West Virginia University, the state’s “flagship” university, is eliminating the department of world languages, literature, and linguistics. It’s also spiking two graduate programs.
Welcome to the future.
The university has a budget deficit of $45 million, and no last-minute miracle will shore up its finances.
All indications point to WVU getting into this problem through wishful thinking and profligate spending. They built their infrastructure to appeal to wealthy out-of-state students and a fundamentalist belief that research would pay its way— both proved false. COVID certainly didn’t help matters.
WVU leaders felt that demographic trends that were well-known and understood would not impact them. There is just a lower number of students in high school in their state and nationwide. Additionally, more students are opting out of college altogether*, there are other educational/career options, and traditional colleges and universities can’t imagine serving non-traditional undergraduates, translating into institutions fighting over fewer students.
If we are generous, WVU leaders followed the accepted playbook of many public research-intensive universities. Original thinking is not the hallmark of any large institution.
For them, the music stopped; not everyone had a chair.
WVU is not the first that will go through cuts and certainly won’t be the last.
The Numbers
Various thinkers responded that WVU is being “gutted,” and the sky is falling for higher education. A more sober view is required.
The cuts at WVU represent 9% of its majors, all foreign language programs, and eliminates 16% (169 positions) of its full-time faculty.
While radical, dramatic, and upsetting, the big percentages don’t tell the whole story.
Of the majors cut, 20 are at the graduate level, and 12 are undergraduate. Enrollment at West Virginia University is about 19,000 undergraduate and 5,700 graduate students. These cuts only impact 147 undergraduates and 287 graduate students, less than 2% of the student body.
While horrible for the faculty members losing their jobs, students losing their majors, and alumni the connection to their alma mater, the institution is not imploding.
My assumption—not based on anything I could find to confirm or refute this— is that WVU is giving up on the scholarship, not teaching the languages (which likely will be done by adjunct, non-tenured faculty.)
Image created by DALL·E.
What is a University Anyway?
Some have claimed that you can’t be a “serious” or “world-class” university, or a university at all if you don’t have a foreign language program.
This raises a great question for people concerned about cost and access to higher education.
What “must” a university have to be considered a “university,” and what is “nice” to have?
Who gets to answer that question? Academics, state politicians, national politicians, accreditation agencies (mostly academics), the public, who?
What is that answer based upon? History? At which point in history? What standard do we use, how was that standard developed, when, by whom, and for what purpose? Is the past standard the one we need moving forward? Whom does that standard serve?
Who pays for that standard?
This also raises the question, “What does it mean to be educated?” Can you be considered educated without having studied, at least rudimentarily, a foreign language, even if you remember nothing of it five years after graduation?
Many colleges and universities have dropped a foreign language requirement for graduation. Some are appalled at this idea and think it makes the United States worse off.
Again, who sets that standard of what it means to be educated and all the related questions? How much of what we think it means to be educated is tied to class, cultural bias, and our unchallenged assumptions?
From a more practical level, does every public university in each state have to have the same set of programs and offerings in their physical location to be considered a university? When smaller universities grow up, do they need to look just like all the other universities?
Now that we are no longer tied to geography, how should we rethink what a university looks like?
How much duplication should the public support when new technology allows tenured faculty members to teach students in multiple locations simultaneously?
On the flip side, how can we explore ways to save low-enrollment programs that benefit both the students and the university?
Can University A have French, University B have Latin, University C have Mandarin, and University D have Greek, and each offers those classes to the other institutions?
Yes, it is possible. Some small liberal arts colleges are adding courses from other institutions to round out their offerings, which is proof of concept. However, higher education culture is not known for institutional cooperation. And, so far, it hasn’t been necessary.
Like any large organization with entrenched interests, significant change does not come without external impetus.
WVU leadership blunders have forced their hand.
Everyone in higher education is facing pressure.
Solutions/Advice
Nothing is going to stop larger trends from taking place. That doesn’t mean we are powerless. Here are some thoughts:
The Public: Demand more state tax dollars go to higher education. This is complicated and will be very hard to achieve. At the same time, demand more accountability of how that tax money is spent among institutions and ask about program duplication. All tax money should come with more accountability—which is always more complicated than it sounds.
State Lawmakers: It is critical to set aside the typical left/right divide on higher education: college is always great/college is always terrible. If we are honest, neither is accurate.
Brush up on university budgets, get testimony from non-partisan think tanks and thought leaders, quiet your institutional and/or alumni bias, and ask what new areas of additional legislation/regulation (or reducing legislation/regulation) can help public universities achieve greater access and affordability.
Carrots are far more effective than sticks. Put together grant programs that will fund the development of cross-institution collaboration at the front end. Wanting to reward results, not activity makes intellectual sense. However, change can’t/won’t happen without upfront investment.
Campus Leaders: Expand your offerings to non-traditional students. There is a huge need for what colleges and universities have to offer beyond the 18–22-year-old demographic. Fulfill your public mission, meet the needs or working adults, and help your bottom line all at the same time.
Presidents/Chancellors: People were upset during the pandemic with the phrase, “Don’t let a crisis go to waste.” Whatever changes you were able to make, that opportunity has passed. It is now time to start undertaking the very difficult task of restructuring for the future with less state support and fewer students. It will be a painful process, but necessary to avoid draconian measures later.
Trustees/Regents: Do your own research. Start looking outside your home institution for information about what is happening in the higher education sector. Bring that information back to your meetings with administrators and ask better questions. Be polite, but remain skeptical of easy, overly simple, or especially optimistic answers. Getting information in the best-case, worst-case, and probable-case scenarios should be part of any budget, program, or building approval.
Don’t be the board member who only likes to hear positive news.
Also, ask your leaders, “What is keeping you up at night?” and “What, if anything, can we do to help?”
Tenured Faculty: Changes are coming. Start looking at reorganizing the campus departments now with the deans and the provost, and help guide/direct strategic decisions. Otherwise, decisions will happen to you.
Faculty and Staff: Join unions. The only real way to have power at the table is if you can threaten and implement a strike. It won’t stop all changes but will give you more leverage than “shared governance” does.
Alumni: Give where you can, what you can. It won’t fix large budget gaps, but it is all helpful.
Major Donors: Like lawmakers, invest in programs that will allow cross-campus, cross-institution collaboration. Giving for the same things will get you the same results.
Change is Coming
I find the advice to “be fearless” in the face of change idiotic, although it sells a lot of books and seminars. It’s not how we are wired.
We fight change because we often assume it is for the worse.
Those who decided on the change think it is, of course, for the better. (“We are smart, thoughtful, caring, and considered all the options.”) Those of us who the change is happening to think it is, of course, for the worse. (They are uncaring, overpaid idiots that didn’t think it through.”) Again, the binary is not correct.
These conversations will require a lot of empathy from all parties. I have found it easier for me to be empathetic with others when I know what I’m afraid of and what my personal “triggers” are. When I’m clear on my concerns, it is easier for me to hear theirs.
We’ve all seen what happens when we get into polarized camps. Decisions are forced, have mixed results, and leaves a lot of hurt feelings and mistrust.
Change is here; it’s how we manage it that will make the difference.
What thoughts do you have? Leave a comment or shoot me a note.
*Immediate college enrollment rate of high school completers: In 2016, overall, it was 70%; in 2021, it fell to 62%. This number is a combined percentage for both 2-year and 4-year institutions.
The high-water mark for immediate enrollment post-high school students at 2-year institutions was 26% in 2018; for 4-year, it was 46% in 2016.
In 2021, they were at 19% and 43%, respectively.