University of Virginia Library

Education 1971: The Crisis Upon Us

Commentary

By ROBIN LIND

Bravos and kudos to those first
year students who fell for the
flattery and loudly applauded
President Shannon at the
Convocation speech when he said
they were the most highly qualified
class to enter the University. They
were duped. He said that to our
entering class in 1968 and we were
duped too.

As the Student Council report
on expansion pointed out last
Spring, "the average college board
scores of successive entering classes
has gradually and in some cases
sharply, declined over the years
1965-1970. The median has also
declined."

In his Report to the University
Community of February 1971
President Shannon stated "The
numbers of students seeking higher
education grow with every
registration...In any plans made to
accommodate future growth, the
University must continue to honor
its founding commitment to serve
both the nation and the state any
attempt to shut out well qualified
students from Virginia or other
states would be a violation of
principles that are a cornerstone of
this institution." And so based on
what is expected to be a growing
population and its concomitant
demand by "qualified" students the
University must expand to a
minimum enrollment of 18,000
students by 1980. The argument
that quantity is not quality means
little to an administration that
simply lowers its qualitative
standards to fill the gap in the hole
that it says must be filled with
"qualified" students. But according
to the results of the 1970 census
this country may already be rapidly
approaching zero population
growth.

In 1960 the number of children
under five years of age in the
United States was 20,206,661 and
in 1970 the same age group had
dwindled to 17,166,973; in other
words a national decline of
approximately 15.5 per cent. In the
State of Virginia there was a similar
decline in this age group from
458,260 in 1960 to 393,005 in
1970, or roughly 8.6 per cent.
These are the potential applicants
for the entering class of 1982 and
up. If this trend continues and with
no selective service deferment
incentive to enter and remain in
college, will the administration
lower the standards of admission
even further to fill the empty places
or will the State Legislature cut
back on the size? In either
eventuality will those students
enrolled over the next ten years
benefit from the planned massive
expansion?

Means Nothing

As many of you may have by
now noticed, being at the
University of Virginia may not be
the distinction you once thought it
would be. For many alumni who
hold degrees from this University
that distinction is not what they
thought it was either. But don't let
that be a consolation to you.
Earning a degree used to signify a
level of accomplishment in
academic pursuits which reflected
an educated person. Unfortunately
the trend now is for the degree to
signify simply a level of academic
accomplishment which does not
necessarily reflect anything.

The Administration of the
University has pressed for
expansion as the panacea of all
occupational ills; the student body
has been slow to articulate its
opposition until just recently and
then in the proper meek and
gentlemanly fashion; the faculty
has not been successful in efforts to
contain the administration; and
finally, the Board of Visitors,
tending to consider their
appointments as honours rather
than strenuous duties, have been
content to approve the pap fed
them by their appointed
administrators, (colloquially known
as Edgar I and Edgar II; or even
more colloquially as Vincent I and
Vincent II).

Squeeze Effects

Now that the student
enrollment has reached 12,060 with
5,436 in the College of Arts and
Sciences alone, the majority of
people in this academical city are
beginning to feel the effects of the
expansion squeeze. And why not?
With approximately 1100 faculty
members, (when asked for the
precise number the Comptroller's
Office characteristically referred
enquiries to the Student Affairs
Office, while the Provost's Office
stated that faculty come and go so
quickly that it's impossible to keep
track), and approximately 12,000
students we should have a ratio of
roughly one faculty member to
every twelve students. Right? And
giving the faculty the same course
load as the student, (in order to
ensure the best educational
opportunities), if a student is
required to study five courses on a
ratio of 12:1, then a faculty
member should be required to
teach five courses on a ratio of
1:12. Right? And when a faculty
member has more than 12 students
in one class, he should be given a
reduction in the number of courses
he must teach; always bearing in
mind that each student must study
under five faculty members and
each faculty member must teach 60
students. No more. No less.
Equitable treatment in pursuit of
the highest standards of education,
across the board. Right?

Dead wrong! Most faculty
members teach three courses per
semester and are charged with the
instruction of about 3 students
per course. A technical overload of
50 per cent above the ideal.
However, it doesn't just stop there.
Some students have five classes
where minimum daily attendance is
over fifty students. That represents
sometimes a technical overload of
400 per cent. Where is the personal
attention necessary for higher
education in that situation?

Hidden Faculty?

Well, the figures make one tend
to believe that there are faculty
members hiding somewhere who
don't have any students, or the
Provost's Office could be correct in
saying that they come and go so
quickly that it is impossible to keep
track. Maybe we just don't have
1100 faculty members. It's all very
confusing. Especially if you're
looking for an education.
Peekaboo, I see you.

Perhaps a solution would be to
limit "education" to simply
running this gauntlet for four years
under the assumption that the
degree is the most important thing
and will still be recognized as
negotiable currency upon
graduation. Perhaps the solution is
to limit enrollment until someone
(Vincent II?) has taken stock of the
situation and decided that the
degree is not the important thing
but rather the quality of the
education. And perhaps then
people will see that ultimately their
protests are being blunted when
they attack expansion. It is after all
only one variable in the problem of
attaining an education.

Pressure Tactics

Maybe we should press for
adequate seating in classes like
Everett Crosby's that have 42 scats
for over 60 students, or Ted
Caplow's that have 330 scats for
over 400 students, or maybe a more