An unusual number of responses have been published in The Dartmouth to counter Joe Asch's controversial column ("Dear Old Dartmouth?" Feb. 28). Indeed, he argued an extreme position and misrepresented several situations to defend it. From a student perspective, I must point out, however, that his critics have failed to convince me that his overall assessment is fundamentally wrong.
For example, it remains a fact that a nauseating number of students end up on the waitlist of many social science courses -- more courses than Professor Sa'adah ("Debunking the Drift Myth," March 4) or Dean Folt ("The Fact of the Matter," March 3) have cared to acknowledge. In reality, students are lucky if they can get into any 30s/50s government or 20s economics classes in a given term. Seven out of eleven non-senior government courses offered next spring will be at or above their cap, and economics is worse off. Although Sa'adah claims that "many" classes exist that don't push their cap (four, doing the math), she declines to mention that her department's definition of a "cap" is usually fifty students. Hardly a bragging matter. One would expect this of large universities -- not Dartmouth.
It doesn't take an econ major to discern the source of these problems. Student demand for social sciences exceeds the supply of faculty in those departments to teach them. This demand will not diminish; smart students paying $40,000 tuition will continue to vie for rewarding professions in finance and law, so they will continue to desire background courses in how the economy and the government work. Ultimately, the result is a shortage of government and economics faculty that has been highly predictable for years.
The administration can boast a 10 percent increase in the size of the faculty over the last five years, but the incoming professors ended up in all the wrong places -- to where there were very few students (non-Spanish foreign languages, certain humanities) or to where the students were leaving (computer science, post-dot-com bubble). Next spring, 16 computer science professors will teach 237 students; meanwhile, 17 economics professors will teach 889 students. Quibble all you want about how these professors are ranked or paid, but economics and government are having staffing problems now because the resources were wrongly allocated several years ago and remain so.
Thus, although the Board of Trustees has pledged to improve the situation, action has not been quick enough, and how do we know they won't show the same lack of foresight this time around? The temporary solutions used in the past involved the hiring of visiting professors. Now, the number of courses taught by visiting professors is downright mind-boggling. Wright, Sa'adah and Folt all promise they are recruiting more faculty; however, they are already behind in a hiring game that's not going to get any easier. It's a seller's market, and the growth of student demand for these courses won't simply flatten, as their statements continue to imply.
This is bad news -- really bad. Consider the example of the natural sciences. Introductory biology and chemistry courses were understandably flooded with pre-meds. Departments chose to sacrifice class size, so many of those courses now have enrollments of over one hundred students. Do we really have to go down this path with the social sciences as well?
Asch also complains that many alumni are appalled by the housing situation. It is not misleading to claim that students move residences over six times during their college career; it's a simple fact. Some rising sophomores debate the merits of living out of their cars. Even next spring, numerous juniors must be housed out in the Lodge. Frankly, Dartmouth students did not hike up to Hanover to live by the True Value store or in their cars, so Asch is not the only one appalled by the housing situation. Students certainly are. If critics need proof, I suggest they poll these sophomores and juniors to see how happy they are with their residential experience. Furthermore, as enrollment and applications continue to rise, we're only now breaking ground on new dorms. Like the solutions for the social sciences, these efforts may be too little, too late.
The hiring of new coaches and the reinstatement of the swimming team were steps for Dartmouth athletics, but we should not let time cloud our memories as to how those successes were achieved. Students filled the halls of Parkhurst. Alumni begged the college for their donations to the swim team to reach the swim team. Only with joint efforts by alumni and students -- the exact cooperation that trustee candidates Todd Zywicki '88 and Peter Robinson '79 preach -- has the administration been pressured into this success.
While all of these problems were festering, the administration focused on the Student Life Initiative and allowed the deanery to metastasize, merely taping band-aids on real problems, using temporary housing and visiting professors. In doing so, they ultimately failed to address the basic needs of the institution and its students: enough professors, enough classes and enough housing.
With petition candidates vowing to correct these imbalances, this picture may improve, and not worsen as Professor Sa'adah suggests. Indeed, some movements "imbued with a rebel spirit" to counter conventional wisdom have suffered a bloody end, but many have also moved our world forward. Robinson and Zywicki propose to fulfill the College's basic needs, espouse free speech and condemn professors who teach students what to think rather than how to think. There's nothing backwards about that to me; in fact, what's backwards is a professor venting insulting remarks about the quality of her students, whom I believe to be among the best in the country.
Ultimately, the six Trustee candidates are running precisely because they strive for a better Dartmouth for current and future students, and the two petition candidates have been as articulate about their vision as the others. The Dartmouth does a great disservice to the entire Trustee election by simply deciding for its readership that Zywicki and Robinson lack the vision and distinction of their predecessor ("Verbum Ultimum," Mar. 4). Instead, it should have devoted more space to reporting the views of all six candidates as clearly as possible to enable those voting to decide for themselves. Only then may a reasonable discourse on all of this be achieved.
