Universities? Yes, but …

Six Massachusetts state colleges are to become, by act of the Legislature, state universities. Is this a good idea? Twenty years ago, when my job involved oversight of the state’s higher education master plan, I would have said (and did say) “no.” Today, I say “yes” – “yes but,” but “yes.”

The answer is “yes” because the world has changed. In the U.S., the great majority of the most comparable institutions are styled “universities.” Many two-year institutions, once “junior colleges” or “community colleges,” are now simply “colleges,” or “state colleges,” or even “universities.” In the world at large, moreover, a college is not a degree-granting institution but a non-instructional learned body, a component of a university, or a secondary or trade school. (In Britain, a small degree-granting institution may be a “university college.”) Our state colleges are part of that world of learning; they seek and attract international students, and many of their graduates study or work nationally and abroad.

“Yes but” because, first of all, these institutions – comprehensive campuses at Bridgewater, Fitchburg, Framingham, Salem, Westfield, and Worcester that will now be styled universities, plus the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams, Massachusetts College of Art and Design in Boston, and Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Buzzards Bay – fulfill a differentiated role within the three-tiered structure of our public higher education system, along with the University of Massachusetts and the community colleges. They should continue to provide access to baccalaureate and masters programs in a limited range of liberal arts and career fields throughout the Commonwealth. They should neither become doctoral research institutions like the University (although faculty research is valued) nor offer open access to students of uncertain preparation like the community colleges (although access and student support are part of their mission).

“Yes but,” too, because this change of name really ought to carry some additional commitment to supporting and advancing these campuses. In these tight fiscal times, it’s considered a positive argument that the change involves no cost. There’s something disturbing, though, about taking this step at a time when Massachusetts is cutting its higher education appropriations, and relying on short-term stimulus funds, more than almost any other state. And even in better times the state colleges, in particular, have not been appropriately funded. For starters, if they are to be plausible universities in the long run, their graduate programs must be state-funded, like those of the University of Massachusetts (state college leaders have struggled with this issue). They are not doctoral institutions, but they are graduate institutions; and they cannot aspire to high quality within their missions unless their most advanced programs are fully integral to their operations.

One benefit of the “university” nameplate is that it should raise everyone’s expectations.