It was the hope of many people in the Dartmouth community that a number of editorials published at the end of last term would spark change rather than produce another round of administrative excuses in The Dartmouth. At the very least, they hoped for a straight answer. These hopes, however, remain unfulfilled.
In a thinly veiled electioneering attempt concerning the current alumni Trustee election, Provost Barry Scherr's "specifics" ("Continuing to Bring in the Best," March 9) constitute yet another attempt by the administration to spin the numbers in its favor to persuade readers that many of the hotly-debated issues in the election, like problems of large course enrollments and faculty misallocation, have been largely overstated. If anyone believed that message, then Dartmouth is worse off.
Contrary to what the provost suggests, problems of course oversubscription are prevalent not only in introductory-level courses but also in upper-level courses. Undoubtedly, this is the sad truth for many social science majors, like those in government and economics, who comprise the largest number of majors each year. Moreover, the problem is not limited to social science courses. On the first day of class this spring, two of my upper-level biology and chemistry professors spent a few minutes apologizing for having classes that they believed were larger than would be desirable at Dartmouth (60 to 70 students in classes with two to five prerequisites). Consequently, such problems should not be dismissed or disappear into misleading statistics. A constructive dialogue on these issues demands to be heard.
For starters, I have calculated the following 2004-2005 enrollment statistics from the Timetable of Courses -- readily available to the public on the Registrar's website; the faculty numbers come straight out of the ORC. Accompanying graphs can be obtained from me via blitz. Please note that these statistics are based on enrollment, so a student simultaneously taking two courses in a department is counted twice; nevertheless, enrollment is probably the best measure of student demand and is the only statistic listed on the Registrar's website. The facts speak for themselves.
Not counting laboratory sections or independent research courses, the chemistry department's average undergraduate class size this year will be 55 students, followed by psychology at 46, biology at 41, government at 31, and economics at 30. The average department's class size at Dartmouth is roughly 23 students. For comparison, computer science courses this year will have an average class size of 16 students. Probing one step further, one can conclude that these inequalities are the result of a misallocation of resources.
From Fall 2004 to Spring 2005, the economics department will have an average per-term enrollment of 872 students for 21 permanent faculty. Roughly, this is a 42:1 enrollment to faculty ratio, making economics the largest department both in terms of numbers of students and majors. English and math both have large numbers of service courses but are smaller on every measure -- English had an average of 769 students for 29 permanent faculty (27:1) and math had 511 students for 13 permanent faculty (39:1). The government department had an average of 699 students for 23 permanent faculty (31:1).
Meanwhile, in the computer science department (an area which the Provost ironically cites as a need for continued aggressive recruitment relative to other departments), those same statistics show that they handle a per-term enrollment of 200 students for 15 permanent faculty (13:1). More astonishingly, the German department will host a per-term enrollment of 79 students with 8 permanent faculty (10:1). Simply acknowledging these imbalances rather than continuing to bamboozle The Dartmouth's readership would have done quite nicely.
Certain academic disciplines inherently lend themselves to smaller courses; however, no such excuse justifies the gross imbalances represented by these numbers. The facts resoundingly point to one conclusion: to reduce class sizes at Dartmouth, departments in high student demand have needed and still need more permanent faculty.
Interestingly, Provost Scherr notes an administrative success: the faculty has grown by 16 percent, while the student body has grown by only five percent. In acknowledging this fact, he merely confirms widespread suspicions that incoming faculty were incorrectly allocated in the past. Otherwise, departments like economics and government would not be experiencing the logjam that they are.
Furthermore, with such slow student body growth, as his statement reflects, long-term solutions to the widespread housing problems, like building new dorms, are very late in coming. Student dissatisfaction with the housing shortage is nothing new, and the article ("College Ranks 19th in Overall Fundraising," March 9) certainly suggests how long overdue the "Campaign for the Dartmouth Experience" really is.
I agree with the Provost that the vast majority of Dartmouth students and faculty enjoy their experience here; however, we do so in spite of the problems referenced above and in previous editorials -- specifically those of course oversubscription, housing shortages, and overcrowded athletic facilities. After all, shouldn't Dartmouth's primary concerns be aimed at educating its students in a personal setting, providing a superior residential life, and promoting the health of its students? Where were these guiding principles when the administration chose its own aggrandizement over saving popular interdisciplinary offerings, libraries, athletic teams, and more effectively reducing class sizes?
Those criticizing the current direction of Dartmouth do so not to smear the administration but merely to point out that these problems do indeed exist, have been brewing for quite some time, and went neglected. For example, no one denies that Dean of the Faculty Carol Folt has been actively working to hire permanent professors to go where they need to go -- but this was a problem handed to her by the current administration. Scherr must understand that those lobbying for a change of course recognize how the College solved long-term problems in the past with short-run solutions, like hiring visiting professors and putting up temporary housing. If an administration is forced into such decisions, then it is undeniable that its priorities have been skewed and that its planning has been poor.
