University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Invalid Assumptions Yield Inaccuracies

By LARRY SABATO
and BRIAN SIEGEL

—Ed.)

Contrary to the charges
made by Kevin Mannix in the
April 14th edition of The
Cavalier Daily, the unreleased
report of the Future of the
University Committee is a
thorough and well-researched
plan which provides reasonable
alternatives for the University
in the decade of the seventies.

Mr. Mannix's analysis of the
report was incomplete,
inaccurate, and was based on
invalid assumptions about the
Committee and its work. We will
attempt here to answer briefly
some of the charges he has
made. (The propriety of Mr.
Mannix's action in releasing the
draft of the report—before the
full Committee even discussed
it—is a point which we leave for
others to debate.)

First, Mr. Mannix claimed
that the Committee's
recommendation "seemed to
be predicated upon the
assumption that expansion per
se is desirable," and that the
Committee used the
administration's enrollment
projection of 18,000 in 1980
as a "base."

Nothing could be further
from the truth. The Committee
did not make any
"assumptions" about future
enrollment. The administration
projection was totally
discounted by the Committee
as irrelevant, and was never
used as a base for any
projections or assumptions.

We formed our projections
in response to the constraints
imposed by physical
facilities—restraints which will
be with us until at least 1978.
Mr. Mannix ignored the thrust
of our most important
recommendation: that
enrollment increases must be
tied to the availability of
academic and allied facilities.

This is exactly the point
which Student Council has
been pressing; this was the
point of "University Tuesday."

Mr. Mannix's statements
with regard to current facilities
were highly inaccurate. He
claims that "on paper, the
University already has
sufficient educational facilities
under state standards to
accommodate 18,000
students."

Mr. Mannix completely
ignores the current 1971
inventory and converted
guideline capacity tables which
appear in the report. Although,
by state standards, we
currently have classroom space
to accommodate 18,000
students, the University has
large space deficits in other
capacity guidelines (such as
office and library space).

A net deficit of over 18,000
sq. ft. at present will be
eliminated only with the
addition of the new Law
School and Graduate Business
School. Even with these
additions, state standards will
allow only a maximum
enrollment of 14,872 full-time
(15,091 head count).

While state standards are far
from ideal, Mr. Mannix is
incorrect in saying that these
guidelines "call for full
utilization of facilities." The
efficiency factor is 67%,
which is considerably more
liberal than many
educationally progressive states
(California, for example).
Indeed, there has been a good
deal of pressure exerted on the
State Council of Higher
Education to tighten these
standards.

More important than the
guidelines themselves, however,
is the demonstrated necessity
for a vigorous program of space
conversion. Many large
classrooms, for instance, must
be converted to two or more
smaller classrooms or offices,
consistent with the current
demand for smaller class size.

Mr. Mannix also claims that
"state standards make no
allowance" for space demands
presented by a large graduate
population. This too, is
incorrect. In fact, space
allocations for graduate
students are determined by an
entirely separate formula
which makes just such an
allowance.

Mr. Mannix proceeded to
charge that the Committee
ignored "concepts such as the
viability of the academic
community, educational
techniques, and the role of the
individual in our University."
We submit that this is
preposterous. We have
considered the above if only by
insuring that facilities keep
pace with enrollment increase.

Mr. Mannix also finds it
hard to reconcile our call for a
stable enrollment in 1980 and
our alleged "pro-expansion
philosophy that constant
growth is concomitant with
progress." We find it easy to
reconcile; the Committee as a
whole simply did not hold such
a "philosophy." It was only
logical to the Committee that
the University reach a stability
point.

On the question of the
in-state/ out-of-state student
ratio, we agree with Mr.
Mannix that it is imperative
that everything possible be
done to maintain our relatively
high proportion of out-of-state
students.

Although we dissented from
the recommendation that "the
proportion of in-state
undergraduate students should
increase over the next several
years," the majority of the
Committee felt that pressure
from the state legislature was
sufficiently intense to result in
a severe limitation being placed
on the number of out-of-state
students within the next
several years. By taking limited
action ourselves we would
hopefully prevent legislative
initiative, and minimize the
deleterious effects.

We have two comments on the
chart of enrollment projections
which Mr. Mannix has devised.
First of all, his comments on
the enrollment increases until
1977 show little of the "roll
effect"; that is, the entering
class increases of 1971 and
prior years must work
themselves through the system
until the number graduated in
a given year is approximately
equal to the number admitted,
thus achieving a stable student
population.

Both Plan A and Plan B
entail a total freeze on the
entering class in the College of
Arts and Sciences. (This is
basically what Student Council
has advocated throughout the
year.) The increase in
enrollment from 1972-73 to
1976-77 is due primarily to the
"roll effect" in the College.

It is interesting to note that,
if the College were kept at
precisely its present enrollment
(which Mr. Mannix seems to be
advocating), the "roll effect"
would necessitate a 38% cut in
next year's entering College
class. We cannot believe that even
Mr. Mannix would urge such an
action.

Secondly, Mr. Mannix
questioned our reason for not
comparing the Plan A/Plan B
projections with the 1980
administrative projections (as
he did in his chart). Once again
we remind Mr. Mannix that the
Committee saw no need for
such a comparison; the
Committee considered the
administrative projections
irrelevant.

Several inaccuracies are
immediately apparent in Mr.
Mannix's discussion of local
housing. First, 3,000 additional
units of housing with an
average capacity of three
persons per unit will be
available in the area of 1974
(not 1,000 units as reported by
Mr. Mannix).

Although Mr. Mannix is
quite correct in pointing out
that these units are not
"guaranteed," we feel from our
research that this is a reliable
estimate. We also took into
account that many of these
units would be occupied by
non-students.

Finally, we turn to the
question Mr. Mannix raised
about "the secrecy of the
Committee's operations and
the acquiescence to this secrecy
on the part of Student
Council."

First, input to this
Committee from all sectors of
the University community was
certainly greater than for any
Committee in the University's
recent history. Committee
members were deluged with
literally hundreds of pages of
testimony, data, and statistics.

In addition an open hearing
was held in December at which
13 organizations or individuals
(including Mr. Mannix) made
presentations. Student input
was more than adequate
throughout the Committee's
deliberations.

Confidential material was
involved in the Committee's
discussions. Separate
components of the University
which we had investigated
requested Committee members
not to divulge the information
which they had supplied us,
and it was only honorable to
maintain that confidence.

Information concerning the
University and its relationships
with the legislature, the State
Council of Higher Education,
and other organizations was of
a sensitive nature. This material
was potentially damaging, and
there are always a few
irresponsible individuals who
are willing to use such material
for their own purposes.

In reviewing the situation as
it has developed over the past
two years, it is immediately
apparent that the original
administration projections
were far out of the ballpark.
The actions of students,
faculty, and community
residents—indeed, the
conclusions reached by the
Future Committee— have
proved that point.

Never again should there be
such a dearth of administrative
planning and management in
such a vital area.
(Recommendations for future
planning will be forthcoming
from the Future Committee.)

We did not fully agree with
the Committee report. (We doubt
that any member fully agreed.)

We have strong preference for
Plan B(head count 15,091) over
Plan A (head count 16,054). We
are simply not convinced of
the academic necessity of an
additional 1000 students; some
other committee members hold
similar views.

We have expressed our opinion
on this within the Committee,
and we plan to continue to