Why Are SRUs Still Around?

If a great deal that state regional universities currently accomplish could be done more economically and effectively by technology outside the current SRU institutional structure, we must ask why SRUs have lasted so long in their current form. The most obvious explanation is that each SRU is protected politically because of its value as a local economic engine. For example, a recent joint advertising campaign, including billboards, claimed that West Texas A&M University and Amarillo College combined contribute about $1 billion per year to the Texas Panhandle economy.

There are also a number of myths that support the preservation and expansion of SRUs:

Myth: College is for everybody regardless of commitment or maturity. The experience of taking classes at an SRU is not much different from taking classes at an American high school. You show up, take notes, hand in homework, meet institutional standards to a greater or lesser extent, get second and third chances if you don't meet those standards, and finally get some arbitrary amount of credit toward a diploma, usually with a grade of "A."

If we are going to replace the SRU with higher education that delivers a more employable graduate at less cost through better use of technology, we must remove some of the overprotective training wheels from the system. Those high school graduates who lack the commitment and maturity to profit from technologically delivered courses may simply not be academically or emotionally prepared to enroll in the university of the future. Of course, they may not ready for the university of the present either, which may be why WTAMU's six-year graduation rate is a dismal 42 percent. More stringent admission standards at SRUs would put pressure on the high schools to demand more for their diplomas as well. (I am fully aware of the profound political implications of raising admissions standards.)

Myth: The local student body is uniquely defined by its blood and soil. This myth suggests that the students in Rochester, TX, or Rochester, MN, have very little in common with their peers in Rochester, NY, or Rochester, MI. Only a professoriate that lives and works in any locality can truly understand the local students, so only the local SRU can be trusted to teach them. The mantra for this thinking might be "Computers will not replace us!"

This is nonsense. While there are undoubtedly cultural differences between regions, and between major cities and more rural areas, a little situational awareness of the part of faculty well-trained in cultural diversity is sufficient to adjust to these subtleties. There are as many important differences among students on the same campus as there are among students on different ones.

Myth: Each faculty member is a uniquely precious little snowflake. This myth says that there is absolutely no one else in the universe who teaches Western Civilization like Dr. Jones at our local SRU. After all, no one else has read exactly the same books as Dr. Jones or had exactly the same life experience.

While that is undoubtedly true, it does not necessarily follow that local students get a better experience by being in Dr. Jones' class. On the contrary, they might do considerably better by participating electronically in the class of some nationally recognized teacher with greater content depth and exceptional ability to inspire. Perhaps that teacher would not dream of taking a job at the SRU where Dr. Jones teaches because of salary or cultural environment.

Myth: The local SRU is the ideal place to get a "well-rounded" education. This is actually a few separate myths in need of unpacking. The first is that there is actually some way of measuring what an educated person is. This is actually a rapidly moving target. A hundred years ago, no one would have been considered educated who lacked either Greek or Latin. Fifty years ago, being considered educated might have included intimate familiarity with the famous University of Chicago set of 160 "Great Books." The problem was that no two scholars could agree on which books were truly great or why.

Even if we accept that "educated" is a reasonable adjective to apply to people and that we can somehow define what "educated" means, there is no reason to believe that the micron-thin spray-painting of Western culture embodied in a typical SRU's first two years of "general education" courses achieves anything at all. This is not surprising, since so many students are captives who would rather be learning a paying trade than musing about Julius Caesar's mindset when he crossed the Rubicon. This is even more so with today's older and more goal-driven undergraduates. Education by coercion is rarely a productive venture.

As a 67-year-old, it appears to me that education for personal enrichment is often more useful and enjoyable as one gets considerably older. For example, you need to slow down a little to appreciate great literature. In the opinion of many who study such things, one of the greatest of novels of all time is Henry James' Portrait of a Lady. I read it in high school and saw nothing in it. I just read it again and saw everything in it. I would love to be attending a general education class right now on Great Victorian Novels, but during my college years, you couldn't have dragged me into one with free steak dinners.

Myth: Only at an SRU can students have the happy experience of being "taken under the wing" of a professor or two who takes an interest in them. Like most pernicious myths, this one has a tiny grain of truth to it. Yes, happy accidents do occur when, due to some unknown bit of chemistry, Dr. Smith is really taken with the earnestness, intelligence and dedication of student George or student Maggie, and lavishes a completely disproportionate amount of time and attention on them. Common sense suggests that this will only happen for a tiny percentage of students and, most probably, for those who are exceptionally talented. Coach Baker is far more likely to bond meaningfully with a star member of the track team than with some out-of-shape English major struggling through a mandatory P.E. class. The "under the wing" experience simply does not scale in the normal SRU institutional structure. It is far more likely to occur in an environment where the student is helping their mentor with actual work.

Myth: Nothing can replace "the campus experience" of the SRU. This is nothing but a marketing myth. If living on campus was so glorious, why does such a large percentage of students get off campus the moment school rules allow? West Texas A&M offers students a rent-free year of dorm housing if they voluntarily stay on campus for the last two years of their college careers. Yes, great friendships are sometimes made on campus, but young people will find ways to get to know each other no matter where they live. Living on campus fits some and not others.

Myth: SRUs must be preserved because they shower the globe with useful research. In reality, many SRU professors consider scribbling off a yearly paper on something or other to be an obsolete chore needed to keep their "real job," which is teaching. Quality research is created by professors who have something to say, not those who are required to say something. Of course, there is a staggering amount of outright fraud in research at the SRU level, where faculty who have no interest in research can get nearly anything published in some dubious overseas journal for a reasonable "review and editing fee." Of course, other SRU professors do superlative research work even when the level of support at their institution is a tiny fraction of what is available at Carnegie Level One or Carnegie Level Two research universities.