UWSP to Cut 13 Majors, Including English and Philosophy; Adding 16 More

[jsglow]

It would be .. righteous .. to argue that eliminating History, Phil, Art, French, et. al, FROM THE ENTIRE SYSTEM would be a crime.

But nipping and tucking, while providing those majors elsewhere in-state seems prudent.   The whole system is predicated on satellite campuses, kids starting at the UW-College sites, then moving to another campus for their 4 year degree.

Someone wants to major in English Lit?  Knock yourself out, you've got choices.  It might not be at the school 30 minutes away.  Sorry.   

You can't have Arby's on every streetcorner.  It's not a bad idea, there's just not enough demand.

I think I fit into this about where topper is.  Consolidation seems to be the answer.  Believe it or not, there was a time when uW-MKE was a 2 year school.  Overlap in the UW system seems excessive and inefficient to me.  That said, I'm a firm believer in a Liberal Arts education.

[WarriorFan]

In related news, Starbucks has announced the closure of it's Stevens Point location.

... no employment candidates any more. 

[GGGG]

I think I fit into this about where topper is.  Consolidation seems to be the answer.  Believe it or not, there was a time when uW-MKE was a 2 year school.  Overlap in the UW system seems excessive and inefficient to me.  That said, I'm a firm believer in a Liberal Arts education.

Here's the problem with consolidation.  Are you going to keep all the other campuses the same size?  If so, does that mean you accept less students overall?

If you are going to allow the other campuses to grow, are you going to build more classrooms?  Hire more professors?  Build more residence halls?

Closing a small campus like Superior is one thing.  But closing larger campuses, or multiple campuses, isn't going to be much of a savings unless you want to cut off access.  And Wisconsin already is dealing with problems with people with college degrees moving out of state.  This won't help.

If you could go back in time and build the System from scratch, you would undoubtedly build it differently.  But that luxury is gone now.

[MUBBau]

Update

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2018/03/28/following-sit-backlash-uw-stevens-point-draw-up-counterproposal/468048002/

[Benny B]

Agree.  My MU rooomate is a prof in the UW-College system and is apoplectic about these changes.

Wow.  I've heard of people being driven to suicide by their college roommates, but this has to be a new low.

[warriorchick]

They would not be cutting these majors if students were beating down the doors to enroll in them.

I agree that  the world needs liberal arts majors.  But there are plenty of other schools in the UW system that offer the majors they are eliminating.  Just because you want to major in Music Literature doesn't mean that you have the right to demand a program at the publicly-supported campus of your choice.

[GGGG]

I can guaranty you this Common Council isn't going to come up with anything substantially different.  Unless they want to cut athletics.

[Coleman]

They would not be cutting these majors if students were beating down the doors to enroll in them.

I agree that  the world needs liberal arts majors.  But there are plenty of other schools in the UW system that offer the majors they are eliminating.  Just because you want to major in Music Literature doesn't mean that you have the right to demand a program at the publicly-supported campus of your choice.

I am actually curious about the enrollment numbers. History (my major) was incredibly popular at MU. So was political science. I'd be surprised if UWSP was different.

I don't think enrollment is the entire issue. It may be part of the issue for some of these majors. But I think there is quite a bit more to it than that. It is more likely they need a reason to cut "expensive" tenured faculty (by expensive I simply mean those who earn enough for a middle class existence). History could be very popular, but if you have a bunch of tenured professors there, it is still attractive to cut. New programs can be staffed with non-tenured faculty or adjuncts, who are paid a pittance and generally don't have benefits. It all comes down to (a lack of) funding, just as much as it does enrollment.

If these were truly unpopular majors, would there really be mass protests against cutting them that we are seeing?

[GGGG]

I think this has a lot to do with trying to align its majors with more “practical” programs that makes it more attractive for students and state funding.

[Coleman]

I think this has a lot to do with trying to align its majors with more “practical” programs that makes it more attractive for students and state funding.

I agree. But I think that is distinct from low enrollment.

I also think it is partially a result of current anti-intellectualism that is certainly not limited to Wisconsin.

[skianth16]

I think this has a lot to do with trying to align its majors with more “practical” programs that makes it more attractive for students and state funding.

Bingo. It's hard to attract students to majors that have limited direct career prospects given the costs and the impacts of student debt. Yes, you can get a fine job with an English or History degree, but there are limited career paths in those specific fields. Addressing costs/ROI for students is getting more attention. Offering liberal arts courses but limiting the majors may end up offering better financial prospects for both students and the university.

[D'Lo Brown]

I agree. But I think that is distinct from low enrollment.

I also think it is partially a result of current anti-intellectualism that is certainly not limited to Wisconsin.

Lol. Although I agree that anti-intellectualism is a part of American culture, it certainly isn't something new as you say. It has been a well-defined aspect of our society for decades, if not longer. Without getting into specifics, the current discourse combined with the sudden permanent access to peoples' bizarre thoughts (social media) has just highlighted the results of said belief system.

I'd also like to add that the inverse of what you say is likely truer. New anti-intellectualism isn't an affliction of the younger generations. Young people do and will use their brains in ways that their grandparents/great-grandparents could never imagine. They are considerably more cognitively flexible and open.

Anyways. The average parents have far less money saved/available today than ever (due to stagnated wages over a long period of time as well as gradually increasing costs). Of course, at the same time the cost of college has been increasing at an astronomical rate yearly. This means that even in the time since you yourself went to school, the situation, on average, has gotten markedly different and the stakes have been raised dramatically. Kids can be forever screwed and indebted to lenders for their adult lives, which as you can imagine would likely impact decisions on whether to attend college and which major to select. A careful cost-benefit analysis must be done, unless the child's parents can help cover it.

If people think that undergraduates studying the humanities are a benefit to society, then why don't we ensure kids can reasonably decide to pursue them? How about we don't just totally ear-f*** them with $200,000 in debt (original loan + interest)? Then kids don't have to be mortally petrified of ruining their lives just because they decided to study history.

Sorry, your argument is just pretty nearsighted, and I don't get it. No disrespect meant.

[Coleman]

Lol. Although I agree that anti-intellectualism is a part of American culture, it certainly isn't something new as you say. It has been a well-defined aspect of our society for decades, if not longer. Without getting into specifics, the current discourse combined with the sudden permanent access to peoples' bizarre thoughts (social media) has just highlighted the results of said belief system.

I'd also like to add that the inverse of what you say is likely truer. New anti-intellectualism isn't an affliction of the younger generations. Young people do and will use their brains in ways that their grandparents/great-grandparents could never imagine. They are considerably more cognitively flexible and open.

Anyways. The average parents have far less money saved/available today than ever (due to stagnated wages over a long period of time as well as gradually increasing costs). Of course, at the same time the cost of college has been increasing at an astronomical rate yearly. This means that even in the time since you yourself went to school, the situation, on average, has gotten markedly different and the stakes have been raised dramatically. Kids can be forever screwed and indebted to lenders for their adult lives, which as you can imagine would likely impact decisions on whether to attend college and which major to select. A careful cost-benefit analysis must be done, unless the child's parents can help cover it.

If people think that undergraduates studying the humanities are a benefit to society, then why don't we ensure kids can reasonably decide to pursue them? How about we don't just totally ear-f*** them with $200,000 in debt (original loan + interest)? Then kids don't have to be mortally petrified of ruining their lives just because they decided to study history.

Sorry, your argument is just pretty nearsighted, and I don't get it. No disrespect meant.

I agree with more statements you made in this post than I disagree with, so I am not sure why you say my argument is nearsided. I didn't go to school that long ago. And I wasn't saying that the current generation of college students are anti-intellectual. It is rather the generation in power with the pursestrings.