I’ve been a student at the U on and off since way back before the Marriott Library became a real gem of modern campus architecture, all glass and light and space. The new Grand Reading Room surely has one of the most beautiful views of any reading room anywhere. That building used to be more or less the exact opposite, dark and dreary and dank, even on the higher floors.
The new Tanner Humanities Building is also a (somewhat) welcome addition, an improvement over the cramped spaces of OSH. The fourth floor Philosophy Department Graduate Reading Room, and for that matter the entire southwest staircase, offers views that I imagine are perfectly suited for contemplation of the nature of reality, or the reality of nature, should such things turn out to “really exist,” whatever that might mean.
Well, before this column descends into sophistry, let’s address a matter more at hand. In case your schoolwork has prevented you from obtaining a real education in the real world vis-à-vis watching or reading the news, Jon Stewart’s meta-commentary on that news and then multiple meta-meta-commentaries on Stewart’s meta-commentary8212;there’s a recession.
Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, co-chairman of the Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee, was interviewed for an article in The Salt Lake Tribune that appeared Sunday on the pace of campus construction projects, which has accelerated in Utah.
“We will be building up higher education when everyone around us is tearing it down,” Valentine said. “If we make these investments, we can attract talent that is fleeing other places because of budget cuts. Higher education is the prime economic development engine.”
What an interesting thing to say. Is making infrastructure upgrades a better strategy than ensuring faculty quality when it comes to top talent? Of course, I interpret top talent to mean student talent. Maybe Valentine is referring to the professors? I certainly want my professor to decide to teach at the U because the buildings are nice.
Characterizing higher education as an economic development engine is a double-edged sword at best, and a 180-degree spin on the historical view of its purpose. Although we in academia should welcome all who hold the view that higher education represents the future of American prosperity and innovation, when that vision includes infrastructure development at the expense of academic development and support, we become like a Barbie doll, all curves and sexiness on the outside and nothing at all within.
Although the actual budgets for education-related expenses in (at least) departments within the College of Humanities are being slashed, private donors have contributed $64.4 million dollars to the business school project, and relatively unprecedentedly, lawmakers have allowed a bond issuance for another $23 million. So in the near future, construction crews are getting ready to do some demolition (bye-bye Madsen Building), and then a magnificent tower will rise to the sky, and glass and light and space will replace steering wheels and gearshifts, if Jack Brittain, dean of the Business School, is to be believed.
Brittain told a legislative panel, “Students regularly study in their cars, and classrooms are inadequate for today’s methods of teaching.” To everyone studying in your cars: Get out of your cars! Don’t you have a whole new pavilion with a cafeteria, not to mention a beautiful new library to use?
I have a comment and two questions for Brittain: I agree, the current buildings suck, big time. Question: Why then did somebody pay to “renovate” room 308 into a supposedly tech-friendly learning environment when the whole building is coming down in the next few years? Question: Why did you pay these renovators at all? The new room (we all know it’s still the old room, Barbified) has some delightful touches, like yellow and green paint to liven it. It also lacks easy access to electrical outlets for the laptop-toting legions, and the dry-erase boards are located on every wall, while the chairs at the tables don’t swivel or roll, making rotating attention-focusing difficult. One is not impressed.
Meanwhile, I’m just hoping that next year, my tiny little stipend, which barely doesn’t cover my yearly expenses, materializes to support me on my path to intellectual development and insight. Hence the appearance of this column, with tiny recompense complementary to said stipend.
Why aren’t private donors stepping in to support students rather than the buildings that (will no longer) house them? Why is higher education driving economic development, when the past decade of economic development decadence failed to support higher education? Quid Pro No, I guess.
James Sewell