U Magazine, Winter 1987

Q: The recently-issued Carnegie Foundation report is very critical of the job being done by American colleges. Among the criticisms : Classes are too large, facu lty are more concerned with research and publishing than teaching, and colleges offer too many courses geared to careerism. How do you respond to those criticisms, and how does USD measure up? A: Generalizations are difficult. They often contain a kernel of truth but they may not state the whole truth. My observation is that the Carnegie criticisms do address some of the ills of higher education today. For example, a major criticism is the emphasis on research at the expense of teaching. if that's true , why is it true?Whyhave college professors turned their emphasis to research? First, because that's where the prestige and the rewards are. The large state university systems and the large state college systems have focused their attention on research. If the system bases its rewards on how much public research and publication is generated by a particular faculty member, if tenure and salary increments are going to be determined by these factors, what are professors supposed to do? Turn their backs? Obviously they have not. I think the explanation for this emphasis lies in how universities have "socialized." The research universities in the country have turned to research because they see research as a very important contribution to the society of which they are a part. I don't see anything wrong with that. That's what those universities are, that's what they say they are and that's what they are doing. Unfortunately, too many other institutions in the country think they should be doing what the "big name" institutions are doing. Hundreds of large comprehensive universities throughout the country seem to take the approach, 'well , if that's what the name institutions are doing, that's what we ought to do.' So we have the state universities, many of which started out as teachers ' colleges, then progressed to state colleges and then to state universities, now seeking to become large prestigi– ous research institutions. In the process these institu– tions have turned their backs on teaching. In a sense they have turned their backs on the students. I think that's unfortunate. Q: Is that also true of smaller colleges? Small private colleges have always expressed a commitment to students. A: You're right. And by and large, smaller institutions, like ours, have maintained a balance between teaching and research. It's a healthy and necessary balance. It would be very possible to go too far the other way. To say, teaching is the only thing of any importance in a college or university. It's not the only thing of importance. Good teaching has to be balanced with good research because that keeps the faculty individually and collectively on the cutting edge of what's happening in their discip– line. So it isn't a matter of choosing - you've got to do both. Q: In the context ofUSD's mission , how do you feel the University stacks up against the Carnegie report? A: I feel very good about what we're doing at USD. The report is critical, for example, of colleges which have abandoned general education. We have never in the history of this institution abandoned our commitment to a general education concept. Liberal arts were and are an

extremely important segment of the undergraduate experience at USD. To be "educated" isn't just to be trained for a career. Secondly, our faculty has said loudly and clearly that it wants a university where the teaching and learning environment is the focus of the institution. We 've hired faculty over the years who not only believe that; they're fully committed to it. So I am not at all concerned about teaching having been diluted or reduced in importance. Not here. In fact, it's the other way around. I think that our faculty, through experience and observation of other institutions, are here precisely because they want an institution where the primary focus is teaching and learning. Yet they also recognize that research is an essential and enjoyable part of their professorial careers as teachers . Q: Another question about "mission".. . Can the University represent something...stand for some- thing...besides learning? Or is higher education purely an intellectual enterprise? A: It's an intellectual enterprise certainly, but I think it can and should be more than that. USD has identified four facets of its character that bring a uniqueness to this institution, four facets we think are critical to making USD the kind of institution it is. The first is the emphasis on the liberal arts , which we've talked about. The second is our desire to help students develop as a total person : intellectually, physically, socially and culturally. The third is our value orientation. We are committed to the formation of specific values - both individual and social values - in our students. The fourth

"We have never in the his– tory of this institution aban– doned general education... Liberal arts were and are an extremely important seg– ment of the undergraduate experience at USD."

8