University of Virginia Library

Donn Kessler

Megalomaniacal Planning

Yesterday we discussed the
rationale for planned growth of the
University and how, in the past, the
University and the state had not
wisely planned for the admission of
blacks and women into the
University nor for the growth of
Alderman Library.

But how does the planning for
growth fit into this history of inept
co-ordination of change and reform?
To examine this question, we must
first show how the present
projected enrollment of the
University in Charlottesville fails to
meet the expectations of the
proponents of growth. Then we must
examine the results that are now
looming around the corner because
of the mis-managed planning that is
taking place this very minute.

Growing Grad School

Those of us who recognize that
an enlarged graduate program
would aid the University should
look over the projected growth
pattern of the future University
enrollment. In 1966, graduate
students composed almost 40 per
cent of the total University
enrollment. By 1980, according to
the Office of Institute Analysis,
they will compose approximately
35 per cent of the total enrollment.

If this drop does not seem to
appear to be an indicative trend of
the future, let us quote Governor
Linwood Holton, in his address
before the governing boards on
September 1. Mr. Holton stated
that "the most expensive programs
to establish and operate in higher
education are graduate programs.
While there was a need at one time
for more such programs in Virginia,
I wonder how much more need
there still is today."

"Not only are these programs
costly;" he added, "there is also
considerable question about whether
many of them are worthwhile.
Moreover, as we all know, Ph.D.'s in
many fields are a glut on the job
market right now. I would,
therefore, respectfully suggest that
before our individual institutions
start proposing new graduate
programs that they look to see
what already exists elsewhere in the
state or the South." So goes
Governor Holton and so goes the
rationale for growth as a further
increase in the quality of the
graduate programs.

As to the other rationale for
growth, that of increased size of the
college-age population, two facts
must be emphasized. First, various
national reports have indicated that
in the near future, the increase in
the size of the college-age
population will moderate and
perhaps that fewer students will see
a need for going on to college.

More important however, is the
fact that an increase in the size of
the college-age population does not
mean that all people of this age are
right for a four-year liberal arts
college. Here is where Governor
Holton is so mistaken in his
thoughts. In that same speech of
September 1, 1971, Mr. Holton
stated that Virginia's highest
education need is "to provide more
accessibility for higher education at
the undergraduate level,
particularly for students of lower
income families."

While Mr. Holton is quite
correct in his realization that higher
education should be made
accessible for all students of all

income brackets and that additional
training should take place to enable
young Virginians of low incomes to
meet the standards of admission set
by higher education institutions, he
is mistaken in believing that all or
most high school graduates should
go on to a four-year liberal arts
college.

Variety of Virginians

On this point, Mr. McConnell
seems to be more realistic by saying
that "we have recognized that the
four-year college is not the answer
for every Virginian. Nor can any
one school or type of school even
hope to meet the educational
challenges that lie ahead. We will
need our four-year colleges with
their emphasis on the liberal
arts...the four-year military
institute...the land-grant
institutions...the regional
university...the community
colleges...and the
comprehensiveness of a state
university offering major graduate
and professional opportunities."

Without these two rationales
underpinning present plans for
growth at the University, growth
becomes an end in itself rather than
a means to a higher end. And, with
growth as the end, wisdom easily
eludes the planning of
administrators below the Governor's
office. It is here, in the specific
plans for growth in Charlottesville,
that the results of unwise planning
will be felt most severely. Let us
therefore, briefly look at the results
of growth as presently planned and
see who can be held responsible.

One result that does not seem to
be in the offing is a lowered
standard of admission
requirements. Ernest Ern. Dean of
Admissions, and an able staff of
admissions personnel, have
seemingly reversed a former
downward trend in the average
Board scores of entering students
and actually raised these averages to
a new high. The admissions staff
has been helped, of course, by an
ever increasing applicant pool from
which to select students.

The only complaint that can
seemingly be made with admissions
policy concerns in-state enrollment.
According to an article in last year's
The Cavalier Daily the number of
Virginians in past entering classes
averaged around 55 per cent of the
class. Last year, the ratio jumped to
64 per cent. The jump was
explained by the admission of
women who were mainly from
Virginia and assurances were made
that future growth would not affect
the instate-out of state ratio.

Two recent facts, however, cast
some doubt on these assurances.
First, reports have been received by
this writer that information sent to
interested women applicants
stressed the fact that Virginia
women were preferred at the
University. Also, the recruitment of
an ever-increasing number of
minority group students has been
centered in Virginia due to financial
limitations. The Office of
Admissions, at the same time, has
attempted to deal on a rather
low-key basis with alumni groups in
other states, some of which do not
favor or encourage applications
from minority group students. With
assurances from the Office of
Admissions, one can only hope that
these two problems will be rectified
in the near future.

Overcrowding

It is not the quality of student,
then, that is declining (if we believe
Board scores), but rather, the
intellectual environment that he or
she is entering. One aspect of this
declining environment is the
overcrowding of classroom
buildings. Although David
Shannon, the new University
Provost, has stated that many
courses in the College are held to a
small size, many members of the
College faculty stated last year that
they felt that the classrooms were
overcrowded.

If the classes are overcrowded,
as many students attempting to get
into a general and popular course
would attest to, the major
proportion of responsibility should
be laid to the State Council of
Higher Education. It is this Council
that, along with the Governor, is
responsible for the demands for
more efficient use of classroom
space. And it is the conflict for this
financial efficiency that has
conflicted and will continue to
conflict with the desire of students
and faculty for small, intimate
classroom situations.