In reading The Dartmouth over the past years, it is clear that the College is bursting at the seams:
There is insufficient dorm space for all of the students who want to live on campus.
Class sizes are too large, limiting interaction with faculty. We have fewer small classes than most other Ivy League schools, and students are too often turned away from classes that they want to attend because professors limit enrollments.
There are too few courses overall. In order to complete major requirements, students find themselves obliged to remain in Hanover during crowded terms. Students even lament long lines at Thayer and time wasted waiting at peak meal hours. Slowly, the College machinery is grinding into action in response to these decades-old concerns, but only with half-hearted measures. There are finally plans for some new dorms, a new dining hall and an increased number of faculty.
All of these steps should be applauded, even if they won't much benefit anyone on campus today, but there is a far simpler and more complete solution to the above woes, one that would have an almost immediate effect.
On Sept. 16, Jim Wright addressed the alumni class officers and told them that his vision for Dartmouth is to have "the best undergraduate program in the country and in the world." These remarks were a refreshing change from his "university in all but name" speeches of past years. Now, let's see if these words are followed by real action. The easiest, most effective change that President Wright could make to improve undergraduate education at the College is to lower the size of the student body.
We should have 1,000 incoming freshmen per class rather than the present 1,075.
That's a reduction of 75 incoming students per year over each of the next four years, a total of 300 fewer students in Hanover compared to today. This step would make the strong statement that Dartmouth is serious about focusing on the undergraduate program.
If Jim Wright were to make this decision, the housing crisis would cease to exist as of next September. Seventy-five fewer freshmen just happens to be the number of students who asked for and could not get College housing this term.
The following year, other students who had given up trying to find living space on campus would find that there were rooms for them, too.
With decreased housing pressure, four-year dorm continuity for undergraduates could return, as recommended forcefully in the Student Life Initiative. Then, when the new McLaughlin/Maynard Street and Tuck Mall dorms are completed, the River Cluster and even possibly the Choates, could be retired as undergrad dorms and converted to other uses. Perhaps the College's $20 million project to rebuild 150 housing units in Sachem Village for graduate students could be shelved, and these students could be housed within walking distance of campus.
Excess pressure in all other academic areas would immediately abate. Overcrowded class enrollments would decline, and as the planned increase in the size of the faculty occurs, there would be more classes to choose from and students would find more small classes among them.
Why, even our yield, selectivity and student/faculty ratio figures in U.S. News & World Report would instantly improve as admissions becomes even more discriminating.
What are the arguments against this change? The only one that I can see is financial. If a little more than half of all students pay full tuition and the other half receives varying levels of financial aid, then the lost income to the College would be about $2 million per class, or a total of $8 million per year, four years out.
Even in the context of the College's $600 million annual budget, this is not an insignificant amount. But the endowment has returned to health and a decisive, tangible action like this in support of improved undergraduate education would certainly elicit a financial response from alumni. Additionally, there is still plenty of scope for cost reduction in bloated administrative spending. And a reduction in the overall student body of 7 percent should produce other savings all along the line.
Taking a larger view, what investment could be more important than an expenditure to radically improve the quality of undergraduate education at Dartmouth? Under any circumstances, there should be money available for this important step, assuming Jim Wright truly has the will to improve conditions at the College.
C'mon, President Wright. Let's go to 1,000 incoming freshmen per class starting in September 2005. Your courageous, against-the-flow decision would be applauded by everyone today and remembered by history.
