Opinion > April 17, 2008

By | This column represents the views of the Old Gold & Black Editorial Board.

The spectrum of the dramatic student body growth planned for the next few years is deeply troubling.

Often on these pages, various students’ concerns, suggestions or minor complaints are aired — a conversation all well and good as far as it goes.

However, this matter of growth trumps all that and matters much more. It involves not just one facet of the campus here or there, but it cuts right to the university’s very identity. Many of us were drawn to the university because of its intimate small size that offered personable student-faculty interaction and a chance to get to know a bunch of our fellow students.

The plan for expansion, long anticipated but only definitively laid out by President Hatch last week, sets a goal for admitting 500 additional students over the next five years. That number is more ambitious than it may seem on first blush.

Yes, for most large universities, 500 would indeed be considered “modest,” as Hatch characterized it. But considering a school of our size, and factoring in the not insignificant increases of the last four years (284 more students are enrolled this year than in the 2004-2005 school year), to grow any faster seems nearly impossible.

Stress from these changes has already begun to show. Classrooms, dorms and parking lots are already overflowing and class registration has turned into a practical nightmare for many students.

We’ve noticed not just how our intro classes have grown in size, but what’s more troubling is how our major courses have shown signs of getting larger too.

Hatch in fact warned of this potential consequence in his first interview with the OGB in saying that, “the dreams and ambitions may outstrip the current resources” (“President-elect Hatch looks towards the future,” Feb. 17, 2005).

What’s more, faculty compensation remains lower here than at peer institutions. Good progress has been made on that front in the Hatch administration, but not nearly enough. Why do teachers come and stay, despite lower pay? The same reason nearly all the students were drawn here. If their class sizes continue to grow, we wonder, will many have shrinking reasons to stay? How can the admissions department continue to promote this university as a “small private institute” without baiting and switching on all our prospective students?

All is evidence that growth without appropriate planned infrastructural support is a bad thing. And there’s the rub. Where will the professors, classes, dorms and buildings come from so quickly? If these issues have arisen with a four year growth of 284 students, what will happen when that growth is nearly doubled in about the same time frame?

The above having been said, however, we are not opposed to growth in principle alone. In the long view, independent of other factors, we are not sure a student body of 5,000 feels that much bigger than a student body of 4,000.

We also recognize the positive economic incentives involved with such an increase in enrollment; more students will be paying tuition and there will be more alumni in the future who will give back to the university (hopefully).

It has also become clear that this is the direction the Board of Trustees wants to go; surely the trustees have the best intentions of the university in their hearts and minds, right?