The University of Oregon’s plan to
“increase access and offer lower cost tuition options” and its
impact on the
School of Music and Department of Dance
Robert Ponto
School of Music
rponto@oregon.uoregon.edu
1. It unfairly penalizes a student for majoring in music or dance.
2. It is detrimental to the large ensembles.
3. It (further) impedes our recruitment efforts, particularly out of state.
4. It applies indirect pressure on the School of Music and Department of Dance to reduce the number of credits required for many of our degrees.
1. It arbitrarily benefits some ensembles and classes while hurting others.
2. Extremely tight space and equipment constraints leave the School of Music with almost no flexibility for the rescheduling of classes.
Most of our music and dance degree plans require a certain number of terms that exceed 16 credits. According to data from February 26, 2002, over 40% of our music and dance majors are taking more than 17 or more credits this term (compared with about 25% for all UO students combined) Below is a list of our undergraduate degrees and the number of terms the student should expect to exceed 16 credits. (This list includes only required classes — not any additional classes or ensembles.)
|
School of Music Undergraduate Degrees: |
No. Terms over 16 cr. |
|
Bachelor of Science with option in Music Technology |
3 |
|
Bachelor of Science in Music (General Music Option) |
2 |
|
Bachelor of Music in Voice Performance |
8 |
|
Bachelor of Music in Piano Performance |
0 |
|
Bachelor of Music in Performance |
5 |
|
Bachelor of Music in Music Theory |
5-7 |
|
Bachelor of Music in Music Education[1] |
2 |
|
Bachelor of Music in Composition |
1 |
|
Bachelor of Music in Jazz Studies |
5 |
|
Bachelor of Music: General Music Option |
8 |
|
Bachelor of Arts: History/Literature Option |
8 |
|
Department of Dance Undergraduate Degrees: |
|
|
(no data in time for report) |
|
Students often participate in ensembles beyond the requirements of their degree. Here are a few typical examples:
· Instrumental music education majors must take marching band for two terms. Many of them opt to play in Wind Ensemble during these terms so they may perform and study art music — along with the functional/entertainment music associated with athletic bands.
· Professional performers are expected to have performed a wide range of repertory; therefore, performance majors often participate in the Symphony Orchestra and Wind Ensemble during the academic year. Switching back and forth between ensembles at term break is strongly discouraged because repertoire must often be carried across the boundaries of the term. (The quarter system is very awkward for large ensembles.)
· Instrumental music educators are expected to know the major repertory of all types of ensembles, plus, be able to play each of the instruments they will be teaching. It is therefore common for music education majors to play in Orchestra (for repertoire), Wind Ensemble/Symphonic Band (for repertoire and pedagogy), and Campus Band (to gain “hands-on” experience playing secondary instruments in a conducted ensemble). This one of the big “selling” points of our education major!
· We must often ask (beg, cajole) students to play in multiple ensembles. We do not have enough qualified players on each instrument to fully staff our ensembles.
Here is a list of some of our major ensembles (as of February 26, 2002) showing (1) the number of students currently carrying 17 or more credits and (2) those who are currently taking more than one large ensemble:
|
Ensemble Name: |
Total students |
Over 16 cr. |
In multiple
ensembles |
|
Oregon Jazz Ensemble |
17 |
8 |
14 |
|
University Symphony Orchestra |
75 |
25 |
16 |
|
Oregon Wind Ensemble |
52 |
41 |
23 |
|
Symphonic Band |
60 |
18 |
32 |
|
University Singers |
55 |
26 |
19 |
One must remember that the University of Oregon School of Music must compete for talented students. Like other schools of music and conservatories, we must have a sufficient number of skilled students in specific performance media. In other words, we need a certain number of oboists, violinists, sopranos, etc.
Unfortunately, the University of Oregon School of Music finds itself increasingly unable to attract the type of high-caliber student it once enjoyed. The skill level of our incoming students is steadily declining. The School of Music has been staring into a double-barreled recruitment problem from which it cannot extricate itself. This is primarily a result of (1) the declining quality of music education in the State of Oregon and (2) skyrocketing non-resident tuition costs. These two problems interrelate and have created daunting obstacles for us.
Measure 5’s impact on high school music programs around the state has been very severe. With the exception of a few pockets here and there, the number of quality music programs in the state has grown quite small. Consequently, the pool of Oregon students who are appropriately prepared to major in music is shrinking. While we continue to attract similar numbers of Oregon students as in the past, increased financial competition from other schools — both in-state and out-of-state — has substantially reduced the percentage of meritorious students coming from our state.
In their most recent on-site evaluation, the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) expressed concern that the quality of student performance was “below the standard of those peer schools to which the University of Oregon wishes to be compared.”[2] They complimented the quality of teaching, but remarked that the School music needs more scholarship and graduate assistantship funds to “attract and retain students of advanced musical abilities.”[3]
One obvious solution is for us to attract more students from outside the State of Oregon. Indeed, we invest considerable time and energy doing just that. Unfortunately — and this is the other “barrel” of the problem — since 1990, non-resident undergraduate tuition has increased by more than $8500 (compared with about $2100 for residents). Our scholarship resources have not increased anywhere near enough to offset amounts like that. This astronomical rise in non-resident tuition has condemned us to the role of “non-player” in the bid to bring highly-skilled students from other states to the University of Oregon. We are truly struggling in our efforts to attract non-resident students to this campus. [4]
The proposed compression of the credit plateau aggravates this problem because it will have a disproportionately large impact on non-resident students, both current and prospective.[5] We need help with our recruitment efforts, not another impediment. Clearly, adding hidden “surcharges” to our music and dance degrees just keeps us moving in the wrong direction.
I did not have time to provide you with a comparison of our degree requirements to those of other schools. Rest assured, however, that we are truly experts in our fields. We know what is expected of our graduates. We know what a performing musician, conductor, music historian, theorist or music educator must be able to do in the “real world.” We are well aware of requirements in our peer institutions — and our degrees are standard for our disciplines.
Any attempt to compel us to change our requirements — overtly or covertly — must be viewed as interference with our faculty responsibility to establish appropriate curricula within our fields of expertise. Any adjustments to degree requirements must be made only after careful and thoughtful deliberation by our faculty — not “under the gun” of a threatened tuition hike. Not all schools and departments can operate under this proposed “one-size-fits-all” solution.
Several of our ensembles are currently offered in the afternoon. Others, out of necessity, are offered at other times during the day (this is explained in the next point). Under the new plan, a Jazz Studies major would be paying more for his/her required ensemble than a Violin Performance major. Similarly, a Choral Music Education major would be paying more than an Instrumental Music Education major. The students have absolutely no choice in the matter. This proposal is inherently discriminatory.
Although it is difficult for some of my friends in other departments and schools to visualize, you must believe me when I tell you that the School of Music is filled beyond capacity! Although our building might draw the understandable envy of my colleagues for its stunning collection of Naugahyde furniture, (predominantly in colors not found in nature), it can boast, alas, only 13 classrooms in which to teach (including Beall Hall). We cannot simply change a course from one time to another without either (a) bumping another class, (b) creating a conflict between two required courses, or, (c) ruining the instrumentation of an ensemble. Besides, you can’t just move a band, orchestra, choir or jazz ensemble into any old room at any old time! Each must be assigned to a specially designed rehearsal room with proper acoustics, space, percussion instruments, etc. — and we have a very limited number of these.
I invite any of you to visit the School of Music and ask our office manager, Laura Littlejohn, to show you our large scheduling board. If you can figure out a way to rearrange more than one or two classes, you may qualify as our next dean!
It also seems unlikely to me that the School of Music will be able to take advantage of reduced rate evening classes. For musicians, the 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm time is “sacred.” We have performances almost every night of the academic year — often in multiple venues — and our students are expected to be in attendance, either as performers or observers.
The School of Music and Department of Dance have spent years fine-tuning class schedules in an effort to make the best possible use of our limited space and avoid conflicts between required classes. The outside imposition of this “market-based scheduling” scheme will be ruinous for us. This proposal cannot work in the School of Music.
While theoretically good ideas, I see the solution of offering students “vouchers,” “credits” or “scholarships” as ultimately unworkable solutions. Individual class schedules would have to be checked and the “legitimacy” of claims would have to be somehow verified. Moreover, I question our ability to do this in a timely manner. Would we be able to determine all of this before student tuition payments are due, or would we be offering “rebates” and such? Remember, also, that had this plan been in place this term, 40% of our music and dance students would be filling out extra paperwork[6] — and hoping it would make its way through the bureaucracy unscathed. Unless an agency outside the School of Music is prepared to track this information, it will certainly create a bookkeeping nightmare for our already overworked staff.
Personally, I don’t think music and dance students should have to fill out additional paperwork — in some cases, every term — just to fulfill the requirements of a degree we offer.
For us, a 14-18 is probably the best and simplest solution. I do not know, of course, if this would compromise the “bottom line” too much. In any event, we hope that some sort of fair solution can be found.
While I certainly understand — and applaud — the intended economic goals of the proposed plan, I cannot get past the peculiar situation it puts us in. It seems to me that we are preparing to tell our best and brightest — those students who go beyond minimum requirements — that they are “overusing” a resource and must therefore pay more for it. It is as if they are parasites who are growing intellectually obese at the expense of other students. What is going on here? These students are not abusing the system; they are using it for the purpose for which it was intended! Please, with all of the other mistakes our state is making while under the knife of budget cuts, let us not turn our beloved university into “education a la carte.” Let us continue to encourage those who are willing to work hard, not penalize them.
[1] In addition, music education students are strongly advised to take additional practica and ensembles.
[2] NASM Report, p. 16
[3] NASM Report, p. 2
[4] Just last month, one of our faculty members was recruiting at one of California’s musically “elite” high schools. The high school director, who is well-known for his point-blank frankness, told our faculty member, “I tell my students, ‘If you want to major in music, the University of Oregon is the place to go — but, you can probably forget it because you’ll never be able to afford it. They have practically no scholarship money.” This anecdote underscores one of the major “Catch-22”s in our School of Music recruitment efforts: because the UO is dependent upon the money brought in by non-resident students, we have few incentives (like non-resident tuition waivers) to attract outstanding undergraduate students from other states. There are times when I would like to stand at the border with either of our neighboring states to the north or south and shout — in my most Reaganesque voice — “Mr. President, tear down this wall!.”
[5] While an Oregon resident pays $78 per “overload” credit, a non-resident must pay $367.
[6] During this past Fall term, the percentage of music students carrying more than 16 credits was significantly higher than 40%..