It seems, more and more, like the value of a college degree, and the perception of that degree, is not what it once was. Universities across the country prioritize profits over education, but such actions are especially damning when they happen here. Even so, there is an ongoing discussion surrounding a proposed $20 million LSA budget cut, which would limit graduate student instructor positions and the number of class sections. We call ourselves “the leaders and best” — yet propose slashing funding for our largest college.
With enrollment numbers reaching record highs, the University’s attempt to cut costs will have adverse effects on our education. Already, more students and less funding has resulted in GSIs being asked to increase the number of students in their sections from 50 to 75. The decreased ratio of instructors to students will make instruction worse, as the relationships between students and GSIs will become less individualized than they already are. Furthermore, GSIs will have a larger workload, making their jobs harder and potentially harming their capacity to teach.
Additionally, reducing GSI positions in LSA subjects will completely cut out certain sections, decreasing the course opportunities for many undergraduates. With the University’s strict LSA degree requirements, cutting class sections will strain students’ ability to build working schedules and meet graduation requirements. Requiring that students take certain classes, then cutting some sections of those same classes will further impede students from fulfilling their requirements.
If we want a bigger student body to have the same instruction as the previous, smaller ones, then we need a sufficient number of instructors.
Investing back into our school — and LSA specifically — will help set the college apart from other institutions. Nowadays, more and more people go to college and major in areas like computer science, business or engineering, since their job prospects might be better in those fields. While this may look like a reason to reduce funding for other schools, such as LSA, doing so damages gifted students’ potential to learn. It’s easy to forget that LSA is the largest school at the University, given the high reputation of colleges like the Ross School of Business, but it is. We need to work to give LSA a similar reputation.
This starts by allocating more resources to students and GSIs in LSA, alleviating attendance costs while also mitigating the disparity in immediate post graduation earnings by other majors. This will hopefully motivate students who want to pursue degrees in less conventional areas to come to the University, where they could take advantage of its ubiquity to bolster their postgraduate careers. We have the money to do this. The University just spent $41 million on increasing the size of the scoreboards at The Big House. While the money for this operation undoubtedly came from different sources, it illustrates the scale of resources that are available to our university.
The LSA budget cuts should never have been proposed. Taking $20 million out of the University’s endowment to offset them would have been more than feasible, and it’s a shame that this didn’t happen. Clearly, a shift in ideology on how we utilize our endowment is needed if we cannot justify spending $20 million in order to maintain the quality of LSA. At universities with smaller endowments, such budget cuts might make more sense: They don’t here.
The beauty of the University is that it appeals to students with a diverse range of interests. Given this strength, it isn’t logical to cut academic programs. The University should want to attract a wide range of people, meaning it needs strong colleges, no matter their focus.
Ultimately, the responsibility to ensure the quality of education at the University rests squarely on the shoulders of the Board of Regents. Defunding LSA programs is not only shortsighted but detrimental to the University’s reputation as a leader in higher education. The board has the means to prevent these budget cuts and should prioritize reallocating resources to support the largest college on campus. By investing in LSA, the board can uphold the University’s commitment to offering a comprehensive, high-quality education. The onus is on them to act in the best interest of students and the University as a whole, ensuring that all programs, regardless of their immediate financial return, receive the support they need to thrive.
Gabe Efros is an Opinion Columnist who writes about the American political climate, on and off campus. He can be reached at gefros@umich.edu.
The post Cutting LSA’s budget is a bad idea appeared first on The Michigan Daily.
Leave a Reply