Registered in U S . Patent and Trademark Office; Copyright 1983 by the American Chemical Societ)
VOLUME 16 EDITOR
NUMBER 4
APRIL, 1983
A Challenge from Demography
JOSEPH F. BUNNETT ASSOCIATE EDITORS Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robert Abeles Richard Bernstein R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Edward A. Collins John T. Gerig Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Jay K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney Kurt Mislow George W. Parshall Kenneth N. Raymond Anthony M. Trozzolo Gene G. Wubbels Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION D. H. Michael Bowen, Director Journals Department: Charles R. Bertsch, Head; Marianne C. Brogan, Associate Head; Mary E. Scanlan, Assistant Manager Marketing and Sales Department: Claud K. Robinson, Head Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development Department: Seldon W. Terrant, Head The American Chemical Society and its editors assume no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society.
Because t h e birth rate declined sharply in t h e 1960s, the American population of traditional college age, 18-23 years, will drop about 25% during t h e present decade. If the fraction seeking higher education remains constant, college and university enrollments will decrease drastically. Inasmuch as institutional budgets tend to be strongly linked to enrollment, severe financial crises for colleges and universities are implied. In the 1970s, many university administrators, when confronted with these facts, indulged in make-believe. Sometimes they argued that, although there would be fewer people of college age, the fraction attending college might increase so that total enrollments would remain constant. Or they prophesied that the number of older students, past age 25, would increase so as to offset t h e decrease among the younger. Or an administrator imagined that his own institution would be immune to the general decline because its special characteristics would be in demand; after all, he would ask, why cannot our tiny percentage of the pool rise, say, from 0.04 to 0.05%? More recently a fighting spirit has replaced such never-never attitudes. Institutions have determined to maintain their enrollments by strengthening their recruiting efforts. They strive to hire the most productive director of admissions that money can buy, they mail stacks of computer-produced letters to high-school students, they get professors to telephone students offered admission to ensure if possible that they actually enroll, and they provide special hospitality when prospective students visit the campus. One can foresee that, as we get closer to the anticipated minimum in population aged 18-23, the competition will become fierce and t h e incentive t o invest in such "sales" activities will become ever greater. Admissions programs will grow and grow until they become as though the neck of a giraffe. Meanwhile the total number of students will continue to decline, and few institutions will escape the general trend. Is there any alternative? One that warrants consideration is a general contraction of budgetary commitments. One argument against such a contraction, namely, that a college or university would not be viable a t four-fifths or three-fourths its present size, is a weak one, for most American colleges and universities were deemed healthy a few years ago when they were three-fourths as large as at present. A more cogent argument is t h a t a 25% contraction would cause injury to professors and others who were fired and that it might create a sinking-ship morale. Moreover, one must consider fixed obligations such as building maintenance that are unrelated t o the size of the student body. Contraction could however be less painful if conducted creatively. First, a n effort would be made to bring to t h e campus activities compatible with the campus environment t h a t would make a contribution to overhead and provide employment to displaced personnel. Research sponsored by external agencies comes to mind. Second, instead of firing professors, rotating obligatory leaves of absence without pay would be arranged, coupled with strong efforts to arrange enriching employment for those obliged to take unrequested leave. Such employment might be, for example, in a n industrial laboratory for a chemist, in a bank for an economist, or an overseas teaching assignment for an historian. Third, some who took temporary positions elsewhere would find them so rewarding that they would resign their professorships. The net consequence of contraction such as this might be increased vitality, both financial and intellectual, in the institution. But such a program would succeed only if conducted with ingenuity and with full commitment. Joseph F. Bunnett
