EDITORIAL: TOO ABSTRACT
It's unfortunate that such a potentially important document as the Strategic Plan has little to no value, and it's unfortunate that the collective resources of 15 members of our community were drawn away from projects that could have actually made a difference at Rice to work on this document. What could have been a guiding influence at this university has been boiled down to no more than a public relations document of the highest order.
Last week, we took a look at a few elements of the Strategic Plan, but aside from these very few specifics, the plan is vague, vacuous and lacks any clear direction.
At the recent Strategic Planning Forum, the members of the committee in attendance didn't even seem to know what was written in the plan, specifically in terms of increasing undergraduate enrollment.
Another topic of controversy was graduate studies and the quality of the faculty in regard to research. This brought up the typical Rice mentality that our professors have to produce a certain number of papers and presentations in order to earn tenure. "The best faculty in the country are people who can research ... I mean, that's just a fact," Assistant Professor of History Carol Quillen said. She proceeds to clarify that the best researchers are not necessarily the best teachers. Funny, what are we, the 2,700 undergraduates, here to do? To learn by being taught, maybe? We wonder if Graeme Rankine agrees with her statement. We agree that a large portion of the best faculty are indeed good researchers, but the rest are those who have a passion for teaching and molding the leaders of tomorrow, something that Rice flat-out ignores in its tenure process. Another aspect of Rice that is glossed over.
But what is even more comical about the plan is that the few specifics that are actually distinguishable among the vague words are things that President Gillis has been talking about for some time. For example, Gillis has mentioned on at least two separate occasions that he would like to see a 10% increase in enrollment and two new colleges. Was the committee afraid to take a hard line on anything that the President didn't already support? Where are the real changes and answers to hard-hitting problems?
Lovett College Master Connie Burke said it best at the forum when she addressed the problems facing the colleges in terms of food and housing. The plan proposes more "support" be given to the masters. Burke responded, "I don't need an administrative assistant or a better secretary; what I need are for the problems to go away."
She hits on a valid point. This plan is devoid of substantial content. There is no refutation or agreement with the current tuition plan which raises tuition according to the CPI. There is no mention of the ongoing complaints over food quality or any number of other issues.
Instead, we have a Strategic Plan that appears to have been written by 15 different people who never reached a consensus. And that is what this document should have been -- a consensus opinion on the course of action to be taken by this university entering the 21st century. This university cannot afford to take a tentative step into the future by proposing a bunch of abstract goals that have no attached solutions.
Unfortunately, the Strategic Plan in its current form leaves Rice University with only one option: Politics as usual.
This item appeared in the Opinion section of the April 19, 1996 issue.
Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights
Reserved.
This document may be distributed
electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety
and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted
without the express written permission of:
The Rice
Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.
The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@rice.edu