« PrejšnjaNaprej »
The largest number of colleges, schools, or major divisions included in the educational organization of any individual institution is 15. Two institutions have this number. The second largest is 14 found in 1 institution. There are 2 institutions with only 2 major divisions and 1 with only 3. In the remaining institutions the educational organizations are divided into major divisions ranging from 4 to 14.
Four of the institutions have between 12 and 14, six between 10 and 12, five between 8 and 10, thirteen between 6 and 8, and six between 4 and 6. The table shows that 39 institutions have major divisions of agriculture, 38 of engineering, 32 of arts and science, 22 of graduate work, 22 of education, 19 of home economics, 13 of law, 12 of science, 12 of pharmacy, 11 of veterinary medicine, 10 of agricultural experiment stations, 10 of commerce and business, 9 of general extension, 9 of agricultural extension service, 9 of medicine, 7 of extension teaching, 6 of chemistry, 6 of mines, 5 dentistry, of music, 4 of journalism, 3 of architecture, 3 of fine arts, 2 of forestry, and 1 of library. The museum of one institution is a separate major division as is the observatory in another.
It is not proposed to discuss each of the colleges, schools, or major divisions in the different institutions in detail but rather to point out some of the inconsistencies existing in the educational organizations. The records show 32 institutions with arts and science divi. sions. In one case the unit is called the division of social science and in another the academic division. Eight of the colleges have no arts and science colleges; instead they have organized divisions of science. In addition four institutions have established colleges of applied science. Although the subject-matter field of chemistry is commonly included as a department in the college of arts and sciences, there are six institutions that have established colleges or schools of chemistry in one of which is included physics. A college of education exists in 22 institutions and a separate division of extension teaching in 7. Home economics has been organized as a separate major division in 19 institutions. The agricultural ex ment station has been segregated and is operated as a separate unit from the college of agriculture in 10 institutions, while in the others it is included as a subdivision of this major division. In 10 institutions the work of the agricultural extension service is organized independently of the college of agriculture. An independent division of general extension has been established in nine institutions.
Because of the multiplicity of departments found in the land-grant institutions, no attempt has been made to compile a table showing the number in each of the institutions. Of far more importance are the groupings of the departments in the colleges, schools, or major divisions. A general lack of uniformity among the different institutions is found in this respect. In Table 10 are shown some of the more common departments and their location in major divisions.
It is evident that an almost consistent irregularity is found in the departmental organizations. The failure of the institutions to assign such common departments as are shown in the table to the same major divisions would indicate that the educational organizations have not been given sufficient careful study. That the ordinary principles of uniting related departments are not being observed in many of the land-grant colleges is obvious. The arrangement has been adopted in some instances of creating independent units of small departments, no fewer than 11 having been established in the 40 institutions filing returns. Such an organization is difficult to justify. An opportunity, therefore, exists for a complete realignment of colleges and departments in a number of cases. In the various parts of this report dealing with the subject matter fields, the question of college and departmental organizations is discussed in full detail.
Chapter V.-Summary and Conclusions
Recent reorganizations of State governments, the creation of State budgets, and the extension of the power of State agencies over the finances and the internal affairs of the land-grant colleges have in many instances tended to supersede the authority of institutional governing boards and institutional administrative officers.
When the State puts the responsibility for detailed control of institutional expenditures and other internal affairs in the hands of State officials, it turns the management of its State institutions to a certain degree over to the individuals. The governing board of a land-grant institution is a legislative body in more or less continuous session. Its rules and regulations can be adjusted to meet changing conditions. The laws of the State legislature must stand at least until the succeeding session. The regulations laid down by State officials under legislative authority can not be challenged except at a session of the legislature. All of these facts emphasize the great importance as well as the great advantage of leaving the governing boards of the land-grant institutions free to administer these institutions under the provisions of the general laws and within the limits of appropriations made by the law-making body of the State. The following principles are presented with reference to the State and institutional control of public institutions of higher education.
(1) The governing body should be clothed with sufficient power and authority to administer its trust properly and should report to the governor and the legislature. A budget, uniform with those of the other State departments supported by necessary details, should be filed with the State budget-making authority. The governing board should have the opportunity to explain its budget before the legislature in cases of differences with the budget-making agency. Appropriations for current expenses for the support of the institutions by the State should be made in the form of lump sums under general headings, those for major capital purposes by specific project.
(2) Appropriations made by the legislature should be available for expenditure by the governing board of the institution for legal purposes without restriction other than as to legality, accuracy, and honesty unless the revenues of the State are insufficient to meet them. The budgets and accounts of the educational institutions should in · general be classified in the same fashion as other State departments, but such uniform classification should be limited to broad general headings to permit more detailed classifications by the institutions appropriate to their activities.
(3) Expenditures from State appropriations should be made by State warrants for individual bills or pay rolls. Institutional receipts should be deposited in and disbursed from the treasury of the institution, these transactions to be fully covered in regular audits and reports, and included in the institution's budget submitted to the legislature.
(4) The governing board should have the power to plan and erect all buildings provided for by legislative appropriation. Authority to receive, handle, and administer trusts in perpetuity should be vested in the governing body, such funds being exempt from all State and local taxes.
(5) The methods by which the governing boards are chosen is of paramount importance in determining their personnel. A variety of arrangements for the appointment of the members is in effect in the different States, including popular election, selection by governor with and without the consent of the senate, by the State legislature, partially by the alumni, and by the board itself. The most desirable plan is for the appointment of the members by the governor with the approval of the State senate.
(6) The composition and permanence of the governing bodies is dependent to a large degree upon the length of the term of office. When the power of appointment is vested in State agencies, it is essential not only that the terms of the members expire in different years but that they be of sufficient length to insure that a single State administration shall not change the entire complexion of the board.
(7) Constructive policies for the development of the institutions can not be effectively pursued if frequent changes are made in the chief executive officers. According to the data collected, the actual length of the term of the president is short for the land-grant college group as a whole and there is a considerable turnover in the position. Frequent changes in the chief executive officer tend to retard the orderly and progressive advancement of the institutions. The office of president of a State higher educational institution should not be a political position and should not be subject to the uncertainties of elective public service.
(8) The president should serve as the chief executive officer of the governing board responsible for the enforcement of its decisions, actions, policies, and regulations for the operation of the institution. In this capacity, he should present all business and other matters to the governing body at its regular and special meetings. Under no circumstances should the board initiate policies without regard to the president. For the proper administration of the affairs of the institution, the president should also have complete authority over the selection of all officers, members of the staff, and other types of employees, the governing board following the recommendations.
PART III.-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE
Chapter I. --Organization of Business and Fiscal Office
Finance and business organization are the foundations of the educational structures of land-grant institutions. Without the necessary financial support, without competent handling of fiscal affairs, and without the employment of organized business methods, the fulfillment of academic programs or the achievement of educational objectives is impossible or must be wastefully accomplished. Land-grant colleges are maintained primarily by funds obtained from public sources. To secure the confidence of State officials and State legislatures intrusted with the appropriation of such funds and of the taxpayers who contribute them, it is essential that sound business principles be applied to expenditures and that the highest possible return in educational service be realized.
No land-grant college, however small, should be without a central business or fiscal officer responsible for the efficient handling of all business and property. Business principles do not vary in their application. They are as relevant to the institution of higher education as to the private commercial enterprise. The business organization should be charged with service to the instructional organization of colleges and universities. Only academic duties should be performed by members of the faculty if the best results are to be attained in the establishment of an effective and efficient teaching organization.
The same principles apply equally to the general government of the institutions. Members of governing bodies with important personal and private interests, serving without compensation, are unable to give their attention to routine business management and supervision. Their time should be utilized in directing major policies and in solving major problems. Nor should the president of the institution serving as executive agent of the governing body be called upon to attend to the multitude of details connected with financial administration. If he is required to do so the larger responsibilities of his office will, almost of necessity, be neglected. This does not mean that the governing body and the executive officer