In spite of yielding few short-term savings, a holistic examination of the system to see where “unnecessary duplication” could be eliminated is the right choice to preserve the system’s long-term budget.
Unfortunately, “unnecessary” is a difficult word to define. While it sounds good in principle to eliminate similar programs, this process begs for a wider consideration of what makes a program ?unnecessary.
But — in a system of more specialized institutions — a viable way for students to move within the system to schools with programs they desire might be an option worth exploring.
The Research Triangle benefits from having two UNC-system schools in close proximity to each other.
And it’s certainly not random chance that N.C. State University offers some specialization in the sciences that UNC doesn’t specialize in as greatly or at all, and that the schools share classes.
But it is certainly not impossible that two more geographically disparate schools offer similar programs that are nevertheless popular at each institution. Eliminating one of them would have significant adverse effects on many students.
Another consideration is to better tailor schools to the discrete populations that they serve. Again: easier said than done.
Smaller system schools are more specialized, and paring back any efforts to expand is tantalizing because it would still adhere to UNC Tomorrow. That initiative seeks to marry schools’ expertise to the needs of the state.
Specialization seems to be something that the Board of Governors is aiming for. But one wonders what kind of long-term dividends will be yielded from cutting at smaller institutions versus the larger schools, which maintain sweeping curriculums in both research and the liberal arts, but have more at stake if cuts are as deep as projected.
