Ecological Economics, a small program in the School of Humanities, could potentially disappear as a result of the graduate tuition pricing policy recently approved by the Board of Trustees and released by the Institute on Monday.
The restructuring program, according to the Institute, aims to improve pricing and support and to end the exploitation of graduate students—especially those in a degree completion role—as low-cost researchers and teaching assistants.
“Until now, the tuition we have charged for graduate education has not been structured the way it is at other private research universities. Furthermore, the amount of support that Rensselaer provides graduate students has, on the whole, been significantly below that of other premier institutions. As a consequence, both the Institute and the students have had to ‘make do’ with insufficient resources. That is hardly a recipe for advancing excellence,” Institute President Shirley Ann Jackson said.
Although students of Ecological Economics agree with the aims of the policy, they question its structure, the process in which it was developed, and its ramifications.
“The new policy doesn’t consider a program like ours. No big chunk of our funding comes from outside grants. We have two professors; how are they going to be able to support everyone in the program?” asked Marsha Walton, a graduate student in the department of ecological economics.
Ecological Economics is an emerging field and has yet to gain the prominence and funding of larger and more established economics programs across the nation.
Walton went on to say that the program has a number of self-funded and part-time graduate students and that the policy in its first line is “designed to create an environment in which all graduate students on the Troy campus will be full-time students,” which will have the greatest effect on these students.
“When so many special fixes have been made to this plan already it shows that the original plan was flawed and needs to be re-examined—this really boils down to an issue of transparency in what should have been a public [decision-making] process, ” said self-funded graduate student Graham Cox.
The situation has caused others in the department to question what effect this move will have on the quality of their graduate experience, the value of their education, and ultimately the economic value of their degrees.
“Last week I attended an international conference on ecological economics. All I kept hearing about was [how] high [a] regard the RPI program was held. I come back here and it’s back to reality, a program that’s not well-funded by the Institute and a future in which it could no longer exist,” said a student who asked to remain anonymous.
The student believes that if the program is eliminated or significantly degraded as a result of this policy, that the value of his doctoral degree will significantly decrease in stature and monetary value.
Director of the Ecological Engineering program John Gowdy sees a major push by his students to finish all necessary requirements before the grace periods expire in one year for masters studies and in two years for doctoral studies.
“The plan had a lot of good intentions. There were abuses of students and some were staying on too long. The thing that is bothering me and my students is the two-year limitation on TA and RA funding and from there on being funded by external grants. The policy needs to be more flexible to the needs of each program, and each school.”
While it will be difficult to assess the effects of the new policy Gowdy believes he may be able to see preliminary indicators in upcoming weeks as he receives responses to acceptance letters. “Our letter [offers] are out and we kept the prospective students fully aware of these changes. It will be interesting to see if the competitiveness of our offers will be effected.”
As this policy has become public in recent weeks, other bodies, including the Faculty Senate and student government, have shown concern over new graduate policy.
Before spring break, the Faculty Senate received an hour-long presentation from Dr. Jackson followed by an hour-long question and answer period.
Linda Caporael, president of the Faculty Senate, said major concerns as a result of the policy included a drop in the size and diversity of the graduate population, the availabilty of funding for fields that have unique funding models, the ability to “grow” graduate programs, concern over the decision making process, the faculty’s ability to “fill” lab space, and the new cautious answers on funding faculty feel they must give students.
“The provost and the graduate dean have been very good in discussing how they can best implement the policy. But there was insufficent back and forth discussion [when this policy was in the formative stages] in which compromises could be reached and alternative ideas could have come to the fore through discussion,” said Caporael.
While the Faculty Senate has not met since meeting with Dr. Jackson, Caporael believes that the break has allowed members to reflect and that its March 27 meeting will offer opportunity for discussion and the entertaining of different perspectives.
Student government leaders face the challenge of demonstrating that their concern as representatives reflects true concern from the graduate students and other members of the student body.
“We do hear students’ concerns. The Graduate Council is attempting to corral all energy and efforts of those concerned. We have pushed the administration for hard answers and while this [has yielded] more information, all we can ultimately do is support students in the direction they want to go with this issue,” said Grand Marshal Gil Valadez
Valadez also plans to present an amendment to the Union Constitution that would create a formal meeting weekly between the key elected student leaders and Dr. Jackson’s cabinet. He is also looking to organize a panel of student leaders with the help of Vice President of Student Life Eddie Knowles.
Student government leaders believe because the policy was endorsed by the Board of Trustees, the governing body of RPI, that unless significant student concern is shown the policy in its current form will stand.
“It is difficult to institute this type of wholesale change in the support for graduate students and in the pricing of graduate education in a piecemeal fashion,” said Provost Bud Peterson. “As a result, the combination of these changes constitutes a major change in the way we will function.”
