning computer systems, arxl training staff are incurred each time a new requirement is added. '!he use of these statements as a deterrent to abuse has never been proved, however, the regulations continued to be :i.np:>sed.
A significant change to the delivery of aid to eligible students came with the iIrplementation of Congressional Methodology, a formula used to detennine a family's ability to pay for college ~ written into law and interpreta:l through regulations. Cc>n:Jressional Methodology uses a student's arxl student's family prior year inc::x:tne to calculate eligibility for aid. '!his concept has serious iIrplications for the entering student that may have 'WOrked full-time with the intention of leaving the full-time job to atterxl institutions of higher education. Cc>n:Jressional Methodology replaced Unifonn Methodology which has evelved through a consensus of financial aid administrators, need-analysis seI:Vices arxl the federal govennnent. Eecause Congressional Methodology is I10Vl part of the law, the process to lOOdify it to best seI:Ve the intent of the aid programs has been camplicata:l, arxl institutions must allocate lOOre staff time arxl :resources to explain this methodology to our students.
Most recently, regulations designed to cc::anbat the rising costs of student loan defaults have been iIrplementa:l that attack the problem in the same broad stroke fashion. After much c:::annelt, final regulations established
472

a four-tier approach that will call for different ki.ms of actions basErl on a school's default rate.
Tier One includes three separate requ.i.rerrents. '!he main enphasis for University System Schools is the requirement that all schools provide PersOn to PersOIl CX)lJI')Se1in;J to every first-time borrower of a stafford or SSL loan.
Tier 'IWo, 'Ihree, arxl Four contain increasin;J lOOre stringent provisions. If an institution's default rate exceeds 20 percent, the secretary must approve a default reduction plan containing specific measures designed to address the problems at that particular institution.
Tier'Ihree imposes two autanatic measures for schools with default rates over 30 percent. 'Ihese institutions would be required to delay certification of applications until 30 days after the first day of class ani implement pro-rata tuition refurrl policies.
Tier Four authorizes the secretary to initiate limitation, suspension arxl tenni.na.tion (IS & T) proceedings if the school default rate reaches 40 percent ani is not able to reduce its rate by percentage points per year. IS & T procedures are inunedi.ately imposed it the default rate reaches 60 percent.
'!here are many contributing factors to an institution's default rate, however, it is documented that the greatest number of schools with the highest default rates are proprietary institutions offerirq non baccalaureate programs. 'Iherefore, many institutions such as Georgia state University are forced to implement procedures to address a problem we do not have. Conversely, many institutions are affected by high default rates despite their best efforts to control student borrowirq. '!he ability for the institution to participate for currently enrolled students can be tenninated due to loans made in prior years that mayor may not have been properly serviced by the lending institution.
'!he secorrl major trerrl of the eighties is a combination of a shiftin;J of the tyPes of aid available ani the shiftirq of tyPes of institutions participating in the programs.
'!he main shift has been the aIOC>Ul1t of lOOnies available in grant programs versus loan programs. '!he stafford Loan Program (GSL) has become the dominant student aid program. 'Ihus the Federal strategy of a balanced array of grants, loans, arxl work opportunities for the disadvantaged has been transferred, with uncertain ani largely unexamined implication for the groups who were the original focus federal concern. Heavy enphasis on borrowirq may discourage traditionally urrlerenrolled groups from participatirq in higher education arxl hil'rler the nation's progress toward equal opportunity. 'Ihe national trerrl has been a decline in minority applications to institutions of higher education. Much SPeCUlation, but little hard data, points to shift to heavy reliance on loans as a major contributor to this decline.
Another concern of the University System must be the major shift of Pell Grant recipients to the students of proprietary institutions. The
473

percentage of Pell Grants to these types of institutions nearly doubled between 1980-81 ani 1985-86. 'IWo year p.Jblic institutions retained a constant share of Pell Grants while four year p.Jblic ani private institutions saw their share decline.
rata provided by student financial aid offices of the institutions in the University System irrlicate that the national treros also are evident in Georgia's p.Jblic institutions.
Federal Grants awarded to University system of Georgia students increased from $22,829,709 in 1980 to $29,622,156 in 1988; 30 percent. Loans :received for the same pericx:l increased fran $23,623,053 to $53,286,108; 126 percent.
A look at the data on borrowing aIIOJl;J black students in Georgia shows an increase of 103% an the amount borrowed per year (1980-$928 VS 1988- $1887) while their white counterpart, borrowing only increased 45% (1980- $1505 vs 1988-$2188). '!his increase in amount borrowed coupled with an increase of 60% in the rn.nnber of blacks who borrowed provided no increase in enrol1lnent. Blacks were borrowing to replace grants ani to s.i.nply keep up with increased cost of att.e.Imnce.
In SUIllllla.l:Y, the University System of Georgia must address the problems associated with increased Federal intervention in the student financial aid programs; the increase in total dollars administered fran $86,706,676 in 1980 to $159,594,418 in 1988, a 84 percent increase, the shift fram grants to loans, ani the increase depen:iency of minorities on loan programs. Insufficient resources allocated to the student financial aid office will result in their inability to manage the increase in funds ani the increase in regulations that must be met in order for the University System of Georgia to be in continual :receipt of these funds.
474

Dr. RalPl Russell
Library Professor Georgia state university
'!he final years of the 1980's have witnessed cont~ cl'1an3'e, growth in collections, ilrprovement in sane aspects of library management, arrl some difficult resource allocation issues for libraries in university System of Georgia institutions. '!he rate of cl'1an3'e required for the appropriate use of technology for infonnation retrieval arrl management has quickened, not lessened. With the advent of each technological breakthrough, opportunities for innnediate use arrl benefit for the library user al::x::Jurrl in geometric
proportion; tmhappily, the initial purchase cost, installation, arrl main-
tenance of the technology too frequently increases with the same geometric proportion! While University System libraries (hereafter referred to as "libraries") continue to provide the traditional infonnation sources of books, jOUDlals, arrl microfonnats, the inclusion of new fonnats are found at all levels of institutions arrl within all geograPlic areas. Conpact diskread only meroc>ry (or CD-RCM's) , machine-readable data files, videocassettes, cx:xrp.rter software, arrl audio cc::.arpact disk are representative of the new fonnats contained in libraries. '!he bulk of the libraries' nonpersonnel expenditures, however, is spent for books, jOUDlals, arrl microfonnats for our library clientele. It is arourrl the stnlggle to provide an adequate journal collection that the m::>st dramatic dlange for our libraries in the eighties has occurred.
Although there are many variables considered in assessing the strength of a college or university, the institution's library arrl its collections are usually the primary consideration; the journal collection is considered the backbone of the researd1 collections. '!he lOOre institutional emphasis on researd1 arrl investigation, the greater rn.nnber of jOUDlal titles one expects to fim in the library's collections. If anything characterizes the past decade in higher education, it is rampant inflation in the cost of library materials. '!he m::>st flagrantly offerrling component of that inflation is the inflation rate for the price of journals.
Economists arrl other scholars cite several reasons for the inflation
rate in the cost of journals. since so many scholarly journals are published
outside the U.S., the value of the dollar drastically affects jow:nal subscription prices. '!he past ten years have witnessed periods of a weak; declining dollar. Arrj decline in the dollar's value drives up the cost of a foreign journal subscription.
'!he international publishers' attitude that U.s. libraries should pay lOOre than individuals or libraries in other countries, while not frequently documented, is a factor in the rising cost of journal subscriptions. '!here may be an element of greed, too, in the arlJitrary increase in the price of j OUDlals when production costs could not have increased by a factor conunen-
surate with the increase in journal prices over the course of a year. Not
only is the inflationary rise in the cost of journals a serious detriment to
475

library collection developnent, it is the :inp:dim:mt to scholarly communication intrinsic in diminished library collections which is IIDSt heinous. As
libraries provide fewer am. fewer jOllnlal titles of scholarly output in a given year but at greater cost per title, we are buyin:J fewer am. fewer
moIlOgraIils in order to finance those shri.nki.Ig jOllnlal collections. OUr
monograIil collections are increasin:Jly salvaged am. neglected so that we may
buy j Ollnlals.
Unfortunately, the tale does not ani there. As librarians have robbed other budget priorities to :fum the bw:geonin;J cost for jOllnlals, library
equipnent has not been purchased am. library staffs have been reduced in
mnnber in many institutions.
'!he attached ~ces illustrate sc:me characteristics of journal price inflation. Apperrlix A shows a ten year history of the average price for
periodicals paid by colleges am. universities in the U.S.; the average cost
rose fran $45.14 to $117.75, an increase of 160%. No system library enjoyed any acquisitions budget increase over the decade approaching that figure. Apperrlix B is an illustration of the relative charges in the consumer price
iIrlex, a sanple of U.S. periodical prices, am. a database of worldwide
journal prices. As the nineteen-eighties evolve, the spiralin:J costs of journals, particularly foreign titles, m::we further fran the consumer price iIrlex. Apperrlix C provides a history of the dollar's fluctuatin:J value on the int:enlational market compared with the average cost to U. S. libraries to purchase foreign journals. '!he data are provided by the F. W. Faxon Company, Boston, MA, a journals jobber to libraries.
Arr:l review of libraries in the closin:J days of the 1980'S would, of
necessity, include the application of technology to library prosessin:J am.
the retrieval of info:nnation. All four universities have integrated automated library syst:en5; 33% of the senior colleges have such technology
installed am. operatin:J; am., 20% of the junior colleges are currently usin:J such syst:en5. '!here is interest, expertise, am. need throughout our institutions. we must have sc:me furrling specifically for automation with oppor-
tunities for educatin:J academic administrators throughout the system on the
costs am. benefits of such technology to library users.
'!he IOClSt critical need, however, is for each SYStem library to build machine-readable catalogin:J records. Arr:l specific system furrling for library
automation must begin at the IIDSt elementary level-the info:nnation which fonnerly was on catalog cards must be machine-readable before significant library automation can take place. '!his is the point of difficulty for some of the smaller libraries. '!hey need help in convincin:J their administrations that the creation of such machine-readable records will ultimately redound to
the benefit of their faculty am. students, am. to citizens throughout the
state. We cannot share resources until we know who owns those resources. Without that info:nnation in an accessible file, we cannot borrow efficiently.
476

:RECn1MENDM'IONS
1. Additional acquisitions :fuI'rls for libraries. 2. Encouragement fran the Chancellor for all institutions to create
madri.ne-readable library catalog :records. ('!his will be required for
arr:l e.xchan:Je of holdin;Js data or the sharin:J of library resources.)
477

APPEI\DIX A
Average Price Paid by College and Universities

U.S.$
120 100
80 60 40

11775
.;';i~)
t@~~lf
@~
:~::~~:>; :??}.:::~
:ili~
,-:"'-:-:"": ~~~~~}
il
~I
~l1J
.f;.t:.;~.:.1:-f:
~jJt~
.:.:-:-:.;.:
:~~f~
r:{~

20
o
n78 78-79 7980 8081 8182 82-8383-84 8485 85-86 86-87 87-88
July 19n . March 1988

Date are suppl ied by the FI WI Faxon CanpariYJ BostonJ MA
478

Consumer Price Index Comparison

APPENDIX B

400

300 - ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -......---JII;I--
200 -t-----------.."..--------=~.-=:0---8 N/ A
100 ..ft't!E:::::~----------------------

7S 75 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 85 87 88
U.S. Periodicals, limited sample
II Faxon Comprehensive
Database
o Consumer Price Index
Date are supp1i Ed by the FI WI Faxon Cro1Pmy.l Boston.l !V'A
479

Foreign Titles in the Faxon Title Database Average Price 1976 - 1988

APl:gill IXC

U.S.S
140
J 120
100 I-
80 60

138.50
8
Weak Dollar 116.69 l
99.761

Weak Dollar

80.12 79.50 ':"l--{::J - '
n.09 Strong Do liar

40 .-1.,1

n 76

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

_
87 88

Data ere supplied by the F, W, Faxcn ComPcrYJ BostonJ MA
480

March, 1989
Dr. Joan Elifson Assistant vice President
Developoontal Stu:ties Georgia state university
Develc:pteltal studies within the university System of Georgia was first
begun system-wide in 1974. '!hen-Qlancellor George SiItp;on am the Board of
Regents were concemed that the IlJV'es toward increased access to postsec:::orrlary education would leave many students vulnerable to academic failure. students representirg groups which had previously been denied access to units of '!he University System, were beirq admitted to college, many without the necessary requisities for success.
Immediately followirg World War II, with the establishnvant of Veterans' benefits, thousarrls of veterans entered college. In acx::eptirg these "nontraditional students," many colleges chan;Jed their lorg-established entrance
starx:1ards am began to try to acx::ollulOOate students who were not as prepared
as their "traditional" college students had been. Just over a decade later, the civil rights IlJV'emant, which stressed as one of its tenets that all citizens should have equal access to higher education, encouraged minority
students to participate in higher education am forced colleges to open their
doors, again, to a "new non-traditional student."
In Georgia, as well as elsewhere in the nation, the 1960's marked a period of unprecedented growth in college enrollment. '!he national trerrls were reflected in Georgia's enrollment patterns with the participation rates in college of Georgia's recent high school graduates up dramatically: the number of students attel'xlirg colleges within the University System 10Clre than tripled. According to a history of the DevelClIJ1l3l1tal studies program which was included in a report made to the C11ancellor in 1984 by the Academic Advisory committee on Developnental studies: in 1960, 21. 5% of the graduatirg seniors went on to college; in 1970, 41.0% enrolled. '!he differences represented a large number of students who were umer-prepared for the rigors of the academic program. 'IWenty-four percent of the student enterirg colleges in the University System durirg the 1970-71 academic year had a combined SAT (SCholastic Aptitude Test) score of less than 750.
According to that same report, in the summer of 1968, the Board of Regents urrlertook the first of several projects designed to discover ways to deal effectively with the special need of poorly prepared students:
*'!his draws directly from a report made by the Academic Advisory committee on Developmental Studies (1984) but is significantly updated.
481

'''!his first project was called the 'On Trial' programs. Poorly prepared students were permitted to enter college during the sununer as 'Special' students. 'Dley were placed in regular classrooms with the regular students. 'Dlus in the 'On Trial' programs, 'Special' students were given the chance to prove themselves; if they <::X>\.1ld Perfonn on a Par with the regular students during the sununer, they were allCMed to enroll as regular students fall quarter in spite of the predictions of test scores or high school records. Although sane students sua:eeded, the 'On Trial' programs proved to be disastrous for the majority
In 1969 the Regents fun:ied tW'O eJePeri.mental programs (at savannah
state College am South Georgia College) to tJ:y to fim better ways
of dealing with the many problems of poorly prepared students. It
was found that many of these students, given special attention am
extensive counseling, <::X>\.1ld be helPed
By 1973, however, the problems of these students appeared to be so
widespread am of such ilnportance that a special cannnittee was
constituted to consider the problems fran a system-wide point of view. Rec::amrnermtions fran the cannnittee were generally that: (1) a coordinated program within a separate clepart:mant be established at each institution; (2) the head of each department should be responsible to the chief academic officer of the institution; (3) a
staff especially qualified for am interested in the program be
errployed.
A fonnal policy statement concerJ"lin;;J 'Special studies Program' was issued by the Board of Regents in october, 1973. 'lbrough these policies the Regents cannnitted all institutions in the University System of Georgia to the concept of assisting the inadequately prepared. Minimum requirements were set which applied to all institutions. Policies included: the establishment of a mini1num SAT sex>re, an irnicator of the need for plac:etrent testing; the
adoption of a starrlardized test, the CCXrprrative Guidance am
Plac:etrent Test (CGP) as the official plac:etrent :instn.lmant for the
system; the establishment of minimum CGP sex>res for plac:etrent am
exit; the recognition of one year as the maxinu.nn length of t:i1ne a student <::X>\.1ld remain in the program.
A system-wide Academic Advisory canmi.ttee on Special Studies was
set up to monitor the new program am make ~tions for
chan;Je as the program matured.. In 1978, the Special studies program became part of the Desegregation Plan of the University System of Georgia."
By 1976 it was recognized that the University System needed to develop its own plac:etrent test. Urrler the leadership of the Regent's Testing
Program, the Basic Skills Examination was developed am iInplemented as the
System-wide test to be used for Developnental Studies placement am exit.
482

In 1982, the Board of Regents adopted a revised set of policies on Special studies. '!he revised policies were based on :recx::moorrlations of the Academic Advisot:y camnittee on Special studies followinJ two years of work. 'Ihe new statement elilninated many of the ambiguities in the 1973 statement and sought to brinJ nv:>re unifonnity to the programs throughout the state. It was also durinJ this Period that it was decided to change the name of the program to IlDevelopmental studies. II
FollowinJ the outcome of a suit filed against the University of Georgia, the Developnental studies Program came into the linvllight. Allegations that the program at the University of Georgia had provided preferential treatment for athletes were substantiated. '!he Vice O1ancellor for Academic Affairs called for the innnediate audit of all Develc:ptental studies programs to detennine whether there were policy violations at any other institutions within the University System. Heads of Develc:ptental studies Programs, chief academic officers, admissions officials, athletic officials and others were inteJ:viewecl and student records were examined. All but six institutions in the System were declared to be in general compliance with Regents' policies on Developmental studies. Generally the problems at the six institutions resulted fram faulty recordkeepinJ or misinterpretation of Regents' policies.
As a result of the audits, the Vice O1ancellor for Academic Affairs undertook a revision of Regents' policies on Developmental studies. He drew up a short policy statement and simultaneously developed a nv:>re specific set of administrative procedures which would govern the program. 'Ibis policy and these procedures were inplemented Fall Quarter, 1987. 'Ihe revised policy and procedures served to reduce further the ambiguity in the policies but they also reduced the ability of institutions to adapt the program to differing needs and resporrl to the needs of individual students. Many institutions considered them too rigid to meet institutional missions. In 1989, the policies were again examined and recammendations for adjustinJ them are perxiinJ.
FollowinJ the University of Georgia case and the ensuing audits, the University System began to prePare for the effect of the inauguration, in 1984, of the Collegiate Preparatot:y CUrriculum. Student admitted to the University System who graduated fram high school after Spring, 1988, were required to have completed four years of high school En:]lish; three years of high school mathematics, including algebra I and II, and gearoott:y; three years of science, including two years of laboratot:y science; three years of social sciences, including American histot:y, world histot:y, govennnent and econanics; and, two years of foreign language. 'Ihose who did not came with the requisites in science, social science or foreign language were required to camplete additional coursework as a part of the core curriculum work. 'Ihose who did not came with the requisites in En:]lish or mathematics were
subject to Developmental studies screeni..nJ. Further, because the high school
curriculum requirements in mathematics had been defined by the College Preparatot:y CUrriculum policy, the University System Academic Advisot:y committee on Mathematical SUbjects detenni.ned that college algebra should begin with work which follows high school algebra II; in many institutions this meant that the Developmental studies mathematics curriculum had to be exparrled. Because the expectations for applicants was higher, the System
483

adopted a new examination for placenent arrl exit. '!he test, the Collegiate Placenent ExaInination, was developed by Acr followin;J guidelines established
by a university System ccmnittee. '!he test was first used in summer, 1988.
'!be Roles of the Develqm::ntal SbDies Pnxnam
Develc:poontal studies prograns have two prinm:y roles within the University System of Georgia. At the time that the p~ was initiated it was i.nterrled to serve as an ~:ropriate intel:vention p~ for the marginally prepared student. It is clear that it also serves as the guardian of staI:dards for the system arrl as such serves as a refinement of admission
staI:dards
Develognental studies Academic Intervention
As the Develc:poontal studies p:>pulation has grown, it has been recognized that a rn.nnber of non-traditional groups are served by Developmental studies prograns, giving them a chance for success in their pursuit of college-level coursework.
1. Older students, who opted not to go to college as young adults but who now firxi that college work is necessary for career advancement arrl PersOnal growth: '!he University System adopted a policy in 1983 for admitting non-traditional students urrler special admission criteria, specifically excluding the requirement that students present admission test scores (SAT or Acr). SUch students are screened for admission to Developmental studies.
2. Iate-decision-college-hopefuls, those who made course selection in high school with no plans for college but who decide to go to college during the senior year (or even after graduation) and who can only hope colleges will accept them arrl that they can be successful with help arrl high m:>tivation.
3. Academically urrler-prepared students, those who come from high schools with weak curricula for preParing students for collegelevel work, those from schools where advanced mathematics, laJ::x:>ratory science, arrl foreign language i.nstruction are not offered.
4. SOCially urrler-prePared students, those with inadequate study and
social skills for maki.rxJ the transition from high school to
college.
5. I.ean1ing disabled students who have been served with special aa:::c:moodation in high school programs who now require special accalnllcx:1ation in order to be successful in college programs.
Applicants referred to Developmental studies show academic potential for college-level work, on college admission tests (SAT, Acr) arrl the high school record, in order to be given the chance of admission into the developmental p~. Once admitted to the institutions, developmental students work
484

toward enhancing overall cognitive abilities arrl academic skills. '!his instructors guide their developnent while helping them to accept the responsibility for their own future. 'n1ey practice transferring their new skills to the academic disciplines. Most of them will then be admitted to degree programs arrl na;t of those who are admitted to degree programs will succeed.
Developnental studies offers CXJUrses in Erglish, reading, arrl mathematics. 'n1e Erglish CXJUrses generally focus on teaching exposito:ry COl'l'pOSition. '!hey serve as bridges not only to the freshmen Erglish program for their institutions but for all the freslnnan courses which require essay writing. COgnitive arrl develq:mental psychology has helped developnental Erglish faculty to urrlerstarrl that the growth patterns in cognitive abilities affect the ability to learn. to write effective essays. Because exposito:ry writing calls for sophisticated thinking skills in order to craft an argument or posit a solution for a problem, many students have trouble with the cognitive demarrls of their writing assigrmelts. Erglish instructors are tmning lOOre arrl lOOre to fostering the developnent of cognitive ability in their classrcx:ms as a requisite skill for CCltlfXJSition.
Reading i.nstroction in developmental studies must focus on academic level reading. In order for students to be successful in the freshman programs, academic literacy is necessa:ry. students must have a broad enough general vocabula:ry to serve as a base for developing discipline-specific vocabularies in their core a.n:ricultnn courses; arrl 1lD.1St be able to see main ideas not only in short passages but see trends in chapter-IeD3th essays. More difficult for students, they must be able to "read between the linesll for author purpose arrl tone, for evidence of bias arrl opinion; and they 1lD.1St read critically, testing the author for accuracy, fain1ess, and comprehensiveness. Students must also have achieved a sufficient rate of reading by the time they enroll in survey courses in the social arrl natural sciences so that they can keep up with the heavy reading demams. All of these issues are addressed in developmental studies reading programs.
Developnental studies mathematics courses are built to bridge students into college algebra who have not had (or need to have refreshed). Some institutional programs begin with arittnnetic; others begin with only a review of those arittnnetic topics necessary to serve as a fot1l'X3ation for algebra. In any event, the emphasis is on concept developnent, and problem solving
strategy.
Developmental Studies as Guardian of System Standards
'n1e freshman admission stamards for an institution depends on the success of freshmen in recent previous years at the institution and are governed by minimums set by the Board of Regents. Students are admitted into the system's institutions based on their high school Perfonnance arrl on their SAT scores. Standards in each institution are set based on the Perfonnance records of previously-admitted freshmen classes on these two measures and on their success in their freshmen year. 'Ihe central staff of the Board of Regents generates an institution-specific prediction formula based on the correlation of high school grades and SAT scores with Perfonnance in freshman-level courses. '!his formula is then used to predict the success of the
485

new freshmen. students predicted to ean1 at least a "c" average in freshman
courses are generally admitted directly into the institution's degree
programs. 'nlose who are predicted to ean1 less than a "c" average in
freshman-level courses or who do not meet the mi.nintum stamards set by the Board of Regents are referred to developne.ntal programs.
'!he University System's admissions practice results in two types of
correct predictions: that students who can be successful are admitted am
that students who cannot succeed are denied admission. It also results in two types of incorrect predictions: that students who can be sua::::essful are
not admitted am that weak students are admitted. 'nle stronger the correlations between high school credentials am actual Perfonnance, the fewer the
incorrect decisions. Developmental studies programs seJ:Ve to with the Fall Quarter, 1983 enrollm:mt. In 1984, the university System adopted a FallQuarter-to-Fall-Quarter analysis of retention infonnation. SUbsequently, it has followed students fran one Fall quarter to another. While such analysis
gives a profile of sua::::ess am retention rates, it is far fram a clear picture am does not allow the System to answer detailed questions about the sua::::ess am retention of Developmental studies students. Students who make
steady progress toward graduation but who are not enrolled in a subsequent Fall Quarter are treated by the analysis as a dropout. 'nle system of analysis also blurs the profile because it considers students as dropouts if they enroll in the University System only for a sequence of courses which they nay complete. 'nle analysis considers them a dropout if they do not Persist toward a degree.
Major fin::lings of the University System study which relate to Developmental studies include the following:
1. In the University System of Georgia a higher proportion of regularly admitted first-time freshmen than first-time Developmental studies students Persist fram the first to the second year.
2. Black Developmental studies students Persist at about the same rate (63.3%) as all other race Developmental studies students (63.3%).
3. A Developmental studies retention rate advantage for all other race
students develops am increases in the second through fourth years.
4. 'nle overall first year differences between black am all other am between Developmental studies am freshmen retention rates (favoring the latter group in each case) increased in years two am
three.
Regarding the first finding: first-time, full-time Developmental studies students, rn.nnbering 6,630. First-time full-time freshmen rn.nnbering 13,173 in the Fall Quarter 1986 Persisted to the Fall Quarter, 1987 at a rate of 81.9% 'nle nearly 19 percentage point differential reflects the overall differences
in preParation of the Developmental Studies students am freshmen. within
the three universities in the System which have Developmental studies programs, the differential is substantially less (77.3% for Developmental
486

studies students an::l 88.9% for first-tiIne freshnen, for a 10.7% differential.)
'!he university System report concludes that "although national statistics which measure student retention in a manner c::e::npmIDle to that enq;>loyed in this report are not available, the canparative infonnation that does exit suggest that the total retention rate shown for each institution type...are relatively high." '!he success of fonner Develq;mantal Studies students has been followed as a part of the reporti.rg requirements of the university System to the Office for Civil Rights. A number of :iJllportant conclusions can be drawn fran the University System Stnnma.l':y data for 1986-87.
1. Approximately 35% of those students who are tested on the required placement instnnnent (the BSE in 1987) are not required to take develq;mantal coursework. (Specifically, 34% taking the English examination exerrpt coursework in English; 42% taking the reading examination exerrpt developrental course in reading; 31% taking the mathematics examination exerrpt develq;mantal coursework in mathematics. ) '!he students in this category are able to deIronstrate their competence in basic skills through the testirg.
2. No calculation is possible to detennine how many students in a given cohort are able to c:orrplete all developrental requirements. usirg the number who entered an::l the number who exited in a given year, the followirg propJrtions are noteworthy: 6764 students completed all English requirements, while 10,234 students entered with English requirements, while 8224 students completed all reading requirements; 6580 students c:orrpleted all mathematics requirements, while 10,564 students entered with mathematics requirements. More students have mathematics requirements than any other area.
3. While IOOre than 21,815 students took CXJUrSeS by requirement in Developmental studies programs, 14,763 were new students in the fiscal year. Approximately one-third of the students were continuing students from same previous academic year. '!his is partially a function of the year arourrl admissions practices of the University System an::l partially a function of the stop-out pattern of many students.
4. More than 1800 students took developmental studies courses as auditors. '!hese students were not required to take the coursework but took the work either by self-referral or by advisement.
canbin:in:J the number of auditors an::l the number of students tak:in:J
CXJUrSeS by requirements, the rnnnber of students seJ:Ved by Developmental studies programs in the 1987 academic year was 23,627.
5. students who c:orrplete Developmental Studies coursework an::l who then took freslnnen coursework fared well. In English such students pass the freshman composition coursework on first attempt at a rate of 61%. Regular freshmen students passed at the rate of 83%. As a follow up to readirg preparation, students are compared in the
487

first social science CXlUrSe they take. Fonner Developmental studies students passed their first att:enpt at a rate of 82% e::atpared to 91% for :regularly admitted freshmen. In mathematics, fonner Develqm:mtal studies students passed their first atteJrpt at a rate of 70% CCIl'Ipared to 79% for :regularly admitted freshmen.
Recormnerx:iation Regard.ioo Follow-up of Developnental studies Students:
'!he methodology for tracki.rg the retention am progress of Developmental
studies students which has been adopted by the Board of Regents does not allow certain i.IrpJrtant questions to be answered. '!he currently adopted methodology for assessirg retention calls for an analysis of fall quarter-to-
fall quarter return rates. SUch methodology does not account for the
stoppirg injout phenanenon CCI1IllDn anv:>ng students. Further, the arumal reportirg fonn required of develcpnental studies programs does not call for infonnation in a fonnat that allows for the assessment of exit rates for programs.
'!he state should adopt a methodology for tracking developmental studies
students based on a cohort analysis. SUch a methodology allows a careful look at one enterirg class of student over a lorg period of time. Attrition and progress of these students can be assessed I1Dre meaningfully over time with
periodic analysis of student status. SUch a methodology should allow for tracking students fran one System institution to another.
SUch methodology would allow the System to answer such questions as:
1. How many students enterirg in a given year completed their CS requirements? How lorg did it take?
2. What was the profile of CS requirements of the students of a given year? (How many were required to take developmental work in all three academic areas--camposition, readirg, mathematics? How many had requirements in only two areas? in only one area?) Are the
retention am progress rates of students with different profiles
significantly different?
3. Is the retention am progress rate different for Part-time versus
full time students? for students admitted to Develqm:mtal studies versus those admitted as non-traditional student (those out of school for five or I1Dre years) versus those admitted as provisional students (those with pre-college curriculum deficiencies in
mathematics am English) .
488

DEVEl.OPHF.NTAL snmms REPORT - 1986-1987 UNIVERSITY SYSTEM SUMMARY

1\11 renpon!tes are to be based on the 1986-1987 fiscal ycar, \oIlllch Includes SUlJlncr C}u:nter, 1986 throllch Sprinp, Quarter, 1987. Inform.1tlon mll'lt be reported by race for OCR reporting purposes. "0" refers to B1nck students; "0" includes whli:c. lUapnnic. AsIan-American, llnd aLL cntl!gorlp.~
except Black students; "r" refers to the total group.

PART A. NUHDERS OF S11JDENTS THIS FISCAL YEAR Items 1 - 4 require information based on specifIc Deve10pmentsl StudIes areas (EnglIsh, reading, and mathematics).

ENGLISH

B

o

r

READING

B

o

r

MAllIEHATlCS

B

o

T

1. Number of entering students required to take BSE for placement in this area

t; 2. Of those Included in item I, number of

'-0

students who exempted this D.S. area

5244 11987 17231 961 4924 5885

3. llumber of students who entered this fiscal year
and enrolled in a 0.5. course or courses in this area (Do not include students who only audited.) 4156

6078

10234

5119 11571 16690 1075 5946 7025
3721 4502 8224

5032 11916 16952 1106 4159 5265
3635 6929 10564

Item 4 refers to students who exited Developmental Studies during fiscal year 1986-87.
4. Number who exited this area: a. after one quarter of course work
b. after two quarters of course work
c. after three quarters of course work
d. after four quarters of course work
e. after more than four quarters of course work
Total number of students who exited this area (Bum of a through e above)

1163 2771 3934

JU1.. --2..ll 1 7 8 8
436 332 768

134

87 221

45

8

53

2590 4174 6764

1143 2303 3446
-647 -58-9 -1-236
290 193 483
143 56 199

32

7

39

2255 3148 5403

832 2502 3334
610 -14-01 -20-11
307 481 777 200 202 402

34

22

56

1983 4608 6580

Items 5 - 8 require information based on Developmental Studies headcount without regard to area or areas of enrollment within Developmental Studies.

5. How many of the students who entered your institution this fiscal year took one or more Developmental Studies courses7 (Do ~ot include students who only audited a D.S. course or courses.)

B
4950

o
9813

T
14763

6. How many students enrolled in a Developmental Studies course this fiscal year7 (Include new and continuing students, but not those who audited only.)

7299 14516 21815

7. How many Developmental Studies students Were suspended or dismissed for academic reasons this fiscal year7

506 911 1417

8. How many students audited a Developmental Studies ~ourse this fiscal year7

292 1520 1812

+--
'-D
o

fliRT B. HINlliUM PLACEHENT REQUIREMENTS THIS rISCAL YEAR

1. Minimum requirements for regular admission without BSE screening:

SAT-V - - - SAT-M - - - Other:

_

2. ~linimum ESE scores required for exemption of Developmental Studies:
English - - - Reading - - - Math - - -

J. Minimum BSE scores required for exit of Developmental Studies:

English

_

Reading

_

Hath - - -

PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE COMPLETED THE FIRST COURSES IN ENGLISH, MATHEMATICS, OR SOCIAL SCIENCE TIlTS ~;;CAL YEAR.

StudentR with D. S. Prerequisite

Regular Students

Number Taking

% Pass

Number Takin~

% Pass

TOTAL

B

0

T

B0T

B

0

T

B 0T

ENGLISH

2913 5056 7969

65. 74. 7l.

3565 21900 25466

74. 85. 83.*

HATH

2306 4044 6350

72. 70. 70.

3917 20909 24886

73. 80. 79.

SOCIAL SCIENCE

3044 54f\7 8531

78. 84. 82.

6972 38924 45900

87. 92. 9l.

UNIVERSITIES

ENGLISH

799 1064 1863

60. 74. 68.

1077 7202 8279

76. 87. 85.*

.j::- MATH
\0 I-'
SOCIAL SCIENCE

499 696 1195 892 1396 2288

74. 78. 77. 80. 86. 84.

1253 7795 9108 2855 15255 18110

77. 84. 83 87. 94. 93

SENIOR

ENGLISH

1354 1854 3208

69. 78. 74.

1790 7255 9046

74. 86. 83.*

MATH

1336 1383 2719

73. 66. 70.

2091 8022 10113

7l. 79. 77.

SOCIAL SCIENCE
_.TWO-YEAR

1527 2328 3855

78. 83. 8l.

2999 13307 16310

89. 92. 9l.

ENGLISH HATH

760 2138 2898 471 1965 2436

65. 70. 68. 66. 69. 68.

698 7443 8141 573 5092 5665

72. 83. 82.* 70. 77. 76 ..

SOCIAL SCIENCE

625 1763 2388

76. 86. 83.

1118 10362 11480

84. 90. 89.

*Georgia Tech is not included because incomplete data were reported.

'IUITIQf VS. 'I2\XES
Ms. Glynton smith Director Mministrator Mministrative 8eJ:Vices Georgia state university
Background
Half of the states in the SOUth now have fonnal tuition policies to
assist decision-makers in setti.:rq tuition am fee levels. '!his compares with
one-fourth in 1980. '!here has been a ncvement away fran the tradition of
basi.:rq tuition on the difference between what states awropriated am what
institutions believed they needed to cperate.
'!here are three general methods reflected in public higher education tuition policies. All have a c::anrocmal.ity that tuition should be set in relation to some other inticator. '!hese methOOs are:
1. Tuition is set as a proportion of the costs of providi.:rq education programs.
2. Tuition is set in relation to an external yardstick (e. g., Consumer Price In:lex or Per capita PerSOnal income).
3. Tuition is set in relation to a group of Peer institutions.
A rn.nnber of years ago there was a general urrlerstarrling that tuition revenue (called matriculation in Georgia) should account for 25 percent of the Resident Instruction budget of the university System of Georgia. In the absence of a fonnal policy, there was a ternency for tuition not to be raised by the Regents concurrent with increases in state appropriation. Tuition had lagged to 19 percent when the Study Conunittee on Public Higher Education Finance was asked in 1982 to develop recornrnerx:3ations for a policy to clarify
the responsibilities of taxpayers am students in payi.:rq for the costs of the
university System. By this action, the responsibility for setti.:rq tuition in actuality shifted fran the Regents to the I.e;}islature.
'!he Reoort of the Study Conunittee on Public Higher Education Finance
(1982) rec:anm:mied that "student tuition am matriculation fee income
should account for 25 percent of the total General Operations revenue" in the budget for instruction for resident students. '!he policy was OPerationalized with the provision that annual tuition increases not exceed 15 percent.
'!he Board of Regents authorized a 15 percent increase in tuition and matriculation fees in FY 83, FY 84, and FY 85, followed by a 12.5 percent in
FY 86, 8.5 percent in FY 87 am a 5.7 percent in FY 88. '!hese increases have
been of concern to students, citizens and nenbers of the I.e;}islature since the percents of increases are frequently associated with inflation for that
492

period. However, if Georgia follows the national treni which is very likely,
during the period of 1965-1985, students' ability to pay, as measured by per capital disposal incane (after tax incane) has nore than kept pace with
tuition ani fee increases Financim Higher Education (SREB, 1987, p. 8) . Student financial aid has greatly increased cx:mcurrently, further offsetting tuition expenses.
'!here seems to be a lack of general urrlerstaniing of the rationale
urrl.erlying the tuition policy. sane still believe that inflation has so
eroded the value of family savings that it places nore of a burden on present day current incane. A m::>re realistic view is that there has siIrply not been sufficient tine in Georgia to adjust to the psychological shock of systematic tuition increases in order to "catch up" to 25 percent.
Another factor causing the sharp tuition increases, not anticipated by the Regents, was the dissolution of an agreE!l1e1t made in 1982 among the different political entitles that the Regents' portion of teacher retirement contributions would not be included in the calculation of a 25 percent cost. However, the GoveJ:TlOr's Office of Planning ani Budgeting subsequently adopted the position that this major cost should be included. '!he Board of Regents acceded to the request. '!herefore, at that point in the System's histoI:Y student tuition increases reflected the revenue required to offset one-fourth of University System costs for teacher retirement contributions. '!he cost of this contribution in FY 88 was $83.5 million.
It should be bon1e in min:i that the 25 percent is applied to the total System ani not across the 34 institutions. How have student fees changed at :in:lividual institutions within the University System of Georgia?
Student Fees
Fees are classified as either marrlatoI:Y or elective. MarrlatoI:Y fees include: (1) fees marrlated by the Board for all University System students, such as matriculation fees ani non-resident tuition, ani (2) fees marrlated by the institution ani approved by the Board such as student activity fees, athletic fees, health fees, ani transportation fees . Elective fees are established by the institution, approved by the Chancellor, ani paid by the students who elect arrljor benefit from the specific service such as student housing, food service, ani special class fees.
Marrlatory Fees
MarrlatoI:Y fees of the Board for matriculation/non-resident tuition are compared below for FY 80 ani FY 87. (see C11art Copied from Policy Manual: Office of Vice Chancellor of Fiscal Affairs)
other Marrlatory Fees
since other mandatoI:Y fees are set by :in:lividual institutions ani approved by the Board of Regents, longitudinal comparisons are set forth below by :in:lividual institutions.
493

(see chart fran University System of Geo:rgia Infonnation Digest 1986-1987)

Elective Fees

Elective fees are established by the institution, awroved by the
O1ancellor, arrl paid by the students who elect or benefit fran the specific seJ:Vice such as housirg arrl fcxxi seJ:Vice. 'Ihese fees are tailored to irxtividual student needs/wishes, e.g., meals per week. '!he data are too varied to make lorgitudi.nal. c::c.q:arisons, but an irrlication of the tren:i is suggested in the estiInated typical cost section.

Typical Cost

For a Geo:rgia resident to atterrl a System institution in Academic Years 1983 arrl 1988, estiInated infonnation is provided below for residential institutions. Geo:rgia Institute of Tec'lmology is representative of graduate
institutions. 'I\1i.tionjmatriculation fees have increased 48 percent for each catego:ry of institution. However, increases in total estiInated cost is shown to va:ry: 38 percent for the Geo:rgia Institution of Technology, 34 percent for four-year college arrl 22 percent for junior college.

(see chart of Typical Cost to Atterrl a University System Institution, Geo:rgia Resident Only Source: Vice O1ancellor for Fiscal Affairs)

Comparative Infonnation

'!he question might also be asked how tuition arrl fees in Geo:rgia in 1986-87 canpared with other public institutions in the South and in the
nation and what the projections are for 1987-88. In its recent m:mograph,
"'I\1i.tion arrl Fees in the SREB states: T:rerrls am Issues," SREB (1987, p.3)
provides the data to answer these questions. In 1986-87, Geo:rgia resident un:iergraduate tuition arrl fees can be canpared to the median by catego:ry of
institutions.

~ralI
~ral II other 4-year Master's II 'IWo-year

Georgia 1,662 1,557 1,278 842

SREB states 1,323 1,320 1,117 600

U.s.
1,592 (Can't read #) 1,288
736

'!he above figures irxlicate that Geo:rgia was close to the U. s. median in 1986-87 arrl slightly above the SREB median. '!he projections for 1987-88 (SREB, 1987, p.1) suggest that ll'OSt southern states increased tuition and fees in the 5-10 percent range arrl like Geo:rgia moved closer to the national median.

(see Chart of EstiInated Percent Increase in Resident 'I\1i.tion and Fees, Public Four-Year Institutions, SREB states, 1986-87 to 1987-88. Source: SREB sw:vey of state higher education agencies. May~une 1987)

494

Tuition 'l'J::'enjs vs. other Iniicators
'!he SREB ~ (1987) plotted eatparison of trerrls in tuition am
fees in p.lblic universities, Consumer Price In:lex, and Per capita PersOnal inccme (after tax inccme) for the united states, 1965 to 1985. '!he data sources for the graIil extracted and presented belCM are shown. Tuition and
fees outpaced inflation in 17 of the 21 years. on the other bani, increases
in Per capita PersOnal inccme have outpaced tuition increases since about 1973.
(see GraI;i1 Monthly labor Review: center for Education statistics, Digest of Education statistics; etc.)
'!here is reason to believe that data for Georgia, if readily available, would have paralled the national data overall. HoI.t1eVer, the deliberate "catch up" increase Period between 1983-1987 should not be carpared to either inflation or Per capita inccme for the same Period. Rather, it should be related to a fonnal policy agreed to by the various political entities that students should be assessed 25 percent, through tuition and matriculation, of general operations budget for i.nstrocti.on.
Student Financial Aid
'!he question might be asked hCM Georgia supports student financial aid. '!he C1'lronicle of Higher Education (March 16, 1988, p. 30) supplied infonnation set forth belCM. Georgia ranked. near the bottan in tenns of an average award ($345) for urrlergraduate need-based assistance. By contrast Georgia ranked near the top in tenns of an average award ($882) for urrlergraduate non-need-based assistance. '!his latter categolY of award is attributed for the IOClSt part to tuition equalization for private colleges and universities.
(see Chart on Estimated state student Aid, 1987-88)
Conclusions
"Tuition vs. Taxes" was the title of this chapter. As this title
iInplies the primalY sources of revenue for higher education are tuition am
fees charges students and contributions by state and federal goverrnnents.
'!he questions of "Who is goiD;J to pay the cost of the University
SYstem?" was answered when a fonnal tuition policy was adopted in 1982. '!he
escalation of tuition was iInplemented to "catch up" to Parity between tuition and state appropriation in keepiD;J with that policy.
Tuition and fees in Georgia p.lblic higher education matched the U.s. IOOdian generally in 1986-87 and were somewhat higher than he SREB IOOdian. '!he irrlication is that S0100 other southern states will IOClVe up in 1987-88 to
the U. s. IOOdian.
495

General conclusions reached are:
(1) Georgia's tuition am fee structure has reached parity with the
furrling fonnul.a. (2) Georgia's furrling structure is adequate to SUWOrt an adequate
university System of Georgia (3) 'nle present furrling fornul.a, incll..ldin:J tuition, is not sufficient
to build public universities of pre-emi.nence called for in the econc:mic developnent of Georgia. (4) state student aid is very low for need-based assistance to lowincane students attem.in;J University System institutions. On the other bani, state student aid for non-need-based assistance is available to l:x>th high as well as low incane students attem.in;J
496

University Level Institutions

Georgi a Tech Full-time Students Students Less tham 112 QCH

Georgia State Law All Others

Medi cal College Medical and Dental All Others Full-Time Less Than 12 QCH

University of Georgia

Forestry Full Time

Less than 12 QCH

Law -

Full Time

Less than 12 SCH

Veterinary Medicine

- Full Time

- Less than 12 QCH

Pharmacy - Full Time

Less than 12 QCH

All Others

- Full Time

- Less than 12 QCH

oy 1980

Matriculation

NonResident

$195 Qtr. $ 16 QCH
NA $ 13 QCH
$405 Qtr. $195 Qtr. $ 16 QCH
$199 Qtr. $210 Qtr.
$231 Qtr. $195 Qtr.
$195 Qtr. $ 16 QCH

$430 Qtr. $ 36 QCH
NA $ 28 QCH
$405 Qtr. $350 Qtr. $ 30 QCH
$350 Qtr. $350 Qtr.
$350 Qtr.
$350 Qtr. $ 30 QCH

FY 1987

Matricu-

Non-

lation

Resident

(Effective Summer 1986)

$460 Qtr. $ 39 QCH
$ 49 QCH $ 30 QCH
$1,105 Qtr.
$460 Qtr. $ 39 QCH
$545 Qtr. $ 47 QCH sa58 Sem. $ 74 SCH
$630 Qtr. $ 53 QCH $534 Qtr. $ 46 QCH
$460 Qtr. $ 39 QCH

$1,123 Qtr. $ 95 QCH
$ 98 QCH $ 74 QCH
$2,209 Qtr. $920 Qtr. $ 78 QCH
$1,089 Qtr. $ 93 QCH
$1,716 Sem. $148 SCH
$1,068 Qtr. $ 91 QCH $920 Qtr. $ 78 QCH

Senior Colleges Full Time - Less than 12 QCH
Junior Colleges - Full Time Less than 12 QCH

$153 Qtr. $ 13 QCH

$262 Qtr. $ 22 QCH

$112 Qtr.

$174 Qtr.

$ 9.50 QCH $ 15 QCH

S347 Qtr. $ 29 QCH
$263 Qtr. $ 22 QCH

S694 Qtr. $ 59 QCH
$497 Qtr. $ 42 QCH

Notes: 1) Students who do not qualify for resident status must pay 22!h the matriculation and non-resident
fees. 2) The Law School at the University of Georgia began operating on the semester system in FY1985.

Sources: Policy Manual; Office of Vice Chancellor for Fiscal Affairs
University System of Georgia Information Digest 1986-1987

497

Institution
Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia State University Medical College of Georgia University of Georgia
Albany State College Armstrong State College Augusta College Clayton State College Colunbus College Fort Valley State College Georgia College Georgia Southern College Georgia Southwestern College Kennesaw College North Georgia College Savannah State College Southern College of Technology Valdosta State College ~est Georgia College
Abraham Baldwin Agric. College Albany Junior College Atlanta Junior College Bainbridge Junior College Brunswick Junior College Dalton Junior College Emanuel County Junior College Floyd Junior College Gainesville Junior College Gordon Junior College Macon Junior College Middle Georgia College South Georgia College ~aycross Junior College

FY1980 (In Effect Fall 19792
$55.50 Qtr. 13 Qtr. 25 Qtr. 56 Qtr.
55 Qtr. 27.50 Qtr. 25 Qtr. 8 Qtr. 23 Qtr. 55 Qtr. 33 Qtr. 46 Qtr. 34 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 42 Qtr. 45 Qtr. 24.50 Qtr. 40 Qtr. 46 Qtr.
22 Qtr. 12 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 12 Qtr. 15 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 25 Qtr. 28 Qtr. 10 Qtr.

FY1987 (In Effect
Fall 1986)
$108 Qtr. 23 Qtr. 62 Qtr. 94 Qtr.
95 Qtr. 55 Qtr. 50 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 43 Qtr. 95 Qtr. 59 Qtr. 100 Qtr. 72 Qtr. 34 Qtr. 81 Qtr. 98 Qtr. 57 Qtr. 88 Qtr. 92 Qtr.
60 Qtr. 15 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 11.50 Qtr. 45 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 15 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 20 Qtr. 30 Qtr. 10 Qtr. 55 Qtr. 38 Qtr. 10 Qtr.

* Quarterly Fees mandated by the institution and approved by the Board of Regents for all students at the individual institutions such as activity fees, health fees, athletic fees, and transportation fees.

Note: The fee structure for DeKalb Community College is currently being revised to bring the institution into compliance with the junior college fee structure.

498

TYPICAL COST TO ATTF~D A UNIVERSITY SYSTEM INSTITUTION GEORGIA RESIDENT ONLY

Georgia Institute of Technology
Matriculation Other Mandatory Fees:
Student Activity Student Athletic Student Health Transportation Estimated Elective Charges: Housing (Double Occupancy) Food Service (21 meals per week)
Total Estimated Cost
Four Year College
Matriculation Other Mandatory Fees:
Student Activity and/or Athletic Student Health Estimated Elective Charges: Housing (Double Occupancy) Food Service
Total Estimated Cost
Junior College
Matriculation Other Mandatory Fees:
Student Activity/Athletic Student Health Estimated Elective Charges: Housing (Double Occupancy) Food Service
Total Estimated Cost

Acacemic Year 1983

Academic Year 1988

$ 984.00
79.50 60.00 84.00 18.00
1,020.00 1,200.00
$3,445.50

$1,461.00
90.00 87.00 141.00 27.00
1,422.00 1,517.00
$4,745.00

741. 00
117.00 67.50
675.00 915.00
$2,515.50

$1,101.00
165.00 72.00
916.00 1,113.00
$3,367.00

561.00
75.00 48.00
630.00 975.00
$2,289.00

834.00 63.00
814.00 1,085.00 $2,796.00

Source: Vice Chancellor for Fiscal Affairs

499

Estimated Percent Increase in Resident Tuition and Fees, Public Four-Year Institutions, SREB States, 1986-87 to 1987-88

Undergraduate

Graduate

Alabama Arkansas Florida

------increases likely------

20%

20%

10.5% (a)

12.1%

Georgia Kentucky Louisiana

6% average

-50% (b)

6.5%

6.6%

------increases unlikely------

Maryland Mississippi North Carol ina

7X average 5% average 5% (c)

7X average 5% average 5% (c)

Oklahoma South Carol ina Tennessee

24% average 13% average 7X

29% average NA (d)
7X

Texas Virginia \Jest Virginia

none 8.6% average 7.5% average

none 8% average 7X average

(a) Lower division only--freshmen and sophomores. (b) Reduction for teaching and research assistants only.
(c) Tuition only. Cd) Determined on per-credit hour basis at institutional level.

SOURCE: SREB survey of state higher education agencies, May-June 1987.

500

45Et
4EJEt
35Et 30Et
25B
VI
0
t-' 20Et
15Et
10Et
5Et
Et 1965

-" Per Capita Disposable Personal Incom....e.'..,

....
.'

""

.....TJlft ion

-' .............-...

.. .' o'

/1lnd

/

/

/

"" ",,/

Fees

.... ...---.. .., .' .....

~~-
~

-- _

.,,-

...-.~..-;;..._' -

-----.~~.--_ .....~ - ~

---........'

Consumer Price Index

1978

1975

19B8

1985

Estimated State Student Aid, 1987-88 Undergraduate

Need-based assistance

Dollars

1-year Nunber

Average

paid out

change of awards award

Dollars paid out

Non-need-based ~ssistan~~

1-year NUlJber

Average

change of awards award

Alabama .. $ 2,260,000 Alaska .. 240,000 Arizona 3,244,000 Arkansas . 3,896,000
California 135,002,000

+ 6.6% + 4.8% +33.1% + 2.5% +19.7%

3,200 160
3,618 12,891 70,185

Colorado .. Connecticut . Delaware . District of Columbia Florida ..

9,325,000 16,337,000
852,000 1,106,000 17,186,000

-1.7% +79.6% - 2.6% + 4.4% +21.4%

13,640 13,600
1,143 787
17,017

Georgia ... 4,934,000

Hawai i .

734,000

Idaho .. 343,000

Illinois .. 135,m,000

Indiana . 45,408,000

- 0.2% +23.4% -29.6% + 3.0% +48.8%

14,300 1,000
573 101,025 32,213

Iowa . Kansas .... Kentucky .. Louisiana .. Maine ..

26,157,000 5,430,000 12,229,000 1,880,000 1,422,000

+16.9'% + 3.4% + 0.7% + 3.4% +23.5%

16,475 4,775 19,304 3,987 4,200

Maryland . Massachusetts .. Michigan ...... Minnesota .... Mississippi ..

9,051,000 61,654,000 68,380,000 60,000,000
1,406,000

+15.7% + 8.2% + 2.3% - 8.4% + 9.2%

15,464 59,275 45,840 66,000 1,727

Missouri . Montana .. Nebraska .. Nevada .... New Hamcshire

9,835,000 420,000
1,089,000 352,000 856,000

+ 1.5% + 4.7%
+ 4.5% + 8.0% +37.4%

8,300 980
2,000 352
2,099

New Jersey . 72,745,000

New Mexico . 1,461,000

New York 381,007,000

North Carolina 4,559,000

North Dakota

540,000

+13.3% nla
- 2.8% + 3.9'% + 7.4%

54,466 1,700 305,400 6,817 1,200

Ohio . 49,400,000 Oklahoma 10,493,000 Oregon 10,121,000 Pennsylvania 109,823,000 Rhode Island 9,226,000

+ 3.2% +21.6% +10.0% + 6.2% + 3.3%

68,000 15,779 15,391 114,176 10,500

South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee . Texas Utah

16,460,000 581,000
16,500,000 21,931,000 1,080,000

+ 0.7% + 3.2% +55.4% + 4.5%
0

7,795 2,426 20,000 17,377 1,615

Vermont . Virginia .. ~ashington . ~est Virginia . ~isconsin .. ~yoming ..... Puerto Rico .

8,242,000 4,420,000 12,975,000 5,227,000 34,754,000
204,000 12,806,000

+ 1.9'% + 1.6% +29.5% + 1.4% +13.5%
nla + 4.6%

10,263 6,000 18,004 6,000 52,125
279 56,630

$ 706 1,500
897 302 1,924
684 1,201
745 1,405 1,010
345 734 599 1,344 1,410
1,588 1,137
633 472 339
585 1,040 1,492
909 814
1,185 429 545
1,000 408
1,331 712
1,248 669 450
726 665 658 962 879
2,112 239 825
1,262 669
803 737 721 871 667 731 226

$ 3,923,000 + 3.6% 8,475

722,000
7,378,000
-- 201,000
19,880,000 13,363,000
118,000 7,971,000
408,000
799,000 25,000 630,000

+ 30.8%

361

- 2.6% - 1.0.%-
+ 24.1%
+ 9.5%
--
- 17.0% + 1.0%
- 10 .3% nla
+ 11. 1%

11,306
20-1-
19,040
15,153
81 15,678
815
3,502 100
1,689

2,671,000 1,900,000

+ 65.9% + 0.1%

1,979 1,611

39,000 + 50.0%

53

1,834,000

nla

916

$ 463
2,000
653
_. 1,000
1,044 882
1,457 508 500 228 250 373
1,350 1,179
736 2,000

134,000
2,963,000
26,698 22,038,000
50,000
20,638,000 165,000
636,000 520,000

+ 1.5%
+ 73.7%
+ 46.6% + 7.4%
nla
+ 13.2% + 4.4%
- 11.0% nla

188
3,266
66,252 25,000
nla
35,393 142
274 n/a

7"''J"
907
403 882 nla
583 1,162
2,321 n/a

90,000 + 69.8%

74 1,216

673,000 + 22.4%

365 1,844

14,739,000 + 10.6% 12,332 1,195

Total .. $1,421,065,000 +6.2% 1,328,073 $1, 070

$151,310,000

+17.2% 224,272

$675

502

President Jcim W. Teel Brunswick College
'!he establishment in the University System of a Core CUrriculmn-a set of CClllUlDn courses durin; the first two years-was begun in the mid-1960's to meet three educational requirements. 'Ihese requirements were not altogether new. B.It new con::litions thrust them into praninence durin; the 1960's, though it was not then fully Ul"rlerstood how important they would be as the educational situation evolved.
In the first place, the Core CUrriculum was a necessity if students were to transfer fran one System school to another, withaIt capricious loss of credit.
Transfer had become a necessity in the mid-1960's because the national tide of providin:J college education for everyone had hit Georgia. '!he Board of Regents had respoooed affinnatively, by nxwin; to make the first two years of college available within cannnutin; ran;Je of nearly all young Georgians. Jmllor colleges were built, which were dead-erxls withaIt transfer; but the
older four year schools were growin;, am the JlE!'w'er four year cannm.ltin; schools in Augusta, savannah am Coltnnbus added to the pressure. If the full
ran;Je of educational opportunity was to be available to all students, then effective transfer was an absolute necessity.
In the secooo place, the 1960's were a time of upset, even chaos, in college curricula nation-wide. '!he System Core CUrriculum, reflectin; the
filtered deliberations of faculties am administrators, was the instnnnent by which these curriculum issues were debated, changes made am reasonable
stability maintained.
In the third place, the 1960's, am succeedi..rg years, have been a time
when literally thousarxls of freshmen have c::x:Jme to the schools of the University System unprepared or barely prepared for college work. A Core CUrriculum for the first two years was a necessity, if a true college level of work was to be maintained. Measurement against a CClllUlDn body of courses was a necessity, as a carpenter's level is a necessity.
503

UNIVmSr.lY SYSTEH ~ amRIaJIa(
I::urin;J the late 19505 arxl early 19605, problems related to the transfer of credit by students transferrin;J aIIOnl the institutions within the System began to emerge in substantial numbers. '!he transfer problems generally involved the level at which the courses were offered, i. e., lower division or \:g;>er division arxl the content of the basic general education camponent which students had ean1ed at the lower division level.
At this tilne in the historical develcprent of the University System of Georgia, student enrollment was just beginnin;J to increase rapidly, representin;J a trerxi which was to becane the daninant characteristic of American colleges arxl tmiversities throughout the decade of the 19605. At the begi.nnirg of the decade in 1960, the University System of Georgia enrolled approximately 30,000 students. M:lst of the System institutions were small with the majority of the two-year arxl four-year institutions enrollin;J fewer than 1,000 students each. However, with the advent of the jtmior college movement arxl the increase in enrollment at the System senior colleges and tmiversities in the 19605, arxl as students became IlDre IlDbile, transfer problems within the System began to occur IlDre frequently.
Recognizin;J the need for a System-wide approach to the transfer problems which students were experiencin;J, then Chancellor George L. si1npson, with excellent foresight, established a System cammittee on the Transfer of credit to deal with the increasin;J problems experienced by students in transferrin;J credit fran one System institution to another. '!he bold initiative taken by fonner Chancellor si1npson in the area of transfer of credit was to thrust the University System into a leadership role nationally in establishing an effective method of solvin;J a serious problem which plagues the entire higher education camnunity in the united states.
'!he choice of the chainnan of the newly fonned cammittee on the Transfer of credit was very instrumental in assurin;J the success of the Conunittee. '!he Chancellor chose the late Dr. John O. Eidson, then Dean of the Franklin College of Arts arxl sciences at the University of Georgia. Dr. Eidson was widely known arxl highly regarded throughout the University System as an effective academic leader arxl prani.nent scholar. Urrler his outstanding leadership, the cammittee on the Transfer of credit assumed its i.rcp:>rtant work. Dr. Hany s. I:kJwns, then Director of Junior College Operations, served initially as the Chancellor's liaison to the Conunittee.
In establish.in;J the cammittee on the Transfer of credit in Janum:y, 1966, the Chancellor made two specific charges to the Cormnittee. '!he first was to identify specific courses that were nt.m1bered arxl classified at different levels by the various units of the University System, and to recarnrreni the level at which these courses should be accepted for transfer of credit. '!he secom charge was to analyze lower division courses required by various senior colleges and tmiversities for baccalaureate degrees and, where the requirements differed, to propose solutions which would facilitate the transfer of credit anong all units of the University System.
504

'!he initial effort of the camni.ttee was concentrated toward defining and delimiting the overall problem within the university System. Specific exanples of transfer of credit problems were requested fran all units in the
System by the Ccmnittee on the Transfer of credit am. by the C11ancellor's
staff. loiJst members of the Ccmnittee had, over a Period of years, been en;aged in studyiIq the lower division aJrricular requirements of System
colleges am. universities am. had ac:x::::uIm.l1.ated a considerable number of
exanples of problems arisiIq over the transfer of credit anong the various units of the System. In addition, catalogues of the various units were
studied am. hypothetical cases were matched to the different requirements of
various colleges for specific bacx::alaurea.te programs. Also, the various
System Academic Ccmnittees am. the System Advisory Council (composed of the System presidents) studied these problems am. subnitted information and
rec:c:mnerrlations to the Ccmnittee on the Transfer of credit. '!hese exanples
were duly recorded am. later dealt with duriIq meetin:Js of the University
System Ccmnittee on the Transfer of Credit.
'!he seconj charge to the Conunittee, that of analyziIq lower division
courses required by the various colleges am. universities, eventually
resulted in the development of a c::amrron core aJrriculum for the lower division of all units within the university System of Georgia. In order to ac::canplish the secorrl charge, the camni.ttee on the Transfer of credit sought
am. secured the full cooperation of the several System Academic Ccmnittees.
'!hese canmittees represent the basic academic disciplines offered throughout the university System.
As a result of the study of the lower division requirements leading toward bacx::alaureate degrees within the System, a general concept of lower division course c::amrronalities fourxl throughout the University System began to emerge. For example, it was fourxl that with few exceptions, all units required students enrolled in bacx::alaurea.te degree programs to take courses in the followiIq fields: humanities inclucli.rg English COll1?OSition and
literature, natural sciences inclucli.rg mathematics am. a two-course sequence
in a laboratory science, and social sciences inclucli.rg history. In addition, some introductory courses related to the student's major field of study were required by all units within the University System. '!herefore, the Ccmnittee felt that it had a sourrl historical basis for establishing a c::amrron core aJrriculum.
In establishing the Core CUrriculum Guidelines for all units of the university System at the lower division level, two factors were continually considered. '!he first was the preservation of each institution's autonomy to develop a prescribed cw:riculum, to experiment with innovative teaching teclmiques, and otheJ:Wise to corrluct its cw:ricular program as it is so charged to do by the Board of Regents; the second was to provide the latitude necessary to allow the "undecided as to major" student or the student who ~es hisjher major objective, to make that decision throughout the first two years of enrollment with the least possible amount of Penalty or hardship.
As new junior colleges were developed within the University System, there was a significant increase in the number of students who transferred to
505

senior colleges am universities. nus resulte:i in the need for provisions
that would assure the institutional autorx:my of junior colleges to develop
lower division transfer programs fran which students could successfully transfer am CCI'l1?lete baccalaureate degree programs. '!he absence of
appropriate guidelines such as those that were to be provided later by the
Core eurricultnn had terxied to create a corrlition in whim junior colleges
were placed in the e:xt.reD:!ly difficult position of atteIrpting to provide offer~ to satisfy the lower division requirements in various baccalaureate degree programs offered by senior colleges. Although. senior college lower
division requirements for SPeCific baccalaureate degree programs are similar,
it was fourd by the CCXlUni:ttee that the slight differences where theyexiste:i
caused considerable difficulty for many transfer students.

It was fourd that the rnnnber of quarter hours of credit generally
accepted as constituting lower division or freshman am sophClllDre work
leading to a baccalaureate degree was 95-105 hours in IOOSt institutions. '!he lower division course requirements offered were divided roughly on a two-
thirdsjone-third ratio between courses in general education am courses in
major relate:i fields of study. '!he few exceptions noted were in highly
SPeCialiZed fields of study which included a higher ratio of major relate:i or professional courses at the lower division level. since the nornal quarterly
course load for students in the University System is 15 academic hours of
credit, am in order to preserve what appeared to be an acceptable division between general education courses am major relate:i courses at the 1000er division level, the number of quarter hours in the Core in the area of
general education was established at 60. '!his constitutes two-thirds of the nonnal lower-division academic requirements. It leaves one-third, or 30 hours of credit, at the lower division level to be devoted to courses relate:i
to the student's major field of study. '!herefore, the Committee on the
Transfer of credit developed a Core curriculum which provides for (1) ninety quarter credit hours of which sixty are in general education am thirty in a major area of study, (2) the assurance of acceptance of transfer of the Core curriculum or a fractional part thereof towal:d a baccalaureate degree, am
(3) the preseJ:Vation of the maximum possible annmt of institutional
autonomy.

'!he Core curriculum provides the follOW'ing four areas of study:

Areas of study

Quarter credit Hours

I. Humanities, including, but not
limite:i to grammar am canposition, literature, am fine arts courses of a humanities nature . . . . 20

II. Mathematics am the natural sciences,
including, but not limite:i to,
mathematics am a 10-hour sequence of

laboratol:Y courses in the biological or physical sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

506

III. Social sciences, including, but not
limited to, history am American
gOV'en1l'l'E'lt 20

IV. courses appropriate to the major field
of the inlividual student .

Total

. 30 . . 90

'!he designated academic areas of study within the 60-hour general
education portion of the Core CUrriculum ccanprise broad. fields of study am
are not limited to specific courses or course oontent. Hence each institution has the latitude of curricular develqm:mt within this flexible plan.
'!he remai.ni.n:1 30 hours in the Core CUrriculum are devoted to work related to
the student's major field of study. '!he requirements in this area of study are established by the Advisory Council upon :reccmnerrlation of the
appropriate academic ccmnittees am the cemnittee on the Transfer of credit.
In many fields of study the academic ccmni.ttees have identified broad areas of study instead of requirirg specific courses, a procedure which provides additional latitude for each institution to develop its own curricula in the major related areas of study.
'!he University System Core CUrriculum was approved by the Advisory
Council on January 17, 1967, am each member institution was requested to
develop its Core CUrriculum within the broad context of the approved core curriculum plan. Most units of the University System had established approved Core CUrriculum programs by the beginning of the fall quarter, 1968.
In order to facilitate the transfer of credit for core courses am
programs anong the units of the University System, a ccmni.ttee COIIpOSed. priInarily of registrars was appointed to work out the details of the procedure. '!he plan which emerged provided that each registrar in the System
would be given a compilation of all approved core programs am that the
transcript of each student who transfers would be evaluated with reference to the specific core curriculum of his former college. '!his ccanpilation of all
approved core curricula was developed am is titled Core CUrriculum Handbook.
'!his han:ftxx>k contains the current Core CUrriculum for each institution within the University System. It also contains the major areas of study for each transfer baccalaureate degree offered within the University System. 'Ihese course listings are known as the Area IVs. '!he han:ftxx>k is revised at least armually as institutions IOOdify their respective core curricula.
It is generally recognized that students will am should change majors
when justified. However, these changes may lengthen the time spent in earning the baccalaureate degree. In order to complete the degree in the
typical pericxl of four academic years, a student should be counseled am
encouraged to select a major as early in his studies as possible. If a sopham:>re student remains "undecided" as to a major after ccanpletion of the
60 hours in areas I, II, am III, it is recamme.rrled that careful counseling
507

be given so that a maximum of courses taken in Area rv can be credited toward a major. It is suggested that the Area rv courses be confined to the
offerings in art:! one of the B.A., B.S., or professional majors.

'll1e university System Core a.u:riculmn has 'WOrked VJe11 over the past two
decades. However, art:! effort of this magnitude involving a diverse system of
higher education which enc::axpasses the full rarge of institutions from the
small bJo-year colleges through the large am carplex research universities
will not be without prcblems. In order to deal with the day-to-day problems
experienced by students who transfer within the System am to provide a procedure for updating am revising the university System COre eurriculmn,
the canmittee on the Transfer of credit has continued as a starrling committee
am functions as the coordinating ccmnittee for the COre eurriculmn.

since being established, the university System COre a.u:riculmn has
subsequently received the support of the Board of Regents am each Chancellor
of the University System. 'll1is has contributed IOOSt signif- icantly to the success which the COre a.u:riculmn has had in assuring the transferability of courses aIron;J the units of the university System over the years. Shortly after assuming his duties in June 1985, Olancellor H. Dean Propst expressed his support of the university System Core a.u:riculmn by issuing a statement which became the foreword of the revised Core a.u:riculmn Handbook. An
excerpt from the "statement by the Chancellor" is as follows:

'll1e Core a.u:riculmn is an outgrowth of the prllosophy of providin;r a curriculmn carm::>n to all institutions during the first two years or ninety quarter hours. 'll1e Core a.u:riculmn, as an essential feature of the University System, has three prilnary purposes. First, it establishes the principle that general education is the foun:3ation of all bacx::a.laureate degree programs. secorrl, the Core encourages each institution to develop a superior program of general education, reflecting its mission. 'll1e guidelines of the COre require denonstrated achievement in sane specific areas, but also allC1N for the inclusion of other areas of achievement deemed desirable by each institution. 'lllird, the Core
guarantees students am their parents that full credit for courses
satisfactorily cc:mpleted at one institution will be accepted by all other System institutions. 'll1is guarantee affinns the integrity of
credits offered throughout the University System.

'!he principal features of the COre eurriculmn enhance learning

am exerrplify the advantages of a system of higher education. '!he

planning am i.nq;>lernentation of programs of study within the

:~

guidelines of the COre am adherence to these guidelines in the

acceptance of transfer students are prilnary responsibilities of all

institutions.

In the Past several years, changes have been made in the implementation
of the Core eurriculmn in order to resporrl to student am faculty concerns
arrl in order to make the practice of the Core a.u:riculmn live up to its
promise.

508

One of these charxJes relates to the acceptability of the "0" grade in freshman Ehllish e::at'p:lSition courses. Although the overwhelming majority of
University System institutions required a "c" or higher grade in these courses, several did pennit "D's" am, therefore, expected these grades to
transfer to receivin1 institutions. After a rec:x::t'lImeI'tion fram the Transfer
of Credit camni.ttee am unanlloous awroval by the Adviso:ry Council, the
followin1 charxJe was awroved by the Board of :Regents in March, 1987:
'!hat the University System Uniform Gradin;J Policy be reaffinned with the provision that a "C" or higher in freshman Ehllish CCtliposition courses is required to guarantee transferability to
institutions that require "c" or higher in Ehllish e::at'p:lSition from
their native students.
Another charxJe conceD1ed the practice of sane receivin1 institution's acceptance of a student's Core CUrriculum in transfer, but to require substantial additional work, so that the student had to meet the Core curriculum of both institutions. Because this practice, in effect, removed the protection afforded by the Core curriculum, the Transfer of Credit
committee recc:mnerxled, the Adviso:ry Council adopted unanlloously, am the
Board of :Regents awroved at its March, 1987 meetin1 the followin1lan:JUage:
Transfer students who complete the serrling institution's approved Core curriculum shall be given camplete transfer credit in the same major field by the receivin1 institution. Receivin1 institutions may require that transfer students camplete the requirements as specified for native students; however, the total number of hours required of the transfer student for the baccalaureate degree shall not exceed the number of hours required of native students for the same major field. Upon request, designated PJ:CXJrams at senior institutions may, with the awroval of the <llancellor, be exeIrpted fram this policy.
Dlrin1 the long histo:ry of the Core CUrriculum, students am institu-
tions have relied primarily on "good will" to resolve disagreements about the awarding of transfer credit for campleted Core CUrriculum work. While this process generally worke1 well, there were occasions when a rrore structured
approach was needed to resolve conflicts. To that ern, in Janua:ry, 1987,
<llancellor Propst requested the Transfer of Credit camni.ttee to take on the additiOnal responsibility of recommerxling to him solutions to Core curriculum transfer problems that were brought to System-level attention. As a means of iIrplementin1 this responsibility, the camni.ttee developed the followin1
Institutional Appeals Process am distributed it widely in a revised Core
curriculum b:roc::hure:
1. students who experience transfer of credit problems should contact the Director of AdmissionsjRegistrar of the institution to which they have transferred (Receivin1 Institution) to determine the nature of the problem. If the problem is not resolved,
509

2. students should contact the Registrar of the institution from which they have transferred (serrlirg Institution) to detennine the nature of the problem. If the Registrar of the sen:ling Institution believes a problem of transfer of COre curriculum credit does exist, he or she should contact the Director of Admissions,lRegistrar of the :Receivin;J Institution to work out the problem. If the problem is not :resolved,
3. '!he Registrar of the serrlirg Institution should notify the President of the serrlirg Institution, or a designee, that a problem exists. '!he President should atte.npt to :resolve the problem with the :Receivin;J Institution. If the problem is not :resolved,
4. '!he President of the sen:ling Institution should notify the Chancellor of the nature of the problem. If appropriate, the Chancellor may refer the matter to the Administrative camni.ttee on Transfer of creclit.
5. '!he Administrative camni.ttee on Transfer of creclit will sul::.mi.t the problem to a Review SUl::x:x:mni.ttee for review an:! a recammen::1ation. If approved by the Administrative cemni.ttee on Transfer of creclit, the rec::a:nrnerrlation will be submitted to the Chancellor for his consideration. Decisions regarding the fulfillment of transferability requirements remain the sole prerogative of the University System of Georgia.
'!he COre curriculum has served the University System well over the years. since the appeals process was instituted in January, 1987, only three appeals have been referred by the Chancellor to the Transfer of creclit Committee, iIxlicatin;J that the University SYstem COre curriculum system is workin;J well.
Prepared by:
Iavid M. Morgan Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
John W. Tee!, Olainnan University System camni.ttee on the Transfer of creclit private colleges an:! mriversities.
510

:INDEX OF 'lDPICS
Academic advising: 39, 44, 88, 100, 109, 111, 446-447
Administration administrative salaries: 2, 28-29, 33-34, 49, 54, 70, 126, 144-145, 173, 178 administrative staff replacerrent: 2, 9, 86, 127, 144-145, 173 merit-based system: 144 middle management: 126, 144, 175 see also: Minorities
Ageing institutions: 11, 51, 127, 133, 180, 185-186, 190
Agriculture and forestry: 69-71, 74-75, 99, 222, 373-376, 412-416, 424-425
AIDS: 13, 44, 53, 195
Allied Health committee on Health Professions: 63
dearth of personnel: 2, 125, 139
nursing shortage: 83, 139, 385-402 scholarships for health care professionals: 49
Assessment declining academic standards: 2, 21, 110, 127, 170-172
of educational outcomes: 9, 108-110 presidential responsibility for assessment: 48, 54, 125-179
Athletics college athletics practices: 22, 35, 215 intercollegiate athletics: 2, 38, 127, 163-165, 289
NCAA: 17, 22, 38
Board of Regents constitutional authority of: 6, 20, 57-63
Business dernarrl by blsiness for higher productivity in higher education: 280-286 education and blsiness management: 18, 20, 25, 216-223, 377-384 management education and developroont: 19, 205, 377-384
centers and institutes: 9-10, 19-20, 40, 48, 58, 68-69, 73, 81, 84, 91, 403-
427, 431-432
Costs
Library cost inflation: 2, 125, 142-143, 475-480
511

CUrriculum academic standards: 2, 21, 110, 170-172 adult education: 73, 148 basics, classics and ethics: 14-15, 38, 52, 202-207, 289 curricula with non-applicable studies: 2, 126, 153-154 declining academic standards: 2, 110, 127, 170-172
ethics and ethical behavior: 14-15, 18, 38, 52, 202-207, 289
externally caused. ol:solescence: 14, 200-201
pragmatism vs. liberal arts education: 25-26, 52, 244-246
pre-college curriculum: 101, 442 recamnen::lations for un:lergraduate education: 8, 52, 107-121 see also: Develcpnental studies, General education, IhImanities,
Technology and irrlividual subject areas
Developmental studies: 21, 41-42, 53, 91, 96, 98, 101, 298-300, 481-491
Effectiveness, see Evaluation
Engineering: 25, 55, 70-72, 82, 91, 101, 365-367
English: 42, 74, 82
Enrollment enrollment numbers: 21-23, 32-33, 49, 70, 77-81, 83, 102, 233-236, 461463 predicting future graduate and professional numbers: 27, 39-41, 52, 80, 87, 90, 294-297 see also: Minorities and Mature adult students
Evaluation and implications: 113-115 elements of effectiveness: 47, 309-316 evaluation of the progress of the University System: 7, 34-35, 40, 44, 48, 64-106, 274-276 institutional effectiveness: 37, 39, 43, 47-48, 53, 458-459 Paradox of efficiency vs. proficiency: 259-262 Paradox of Partial success: 27, 247-248 see also: Faculty and Perfonnance degradation
Facilities, see Physical plant
Faculty college and university faculty: 2, 64-106, 120-121, 450-451 displacement of regular, full-time faculty by Part-time teaching and graduate student teachers: 38, 290-291 increasing median age of faculty: 2, 127, 175
Perfonnance: 39, 54
replacement in selected disciplines: 2, 127,174 salaries: 2, 28, 33-34, 49, 54, 65, 68, 70, 77, 79, 81, 100-102, 125-
126, 132, 134, 146-147, 174
512

tenure: 2, 79, 91, 101, 125, 137-138 worsening student/faculty ratios: 2, 125, 140-141 see also: Minorities, Agein;J
Foreign language education: 36, 97
Funding and finance: 49, 72, 125, 132-134 "agein;J fonnula" for J::udgetin;J: 32-34, 270-273 cannnittee on Finance and Business: 63 equipnent acx;IUisition and replacement: 127, 166-167 funding fonnula: 33-34, 49, 97, 101, 104
library cost inflation: 2, 67, 125, 142-143, 475-480
public funds: 253-258 quality improvement funding: 48, 97-98, 103 tuition vs. taxes: 492-502
General education core curriculum: 20, 91, 100, 503-510
Government involvement in higher education: 8, 17, 32, 49, 55, 57-63 affinnative action guidelines: 2, 47, 128, 176-177, 450, 456-457 constitutional authority of the Board of Regents: 6, 20, 57-63
Federal raw 1992 eliminatin;J marrlatory retirement: 1, 125, 130-131
federal regulation: 2, 126, 159, funding: 2, 7, 15, 17, 22, 29, 46, 51, 56, 71-72, 78, 93, 96-97, 101,
104, 125, 471-474 National Defense Education Act of 1958: 80 national purpose: 10-11, 16, 26, 29, 183-184 privatization: 12-13, 51, 190-193 public funds: 253-258 'I\1ition Equalization Grant Program: 96 university-goverrnnent relations: 11, 57-63 1202 oammissions: 92-93, 95, 104
History 1932-1950: reorganization and coordination: 65-77 1950-1964: growth and expansion: 77-82 1964-1980: expansion and consolidation: 82-92 1980-1986: review and re-direction: 92-102 1932-1986: landmark years: 102-103 constitutional authority of the Board of Regents: 6, 20, 57-63
Humanities basics, classics and ethics, dilninished importance of: 14-15, 38, 52, 202-207, 289 declinin;J academic starx:iards: 2, 21, 110, 127, 170-172
pragmatism vs. liberal arts education: 25-26, 244-246
reclaiming the humanities: 107, 112-113
leadership positive change and leadership power: 19, 35-38, 224-227, 277-279 role of leadership: 35-38
513

Learning a1::sence of reinforced leanring: 39, 42, 291-293
see also: Teachin:J
Legal issues litigation: 13, 435-436
Libraries regional libraries: 14, 67, 475-480
Loans, see student loans
Mathematics: 26, 42, 45, 53, 74
Mature adult students: 2, 126, 148
Minorities black faculty members: 49 COImnittee on Desegregation: 63 disparity of opportunities: 15-16, 208-211 early intervention programs: 32, 443-445 effectiveness of affinnative action hiring: 2, 15, 47, 128, 176-177, 450, 456-457 employment of minorities: 2, 126, 157-158 enrollment of minorities: 2, 12, 32, 126, 155-156, 441-445 increasing minority participation: 31-33, 56, 264-269, 437-455
integration am equality: 11-12, 181, 187-189
minority access: 70, 72, 439-457 minority teaching: 320-321 recruitment of minorities: 442-443
National purpose: 10-11, 16, 26, 29, 183-184
Perfonnance degradation: 38-39, 287-293
Perspectives: 107-121
other perspectives am criticisms: 119-120
public perception of higher education: 2, 52, 78-79, 128, 178-179
regional am state perspectives: 8-9, 115-117
Philosophy, see SCope am philosophy
Physical plant asbestos: 14 CClIlpJS physical plants: 70
Ccmni.ttee on Buildings am GrO\.1OOs: 63
donnitol:y facilities: 72, 76
equipnent am instrumentational capacity: 2, 127 maintaining am replacing physical plant: 2, 71, 127, 168-169
surplus educational capacity: 2, 126, 150-152
see also" Libraries, Ageing institutions am Funding
514

Pl~
consultants: 58 ext:erna.l factors in pl~:: 51, 55
creation of vocational/technical schools: 75, 80, 83, 85, 87-88, 92-93, 95-96, 100-101
ext:erna.l influence, programs arrl fin::li.rgs: 17, 51, 55, 212-215
indifference: 13-14, 27, 38-39, 194-199
PJPUlation shifts: 91, 106 strategic plannirg: 354-355 "WOrse scenario for higher education: 45-46, 56, 306-308 see also: Agein;J institutions

Policy studies: 60-62, 79-80, 89-92, 99-101, 117-119

Public service arrl outreach: 9, 37, 91, 97, 99, 403-421

Research
camnittee on Research arrl Extension: data vs. infonnation: 24-25, 240-243 research centers: 9, 98 research universities: 22, 357-370 researching infonnation on the University System:
scientific research: 15, 20, 24, 26, 38, 357-372

7, 277-276

"tracking" students arrl graduates: 42-44, 53, 301-303

SCope arrl philosophy: 1-5
secomary education
decli.ni.n;J pool of high school graduates: 2, 125, 135-136
see also: Minorities

Specialization arrl trivialization: 20-21, 54, 228-233, 228-232

st:an1ards arrl requirements: 13, 17, 32, 56, 74, 92, 110 decli.ni.n;J academic st:al'rlards: 2, 21, 110, 127, 170-172 grade inflation: 38, 48, 289-290

Student loans: repayment crisis: 56, 293, 471-474

Students: college drop-outs: 12-13, 21, 27, 32, 52-53 i.nq;>rovin;J the student equation: 44-45, 304-305 involvement: 110-112 poorly prepared freshmen: 2, 101, 126, 160-162 protests: 33, 36, 90 student life: 31 student services: 69, 71-72, 77, 95, 97

515

"track:irg" of students am graduates: 42-44, 53, 301-303
VJOrsen.ing student/faculty ratios: 2, 125 140-141 see also" Athletics, Enrollment, student loans, Mature adult students,
Minorities, am 5ecoIDary Education

Tea~
absence of reinforced leanrlrg: 39, 42, 291-293
efficiency vs. proficiency: 30-31, 259-261 intrinsic vs. extrinsic rewards: 28-29, 249-252

Teacher education: 4, 18, 33, 37, 39, 52, 69-71, 74-75, 80, 99, 101, 318344,

Technology infonnation technology: 345-356
technological research am developnent:
technology centers: 9, 74
technology literacy: 11

56, 73

University System of Georgia: 1-510

516