r?'tvru&r.rurrrf

. .i; :.

 

(it ‘51.}: g
1\. ff) . I4....,\( .1? \tLv¢€1L\

iv .22.
555.553.”.

 

 

It.ufrnhhpi<{-.l.i.lll(r§;l1 It).
aflitlfi... (($421?! atvgsfzéégrt I
.ilitrtrl silt. if; {113.11.}...5.) 3.!
r [Fifigfl’l ‘é‘frkif‘;
.. n . . .. . . S.

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY 4
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

SOME ASPECTS OF UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION
AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POSITION OF THE REGISTRAR
WITHIN A MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITY.

presented by

JULIE ANN CONLIN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in EDUCATION

21...,4. ~

Major professor

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

M

 

Ill lmlmwlll

N
3 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

 

 

93 00654 352

lllllll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[l

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

@515th ‘

"M 5.:

 

 

 

 

SOME ASPECTS OF UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION
AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POSITION OF THE REGISTRAR

WITHIN A MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

BY

Julie Ann Conlin

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements of
the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
College of Education

1987

 

arr «/ wags

ABSTRACT
SOME ASPECTS OF UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POSITION OF THE REGISTRAR
WITHIN A MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

BY

Julie Ann Conlin

Registrars of major research universities throughout the nation need
to familiarize themselves with the overall view of their institution and
profession. Registrars need to become students and learn all they can
about their worth to the institution and develop an informed position on
where they should stand. Registrars must grasp a firm and clear
understanding of their place within the organization and forecast the
future of that position. The registrar Who can combine his/her own
personal mission and objectives with that of the institution can begin
to form an effective analysis of his/her role and work toward perfecting
that contribution as a scholar in the university. WCrking within the
system of a university involves not only understanding one's own
university; but also understanding the mission, goals, and background of
major research universities in general -— and how they have developed

and evolved through the various changes which have affected higher

education.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Chapter

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD OF RESEARCH . . . . l

The Problem
Securing the Data
Interpreting the Data

II. THE EVOLUTION OF THE POSITION OF THE REGISTRAR AND
AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A Review of the History of the Registrar

The Registrar's Past Role and Function Within
Higher Education

The Rise of Major Educational Institutions and the
Shaping of the Present Day Registrar

The Colonial Colleges

The Developnent of the Schools of Applied Sciences

The Normal School

The Land-Grant College

The Emergence of the University

The Changing Responsibilities of the Registrar
Within the Growth of Higher Education

III. AN OVERVIEW OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
COLLEGIATE REGISTRARS AND ADMISSIONS OFFICERS . . . . . 32

The Formation of the American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers

AACRAO's Contributions to the Progression of the
Registrar '

AACRAO's Impact on Higher Education at the Nationa
Level

The Evolution of the National AACRAO Office

The Establishment of an AACRAO Regional Advisory
Council

iii

Chapter

 

 

 

Page

IV. THE SHAPING OF THE AMERICAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES . . . . 44

A Review of the Background of the Research Universities

The American Research University During the Fifty-Year
Period Following the Civil war

Combining Teaching and Research in American
Universities

The Johns Hopkins University

The Twentieth Century Research University

V. THE IMPORTANCE OF MANAGEMENT IN AMERICAN HIGHER
EDUCAT I ON 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C C O O O O O O 6 8

The Growing Administrative Demands Affecting
Registrars and Admissions Officers

The Research Universities Look Like Large and
Complex Businesses

The Importance of an Academic Strategy Within
a Research University

Administration, Management, Leadership, Governance

VI 0 COMLUS I ONS AND RmomENDAT I CNS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 3

APPENDIX A .

APPENDIX B .

APPENDIX C .

APPENDIX D .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Conclusions
Recommendations
Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

iv

 

CHAPTER I

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD OF RESEARCH

The Problem

 

The so—called "Golden Age" of higher education of post—World
War II was a monumental period consisting of tremendous growth,
recognition, and change for colleges and universities nationwide.
This progressive era lasted from 1940 - 1970, and during this time
educational institutions throughout the country were restructured and
reorganized to accommodate the ever-changing educational atmosphere.
The "Golden Era" began with a rapid student enrollment growth and was
followed by faculty, college, and departmental expansions; the
introduction of computer technology; and the intervention of the
federal government. The impact of this period was best described by

Derek Bok in his book Beyond the Ivory Tower.1 "After World war

 

II... the role of the universities changed radically. The student
population grew to more than ten million as half of all high school
graduates sought sane form of higher education. Vast building

programs were undertaken to accommodate these swelling enrollments.

Federal budgets for campus—based research also expanded steadily,

 

1Derek Bok, Beyond the Ivory Tower, (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1982), p. 6.

 

2

exceeding $3 billion by 1965." Since this post-World war II period,
an increasing specialization of registrar related functions has been
experienced. For example, a trend developed in the 1956‘s, to
separate the admissions office from the office of the registrar.
Data processing came of age and developed as a separate university
entity. The developnent of financial aid legislation led to highly
specialized financial aid offices. Student life and student affairs
became more specialized. The present computer age has drastically
changed the process of record keeping and related procedures within
the office of the registrar. As universities established a greater
dependence on administrative computing, the position of the office of
the registrar has been radically affected. The question was asked
among registrars at a recent national meeting of the Association of
American Universities' Registrars: "Are we withdrawing to an
ever—increasing narrower specialization, or do we need to be
broadening our interests and horizons?"2

Faced with these new challenges, university administrators
found themselves having to constantly readjust their plans and
procedures. Many administrative structures grew with the addition of
new offices reflecting new dimensions and responsibilities.
Historically, the role of the university registrar has undergone a

variety of structural changes.

2Minutes of the Annual meeting, February 28—March 3, 1987, Association
of American Universities‘ Registrars, Longboat Key, Florida.

3

In relation to the question of increasing specialization among
registrars, Registrar Horace C. King of Michigan State University met
with Registrar Dennis Boyle of western Michigan University to solicit
his personal views related to the mission and guidelines of the AAU
Registrars. It should be noted that Dr. King respects the ability
and leadership of Mr. Boyle as the registrar at Western Michigan
University, as a past president of the Michigan Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (MACRAO), and as an
active leader in the American Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). Mr. Boyle has an outstanding
professional reputation. Accordingly, excerpts from a letter from
Dr. King's office files expressing Mr. Boyle's views are included
here as informed opinions related to, but not necessarily in concert
with, the research of this thesis study. Quotations from Mr. Boyle's
letter of May 2a, 1987 follow:3

I have not been negligent in responding to you on
the paper on the AAU Registrars. I have read it at least
half a dozen times, but between times, we have had to get
out Winter grade reports, start a new session, and work
on our telephone registration system, plus a few thousand
other minor details.

I have reviewed the materials closely and see an
ambivalent position for me. First, for the last two
sessions of our MACRAO and now a little bit at our AACRAO
meetings, I have heard the concerns of registrars as to
exactly what their role is, i.e. in most cases a belief,
or real situations where they know the role of the
registrar has been diminished. In listening to these
people and in trying to keep some kind of perspective as
to even what's happened at WMU, I guess I believe that
the role of the registrar has indeed changed in the last
twenty-five years. The business we are in is full of
changes and so some of these things happen without our
knowledge, or so gradually that we don't pay attention to

 

3Letter from Dennis Boyle, Registrar, western Michigan University,
Kalamazoo, Michigan, May 2%, 1987.

them until they fall in on us. We are so busy trying to
keep the web together, so the university can function
smoothly, we just don't have time to evaluate all these
changes. Upon reflection, and I know it sounds
self—serving, I cannot help but believe that it is the
case that the mundane routine day to day operation, the
drone work, as I call it, has almost been completely
eradicated from the faculty and now administrative mind
because of the good work of so many registrars. I,
again, maybe with some exaggeration, believe this is so
because we have done so well in most cases throughout the
country in keeping the university operating quite
smoothly on this detail and mundane end. Where we have
failed is because the university's expectations and
demands for more service, more information, and faster
service - especially faster service - has caught us
without the resources to do the job appropriately. The
typical university response is to create a new office
with new adninistrators that are placed in, over, or
outside the registrar. Then if this office suffers the
same problem for lack of resources, another office is
created to pick up some other facet and so at least at
Western, and in talking with many other registrars, we
see a proliferation of offices and groups around campus
who have designated authorities in certain areas that at
one time belonged to the registrar's area: admission,
financial aid, institutional research, etc.

For the most part, registrars have gone along with
this because they are so overworked and understaffed that
they were glad to get the problem resolved as they, more
than most, knew how important the task was. To argue the
point that this was not the best way to cure the problems
— but to increase the registrar's resources has left us
Open to charges of empire building and power brokers.

For myself, egotistically speaking, we have been
fortunate to be able to report to Vice Presidents for
Academics and to resist efforts to move us to the V. P.
of Student Services. At least 80-90% of our work is with
the academic areas, and we must have, or at least I must
have, some kind of direct access to the Deans and Vice
Presidents. What little clout we might have in helping
us to do our jobs depends greatly on the fact we all
report to the same boss in the academic area.

We have a new breed of administrators who are in
higher education today. Many have not come up through
teaching ranks or even high school ranks and are coming
in with very little background about a university except
as a student or graduate assistant. Those people are
being moved into positions of authority and have no real
understanding of the complexity of the volume and mass
that we must move in the way of data, but are quick with
ready answers and solutions to very complex problems

5

which in most cases simply further compound and make the
situation more complex. We, in turn, must argue and
fight that some of these ideas are not appropriate or
proper, and for our efforts, we are usually charged with
being inflexible, old—fashioned, and not in—tune with
‘modern times even though with some modesty on our part, I
would say, there hasn't been any group on the campuses
across the country who have instituted more changes to
keep the university as modern as possible on the
resources we have available. These activities are
further compounded by one other thing. Historically, the
registrars have had a great deal of authority and power
in a university because they do know the systems and the
people, and therefore, information being power they have
in many institutions been a very powerful force which has
frustrated and made angry different groups on the

campus. I believe that the Registrar's Office is one of
the last remaining offices on campus where students,
faculty, and others hear the word, "N01." These groups
air their grievances and commiserate with each other as
to why different things aren't happening in the
institution and can easily find a scapegoat in the
registrar. I think the position carries that luggage
simply because they are in a position to make decisions.
They do make decisions, and then, of course, academic
people especially, get unhappy if it isn't the decision
they want.

What is the end result of all this. We see a group
such as you belong to looking at the registrar's
position, and item number egg of their mission is,
"enhance the professional status." This, I believe, will
be of limited value, but do not misunderstand me, I am
perfectly willing to contribute any time, efforts, or
talents I may have on this quest. But I do have to
believe that just as the President's power in most
universities has been diminished, just as so many
positions of authority in the country have been
diminished, that the registrar is suffering the same
fate. We may be the modern Don Quixote. Legislations,
rules, and many groups make it a point to bring our
society to a situation where no one person, indeed hardly
any group, except maybe the Supreme Court, can make a
decision they don't want to hear. In my reality, we are
fighting a losing battle, but we can try to prolong it.

Affluence has made our university really quite fat
compared to what it was when I first started in this
business twenty-two years ago, and in your case there
must be some shocking disparity as far as you are
concerned when you started compared to what we are
today. Our propensity is to holler "poor" and yet to see
some of the staffing decisions I alluded to above makes
'me really think that it will be some time before the

6

situation is corrected. I'd believe, however, some of it
will self-correct as we see hard times again, and we are
forced of necessity to cut back some of the staffing.

The university will then search for someone to pick up
the slack, and I have no doubt the Registrar‘s Office
will be one of these areas.

So, am I interested in this association? Yes, I
am. The Registrar's Office is a vital cog in the
university. It disturbs me to see many good registrars
take criticism for situations outside their control; or
to see the continual proliferation of those
responsibilities to other areas that cannot carry them
out nearly as efficiently, effectively, or cost—benefit
wise. But, this is modern America, and I guess we have
to roll with these punches and put up with it until money
becomes more dear. In the meantime, organizations such
as MACRAO, AACRAO, and maybe the AAU, will meet to help
each other in understanding these various, conflicting
tug-of—wars that are going on around us, help us maintain
our self-image and ability to cope with all these various
things, and continue to help plead the case that is so
vital that it must be protected and nourished.

The last thing, Horace, that I must confess to you
with some embarrassment is that one of the propensities,
at least in this state, is to bring more and more
registrars in with complete lack of background as to what
the job entails. I mean a complete lack — they have not
taught school, they have never been in administrative
positions in K—12 or college work, and all of a sudden,
they find themselves the registrar, and though they are
full of good intentions, without some of this background,
they really have many voids. I find it very difficult to
communicate with some of them.

Well, this is a long dissertation, and I hope it
will add some dimension to what is going through your
mind. It is an interesting struggle. Maybe it's been
going on for decades, and we‘re just aware of it because
of our own positions.

"Actorum memores simal affectamus agenda"
"Remembering things past, at the same
time we look towards
what must be done.
The Office of the Registrar is an academic support unit -- not
a student life operation. However, wherever the registrar is assigned
for reporting within the organization, the registrar is well advised

to develop and maintain a network with the academic units and deans.

7

Registrars of major research universities throughout the nation
need to familiarize themselves with the overall view of their
institution and profession. The registrars need to become students
and learn all they can about their worth to the institution and
develop an informed position on where they should stand. Registrars
must grasp a firm and clear understanding of their place within the
organization and interpret the future of that position. The registrar
who can combine his/her own personal mission and objectives with that
of the institution can begin to form an effective analysis of his/her
role and work toward perfecting that contribution as a scholar in the
university. WOrking within the system of a university involves not
only understanding one's own university; but also understanding the
mission, goals, and background of major research universities in
general —— and how they have developed and evolved through the various
changes which have affected higher education.

Registrars have a rich heritage. They are a nerve center of
the university. But too many registrars are withdrawing to
ever-increasing narrower specialization. Registrars need to learn
from their mistakes. They must become seasoned. They must become
more effective at communicating. Registrars need to have an
institutional View. Registrars need to train future registrars. They
need to understand and interpret the future. Registrars need to work
within the system to achieve their goals. One interpretation of
working within the system is to understand a major research
university. Thus, research is a key. Another key is scholarly

stature.

8

For the registrar of a major research university to develop a
scholarly stature he/she must have command of a complete
institutional view recognizing an institution's past and present
while also understanding the historical background of the research
university in general. To undertake a fundamental study of the
registrar's position in a research university also involves
understanding the Association of American Universities (AAU). This
is important in assisting the registrar with a professional
perspective related to the complex activities of a research
university. The AAU helps registrars grasp an overall knowledge
concerning their profession, which in turn assists them in
comprehending the basic understanding of institutional views within a
research university. This study undertakes an analysis of the
importance of this type of scholarly stature for the registrar of a
major university, and also is concerned with some aspects related to
the historical development of the Association of American
Universities in relation to the registrars profession.

During the past quarter century, the Registrars of the
Intercollegiate (Big Ten) Conference and The University of Chicago
have been holding annual meetings. In these meetings it is
frequently commented that the registrars are able to communicate
effectively because this grouping of institutions has more in common
than is offered in other settings. Coincidentally these eleven
institutions are all members of the Association of American
Universities (AAU) representing strong programs of graduate and
professional education and scholarly research. In the November, 1985

meeting of this grouping of registrars that met at Ohio State

 

9
University in Columbus, Ohio, a long considered topic began to
receive serious discussion; that is, the advantages that would be
available to each registrar if a group in restricted size such as the
fifty-six AAU Registrars could find the opportunity to get together
regularly to compare notes and chart their future.

In the following year during the period November 16—18, 1986,
the Registrars of the Big Ten Conference and The University of
Chicago met for their annual meeting at Purdue University in west
Lafayette, Indiana. At that time it was decided to poll each of the
other forty—five Registrars of the AAU institutions by telephone to
see if they would be interested in meeting together. The response to
the telephone calls was very positive, and in several cases
surprisingly enthusiastic for calling such a conference.

The Registrars of the Big Ten Conference and The University of
Chicago designated themselves the planning committee for the
forthcoming conference. Dr. Horace C. King, Registrar and Professor
of Educational Administration at Michigan State University was
designated General Chairperson for the Conference Program and
Administrative Coordination. Dr. R. Gerald Pugh, Registrar at
Indiana University—Bloomington, was named Chairperson for the
Conference Facilities and Logistical Arrangements.

Appendices A, B, C, and D relate to the organization,
planning, and minutes of the first annual meeting of the AAU
Registrars, February 28 through March 3, 1987 in Longboat Key,

Florida.

 

10
This thesis is concerned with some aspects of understanding the
historical and future development of the position of the registrar
within a major research university.

Inherent in such an analysis would be the following:

I. The relationship between the Registrars of the Big Ten
Conference and The University of Chicago has developed
remarkable well, but now is the time to realistically make a
concerted effort to further expand and strengthen this
relationship to incorporate the AAU institutions.

II. The philosophy of the relationship between the registrar and
his/her respective institution is not clearly defined and
understood, and without this philosophy and understanding of
an institutional an AAU overview, this relationship lacks

basic purpose and direction.

Securing the Data

 

The data for this study have been selected as follows:
I. A review of selected books, reports, and other like

materials for the purpose of developing the:

A. Historical background of the position of registrar and
the evolution of American higher education.

B. The impact of the research university on American
higher education.

C. The influence of the American Research University on

the position of registrar.

II.

11
Economic factors affecting the growth and development
of the American research university with specific
reference to the Morrill Act of 1862, and the impact of

Wbrld war I and world war II.

The writer has reviewed in detail the historical records of

the founding of the Association of American Universities'

Registrars. This review has been concerned with:

A.

Identification of the fifty—six institutions comprising
the current membership of the Association of American
Universities.

A profile of the fifty-six member institutions of the
Association of American Universities.

The Mission and Guidelines of the Association of
American Universities' Registrars.

A distinction between public and private American

research Universities.

Interpreting the Data

 

In identifying data from the sources outlined above, the order of

development

I.

II.

III.

for this study will include:

The evolution of the position of the registrar and of

American higher education.

An overview of the American Association of Collegiate

Registrars and Admissions Officers.

The shaping of American research universities.

 

12

IV. The importance of management in American higher
education.

V. Conclusions drawn from an appraisal of the evidence
gathered in the published books, reports, and other like
materials; from the historical records of the founding
of the Association of American Universities' Registrars;
and from the writer's understanding and knowledge of the
situation.

VI. Specific recommendations concerning the action that this
study indicates are required to improve the relationship
between the registrar and his or her respective AAU
institution.

It is not the intention of the writer to present this as a
fonmalized historical study, but rather to utilize the historical and
cultural background of the position of the registrar in AAU
institutions as a means of understanding the social forces at work
that have a bearing upon the present and future relationship between

the registrar and his or her respective AAU institution.

CHAPTER I I

THE EVOLUTION OF THE POSITION OF THE REGISTRAR

AND AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Reviewing the history of the registrar's position in
concurrence with the evolution of American higher education provides
presenteday registrars with informative knowledge. A descriptive
evolution explains the registrar's position and status within
American higher education as it has progressed and expanded. .By
understanding this history, registrars can become familiar with their
professional origin within higher education. This study also focuses
on the various changes that have evolved and developed into
presenteday registrar administration, duties, and organizational
structure.

The registrar's role and function can be traced into educational
antiquity to at least the end of the twelfth century and the emergence

of the office of the bedel or beadle1 (from German Butil and Buttel

 

lHastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 1,
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985); Edward M. Stout, "The Origin of the
Registrar," College and University, XXIX, (1954), pp. 415—418.

Note: Hastings Rashdall (1895), the foremost authority on the medieval
universities, uses the spelling bedel from.bedellus or pegellus. Edward
Stout (1954), writing on the origins of the registrar's office, uses
beadle, but inadvertently credits the University of Paris with
developments that actually took place at Bologna, Italy.

13

l4
and Old English bygel, a herald) at the three great archetypal
universities: Bologna in Italy, Paris in France, and Oxford in
England. Like other medieval institutions, such as the Church and
courses of law, these universities required an official to proclaim
messages and execute the mandates of their authorities; and like all
more recent academic institutions, they needed specialized
administrative officers to assure their academic operations, whether
maintaining institutional records, finances, facilities, or simply
institutional order. At Bologna the registrar's title was bidelli
generale; the duties included preceding the rectors on public
occasions, collecting the votes in congregation, visiting the schools
to read statutes and decrees, announcing lectures by students, and

distributing lists of books which the stationarii (keepers of book

 

stalls) or individual students had on sale. The bidelli generale or

 

general bedel also served as a catalyst for research and

 

publications, ensuring a continual supply of scholastic literature by
enforcing the requirement that each doctor, after holding his
disputatio or repetitio, write out his argument or thesis for
submission to the general bedel. Failure to comply resulted in a
fine. The general bedel, presumably after carefully checking the
doctor's work, delivered it to the stationers for publication. There

was one bidelli generale for each university, and each doctor had a

 

special bidelli who looked after the doctor's classes and saw to it

 

that the classroom or school, usually a rented apartment or private

house, was kept clean and in order.2 At the University of Paris,

 

2Rashdall, op. cit., pp. 190—195.

15
the rector served as head of the institution, being elected by the
proctors (regional heads) of the four "nations" or associations of
students from particular regions of Europe. This relationship of the
rector to the proctors appeared in 1249 along with the bedels or
"common servants of the scholars."3 The duties of the bedels,
although much the same as those of the bedels of Bologna, are

translated from Chartularium Universitatus Parisiensis I in the

 

language of the Middle Ages.4

Higher education was developing along similar lines at
Oxford. The university was headed by a chancellor, two proctors, and
six bedels. The bedels were elected annually to serve the university
and to execute its orders and maintain its state.5

By 1446 the responsibilities of the bedel began to change, and
the registrar‘s office first emerged officially when an academic
officer with the title of "registrar" was appointed at Oxford. This
officer's duties were to give form and permanence to the university‘s
public acts, to draft its letters, to make copies of its documents,
and to register the names of its graduates and their "examinatory
sermons".6 In 1506 Robert Hobbs was appointed as "registrary" of
Cambridge. Hobbs was chiefly responsible for regulating and
coordinating university ceremonies, but in 1544 his successor was

4L. Thorndike, University Records and Life in the Middle Ages, (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1944), pp. 72—73.

 

5C. E. Mallet, A History of the University of Oxford, (London:
Methuen, 1924), p. 176.

 

61bid., p. 327.

 

16
assigned the responsibility, by the vice—chancellor of the
university, of reviewing all applicants for matriculation. Later, at
Cambridge as well as at Oxford and then at other British
universities, the registrar came to act as the secretary for all
academic bodies. Even today, British registrars continue to serve
primarily as their institutions' secretariat, preparing agendas for
official meetings, keeping minutes, conducting correspondence, and,
at some universities, collecting fees.7

Elsewhere in the British empire, the registrar's and bedel's
office was also institutionalized. In Australia, for instance, the
University of Sydney opened in 1850 with a registrar on duty from the
beginning, and even today it maintains an esquire bedel and a yeoman
bedel as well as a registrar.

In America the registrar's responsibilities at various
educational institutions have depended largely on the institution's
expansion rate and general developmental background. The founding of
American colleges and universities and the rise of major research
university movements have each played an important role in the
shaping of the present day position of the registrar and other
academic administrative positions.

In America the founding of the colleges took place during the
period of 1636—1776. The two major concerns of the founders of
Harvard College, the nation's first institution of higher education,

were the advancement of learning and training of clergymen. These

7W. E. Johnston, Jr., "The Registrar in English Universities,"
Association of American Colleges Bulletin, XXXV, (1949), pp. 295—301.

 

 

17

continued to be the dominate purposes of higher education throughout
the colonial period.

The nine colonial colleges founded between 1636 (Harvard) and
1769 (Dartmouth) used the English college, rather than the
university, as their model. With one exception, all were founded and
supported by religious groups. These early colleges, however, were
not the equivalent of today's divinity schools. At no time was only
theology taught, for it was assumed that the clergy, who were the
educated leaders of the day, needed a broad, general background.
Classical languages, Hebrew, logic, rhetoric, ancient history, and
mathematics usually formed a substantial part of the curriculum
followed by all students; and there was little or no training in
applied sciences, modern history, or modern languages. From the
beginning, students were admitted to prepare for other professions
and there was usually no practice of excluding students who were not
members of the denomination that controlled the institution. The
college, with its emphasis on the ideal of developing the gentleman
scholar, remained a potent force in American higher education until
the rise of the university.8

During this period in America the registrar's academic
record—keeping functions apart from the financial record duties of
the college steward concerning students' bills, remained at Harvard a
part-time faculty duty into the mid—nineteenth century. During the
1820's, Harvard's Hollis Professor of Divinity, the Reverend Henry

Todd W. Furniss (ed.), American Universities and Colleges (11th ed.;
washington, D. C.: The American Council on Education, 1980), pp. 3-4.

 

l8
ware, was supplementing his professor's salary by $150 a year for his
work as Harvard's registrar, plus another $150 for conducting its
chapel services.9 And from 1880 to 1888, Harvard's Professor of
Mathematics, Charles Joyce White, performed both teaching and
registrar functions.

Unlike Harvard, its Connecticut offspring, Yale, adopted the
bedel tradition. Thus, at commencement in 1778, in the midst of the
Revolutionary war, Yale‘s new president, the Reverend Ezra Stiles,
called on the "vice bedellus" and the junior tutor to convene the
ceremony and oversee the examination of the thirty-six candidates in
Greek, Latin, and the sciences. Afterward, the vice bedellus read

the Diploma examinatorium on stiles' behalf of the examiners and

 

candidates and, following a recess, to the ladies and gentlemen
assembled in the college chapel, before returning it to Stiles for
deposit in the college archives.16

The period of 1776—1862 was one of experiment and diversity.
The founding of American institutions of higher education had begun
to increase during the twenty-four years before the Revolutionary War
and by 1820, twenty-nine more institutions had been added.

During the 1850's the number of schools of applied sciences
increased; the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and Cooper Union

were founded, as well as state schools of agriculture in Maryland,

9James C. Quann, Admissions, Academic Records and Registrar Services,
A Handbook of Policies and Procedures (San Francisco: Jossey—Bass
Publishers, 1980), p. 5.

16F. B. Dexter, The Library Diary of Ezra Stiles I, (New York:
Scribner's, 1901), pp. 287-288.

 

 

19
Pennsylvania, and Michigan (Michigan State University). The
established colleges then initiated programs emphasizing scientific
training; both Harvard and Yale established such schools in 1847, and
in 1851, Dartmouth received $50,000 to support a separate department
of science. In 1861 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was
chartered.

The success of the separately organized technical schools
curtailed their further proliferation. They had demonstrated a need
for an educational program that the established institutions could no
longer ignore. Additionally, the Land-Grant College Act of 1862
specifically required that participating institutions include
agriculture and the mechanic arts in their curricula. The
professional curricula of the technical institutions were
increasingly incorporated into the private and public universities
and colleges.11

The normal school, the prototype of the teachers college, also
began within this period. The first state—supported normal school
was established in Lexington, Massachusetts, in 1839. The primary
function of these institutions was to train teachers for the rapidly
expanding public elementary schools. As public secondary schools
began to grow, it became obvious that a more comprehensive training
for teachers was needed. Consequently, the normal schools either

closed or developed into teacher colleges.

llFurniss, 10c. cit.

20

In this period, a clear distinction emerged between public and
private institutions. The colonial governments had often contributed
to institutions of higher education, and the practice was not
immediately discontinued. Partially because of dissatisfaction with
the policies and the curricula of the denominational colleges, the
states began to consider alternative ways of influencing the pattern of
higher education. One possible method was to take control of existing
institutions; another was to establish schools of their own. The
famous Dartmouth College case in 1819 clearly established that state
institutions could not be created from existing private ones (without
their consent) by an act of a legislature; and that if the states were
to operate institutions of higher education, they would have to fund
and support them. The beginnings of such institutions were already in
evidence. Three state institutions of higher education were chartered
before 1800: the universities of Georgia (1785), North Carolina
(1789), and Vermont (1791). By the Civil war, twenty—one had been
established. The University of Virginia (1819) introduced the elective
course system and maintained unusually high academic standards. Before
the Civil war, it was the common fate of the state institutions to
remain small and plagued by poverty and neglect. It was only late in
the nineteenth century that the states undertook a policy of regular
support.

Another form of public higher education, the municipal college
or university, was also begun during this period. Such institutions
were usually controlled by city authorities and financed in part by
local taxes. Louisville College, founded by decree of the city council

in 1837, became the University of Louisville in 1846.

21

Between 1825 and 1875, the idea of a college education for women
developed in several sections of the country. At first it was provided
in separate colleges for women; but when Oberlin opened in 1833, it
admitted both men and women and was the first degree—granting college
to do so. After the Civil war, a number of separate colleges for women
were established; but the general trend was toward coeducation. The
coordinate college, separately organized for women but operating in
conjunction with a college for men, was established toward the end of
the nineteenth century; examples are Radcliffe (Harvard), Barnard
(Columbia) and Newcomb (Tulane).12

During the rise of the university, two major movements, both of
which had been developing earlier, came into full force. The first was
the establishment of the land—grant college; the second was the
emergence of the university, public and private, as the dominate and
most influential structure of higher education.

One of the most important acts of legislation in the history
of the development of American higher education was the Land—Grant
College Act of 1862, frequently known by the surname of its sponsor,
Justin R. Morrill. Although the federal government had established a
policy of making specific grants of land to the states to foster
higher education, the Morrill Act, because of its scope and
magnitude, had a more enduring influence than any previous
legislation. The bill granted each state 30,000 acres of land (or
its equivalent) for each senator and representative in Congress. The
proceeds from the grant were to help support at least one college

whose principal aim was to provide training in agriculture and the

22
mechanic arts, though the law specifically stated that such an
emphasis was not to exclude other scientific and classical studies.
In states where a public university or college had already become
well established, these institutions broadened their scope to include
the course provisions of the Morrill Act.

The states did not all manage their grants equally well, and
it became obvious that the original grants would not provide
sufficient income for the operation of the institutions. Within ten
years, Morrill sponsored another bill to provide additional federal
support. The measure did not pass until 1890, however, and by that
time the states had come to realize that regular support was
necessary if their institutions were to survive.

The land-grant colleges and universities have exerted
considerable influence on the structure and curriculum of American
higher education. They gave official academic recognition to
disciplines previously isolated in separate professional schools;
they assumed that if education were to be offered to the agricultural
and industrial classes, it must be placed within their economic
means; and they contributed to the development of a peculiarly
American concept of the university —— what Ezra Cornell called "an
institution where any person can find instruction in any study."

Concomitant, and in some instances coincident, with the
emergence of the land-grant colleges came the rise of the university
and of graduate education. Although there were a number of attempts
throughout the first half of the nineteenth century to establish

graduate education, all of them failed. It was only after the

23
founding of Johns Hopkins in 1876 that the university became firmly
established. Once this happened, the university rapidly assumed the
position of leadership in American higher education it still
retains. Part of the reason for this rapid and successful emergence
of the university was that it constituted, in one sense, little
change at all. Many of the oldest and best-known liberal arts
colleges, such as Yale, Columbia, and Harvard, became universities
during this period. Several of the better—established public
institutions, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and California,
also assumed the status of universities. Furthermore, a number of
institutions were founded as universities and endowed with grants
from business fortunes of a magnitude hitherto unheard of: $1
million from Vanderbilt; $20 million from the Stanford estate; $30
million from Rockefeller to establish the University of Chicago.
Coming into existence on so grand a scale, these universities were,
from the beginning, in a position to influence considerably the
course of American higher education.

Among the leaders of the university movement, there were
differences about what the new structure should be. In the absence
of university training in the United States, many Americans had gone
to Germany to study, and there were powerful proponents for
establishing the university along German lines. Presidents Gilman of
Johns Hopkins, Hall of Clark, and Harper of Chicago wanted to see
what is now called the graduate school of arts and sciences
established as a separate structure, devoted primarily to the

increase rather than the transmission of knowledge. In their view,

24

the graduate school was to be oriented primarily toward research
rather than teaching as the college traditionally had been. But
there were too many pressures against such a separate structure. The
long tradition of the liberal arts college as the core of higher
education; the need for providing pregraduate training to prospective
graduate students; and the financial necessity of having an
undergraduate college to help support the more expensive graduate
training. The compromise produced a peculiarly American structure
unlike any other existing university system. An essentially German
graduate school emphasizing research was placed structurally on the
top of an English college devoted to general education. Professional
schools, which in Europe had usually existed as separate structures,
increasingly were incorporated into the university.13

Professors within these new American colleges continued to
serve as registrars during the latter part of the nineteenth
century. Thus, when Cornell opened in 1868, its first Professor of
Moral and Intellectual Philosophy and Religion, W. D. Wilson, doubled
as its registrar. But the end of the century saw the evolution of
the registrar's role as an increasingly professional, specialized,
full—time administrative task. For example, when Stanford opened in
1891, Orrin Elliott joined its staff as full-time registrar and
administrative officer second only to its president. Edith D.
Cockins, a clerk in the recorder's office became the first registrar
at Ohio State University in 1897, and Howard Tibbits of the class of
1900 became acting registrar at Dartmouth in 1902 and permanent

registrar in 1908.

25

This trend toward full-time administrative duty is illustrated
by a representative sample of thirtyetwo colleges and universities.
As of 1880, 85 percent of the registrars at these institutions also
taught. In contrast, as of 1933 only some 20 percent continued to
teach; nearly 80 percent had become full-time administrative
specialists.14

Apart from the college president, the treasurer, and the
librarian, the registrar was among the first administrative officers
to become a specialist. Among these thirtyetwo institutions, for
example, the registrar's position was created in 1891, dean of women
in 1896, chief business officer in 1906, and dean of men in

1920.15

Among another sample of twenty-five liberal arts colleges,
the registrars also predated the deans and business officers. All
twentybfive colleges created the registrar's position between 1881

and 1920, with the median year being 1896.16

Among the

institutions that would later constitute the Association of American
Universities, less than 10 percent had registrars as of 1880, but 25
percent had designated them by 1890. This number jumped to 42
percent by 1900, 76 percent by 1910 (the founding year of the

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions

 

14E. J. MCGrath, "The Evolution of Administrative Offices in
Institutions of Higher Education in the United States from 1860 to 1933"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1938), p. 129.

15mm.

16F. A. Partridge, "The Evolution of Administrative Offices in Liberal
Arts Colleges from 1875 to 1933" (unpublished Master's thesis,
University of Chicago, 1934), p. 77.

 

26

Officers), over 90 percent by 1920, and all of them by 1930.17

The
need for full-time professional aid for accurate records and
efficient procedures became increasingly evident in the early decades
of the twentieth century as institutions grew in size and their
curricular offerings and electives burgeoned. Registration
procedures alone illustrated the need; by the 1920's at The
University of Michigan it is said that students had to be in line by
4 a.m. to be sure of getting registered by the end of the day; and as
late as 1937, students at Michigan State University were spending an
average of seven hours in line at each registration period. Such
stories of registration were common at many institutions.18
Registration was only one area of the registrar's responsibility.
Among the information and clerical services performed by most registrars
during the 1920‘s were those, for example, at Stanford, where the
registrar "cared for student records, handled official communication
between students and academic committees, prepared all official
publications, and acted as a central bureau of information about the
academic work of the university." During the 1920s the registrar's
office was assuming an increasing variety of other student personnel
services.19 They often corresponded with prospective students,

conducted high school visitations, sent and received application forms,

B. H. Jarman, "The Registrar in Institutions Accredited by the
Association of American Universities," College and University, XXIII,
(1947), PP. 96-113.

 

l8Quann, op. cit., p. 7.

19C. U. Walker, "The Functional Structuring of Stanford University"
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1964), p. 97.

27

oversaw scholarship and financial aid awards, greeted freshmen and
transfer students, conducted their orientations, advised them on programs
and courses, counseled them on vocations and careers, scheduled classes,
forecast enrollments, predicted tuition income, analyzed teaching loads,
responded to questionnaires, conducted other institutional research,
suggested curriculum revisions to the faculty, signed diplomas, and
even shook hands with graduating seniors at commencement. This
expanded role of the registrar's office was epitomized in 1925 with
the publication of "A Code of Ethics for Registrars,“ developed by a
committee of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars'.
"The everyday details of duties performed by my office are secondary
to the opportunity to add my influence in the building of character
through personal contact outside my official capacity," the Code
proclaimed on behalf of registrars, "and to this end the door to my
office shall ever swing inward to students seeking advice and
encouragement."225

Later in the twentieth century, the inward-swinging door of
the registrar's office was less frequently used by students seeking
advice and encouragement, since many student services began to be
provided by separate and independent offices —- among them
admissions, counseling, placement, and academic advising. With the
growth of these other administrative specialities, registrars have

assumed their present roles as managers of data. That is, they now

Committee on Code of Ethics, American Association of Collegiate
Registrars. "A Code of Ethics for Registrar." Proceedings of the
American Association of CollegiategRegistrars, 13th National Meetigg,
1925, 1, pp. 259—260.

28

serve as the center of an information system and the output of data
to various individuals and agencies; they also serve as a major
source of institutional facts that can and should provide the raw
material for effective academic decision making.21

Although private colleges and universities had employed field
representatives and admissions counselors before world war I, and
Columbia University opened its Office of Admissions in 1915, separate
admissions offices and officers were largely a product of later
decades. R. R. Perry reports that admissions developed as a
specialization in college and university administration after world
war 11.22 The enactment of the first "C. I. Bill of Rights" (the
Servicemen‘s Readjustment Act) in 1946 accelerated the change of
higher education from a privilege to a necessity and a right, and
also increased the importance of the admissions staff. The rapid
influx of students that resulted from it created a dilemma, since the
extremely limited physical and educational resources could not
accommodate all the prospective students requesting access to these
resources. The nation, recovering both from Wbrld War and the Great
Depression, looked to education for solutions to the problems facing
mankind; but few institutions, large or small, had sufficient
teaching staff, classroom space, or laboratory equipment to meet the
needs of potential students. While junior or community colleges
developed as largely "open—door" institutions to meet some of the
demand, most existing colleges and universities moved toward

J. J. Corson, The Governance of Colleges and Universities. (New
York: McGraw—Hill, 1975), p. 152.

 

22R. R. Perry, The Office of Admissions —— Role of the Administrator,
Vol. II of Handbook of College and University Administration, (ed.),
A. S. Knowles (New York: McGraw—Hill, 1970), p. 42.

 

 

 

29
selective admissions; and this increased the responsibility of
admissions officers for screening applicants.

Two events, both centered around professional associations,
marked the emergence of admissions as a specialized field. In 1937
the Association of College Admissions Counselors was founded, and in
1949 the American Association of Collegiate Registrars added "and
Admissions Officers" to its title. By 1952, when Harvard University
created its Office of the Dean of Admissions, admissions had become
centralized in its own separate office. It was coordinated with that
of the registrar or recorder, and was itself involved in
"recruitment, interviewing, testing, counseling, evaluation and
placement, orientation, research, and publication."23 At some
institutions the registrar oversaw the director of admissions, and at
a few schools the director of admissions oversaw the registrar's
office; but increasingly these two officers were separate and equal,
reporting either to a dean of admissions and records or to central
administrators.

The first consolidated administration under one dean occurred
in 1870 when Harvard, then the largest college in the country,
created the first deanship in any American college. The Harvard dean
assumed among other duties a responsibility "to keep the records of
admission and matriculation... and preserve the records of conduct

and attendance.“24

E. M. Gerritz, and Thomas A. Jr., "The Admissions Office in
Twenty—Eight Selected Colleges and Universities,“ College and
University, XXIX (1953), pp. 65—68.

24R. wert, "The Impact of Three Nineteenth Century Reorganizations
Upon Harvard University" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University, 1955), p. 84.

 

30

Little disagreement remains about the roles of the registrar
and admissions officer in providing accurate information and timely
assistance to everyone connected with the institution. They serve
both prospective and enrolled students, they respond to faculty and
administrative needs for facts, and they provide the basis for
infonmed educational policies and procedures.

Since the roles of registrars and admissions officers are both
operational and academic, the modern alignment of the offices may
differ. variations in organizational alignment will occur on a
regional basis, between states, and even among sister institutions.
However, two main organizational arrangements, with many variations,
exist nationally. In the larger colleges and universities,
registrars and admissions officers are increasingly viewed as
academic officers reporting to the academic vice—president or
provost. In these instances, the registrar generally has:many
responsibilities outside of registration and records, including but
not limited to editing the catalog and serving as secretary to the
faculty and various academic policymaking committees. Similarly,
admissions officers not only admit students but evaluate academic
credentials, supervise orientation programs, coordinate relations
with high schools and colleges, and advise students. In some
institutions an executive dean or director of admissions and records
coordinates and supervises both functions.

Some four-year colleges and most community colleges place
registrars and admissions personnel in the role of student personnel
administrators reporting to a dean of students or vice-president for

student affairs.

31

Reviewing the history of the registrar in relation to the
evolution of higher education in America elicits a latent knowledge
which many registrars need to grasp to completely understand their
position within their respective institution, and how their position
evolved. Studying the evolution of higher education and the role of
registrar provides an informative perspective of how the two are
closely connected in their origin. The registrar is a highly
effective administrative officer. To understand the comprehensive
overview of how the registrar's position has developed is important

for an individual's professional growth in such a position.

 

CHAPTER I II

AN OVERVIEW OF THE AMERICAN ASSCXIIATION OF

COLLEGIATE REGISTRARS AND ADMISSIONS OFFICERS

The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers (AACRAO) was formed "with the purpose of providing by means
of an annual conference and otherwise, for the spread of information
on problems of common interests, and to promote the professional

welfare of its members."1

AACRAO is extremely important to many
registrars because of the informative role it plays within their
profession. AACRAO presents issues to its members involving a
variety of higher educational concerns which in turn helps
registrars focus more directly on the present role of the registrar
and the future of the profession. AACRAO encourages registrars to
keep abreast of new ideas through the publications distributed,
various conferences held, and through the registrar's own research.
Understanding the history of AACRAO and its basic goals and mission
provides insight for registrars so they may realize and acknowledge
just how supportive and vital such an organization can be for their

scholarly stature and their professional growth. In formulating a

blueprint for the future, it is important to gain the perspective of

 

1Clifford L. Constance, Historical Review of the Association, compiled
under the direction of the AACRAO Executive Committee, 1973.

32

 

33
history. Therefore, this account of the Association will serve as a
contribution both to the historical record and to the development of
the registrar's position in the present and the future.

The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers origin can be traced to the first meeting scheduled, which
was on August 5, 1910, and attended by twentyefour persons assembled
in a Detroit high school. These twenty-four representatives
included fifteen college registrars and nine college accountants or
financial secretaries. Early in the meeting the college accountants
decided that since their work, problems, and methods differed
greatly from those of college registrars; it would be more
advantageous for them to form an independent association, later
called the National Association of College and University Business
Officers (NACUBO).2

Following the departure of the college accountants, the first
general conference of college registrars was organized. The
conference was in session all day. Topics and questions discussed
at this first meeting included the duties or functions of a college
registrar; the fOrm and the content of an academic transfer from one
college to another; the best and fairest method of reckoning the
relative standing of students when the letter system of grading was
used; how to secure from instructors a prompt report of students'
grades; the new system of faculty advisers for students; how to get
in touch with prospective students; the problem of late

registration; and the question of whether grades should be disclosed

 

2Douglas J. Conner, A statement on the history and responsibilities of
the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers. AACRAO Executive Director, One Dupont Circle, N. W., Suite
330, washington, D. C. 20026.

 

34
to students.3 Before adjournment the conference decided that a
permanent national organization of college registrars should be
formed, and that it should hold its meetings once a year.

The history of the Association, for the first thirty years of
its life, is written principally in the story of its annual
meetings. It was chiefly a convention organization, holding
extremely stimulating and fruitful meetings each year, but doing
comparatively little in between. For the most part, the speakers at
the conventions were drawn from the Association's membership. With
some notable exceptions that included papers by several deans and
presidents, representatives of the U. S. Bureau of Education, the
Carnegie Foundation, the American Council on Education, and similar
educational bodies; meetings consisted mostly of registrars talking
to, and with, registrars.4

"If the annual meetings were the principal fruit borne by the
Association, they were happily not its only fruit."5 Very early
in its history, AACRAO began to experiment with publications. As
early as the second annual meeting, the Proceedings were printed and
issued to members. In July 1925 a more general publication
appeared: "New Series Number 1" of the Bulletin, as it was then
named. This publication was announced as a quarterly, to be issued
in January, April, July, and October; and all members were asked to
send regular contributions of news material to the editor. The name

3W. C. Smyser, "Our First Fifty Years," College and University, XXXV,
(1960), pp. 435—451.

4

 

Ibid., p. 436.

5C. L. Constance (ed.), Historical Review of the Association
(washington, D. C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers, 1973), p. 18.

 

 

35
of the quarterly was changed from Bulletin to Journal in October

1937. This quarterly, now named College and University enjoys

 

growing recognition as a leading educational journal and is one of
the constructive contributions that AACRAO has made to the cause of
higher education. AACRAO's publications now include a regular

quarterly Newsletter; a forty—five—year—old guide, presently called

Transfer Credit Practices, issued yearly and most often used by

 

admissions officers and registrars in their day—to—day work of

assessing credit transferability; the World Education Series,

 

published with funding provided by the U. S. Department of State;
books that explain the educational systems of foreign countries and
assist in admitting and placing foreign students; and many other
special publications for the general and specific need of the
Association's membership.

Since its founding in 1910 as the Association of Collegiate
Registrars, the organization has evolved from one with a singular
scope to a multidimensional agency, in much the same way as the
function of the registrar has changed since its founding in Europe
in the Middle Ages. The role and record-keeping function of the
earlier years underwent considerable change to meet the specialized
needs of two- and four-year institutions, particularly following
post—World War II enrollment increases. Administrative duties
formerly performed solely by the registrar were expanded into
several other areas, notably admissions. In 1949, in recognition of
this extension of duties and responsibilities, the Association added
“and Admissions Officers" to its name. As further specialization
brought new areas within the older framework, the professional scope

of AACRAO was redefined by constitutional amendment in 1964 to

 

36
include the offices of admissions, registration, records, financial
aid, data management and research, institutional research, and
international admissions and placement.

From its beginning in 1910 with fifteen registrars, the
Association has grown in membership to over 2,000 institutions and
over 7,000 activeimember representatives.

Association activity expanded considerably in the initial years
until it produced an impact on higher education at the national
level. AACRAO has long maintained constituent membership in the
American Council on Education and was frequently consulted by the
U. S. Office of Education. In addition, because of various
certification activities assigned to registrars and admissions
officers, AACRAO provides a liaison function with many federal
agencies such as Selective Service, the Social Security
Administration, and the Veterans Administration. The advent of
contractual arrangements with additional federal agencies such as
the International Communications Agency, and the Agency for
International Development of the U. S. Department of State
emphasizes the responsibility of the Association in matters of
international magnitude. Discussions concerning these important
projects led to a plan to establish a national AACRAO office in
washington, D. C. The steps to this significant action occurred as
follows:6

1. In 1963 a reorganization plan was proposed for AACRAO

including a Washington office and a full—time executive

secretary. This received strong support.

6Quann, op. cit., pp. 353-354.

37

2. In June 1964 the executive committee approved the concept
of an AACRAO office; and established an office advisory
committee to work out details to be voted on at the annual
business meeting in April 1965.

3. The constitution committee proposed constitutional
amendments (approved at the 1965 annual business meeting)
that gave the executive commuttee broad authority to
establish an office, employ an executive secretary, and
increase membership dues to finance this far—reaching
development.

4. In July 1965 the executive committee authorized the
establishment of a central office committee to expedite the
creation of the AACRAO office and the hiring of an
executive secretary. This committee developed guidelines
for the office and initiated a nationwide search for an
executive secretary.

5. The AACRAO office opened officially on August 1, 1966, at
1501 New Hampshire Avenue N. W., washington D. C., in space
leased from the American Council on Education.

The broad authority given to the executive committee in the
initial establishment of the AACRAO office, "to employ an executive
secretary and assign such duties as seem necessary and
appropriate,"7 was only a temporary step at best in developing the
new alignment of association activities. Early in 1967 the
constitution committee was given the assignment to restructure the
Association's professional activities in a manner that would more
properly depict the wide range of administrative functions being

7Ibid., p. 354.

 

38
performed by AACRAO members —- and to relate these activities to
professional committee efforts. In April of 1968 the membership
passed a constitution and by-laws revision that provided the
following realignment of the professional committee activity:

The elected officers of the Association, together
cxmrmising the executive committee, shall include: (a)
President; (b) President-Elect; (c) Immediate Past President;
(d) Secretary-Treasurer; (e)'Vice President for Admissions and
Financial Aid; (f) Vice President for International Education;
(9) Vice President for Records and Registration; (h) Vice
President for Data Management and Research; and (i) Vice
President for Regional Associations.

Also included in the new constitution and by-laws was a specific
outline of activities assigned to the executive secretary and AACRAO
office, as follows:

The executive committee shall employ (with suitable bond) a
full—time paid executive secretary. He shall assist the
Association by staffing and maintaining an AACRAO Office.

Duties and functions shall be assigned to this office by the
executive committee as determined to be necessary and
appropriate, including: (a) responsibility for preservation of
the Association's permanent and historical records; (b)
responsibility for reserving quantities of Association
publications; (c) membership promotion and maintenance of AACRAO
mmntership files, with records of AACRAO participation and
personal data for each active member; (d) maintenance of the
AACRAO placement service; (e) maintenance of AACRAO financial
records and budget controls, handling of receipts and
disbursements, and serving as custodian of all funds and
investments as instructed by the executive committee through the
secretary-treasurer; (f) assistance in AACRAO mail balloting
procedures; (9) coordination of liaison activities between
AACRAO representatives and other agencies in higher education;
and (h) service as coordinating office, when suitable, in
projects of research and publication.

This restructuring placed AACRAO in consonance with the modern
trends that had occurred administratively in higher education and
lent direction to the development of the AACRAO office as a
coordinative function for association activities and a professional
support for its members to the various constituencies in higher

education.

 

 

 

39

The philosophical underpinnings of the Association's decision to

develop an AACRAO office might best be summarized by a statement

contained in the executive secretary's report to the membership at

the 1967 annual meeting.

"The AACRAO office seeks to supplement but never supplant

the professional voluntarism of its active members. It follows
that the office must perform the general housekeeping chores for
the Association, but its central role should be to reflect the
professional personality of the membership and enhance that
image in a way that will benefit the status of the admissions
director and registrar as functioning professionals."

This theme has remained paramount in the ongoing direction of

AACRAO office activity. The primary professional responsibility

designated to the executive secretary is overseeing interassociation

activities - that is, joint cooperative activities with some forty

educational associations and federal agencies. Many significant

joint projects have developed from this function. To delineate just

a few:

1.

The contractual arrangement with the Agency for
International Development to provide consultants and
foreign student admissions specialists who assist the
agency in the selection, admission, and placement of
AID-sponsored students.

A continuing grant from the International Communications
Agency of the U. S. Department of State to publish and

distribute the World Education Series booklets on the

 

educational systems of foreign countries.
The joint sponsorship, with the National Association for
Foreign Student Affairs, of foreign country workshops that

bring together the top educational leaders of participating

 

81bid., p. 356.

 

 

 

40
countries to further the cause of international student
exchange.
4. The production of Higher Education Facilities Planning and

Management Manuals, in cooperation with the Planning and

 

Management Information Systems of the Western Interstate
Commission on Higher Education (now the National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems).

5. The sponsorship of national workshops for education data
specialists in cooperation with the American Association of
Community and Junior Colleges under a grant from the
Education Professions Development Act of the Office of
Education.

6. An ongoing relationship with the American Council on
Education's Commission on Educational Credit (formerly the
Commission on the Accreditation of Military Service

Experience) which has produced three national Guides to the

 

Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Services,

publications which are utilized internationally to enhance

the educational opportunities for armed services personnel.

Since 1975, the addition of an assistant executive secretary, to

supplement the executive secretary and administrative assistant, has
enabled AACRAO to participate more fully in the wide range of
consultation that takes place among higher education associations
concerning federal legislation, regulatory development, and
governmental relations. This process is coordinated by the American
Council on Education to provide as much consistency as possible in the
way that higher education responds to the federal administration and

Congress .

 

41

AACRAO has been in the forefront in areas of national interest and
concern. In 1974 Congress passed legislation concerning the protection
of students' rights and privacy and the release of information about
students by educational institutions. AACRAO participated directly with
the committees of the House and Senate in the development of the
Buckley-Pell amendment, which modified the original legislation; and
with the Department of Health, Education and welfare in drafting the
final regulations for the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974.

In 1977 AACRAO joined the higher education secretariat, composed of
nineteen educational associations convened by the American Council on
Education. This group serves as a forum for basic educational issues
and affords members an opportunity to participate in issue discussions
at the entry level before policy lines are drawn and developed. In
these and other meaningful ways the Association, through its office,
provides service to the membership at the very basic level of
professional concern.

The Association has always encouraged the organization of regional
associations. At the 1922 meeting in St. Louis, when it was known that
there would not be an annual meeting in 1923, the registrars were urged
to organize by states and regions to meet in 1923 and discuss local
problems. Thus, early in the beginning of its second decade, the
Association began the practice of having state and regional meetings.
The regional associations provide professional stimulation to members in
the field, many of whom may not be able to attend the national meeting.
AACRAO also has finmly established a policy of sending executive
committee members to state and regional meetings at AACRAO expense to

facilitate communication between the national and regional groups.

 

 

42

The authority for regional associations is contained in Article
IV of the by-laws. "The Association shall encourage the formation
of regional associations. These associations shall determine their
own constitutions consistent with the constitution of AACRAO, shall
determine their own boundary lines in relation to other existing
regional associations, and shall detenmine their own membership
within the limits set forth by the national association. The
regional associations shall elect their own officers, levy their own
fees, and conduct their own meetings in accordance with regional
interests and needs."9

Recently the formation of regional associations has taken on
international dimensions with the organization of an Association of
Registrars of the Universities and Colleges of Canada, and an Arab
AACRAO. An African AACRAO is being developed along the lines of
AACRAO's regular domestic regional associations.

In 1970 AACRAO undertook a self-study which was published as

AACRAO in the 70's: A Program for Change. This self-study led to

 

numerous recommendations for improving and enhancing the
Association's services to members; and in particular called for
specific effort to strengthen the organization's structure, improve
communications, and increase the participatory base of AACRAO and
the regional associations by establishing an AACRAO Regional
Association Advisory Council. In 1973 the AACRAO executive
committee approved the establishment of a Regional Association
Advisory Council comprising representatives of institutional members
of AACRAO grouped according to geographical areas. The Regional

Association Advisory Council has become the recognized medium for

 

9Constance, op. cit., p. 140.

 

 

43
the exchange of information between the national organization and
the subdivisions of the regions.

The accomplishments of the Association to date are primarily the
results of thousands of persons who have represented their
institutions in serving on hundreds of committees, and who have
reacted to and initiated change during a remarkable period of
development in higher education. All registrars need to familiarize
themselves with the AACRAO organization and its numerous
contributions which have dramatically affected the position of the

Registrar.

 

CHAPTER IV

THE SHAPING OF THE AMERICAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

By reviewing the background of research universities -- when they
originated, how they began, their mission and purpose -- registrars are
able to gain a well-balanced insight of their own institution as a
research university. These universities provide the foundation for
research and science within the United States. Many components make up
the research university, and it is the responsibility of the registrar
of the institution to realize these different elements which are
everyday concerns and issues within the institution. Grasping a firm
understanding and knowledge of the constituent parts and processes of
the research university is vital for the registrars of these
institutions. Understanding the impact on society of the research
university will help registrars form a sharper perspective regarding
their position within their institution's structure and future.

The myriad small colleges of different religious denominations that
dotted the American landscape before the Civil War contrasted thoroughly
with twentieth—century notions of higher education. From a present—day
perspective the bare facts of their existence seem bleak indeed. The
typical established college of this era consisted of fewer than one
hundred students and perhaps five faculty members. Students were
admitted whenever they were deemed to know enough Latin, Greek, and
mathematics to do college work, and often the college itself was
overshadowed by an associated academy that performed this preparatory

44

 

45

task. The colleges taught a single, fixed curriculum based upon
classical languages and mathematics. To this would be added some moral
philosophy, history, and a fairly general coverage of the natural
sciences. The intellectual potential that these subjects did possess
was largely weakened by the process of memorization and classroom rote
recitation.l

Discontent with the antebellum colleges was evident chiefly among
those who wanted to augment the content of their curriculum. Three
clear themes —— occurring together, singly, or paired —- were
articulated by critics and would-be reformers: that the colleges must
give greater scope to new kinds of knowledge, particularly that being
formulated in the natural sciences; that they should offer some forms of
practical training which would prepare students directly for careers;
and that they should incorporate advanced study similar to what could be
found in European, and especially German, universities. For each of
these themes advocates could muster persuasive arguments. By
mid—century the conspicuous advancement of science clearly merited
larger and more specialized treatment in the curriculum. Education for
careers held the promise of attracting new classes of students and
contributing to the economic development of the country‘s untapped
resources. In addition, proponents of advanced study could appeal to
nationalist sentiments by pointing out that the United States did not
yet have a single true university. The last of these themes was most
closely linked with the desire for university research.2

lJames Axtell, "The Death of the Liberal Arts College," History of
Education Quarterly, II, (1971).
2Roger L. Geiger, To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American

Research Universities 1900—1940 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1986), P. 4.

 

 

46

It was generally assumed that advanced study could be provided only
by someone with advanced knowledge of a subject, acquired in part
through original investigations. More concretely, people acquainted
with European patterns of education recognized that the offerings of the
American college corresponded in large part with the classical regimen
of the gymnasium or lycee. It seemed clear to them that advanced study,
such as that cultivated in the German universities ought to follow the
completion of an American bachelor‘s degree. From this perspective
advanced instruction and original investigation could be linked only at
the graduate level. Thus, from the first, university research in
America was tied to issues of graduate education.3

In general, antebellum reformers made grudging progress in areas
where they did not directly challenge the dominance of the classical
curriculum. The natural sciences established their most significant
permanent footholds when the combination of internal pressures and
timely endowments led to the establishment of first the Lawrence
Scientific School at Harvard (1847) and then the Yale/Sheffield
Scientific School (1854). Serious graduate education also gained a
permanent, thought somewhat premature, position when Yale awarded the
first American Ph.D., in 1861. A decade would intervene, however,
before others would follow this lead.4 One of the most forceful
critics of the American college, Brown's president Francis wayland,
attempted to initiate the teaching of practical subjects in the early
1850's. His efforts, however, chiefly attracted ill—prepared students,

alienated faculty and trustees, and lost any hope of redemption when

 

47
they failed to be self—supporting. Henry Tappan, as president of The
University of Michigan (1852-63), attempted to implant the scholarly
ideals of a German university in the American Midwest; but, like
Wayland, was ultimately forced from office —— and his reforms were
repudiated, although not entirely forgotten.5

By the eve of the Civil war some cracks had appeared in the edifice
that was the old American college, but it still possessed the resilience
that would allow it to endure well into the age of the university.
Nevertheless, the entering wedges of science and scholarship were
clearly an omen. They signified a commitment to the advancement of
knowledge that was incompatible with a fixed curriculum and a pedagogy
based on rote learning. It was hardly accidental, then, that the most
prominent university builders of the next generation had important
associations with these first fruits of reform. Charles W. Eliot and
Daniel Coit Gilman were, respectively, faculty members in the Lawrence
and Sheffield scientific schools, and Andrew D. White taught at Michigan
under Tappan. They would soon bear much responsibility for the
permanent establishment of the utilitarian and scholarly goals in
American higher education.

The notion that colleges should teach subjects that would have some
practical utility for their students entered the mainstream of American
higher education from two different sources.6 It was most directly
embodied in the Morrill Act of 1862, which authorized a substantial
grant of federal land to each state for the purpose of maintaining “at
§§;;;;I;_w;§i;fid, "Report to the Corporation of Brown University, on

Changes in the System of Collegiate Education," Read (March 28, 1950);
Henry Tappan, University Education (New York, 1851).

 

 

6Geiger, op. cit., p. 5.

 

48
least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding
other scientific and classical studies,... to teach such branches of
learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts."7 More
indirectly, the idea of utility was connected with the gradual spread of
the elective system, which allowed students to choose the courses that
best fit their own future needs. As a philosophy of undergraduate
education, the elective system is indelibly associated with Charles W.
Eliot, who instituted it and defended it during his forty-year
presidency of Harvard (1869—1909). Encompassing both of these
developments was the opening of Cornell University in 1868, under the
presidency of Andrew D. White. Dedicated to offering any person
instruction in any subject, Cornell had an inherent commitment to
student choice from the outset, while also being designated as the
land-grant school for New York State. Each of these occurrences played
a significant part of the utilitarian reorientation of American higher
education.

Thus, the American research university assumed something like its
present form during the fifty-year period following the Civil war. The
founding of The Johns Hopkins University, the flood tide of influence
from German universities, and the academic boom of the nineties all
contributed to the fixing of research as an indelible commitment of the
leading American universities. In this respect the American research
university was scarcely different from many other American economic and
cultural institutions that evolved during these decades from small
localized concerns with parochial interests and clienteles into

bureaucratic organizations integrated with national communications

 

 

49
networks.8 Even by the year 1920 many of the colleges, institutes,
normal schools, and universities remained quite restricted in the scope
and the spread of their activities; just as did a multitude of
commercial and industrial establishments. However, the major research
universities had become the corporations of the education industry; they
were organized to gather the lion‘s share of social resources available
to higher education, and committed to produce the most valued
educational products for the most important national markets. The
evolution of research universities over these years was anything but
even. Between the Civil War and 1890 a series of scattered, discrete
events provided precedents and stimuli for subsequent developments. The
pace of change accelerated abruptly in the 1890's, reaching a peak
around the turn of the century. A second surge of expansion in
university undertakings and the means for their fulfillment was
interrupted by World war I. In its aftermath, science, technology, and
an attendant belief in human progress through rational and systematic
investigation occupied a permanent niche not only in the major
universities of the country —— but in the national consciousness as
well.

The emergence of the American university was a multifaceted
phenomenon.9 The changing position of research in these emergent
institutions was largely determined by four interrelated processes
within this overall development.
gFESR;;-£:_A;;Pe11, The Emergence of Professional Social Science
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977), pp. 24—47; Robert Wiebe,
The Search for Order 1877—1920 (New York: Hill and wang, 1968),
pp. 111-132.

9Roger L. Geiger, To Advance Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1986), p. 2.

 

 

 

 

 

50

The first was structural, in that it concerned the relationship of
different institutions: how their activities were coordinated, whether
through competition or cooperation; and how the actions of one
university impinged upon those of others. The very notion of a
distinctive set of researdh universities implied a far-reaching
transformation of the structure of American higher education.

The second process was intellectual, involving changes in the
organization of knowledge in the country. The cognitive growth of
university subject matter, both at home and abroad, gradually produced a
corresponding change in the way academic scholars received training,
taught others, organized themselves, and communicated with one another.
Together these changes affected the treatment of knowledge in the
university. The curriculum soon reflected the existence of both
specialists and their specialties, and the academic disciplines assumed
responsibility for the sanctioning of new knowledge.

The third process was driven by the proliferation of institutional
resources. On the eve of world war I the researdh universities were all
radically larger in terms of students, faculty, and departments, but
they had grown even more in laboratories, libraries, and the kind of
financial backing necessary to sustain their activities.

The fourth strand in this development was support for the research
role of the university. As one important university priority, research
derived some benefit from the vast expansion of university resources.
However, as a subsidiary of the main university function of teaching,
research remained remarkably dependent upon ad hoc arrangements that,
with a few exceptions, differed from field to field and from one year to

the next.

 

 

51

By 1920, American research universities had established patterns of
structure, intellectual organization, and financing that are still
recognizable today. Yet, the manner in which they sustained their
commitment to researCh was inchoate at best. The major universities had
a philOSOphical commitment to the advancement of knowledge, but lacked a
secure institutional means for meeting that commitment. Despite the
great expectations of many, heightened especially by the experience of
war, the status of university research remained doubly problematic:
within the university it was one priority in competition with other
institutional goals, while to a considerable extent its feasibility
depended upon the impulse of external patrons. By this date probably
fewer than twenty-five universities were seriously committed to research
as an institutional goal.10

Universities do not perfonm research, of course; but individuals
do. The conduct of research requires time and, depending on the
subject, varying amounts of material resources. For a university's
capacity to foster faculty research, both of these requirements
presented parallel considerations. The inevitable mixture of teaching
and research at all American universities meant that a certain portion
of the needed resources was simply enmeshed in the makeup of the
institution. With respect to faculty time, the portion available for
research was inversely related to the teaching load. ‘With respect to
material resources, the research potential was inherent in the physical
size and design of laboratories, the collections in the library, or even
the provision of faculty offices. Beyond these considerations, however,
lay the problem of resources explicitly required for research. These
consisted chiefly of incremental expenditures clearly distinguishable

10Ibid., p. 5.

 

 

 

 

52
from the cost of everyday university operations; i.e., faculty time
specifically set aside for research, special equipment or collections,
travel necessitated by research purposes, or personnel needed for
supporting services.

These two types of requirements presented problems of a different
order for research universities as they developed. Resources depended
heavily, in the long run, upon the overall level of university wealth.
This is not to deny that hard choices were often involved - that some
universities were more willing than others to sacrifice campus amenities
to the goal of the advancement of knowledge. Rather, it is simply to
highlight the inescapable fact that low teaching loads, space for
faculty research, up—to—date laboratories, and large libraries first
required the availability of ample institutional resources -- and only
then decisions about deployment. Incremental resources were different
because they could not be lumped into the general mission of the
university and into its general operating budget. Even wealthy
institutions were exceedingly wary of making large or lasting
commitments of discretionary funds purely for the furtherance of
individual research, and this was for good reason. They lacked income
for these purposes; there was an inherent problem of equitable
distribution; and such needs had no foreseeable limits. An unspoken
understanding consequently existed before the turn of the century that
the needs of research-minded faculty would have to be funded from
extramural sources. More often than not, this meant that individual

. . ll
professors paid their own extra research expenses.

 

llIbid., pp. 67-68.

 

53

"The American university is emphatically a teaching university,"
stated David Starr Jordan in 1906.12 This was certainly true compared
with the emphasis on examinations in British and French universities, or
with the scope allowed for research in German institutions. American
students entered the university with far less preparation than their
European counterparts, and were consequently far more dependent upon
their mentors for basic instruction. The characteristic American form
of certification that emerged in this period reflected the centrality of
the teaching imperative: credit hours testified to the volume of
instruction received, while letter grades signified the extent to which
the material may have been learned. A recurrent dream of American
university builders was to jettison a major portion of this teaching
burden in order to orient the universities more definitely toward
research. During the height of German university influence, it was
common to equate "true" university work with the graduate level of
American higher education.

Another inquiry into teaching loads revealed that by 1920 some
differentiation was taking place among research universities. The most
prestigious universities that attracted the greatest number of graduate
students, which were by and large the wealthiest institutions as well,
required their faculty to teach from six to eight hours per week. In
other research universities ten to twelve hours was a more likely load.
It has been concluded that "to require no more than six to eight hours
of teaching from a professor... is, therefore, already in the United
States a mark of first class practice." Clearly in this class were
Columbia, Cornell, and Harvard; California and Chicago met this standard

for faculty doing graduate teaching; while Stanford, Yale, and, perhaps

 

 

54

Michigan barely qualified for inclusion. By this juncture, then, these
schools were granting their faculty an amount of time for research that
other universities were not capable of matching.13

The mission of research in American universities has been
irrevocably associated with the founding of The Johns Hopkins University
in 1876: "perhaps the single, most decisive event in the history of
learning in the western hemisphere," as it has been extravagantly, but
not unreasonably, described.l4 Although it was undoubtedly inevitable
that the ideals of the world—leading German universities would
eventually affect American higher education, it was no less inevitable
that Germanic conceptions of scholarship would be assimilated into the
unique context of American universities, Hopkins was, nevertheless, the
first to crystallize these influences into a viable institutional form.
Credit for this accomplishment belongs to the farsighted and painstaking
efforts of the trustees of Johns Hopkins' will; to the deft leadership
of President Daniel Coit Gilman in choosing men, inspiring scholarship,
and coming to terms with the political and social exigencies of an
American university; and to the distinctive chemistry of the original
group of professors and fellows, who set the tone and established the
customs of this institutional experiment. It was their success in
creating an American research university that caused Johns Hopkins to

. . . . 15
have resonance among other major un1vers1t1es.

l3Ibid., p. 70.

14Ibid., p. 7.
15Ibid., p. 8; Hugh Hawkins, Pioneer: A History of The Johns Hopkins

University 1874-1889 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1960),
pp. 3-93.

 

 

 

55

The foremost objective of Johns Hopkins was not to promote research
per se, but to provide advanced instruction of a standard comparable to
that being set in Germany. Graduate education, in fact, dominated the
university from the outset. Until 1890, graduate students outnumbered
undergraduates by a wide margin, and the majority of Hopkins A.B.‘s
actually remained at the school for some graduate work. Hopkins
consequently gave an impetus to American graduate education and did much
to standardize the American Ph.D. at a credibly high level. Hopkins
produced more Ph.D.‘s during the 1870's and 1880's than Harvard and Yale
combined. By the 1890's these made—in—America scholars were carrying
the Hopkins spirit into all the major universities of the country.
Graduate education entails research, however, and Hopkins far more than
any other contemporary American university actively encouraged original
investigations by its faculty. Here, too, the contribution of the
university was something more than the sum of the works of its
distinguished faculty. The scholars at Hopkins aggressively seized
vanguard positions in their respective disciplines, particularly through
the organization of scholarly journals. Five of the six original
departments at Hopkins sponsored such journals, several of which became
the central organ of their discipline. Other periodicals followed,
wholly or partly lodged at the university. These publications in turn
played an indispensable role in the emergence of academic
disciplines.16

Perhaps most important, Johns Hopkins enlarged the range of
possibilities in American higher education; and by doing so also

enlarged the consciousness of educators to include a concrete university
l6Ibid., pp. 21-25, 107-13, 122—24, 238-43.

 

 

56

research role. This was evident most clearly and most significantly in
the case of President Charles Eliot of Harvard. Viewing higher
education originally from the single perspective of Harvard College, he
had said that a German—style university would suit Harvard freshmen
“about as well as a barnyard would suit a whale."17 When consulted
before the founding of Hopkins, Eliot could not conceive of graduate
education except in the Harvard mold —- as an appendage to an
established undergraduate college that served a well—defined
geographical constituency.18 The reality of Johns Hopkins changed
perceptions and priorities alike. Eliot could hardly ignore the fact
that at least five Harvard faculty’menmers had seriously considered, but
ultimately declined, offers to join the new university. The challenge
posed by Hopkins quickly acted as a stimulus for encouraging research
and graduate education at Harvard.19 Johns Hopkins set the standard
for a research university during the 1880's, but by the end of that
decade its ideals were shared to a significant degree by several other
major universities. A system of American universities was taking
shape.26

When the complex trends just sketched are reduced to their bare
essentials, it can be seen that the natural sciences attained a foothold
in American higher education around the 1850's, that utilitarian

objectives became institutionalized in the 1860's, and that

17Geiger, op. cit., p. 8.
18Hugh Hawkins, "Three University Presidents Testify," American
Quarterly II (1959), pp. 99—119.

19Hawkins, op.cit., pp. 38—62.

2gLawrence Veysey, The Emergence of the American University (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1979).

 

57
research-based graduate training became a permanent component in the
1870's. Once established, each of these trends developed according to
its own internal logic and momentum. Being substantially interrelated,
they powerfully reinforced one another once they were in place. As they
overcame the status of innovations, they also ceased to be separable
elements in the higher—education complex.

The creation of new and/or enlargement of existing universities
considerably increased the density of the university network. Mere
frequent and numerous points of contact between institutions had the
incidental effect of heightening the sense of competition between
schools. This was above all competition for prestige —— a combination
of publicity, peer esteem, and pride. There was a rapid rise of
intercollegiate athletics during this period and this competition
assumed a ritualized, symbolic form, which tended to become an end in
itself. Behind the competition for prestige, however, lay a truly vital
endeavor to secure the resources necessary for growth and progress. For
the academic development of research universities, the most significant
competition was for researchrmunded faculty.

The "boom" of the 1890's had several beneficial effects upon the
academic profession. Young scholars with German or American Ph.D.‘s
could readily find positions in expanding faculties, and scholars with
distinguished reputations suddenly found themselves in demand at other
universities.21 The change was perceptible to President James B.

Angell of Michigan, who commented in 1892, "Whereas formerly it was

rather rare that a professor was called from one institution to another,

 

21Geiger, op.cit., p. 11.

58

now the custom is very general."22 There can be little doubt that one
major cause of this new competition was the creation first of Stanford;
and then, more significantly, of The University of Chicago. It is
instructive to compare the initial faculty recruitment of Johns Hopkins
with that of Chicago only sixteen years later. Of the six original
Hopkins professors, only Ira Remsen of Williams and Basil Gildersleeve
of Virginia were drawn from American professorships. However, The
University of Chicago opened in 1892 with a faculty of 120, including 5
faculty members enticed from Yale and 15 drawn from Clark University.
Hopkins was influential by the force of its example, but Chicago caused
an immediate turbulence in the academic marketplace.23

The academic boom did not wane after Stanford and Chicago had filled
their faculties, thanks to the numerous efforts of other institutions to
keep up with the spreading competition for academic prestige. After The
University of Chicago, none aimed higher or succeeded more brilliantly
than Columbia. Frederick Barnard, Columbia's longtime president
(1864—89), harbored a frequently articulated vision of the school's
greatness. He believed the American version of a university, would grow
naturally out of certain existing colleges. Columbia was uniquely
suited for this transition by virtue of its location in the nation's
largest and richest city.24 This prophecy was realized by his
successor, President Seth Low (1890-1901). A rather improbable figure
to become a university builder, Low was a retired businessman without a

The University of Michigan, President's Report, 1892, p. 22.

23Geiger, op. cit., p. 11.

24William F. Russell (ed.), "The Rise of the University: The Latter
Days of Columbia College," Annual Reports of Frederick A.P. Barnard (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1937), pp. 339-386.

 

59
firsthand involvement in academic affairs except as a trustee. Perhaps
for that reason he consulted his faculty extensively on assuming his
post. Apparently he listened, too, because he immediately committed
Columbia to goals that could hardly have been more congenial to
research—minded faculty. Given the attractiveness of New York City, Low
felt Columbia should seek out "the best man in the world" for any vacant
position. He also wanted to guarantee professors "the time in which to
make research," and he quickly took a major step in this direction by
establishing paid sabbatical leaves. Low was equally dedicated to
creating the facilities required for research: he personally
contributed more than $1 million to build the library that bears his
family name, and he concerned himself as well with the development of
its collections.25 Low's presidency is most remembered for the
reorganization of the disparate schools associated with Columbia into a
coherent university (officially renamed in 1896) and for the relocation
of the campus to Morningside Heights. However, he also fulfilled his

26 From just 34 professors

commitment to build a prestigious faculty.
in 1890, the faculty had grown to 134 by 1904. After the turn of the
century, Columbia had clearly attained a position as one of the
country's top research universities. At one time or another it was able

to claim the largest number of graduate and professional students, the

largest faculty, the second (after Harvard) most distinguished science

 

25Columbia University President's Report, 1890, p. 10; Munroe Smith
"The Development of the University," A History of Columbia Universi_ty
1754-1904 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1904), pp. 199—266.

26Joseph Dorfman, "The Department of Economics," in R. Gordon Hosie
et. al., A History of the Faculty of Political Science (Columbia
University Press, 1955) , pp. 176—177.

 

 

 

60
faculty, and the highest per—student instructional expenditures among
the large universities.27

The primary reliance upon ad hoc individual philanthropy succeeded
in the first two decades of the century in greatly augmenting the
research capacity of these research universities. In the midwestern
state universities, where this approach had less success, legislators
had at least partly recognized the need to support some university
research directly. In 1920, however, American universities faced
considerable demands on their existing resources. A near doubling of
price levels since the outbreak of werld war I had squeezed budgets
badly, and an enrollment explosion following the war greatly increased
their teaching responsibilities. Research by this date was no longer a
discretionary expenditure for this set of universities. Given the
trends just indicated, however, it appeared unlikely that existing forms
of research support could expand in step with the needs of science. In
the preceding thirty years the American research universities had
devised the basic organizational machinery to accommodate both teaching
and research; yet, as they entered the 1920's, the funds needed to drive
that machinery were by no means assured.

The experience of World war I, which had an emotional impact on the
citizenry of the beleaguered European combatants, had a more cerebral
significance for Americans who were far more fortunate in terms of its
duration and distance. Nevertheless, the physical and emotional
intensity of the American involvement accelerated the pace of social,
economic, and cultural change in American higher education. The
exigencies of war jarred individuals out of the trajectories of their

27Edwin E. Slossin, Great American Universities (New York: MacMillan
1910), PP. 473, 474-85.

 

 

 

61
anticipated life patterns, caused institutions to accept hitherto
unimaginable arrangements, and spawned new organizations for previously
unforeseen purposes. In the span of less than two years, individuals
and institutions alike were subject to a richness and variety of
experience that profoundly affected their perceptions and
interpretations of the world in which they lived. In the longer temm,
however, the novelties and innovations of wartime had consequences that
could not be predicted. Many of the specific agencies of the war
‘mObilization were quickly deflated after the anmistice. However, other
wartime arrangements provided powerful precedents that persisted in the
postwar world. These reactions were evident in the impact of the war on
American universities. Wbrld war I induced a period of extraordinarily
rapid technological development, but of more significance for American
science was an even more rapid transformation in the general perception
of science. To scientists, educators, statesmen, and the lay public,
the role of research in winning the war symbolized the marriage of pure
and applied science. Applied industrial research had already taken root
before the outbreak of hostilities.

The mObilization of American science during world war I, had the
enduring effect of bringing industry, foundations, and universities into
closer cooperation; and of consecrating the direction of science policy
to a private elite that represented the leadership of those
institutions. The last stage of the war for the universities came in
1918, when the war Department essentially accepted the universities'
many offers to make use of their facilities. Campuses were nationalized
almost as completely as the railroads had been in order to provide
training grounds for the Students' Army'Training Corps (SATC). Thus,

colleges and universities attained a direct relevance to the war effort;

62

but at a considerable price. Several conditions combined to bring about
this situation. By the end of the 1917—18 school year, colleges and
universities in general were in an increasingly desperate position.
Enrolhnents were depleted by enlistments, and faculties were thinned by
wartime service. The shortfall in revenues caused by the loss of
students had put most institutional budgets far in the red.
Furthermore, the emotional preoccupation with the war undermined those
academic pursuits that still remained. At the same thne, the war
Department, having processed and assimilated the initial flood of
volunteers, needed a more efficient manpower policy. In the spring of
1918, it began signing contracts with colleges and universities to house
the training of technical military units. At the same time, it
announced a reorganization of campus—based training into the Students'
Army Training Corps. According to the original formula, able—bodied
male students were to enlist in the Army and then be placed in a special
status while they attended college and received on—campus military
training. They were to go on active duty as soon as they either
graduated or reached the draft age of twenty—one. The scare fran the
final German offensive in the sunner of 1918, however, prompted a
lowering of the draft age to eighteen. If directly implemented, this
policy would have simply shut down most of American higher education,
while also cutting off the future supply of officers and technical
experts. To avert these contingencies, the SATC was completely
reformulated from the start of the fall semester.

In 1919, when American colleges and universities reopened under
something like normal conditions for the first tflne in three years,
observers of the campus scene were struck by a significant developnent:

there were far more students than anyone had expected. Contemporary

 

63
explanations for the increased popularity of going to college were ready
at hand. The SATC had brought to college many young men who had not
previously considered attending, and a significant number apparently
remained to pursue a regular course. One explanation was that the wartime
record of American colleges, had demonstrated the practical usefulness of
college training; and that the mature and sober—minded generation formed
by the war sought to capitalize on these opportunities. In fact, it
turned out that postwar students rejected the burning seriousness of
wartime campuses spontaneously and decisively. Also, the jump in
enrollment levels soon extended to those who had not been affected by the
war. The rapid rise in higher-education enrolhnents continued into the
middle of the 1920's before finally tapering off.

By the thne of WCrld war II, federal grants had become a significant
part of the university research system. Under pressure of the wartime
emergency, washington began to contract for massive amounts of university
research. In 1943-44 the university contracts let by the Office of
Scientific Research and Developnent were approxhnately triple the level of
all prewar university scientific research.

By the first decade of the twentieth century, the country's leading
universities had by and large embraced all of the major aims of higher
education that had been contested over the preceding half—century. They
now sought simultaneously and without a twinge of inconsistency to instill
both liberal culture and modern science, to pursue both disinterested
learning and practical knowledge, and to graduate bachelors of arts,
aspiring professionals, and doctors of philosophy. Administrators who
spoke for the institution as a whole grew adept at invoking whichever

university ideal best fit the occasion and the audience. Faculty and

 

64

students pursued their particular tasks largely oblivious to the other
facets of the enterprise. Thus, the twentieth—century research university
came to exist on the basis of the “patterned isolation of its component
parts."28

The division of the research university into a number of separate
schools was part of a larger process of gradual administrative
compartnentalization. The deans who were appointed to look after the
affairs of these units constituted the beginnings of a new administrative
layer between the president and the operating units of the institution.
Soon their reports began to be printed after the president's annual
report, thus reflecting this new reality. A more significant aspect of
this phenomenon was the growing role of academic departments in the main
schools of arts and sciences. Departments emerged in recognizable form in
the 1899's as university presidents increasingly relied on their faculties
to handle, among other things, the large annual turnover in junior—level
appointments. This led to a developing standardization in American
universities. In this regard, the founding of the Association of American
Universities in 190% is both a fitting symbol and a concrete enbodiment of
the emergence of twentieth century American research universities. The
conference call that led to the founding of the AAU listed three important
objectives: establishing greater uniformity in Ph.D. requirements,
achieving foreign recognition of the American doctorate, and bolstering
the standards of the weaker American universities. Thus, the creation of
the AAU was a declaration by the leading American universities of
independence and equality with regard to European universities; as well as

an endeavor to guarantee the value of their product against "cheaper“

65

foreign and domestic competition.29 The prestige of these fourteen
schools gave them great leverage over those developing institutions that
wished to join this exclusive club.30

As a standardizing agency, the AAU first tended to regularize
practices among current and potential members, but it soon extended its
influence over American higher education in general. The initial annual
meetings focused rather narrowly on issues relating to graduate degrees,
but occasionally they broached fundamental questions like the amount of
undergraduate education that should be required for entry into
professional schools. It was easier for the members to agree on such
practical matters as the publishing of doctoral dissertations, than on
the latter type of issue. The AAU nevertheless provided a valuable
forum where views could be aired, a consensus formed, and arguments
garnered for later use at home. The presidents and deans who
represented their universities at AAU meetings knew well the realities
of American higher education, yet they consistently advocated a general
strengthening of academic standards. This viewpoint became all the more
important when the AAU was thrust into the role of an accrediting
agency. As a result of a request from the University of Berlin, the AAU
began in 1913 to compile a list of American colleges and universities
whose graduates could be assumed to be ready for graduate study. Thus,

the AAU began to officially exercise the leadership role that the

 

29Association of American Universities, Journal of Proceedings and
Addresses (thereafter JAAU), 1901; veysey, op. cit., p. 131.; George
weisz, The Emergence of Modern Universities in France 1863-1914
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 260—263.

Mimi: 3, 19912 pp. 28—38.; JAAU 4, 1903, pp. 13—14.

 

66

research universities had clearly come to assume by the beginning of the
twentieth century.31

The position attained by the research universities signified the
existence of a new structure of American higher education. The success
of the university did not totally eclipse the American college, and may
well have been responsible for its indefinite survival either in
freestanding form or as a component of the university. The colleges
might still be recognized for the way in which they taught, but what
they taught would increasingly be determined by the universities.
Eventually, the highest achievement of the college would be to prepare
its students for postgraduate study in one of the research
universities. The strength in the new fabric of American higher
education was owing to both the institutional warp of the research
universities and the weave provided by the emerging academic
disciplines. Changes in the organization of knowledge in the United
States, in fact, were contemporary and coincident with the emergence of

. .. 32
univer51t1es.

 

31William K. Selden, "The Association of American Universities: An
Enigma in Higher Education," Graduate Journal VII (1968), pp. 199-209.

32Burton R. Clark (ed.), Perspectives on Higher Education: Eight
Disciplinary and Comparative Views (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1984).

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

THE IMPORTANCE OF MANAGEMENT IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Higher education has been a part of American life since the founding
of Harvard in 1636, but until recently access to college has been viewed
as a privilege rather than as a virtual necessity or a nearly
inalienable right. Until World War II, admissions requirements were
minimal or unknown in all but the most exclusive institutions, and
registration and records systems were designed for small numbers of

usually easily taught students. Educators have realized that some
selection and ranking of students is required to bring order to the
process, and a system is needed to match students with professors and
courses in ways that stimulate teaching and learning. College and
university presidents have learned that the business of recruiting and
admitting students, analyzing their curricular needs, establishing
schedules of classes to meet these needs, and recording the academic
progress of students requires expertise, dedication, and plain hard
work. Registrars and admissions officers are recognized as professional
educators. If the educational missions of seeking truth and
transmitting knowledge are to be met, academic institutions need not
only an educated faculty, reasonable classrocm facilities, and good
students -— but also adequate support services to admit, enroll, and
keep records for students. To do the job at hand, good admission

officers, registrars, and records administrators, who are knowledgeable

67

68

ard effective managers, must be selected and trained. Professional
resources must also be made available to them and to other
administrators to assist in this educational process.

As research universities grow in size, they begin to develop into
very large and complex institutions which look remarkably like large and
complex businesses. Of course, that is not all they are; but by the
measures of asset value, cash flow, size of staff, capital budget,
litigation volume, investment activity, and labor relations,
universities are indisputably big business practices.

It is essential that research universities understand how they are
perceived in political and policy arenas, and govern their individual
and collective actions accordingly.1 Before a research institution
begins to shape an academic strategy for itself, it should be sure that
it is well managed. It needs to tighten up before it tries to reach out
and move ahead. It needs to be certain it has adequate information on
which to base decisions. It needs to be sure that there is quality in
the teaching, research, and service it is currently providing. A
research institution also needs to have the best peOple it can possibly
get to carry out its intentions. No matter how devoted to strategy, no
university can succeed without adequate data; without high-quality
equipment, programs, and performance; and without talented dedicated
personnel.

Registrars within research universities of today and tomorrow need
to periodically take a step back and evaluate their place within their
institution's total structure. This involves not just focusing on who
reports to when, but also on what purpose they are serving and what work

lGeorge Keller, Academic Strategy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1983), pp. 122-124.

 

 

69
must be done within the system to achieve their goals. Just as the

colleges and universities are beginning to apply strategic planning as a
management tactic to the business they are in; registrars need to follow
suit by creating their own personal mission, goals, and objectives.
George Keller adds to this issue in his book, Academic Strategy, The
Management Revolution in American Higher Education, "What academic
leaders using a management style are doing is turning to private plans
based on data, explicit objectives, and rational strategies. Planning
converts the implicit, inarticulate, and private into explicit,
articulate, and public. It brings decision-making out of the

closet."2 In other words, registrars who can combine their own

personal mission and objectives concerning management skills with that
of their institutions can begin to direct an effective analysis of their
role; and work toward a well-managed and guided institution of higher
education.

Just as a university and its administrators can be plodding and
contentious, they can be ambitious beyond their means or capability.
Although, before presidents, registrars, admissions officers, etc.
invest enormous amounts of time developing complex strategic plans; it
would be wise for them to concentrate on good management. College and
university management as a peculiar activity has elements of business,
political, and even military management. What George Keller calls
"management" in higher education actually has four main camponents, and
management unfortunately is also one of the components. The four parts
cannot be neatly separated, but they are somewhat distinct:3

21bid.

31bid.

 

 

70
Administration. In the United States college presidents and

 

their aides are known as "the administration." They are
expected to minister to the needs of the faculty and students,
providing scientific equipment, residence halls, records of
students' progress, sports and recreation programs, paychecks
for the faculty and staff, and a suitable library, for
example. Raising funds is part of administration; so is
getting the mail in and out.

Administration is the provisioning and coordinating of
activities for the principals of the campus: the professors,
key staff, and students. Because it is vitally important, all
presidents or Chancellors spend at least half their time on
administration; some spend nine-tenths. Institutions are
frequently regarded as "good" if their administration is
excellent: things run smoothly; the horticulture and buildings
are attractive; the admissions program is aggressive but
high-toned; the faculty are energetic, dutiful, and
approachable; the library is well organized and the staff is
helpful; the courses are well scheduled; the alumni program is
first—rate; faculty complaints or suggestions are handled
promptly, courteously, and appreciatively. Well-administered

places are seen as efficient campuses, where limited funds are

.spent with maximum effect and with a taste and manner befitting

a university that espouses the best in thought, art, and
sensibility.
Campuses can take a great leap forward by doing nothing

more than improving the administration of their current

 

 

 

71
operations. One genius at administration was Henry Wriston,

the president of Lawrence College and then Brown University.
His taste, devotion to quality, and concern for people led him
to pay close attention to everything from the quality of food
in the student cafeteria to the chemistry department's latest

request for new equipment. His book Academic Procession is a

 

valuable collection of sage advice to college administrators.
Wkiston believed, "Nothing that touches the life of a faculty
member or a student should be alien to the interest or thought
of the president... Good administration facilitates good
education."4

2. Management. It is not enough to see that the academic machine

 

is well oiled, synchronized, and responsive -- because the
world changes as we walk on it. New threats arise. New
opportunities for growth or funding appear. Advances in
technology compel changes in information handling and
delivery. Society becomes more scientific, religious, or
rebellious. Governments become more friendly, or more
suspicious toward higher learning. Departments stumble
downhill in quality and programs become outmoded. New
competition elbows in, pulling in a portion of an institution's
students. Students plead for relevance and courses that are
useful; parents and employers then demand a return to basics
and courses that teach young persons to write, think, speak,

and calculate well .

 

4Henry Wriston, Academic Procession (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1959), p. 151.

 

72

A university president, therefore, must also be a manager
of change; a navigator who steers his or her institution
through the treacherous channels of constant transformation.

He or she needs to ask about each program every year: "Is this
still worth doing?"; "What should we be doing now about higher
education's likely developments?"; "What about tomorrow's
academic necessities, as well as today's leaky faucets?"

While administration sees that things are done right,
‘management sees that the right things are done. While
administration seeks for efficiency in the present structure,
management strives for effectiveness through an improved
structure. The president, administrative officers, and the
deans must foresee the future and the best of the new in order
to direct the organization, in cooperation with leading faculty
members. Management is the entrepreneurial element. It works
to make things better and appropriately different. It seeks to
raise productivity and keep the university at the cutting edge
of new knowledge and new forms and content of academic
service.5

Most important of all, the president must give direction
to the college and devise the strategies, make the hard
decisions, and allocate the resources that will support
movement in that direction. As support for the direction, the
president Should play a direct part in selecting the key people
for the institution and monitoring the performance of the

various units. Naturally, this cannot be done alone.

 

5

Keller, loc. cit.

73 -
In an organization comprised of many highly educated

professionals with considerable expertise of their own, the
president needs to encourage and help develop management skills
throughout the institution, strengthen the deans and
departmental Chairpersons, registrar and admissions officers;
and help each professional be his or her own planner and
innovator. As one study found, "Innovative organizations are
those which have mechanisms to infuse and stimulate ideas."6
For registrars, this can be enhanced through the AAU Registrars
and AACRAO. This involves keeping abreast through literature,
visiting lecturers, conferences, and special trips. It means
periodic retreats to evaluate, plan, and agree on strategies.
It means encouragement for a rapid flow of ideas up and down
the organization. The Office of the Registrar plays an active
role in faculty and administrative relations. In academically
strong universities, the faculty and administrators will
usually be innovative and entrepreneurial. In weaker
institutions, presidential coaching is imperative.

Management is the most neglected part of the contemporary
college and university administration. Departmental
Chairpersons have a special difficulty with management because
they often believe they are spokespersons for their colleagues
in the department to the deans and "upstairs;" rather than
managers of their departments' futures, innovativeness, and
quality. Although the picture is changing fast, few

administrative officers spend enough time on this part of their

 

6

Michael Aiken, Jerald Hage, "The Organic Organization and

Innovation," ociolggy V, (January 1971) , p. 80.

74
task; and some spend almost none. One business executive told

Dartmouth's James Brian Quinn, "If I'm not two or three years
ahead of my organization, I'm not doing my job; " and others
agreed.7 More administrative officers need to think like
that and double or triple their attention and energy to
managing the organization‘s future.

Some observers contend that every campus president has his
or fer own interests and style, and must be allowed to pursue
his or her particular agenda. Therefore, if some campus leader
wants to administer and govern, but not manage or lead; that is
up to him or her. This is very dangerous thinking, for it
contends that stagnation and drift are acceptable in a time of
turbulent external change; it implies that the future will take
care of itself; and it suggests that quality education and
long-term excellence are reached by serendipity. Presidents
should, and do, stress those components of their position that
fit their experience, interests, and temperaments. However,
they cannot afford to neglect any of the four parts, least of
all management, without damaging the institution. Peter
Drucker believes that "managing the service institution is
likely to be the frontier of management for the rest of this
century."8 Managing a university is certainly difficult

work; and it is still a developing frontier for which the exact

 

7James Brian Quinn, "Managing Strategic Change," Sloan Management
Review XXI, (Summer 1980), p. 5.

 

8Peter Drucker, Management-i Tasks and Responsibilities (New York:
Harper and Row, 1974), p. 10.

 

75
patterns are yet being created. It is a task that no president

can evade with the weak contention that it does not fit his or
her personality.

3. Leadership. At any college or university, spirits can sag. At
some campuses the mood is one of tiredness and complaint. As
investigators have reminded us, people and organizations tend
to run down. Presidents tend to wear out too. Henry Wriston
claims, "Boredom is the bane of administration... I have known
more presidents to suffer from that administrative disease than
any other."9 Duty replaces entrepreneurship; mere routine
seems acceptable. So every institution needs a continuous
stream of leadership to refresh itself, to remind itself of its
goals and expressed intentions.

A president should supply the emotional injections that
jolt faculty, students, and staff out of their tendencies to
coast. He or she needs to hold out visions of potentialities
and worthy objectives that motivate others to perform beyond
the ordinary. Leadership is the poetic part of the
presidency. It sweeps listeners and participants up into the
nobility of intellectual and artistic adventures, and the
urgency of thinking and feeling deeply about the critical
issues of our time. Sometimes presidents do not quite have
it: trey are good administrators, managers, and governors of
their republics of scholars; but poor writers and speakers.
Maybe they had it early in their incumbencies, but have now

lost it. Then, an academic vice-president, the chairman of the

 

9Henry Wriston, Academic Procession (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1959), p. 132.

76 .
board, or a few devoted members of the faculty will need to
jump in to inject the spiritual force and reveal the dream in
people's pockets.

Professor Mark Van Doren of Columbia stimulated scholars
and furnished leadership for liberal education as others could
not.lg The University of Chicago's Robert Hutchins and
Lawrence Cremin of Columbia's Teachers College are known as
leaders; one almost spiritual about the great books and pure
contemplation, the other dazzlingly intellectual about the new
tasks of teaching and schools in an electronic age. A
particularly winning example is that of Howard Lowry, who, as
president of Ohio's Wooster College (1944-67) , year after year
through talks, baccalaureate speeches, articles, and addresses,
gave fresh meaning to the purposes of higher education in a
Christian setting.11 The Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, a
president for 30 years, has wedded moral values to intellect
for many at the University of Notre Dame. Recently Father
Hesburgh said, "Higher Education and every other enterprise
moves forward when there is good leadership; otherwise, it
stagnates. We need people with vision, elan, people who have
standards and a certain toughness. Of course, you need money.
But, if you have money and no vision, you just squander

it."12

 

lgMark Van Doren, Liberal Education (Beacon Press, 1943) .

llHoward Lowry, College Talks (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1972) .
lered Hechinger, "Hesburg Earned Respect the Hard Way," New York
Times, October 13, 1981.

 

77 _,
Leadership is that intangible ability to touch people's

nerve endings and cause them to act. It is what a university
president must provide, quietly or with fire in his or her
breath, if he is to dignify the enterprise, awaken and excite
the disparate faculty and staff into a united drive toward
excellence, and defend the work of higher education with
intense loyalty against unknowing or unappreciative assailants.

Governance. One thing that distinguishes the management of a

 

college or university is that, unlike a business, military, or
religious organization, it is a republic of sorts. That is,
the faculty are political partners in the management of the
vital heart of the enterprise, its academic portion. Campuses
usually have faculty senates. Some have all-college or
all-university senates, which include students and staff.
These more inclusive bodies derive from the 1969's when there
was a passion for participatory democracy with direct rule by
"the people." However, a majority have already become
vestigial since their purpose approximates that of the
college's management -- but they lack an appropriate
administrative staff.

A president absolutely must consult with, seek advice
from, and be guided by his or her professors in anything
pertaining to academic matters. The president should consult
on matters that touch on the central teaching and research
activities -— from admissions policy to industrial grants for
the university. Just as a hospital administrator should not

make medical pol icy without counsel and approval from most of

78
the chief resident physicians, so a college president must seek

the concurrence of his or her professional colleagues. At the
same time, the president or the dean of a college must remember
that he or she is solely responsible for the quality of the
unit. So the final word in a contested policy is with the
president or dean, and in some cases with tie trustees.
Governance today is deceptive. The old faculty senates
are now ragged, poorly attended oratorical bodies in most
cases. At some campuses, senior scholars have been forming new
faculty councils to provide wiser, speedier consultation with
the president, provost, and deans than the more inclusive,
theatrical, and debate—oriented senates or all-college
assemblies. At a growing number of campuses, presideits have
recently forged a new kind of governance mechanism that
contains representatives of the faculty, administrators, and
perhaps students to help insure prompt deliberations and give

13 This new mechanism has

wise advice on important matters.
the special virtue of tying academic issues to finances and
long-range plans, rather than raising academic issues in
splendid theoretical isolation.

Campus management must somehow be tied to acceptable
governance procedures. A university is a quasi-political
body. Faculties have been known to vote, like parliaments,
without confidence in their president. The current trend is

for the balance of power to shift toward the president.

Faculties are becoming more interested in reviewing,

 

l3

Keller, op. cit., p. 127.

79
criticizing, and modifying policy than in making policy.

However in a knowledge organization where many faculty members
often have more expertise in some areas than their management,
the academic executives should not fail to share in some
locally appropriate way the major decisions about academic
matters.“

These four components of academic management are usually
interwoven. Academic executives on any campus need to keep each of the
four in mind, with special attention in the coming years to the most
neglected component: management.

With astute analysis and participatory discussion, each faculty and
its management can decide on an imaginative academic strategy for its
competitive future, adjusting it as new conditions arise.

The position of the registrar, as an administrative officer within a
research university, holds a major responsibility which includes
providing service to both the administrative arnd academic needs of the
institution. The registrar is expected to be a manager of
administrative duties. Registrars need to stay well informed concerning
present data within their office. They also must remain one step ahead
on issues of the office‘s concern so the president, when requesting, can
rely on the registrar's responses to be accurate and informative. The
registrar must adapt to and perform various managerial functions.
Registrars in major research universities must possess qualified skills
in dealing with enrollment management, registration management, on—line
management, and classroom space management. "Managerial effectiveness
is based on the application of an appropriate managerial style to a

14Ibid., p. 177.

 

8O

given situation."15

The registrar must wear a variety of managerial
hats, analyzing operations, making appropriate changes, while
maintaining service to the students as the number one priority.

The future will offer registrars new demands and realities that will
challenge and require them to reexamine their roles and styles as
‘managers. Communication skills will be an important aspect to the
future registrar. Communication involves university administrators whom
the registrar interacts with on a professional and transactional level;
and conmunicaton also involves subordinates within the registrar's own
office. "Good communication provokes thought; effective communication
skills are critical for all managers in promoting cooperation and
teamwork within the staff to ultimately provide better student
services."16 A registrar's administrative responsibility is to focus
on serving student needs, which is accomplished by managing and
'motivating personnel within the office to assist the students by using
all available fonms of technology present on the students' behalf. The
future will be a challenge for a registrar's leadership skills because
of the continuing evolvement of change in society, employee
expectations, complex systems, procedures, decreased budgets, and
changing attitudes. Managing for the registrar is not a passive, but an
active behavior with an Objective. The managing registrar must plan,
design, analyze, evaluate, coordinate, and facilitate. The registrar is
responsible for seeking and pursuing changes, while maintaining a

historical perspective of the past status arnd office.

 

ISSarah A. Haddad et. al., "New Management Techniques for the 1980's,"
College and Universi_ty. LV (Summer 1980) , pp. 363-364.

16mm.

 

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Tie Office of the Registrar in a major research university is, among
other matters, primarily concerned with information, quality, and
people. When one looks for an administrative process that will liberate
the potential existing in the future role of a university registrar, the

approach suggested by Dr. George Keller in his book Academic Strategy

 

delineates some possible guidelines for action}L

Dr. Keller writes that "It is important for key administrators to
have a superb grasp of the internal movements of their campus.
Improving the management information system is, therefore, an
indispensable step in improving the everyday operation of the campus; as
well as a requisite for strategic planning. Information about what
exactly is going on within a college or university is still
underdeveloped at numerous campuses."2 Though things are improving
fast, institutions of higher education ternd to be backward about
gathering useful information about themselves. Outsiders find this
peculiar given academia's thirst for data and knowledge.

Management information systems require decisions on what pieces of
data are vital for excellent decision making. A task force is a useful
approach to gathering such information.

1George Keller, Academic Strategy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1983) .

21bid. , pp. 131-132 .

 

 

.81

82
As for information about students, it is both superb and

astonishingly meager. What is superb are the data on characteristics,
abilities at entry, rates of dropout, financial help, and the like.
What is meager is the information in two areas: one is market research
and analysis of students; the other is that of student outcomes. Since
the main "product" of a college is the refined student who was once raw
talent, institutions should be collecting good statistics on what the

value-added achievements are.3

Conclusions

 

The four components of administration, management, leadership, and
governance need to be employed in order to elicit fresh efforts on these
items. In turn, improvements in information, quality, and people make
the execution of each of the four components easier. For example,
forward-looking management is easier with innovative scholars and an
enterprising staff; so is administration and governance. Furthermore,
the demands for prodding and urging action from leadership are lessened.

There are also political reasons to concentrate on information,
quality, and people before attempting the wrenching experience of
devising an academic strategy. Within strategic planning, planning and
implementation should be concurrent, not divorced. If they are done in
two entirely separate steps, plans tend to go unused by unconvinced or
wary officers. Planning should ooze out of meetings and encounters
almost unnoticed; and parts of any strategy should be championed by the
very people who will need to implement it. That is, a college's or
university's leading people need to be psychologically prepared for
faster change, for new ventures, for zesty initiatives, and should be

31bid.

 

83
involved in the creation of a strategy. The powerful centers of

political resistance to adaptation to new realities need to be
neutralized or, if possible, convinced of the urgency of altering their
attitudes. A consensus needs to be hammered out for a new kind of
forward movement so that the seeds of strategy fall on fertile soil.4

James Brian Quinn, in his book arnd articles summarizing how several
of the best corporate executives manage strategic change, reported that
they "artfully blernd formal analysis, behavioral techniques, arnd power
politics," and they "consciously and proactively move forward
incrementally."5 They set up good formal and informal networks to get
accurate information, not just the favorable data and news that their
aides tend to give out. They keep pressing for better quality, growth,
new approaches, arnd greater efficiency. They search for outstanding
persons, both within and outside, for their organizations.

In colleges and universities arournd the country, there is a similar
approach among the best academic leaders. They are careful to multiply
awareness through such devices as enrollment projections, technological
forecasts, and financial likelihoods in laying solid groundwork for more
concentrated planning efforts. Quinn observes that numerous people have
spoken of the "cognitive limits" to long-term planning. However, he
says, "Of equal importance are the process limits —- that is, the timing
and sequencing imperatives necessary to create awareness, build comfort
levels, develop consensus, and select and train people - that constrain

the system yet ultimately determine the decision itself ."6

41pm. , pp. 129-134.

5James Brian Quinn, "Strategies for Change" Logical Incrementalism

(Irwin, 1980) .

6James Brian Quinn, "Managing Strategic Change," Sloan Management
Review, XXI (Summer 1980), pp. 3-20.

 

 

 

84
Also, while strategic planning can be scoffed at, it is much more

difficult to argue against improvement in the existing operation.
Nearly everyone will agree that new financial, demographic, and
competitive factors require that every dollar be used more effectively;
that every unit operate with greater quality; that only the best people
be rewarded, promoted, or selected from outside; and that the
institution have thorough information about itself and the external
environment in order to pinpoint internal strengths and weaknesses and
alert people to emerging external conditions. Quinn found that among
strategically oriented corporate executives, "beginning moves often
appear as tactical adjustments in the enterprise's existing structure.
As such, they encounter little opposition."7 For the faculty, or
administrators it is especially awkward to take starnds against stronger
information about one's institution and societal trends, greater
quality, and better appointments.

A leading proponent for reform in this area is Alexander Astin of
U.C.L.A. To Astin, "A high-quality institution is one that knows about
its students... Further, the high-quality institution has a method for
gathering and disseminating this information, enabling it to make
appropriate adjustments in programs or policies When the student data
indicate that change or improvement is needed."8 In other words,
quality is equated here not with physical facilities or faculty
credentials; but rather with a continuing process of critical
self-examination that focuses on the institution's contribution to the

student's intellectual and personal development.
7

 

Keller, 10c. cit.; Quinn, Managing Strategic Change, p. 7.

 

8Alexander Astin, "Proposals for Change in College Administration,"
Maximizipg Leadership Effectiveness (ed.) Rita Scherrei (San Francisco:
Jossey—Bass, 1981), p. 162.

85
According to Astin, "Universities must monitor what they get paid to

do. It is irresponsible for an institution's faculty and administrators
not to know what the students are learning, what impact the college is
having, and what suggestions the students have for change."9 Astin,
incidentally, dissents on the direction of most current education
planning. In his view, "Planning should focus not on a more prestigious
faculty, new buildings, more money, or greater research, though these
are important, but on improvement of the education process for the

10

paying students." Astin says with enrollments going down and costs

up, he would invest in absolutely first-rate urndergraduate

learning . 11

He would concentrate on excellent student services,

superb teaching, arnd rigorous studies so that a college has a great
number of highly satisfied customers and a steady stream of superbly
trained young people. He believes that parents would love a place where
young students receive lots of attention and learn more than they

thought they could. Such a campus would have great word-of-mouth

advertising, and that is the best marketing and competitive

strategy. 12

Information. Central to any such campus is a careful monitoring of

 

student time, activities, and outcones for improved information about a
student ' 5 educational progress .

Three other areas for improved information are cross analyses of
educational data and cost data, trends about the environment outside the

institution, and facts about chief competitors. The first, cross

91bid.

10Ibid.

llIbid.

12Ibid.

 

86
analyses, is especially urgent, when there is a financial crunch.

Information such as per student costs per academic program is essential
for decision making. The need for better information about the
environment is also growing fast. Victor Baldridge believes that "Most
change in higher education today comes from external pressures and

shifts."13

He maintains that universities need to create an
information capability for the outside happenings affecting higher
education nearly as complete as their present institutional research
operations for internal affairs. Since much innovation at any college
is purloined from other colleges, he stresses that a campus should work
harder to get information on the best new additions at other comparable
institutions. Good information not only facilitates more rational
decision making; it also motivates toward more strategic decision
making.14

Quality. Promoting quality can also be stimulating. Although it
can be threatening to the less able and less productive faculty members
and administrators, raising quality at a university is a movement hard
to oppose. Thus, it is an area that academic arnd administrative
management can and should pursue.

Nearly everyone in higrer education agrees that academic and
administrative quality within a university will be of great concern in
the next decade or two. In a time of enrollment growth, access is the
key word; but in a time of enrollment decline, at least in the
traditional 18-to-22-year—old category, competition increases; and

schools that give great intellectual value and superior training for

their tuition will fare best. Quality throughout a college's operations
13

 

Keller, loc. cit.

14mid.

87
is, therefore, a condition of survival and a must for academic and

administrative management.

Administrative officers must assist the faculty with the task of
instilling quality throughout the institution. As an example, the
Office of the Registrar is at the center of various administrative and
student and faculty activities. Registrars must begin to monitor the
quality of their office's structure, service and employees. The quality
of the Registrar's Office can have a large affect on the institution's
quality. The Office of the Registrar many times is the only office on
campus where the faculty and administration must meet to complete
necessary institutional tasks; establishing and enforcing academic
programs, scheduling courses, and distributing grades. Strategic
planning within the office to improve the quality would include the
registrar's involvement by first asking how each category (structure,
service, and employees) can contribute to the institution's image? The
registrar's managerial responsibilities include identifying any areas
for improvement within the office: Are the students receiving the
personal, irndividual attention trey deserve when they are present in the
office? Are the employees who serve these students well informed of
office procedures and policies arnd familiar with the reason these
procedures and policies must be enforced? Are the employees satisfied
with their jobs? Does this satisfaction shine through when employees
encounter faculty, students, or the general public?

In this process of building new levels of excellence a tone is set,
aspirations are raised, and the foundations for strategy are laid. As
James Brian Quinn fournd: "Successful managers... build the seeds of
understanding, identity, and commitment into the very processes that

create their strategies. By the time the strategy begins to crystallize

88
pieces of it are already being implemented... Constantly integrating the

incremental processes of strategy formulation and implementation is the
central art of effective strategic management."15

To pursue quality, a president and the rest of administrative and
academic management should see that the entire institution speaks of
taste, care, and thought to a visitor or enrolled student. The signs
around the campus ought to be clear and handsome, not a hodgepodge of
bad typography. The admissions office must not have art reproductions
on the walls like those in cheap motels, hospital-green paint, and a
gum—chewing receptionist. A few departments cannot be allowed to remain
known as weak spots, offering "easy-grade" courses to keep enrollments
up. The alumni magazine ought to be first-rate. Henry Wriston once
said "Since nearly every undergraduate complains about the food, there
is no cheaper, more direct way to improve morale and gain good
word-of-mouth publicity than serving up exceptional food in attractive,
well-run dining halls - especially since friendships and romances often
bloom there and discussions of Hazlitt's prose, Brecht's dramas, Thomas
Sowell's economics, or the role of genes in human behavior take place
over bean sprouts or warm bagels."16

Quality cannot be imposed. It must be elicited. Lack of quality,
however, should be sternly dealt with. Universities need to concentrate
on work and results, and their quality. As Peter Drucker emphasizes for
executives, "relations must be task-focused rather than

personality—focused."17

 

15Quinn, Strategies for Change, p. 145.
16

 

Henry Wriston, Academic Procession, p. 151.

 

17Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Harper and Row,
1967) .

 

89

Two methods of eliciting quality have often proven especially
effective. One is incisive questioning. Managerial questioning needs
to show real curiosity. For instance, a registrar can meet with his or
her administrative support group and ask, "Wrnat are you doing about the
expected 10 percent drop in early registration? How are you handling
the swelling demand for 24 hour transcript turnover? Are you satisfied
with the performance of everyone on your staff? Is the Admissions
Office cooperatively working with the records department of the
office?" A great strategy involves the registrar asking for a short
paper in 30 days with proposed initiatives from his or her support
group, especially one that suggests steps the departments should be
taking to help the office maintain high efficiency concerning recording
procedures. In such encounters quality is raised, management improved,

and strategic thinking begun.18

Another effective method for

eliciting quality is through soliciting suggestions concerning
improvements aimed toward higher quality in all departments. Employees'
suggestions taken seriously forces them to think methodically about the
subject and discuss it; it lets them know you care for both quality and
their ideas about how to reach higher levels of performance. This is
becoming a more popular method because of its use in some Japanese
corporations where the entire staff is said to be encouraged to help the
management improve quality. The Japanese have made great leaps in
quality since the early 1950's when "Made in Japan" meant cheap arnd

shoddy. Charles Kepner, a management consultant, recently reported to a

group in Baltimore that in 1980 at the Toyota Motor Company 38,757

 

18Keller, Academic Strategy, p. 135.

 

90

employees made 859,039 suggestions, about 90 percent of which were

useful.19

One of the people who brought quality to Japanese industry is
W. Edwards Deming, a statistics professor from New York University.
There is a quality-control prize in Japan known as the Deming Award now
given annually to honor this prophet of quality. Deming says, "If
anybody needs quality control, it's the service industries -- including
universities. College presidents, like most executives, fail to see
that improving quality is their main business. We are in a new economic
era. Quality is the key to higher productivity because approximately 20
percent of the cost of things, from automobiles to college educations,
is a charge for waste."2‘a Deming's procedure is simplicity scrubbed:
"Locate the shortcomings or defects, scrutinize them, trace the sources
of the problem, make corrections, and then record the new results. So,
if the engineering students lack adequate mathematical skills, or if
alumni annual giving is very low..."21

Of course rewards help, both monetary arnd nonmonetary, as when
thoughtful notes are sent to faculty for articles published, or when
troubled students are made comfortable at registration. So do
nonthreatening teaching workshops for stale or dull instructors, and
dozens of other devices. Whatever the preferred methods, quality must

be attended to, both for good management and as preparation for

 

19Ibid. , p 135.

2{aRichard Miller, "Appraising Institutional Performance," Improving
Academic Management (eds.) Jedamus and Peterson, pp. 422-423.

21mm.

91

planning. The alternative may be a quality audit by the new state board
of higher education, which states like New York, Louisiana, and Illinois
have instituted.22

P3_OP_l_e. Andrew Carnegie is said to have ordered for his tombstone:
"Here lies a man who knew how to bring into his service men better than
he was himself." Every university search committee should have that
message in its packet of instructions. There is no more important task
than selecting people for positions at a college or university. Bright,
energetic, flexible men and women who care about ideas, research, and
the spread of culture and learning not only add immediately to the good
functioning of a campus; but they facilitate the task of institutional
transformation and renewal for the future. Such extraordinary persons
are less inclined to be defensive and argumentative about change, though
they are inclined to be slightly more territorial than those with less
of a domain of accomplishment to protect.

Presidents themselves must take a strong interest in all key
appointments; arnd the provost or academic vice-president must be
meticulous about tenure approvals and administrative appointments.
Though faculty departments make recommendations for promotion and
tenure, the evidence is overwhelming that, except in the exceptionally
well-disciplined departments, the professors are far too tender-hearted
toward their colleagues. They have little stomach for nonapprovals.
Many deans are almost as weak. The hurdle for tenure should be: Is

there anyone in the nation better qualified than this man or woman who

 

would be willing to teach at this level, at this institution? If there

 

ZZIbid.

92

is, tenure should not be granted. Decisions in academic administration
must be handled in such a manner: Will this decision help the college
or university? Does the administrative action being considered only
welcome bureaucratic tie-ups? This is tart medicine. A good college or
university should not be permitted to be a honefor the amiable, or an
employment bureau. Academic executives must care for people, but they
‘must care more for attaining and/or preserving a standard of quality of
academic life.23

President Cyert of Carnegie-Mellon says "One of a manager's most
important and ttme-consuming tasks is judging people. Like most
‘managers, I think I'm an excellent judge of other human beings. Yet I
estimate I haven't beaten random chance by much in my

appointments . "24

A decisive difference between the noted colleges and
universities arnd the less-noted ones is the attention they pay to the
selection of their people; from the landscaping chief, cooks, and
technicians to the art curator, resident poet, and chairman of the
physics department. While mediocre campuses have a faculty that reads
the best books arnd articles, the best campuses have a faculty that takes
pains to correspond with and get to know the scholars who produce
them.25
One of the most dramatic success stories in American higher

education is the rise of Stanford University between 1955 and 1975 to a

campus of world eminence. It is a fascinating story of daring,

 

23Keller, loc. cit.

24Ibid.

25Richard Cyert, "Does Theory Help?" wall Street Journal, April 7,
1980; Keller, loc. cit.

 

93
toughness, ingenuity, fund raising, great leadership (as late as 1967
Stanford had no faculty senate), a treasure hunt for good people, and
brilliant strategy.26 The strategy had three prongs. The largest and
central one was to recruit over several years 150 of America's finest
minds for Stanford. The second prong was a sequenced emphasis on first
those areas where Stanford had a comparative advantage (engineering and
physics); next the social studies; then the humanities, stressing
graduate work and the professional schools. The third prong was massive
fund raising to provide facilities, equipment, and attractive housing to
lure the talented scholars.

The genius in the drive under President wallace Sterling was Provost
Fred Terman, the former dean of engineering who not only inspired
"Silicon valley" and helped bring hundreds of millions of dollars in
federal research grants to Stanford; but also was a tenacious hunter and
recruiter of outstanding people for his deans and faculty. When a new
professor was being considered, Terman made exhaustive investigations.
He often visited the person's campus to examine his or her career and
work on the spot. He urged departments to make lists of the ablest
people in their fields and try to tell them about Stanford. As Terman
recalled in 1979, he had to "show our department heads how to recruit
faculty, and also graduate students. Sometimes the deans, too, did not
know how to get the best men... When I becare provost, few members of
the faculty had national reputations, nor was there anybody who was a
member of the National Academy of Sciences. Today there are 64 members

of the Academy."27

26Donald Stokes, "The Sterling Tough: How Stanford Became a world
Class University," Stanford Observer, November 1979, pp. 1, 3—4, 6-8.

27

 

 

Ibid., PP. 7-8.

94
With precise information; real quality in most parts of the

institution; and a nucleus of gifted, innovative people —- the work of
shaping an academic strategy can begin.

According to Keller, there are six features that distinguish
strategic planning from such predecessors as systems analysis,
incrementalism, management science, long-range planning, and doing what
you have always done.28

1. Academic strategic decision making means that a college, school,

or university and its leaders are active rather than passive about their

position in history. To be strategic is to take positive, vigorous

 

steps.

Colleges tend to be extraordinarily docile before the forces that
affect them. There is little reason for this docility and perennial
grumbling except the dogma that institutions of higher learning do
better if they go unmanaged, muddle through incrementally, arnd remain
superciliously aloof but verbally persistent about public and private
support for their learned labors. Yet nearly all the finest colleges
and universities were actively pulled into eminence by vigorous
strategic leadership. Andrew White, Daniel Coit Gilman, and William
Rainey Harper aggressively designed new houses of learning at Cornell,
Johns Hopkins, and Chicago. Charles Eliot and Nicholas Murray Butler
tugged and shoved their classical, local colleges (Harvard and Columbia)
into the modern world of science, social science, and research —- and
attracted students nationally and internationally. Frank Aydelotte

lifted a little Quaker campus into a high—powered Swartl'more. John A.

 

28Keller, loc. cit.

95
Hannah transformed an aggie college into an important university -- and
at one time he had the second largest number of National Merit finalists
at Michigan State because of his opportunistic nationwide recruiting for
them. Herman wells lifted Indiana University close to the top ranks.

To think strategically is to look intensely at contemporary history
and the institution's position in it; and to work out a planning process
that actively confronts the historical movement, overcomes it, gets on
top of it, or seizes the opportunities latent in it. A campus with an
academic strategy has a battle plan to get stronger and better in the
teeth of historical conditions. It skillfully reads the face of history
(or to change disciplines, the ecological environment) and then devises
29

a scheme to survive in it and transcend it.

2. Strategic planning looks outward and is focused on keeping the

 

 

institution in step with the changing environment. This is strategic
planning's single most important contribution to organizational. decision
making. For decades most colleges and universities have been
inner-directed; formulating their aims on the bedrock of their own
religious commitments, traditions, faculty desires, and ambitions for
growth - and largely ignoring the world outside. The language in the
college catalogues still reflects that narcissism and disregard for
market conditions arnd external forces: "Jove College has since its
founding been devoted to..."; "You will be part of our distinguished
tradition that..."; "The unique mission of Buena State has never

wavered . "3G

 

291bid., p. 144.

3“1bid., p. 145.

96

But perhaps three-quarters of all change at most institutions of
higher learning is now triggered by outside factors such as directives
from the state board of higher education, an economic recession,
migration patterns, a change in the supply of gasoline, the wider use of
records and cassettes, a governor's change of politics, a new law from
waShington, a sweeping court decision about a major affirmative action
case, and the shifts in the job markets. The more aware institutions
have realized that, and have moved swiftly to improve their data
collection and monitoring of the society external to their campus
gates. They are becoming other-directed, to use the labels from David
Riesman's 1950 sociological study of our changing national character,
The Lonely Crowd. Colleges are switching from a self-assertion model of
their existence to a biological model of continuous adaptation to their
powerful, changing social environment.31

An academic strategy asserts that neither willfulness or
acquiescence to the fashions and temporary external conditions is an
appropriate courSe. Rather, a university's own directions and
Objectives need to be shaped in the light of the emerging national
situation and new external factors; as well as the perennial needs of
youth, truth, and intelligence. Because the external environment is in
constant flux; strategic planning must be continuous, pervasive, and
indigenous —- not a blueprint or the work of a planning officer, or a
one-time experiment at some mountain retreat. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote

in 1936, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold

 

BlDavid Riesman, On Higher Education: The Academic Enterprise in an
Era of Rising Student Consumerism (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980) .

97
two opposed ideas in the mirnd at the sate time, arnd still retain the
ability to function." While an institution's own hopes and the outside
forces of history are not exactly "opposed; " anyone planning
strategically for a college, school, or university needs to keep two
incongruous bodies of facts and ideas (internal aspirations and external
conditions) in mind at the same time and act to move the institution

ahead nonetheless . 32

3. Academic strategy making is competitive, recognizing that higher
education is subject to economic market conditions and to increasinglAI
strong competition. This is the most recently added, and least
developed, piece to academic strategy thinking. It will be a vitally
important one in the stringent period ahead, with too many colleges and
universities chasing a dwindling number of students. Military strategy
is, of course, competitive; with a specific enemy, potential enemies, or
unfriendly neighboring countries.33 The U. 8. business firms also
have to think competitively. Most politicians constantly think of
competitive ploys and short-range strategies.

Astonishingly, colleges and universities have until recently seldom
thought in competitive terms; except in obvious ways. Private or
independent colleges compete with public or state colleges. An old
state university may resent the rise of a second, new state-supported
university. However, a deep awareness of the market for higher

education or one's own market segment frequently has not been

 

32F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Crack Up, (ed.) Edmund Wilson (New
Directions Books, 1956) , p. 69.

33Carl von Clausewitz, On War (trans.) M. Howard and P. Paret,
(Princeton University Press, 1976) .

 

98
developed. State universities and colleges, for instance, have almost
totally ignored the spectacular multiplication of community colleges in
their areas as a new factor in the market.

This is surprising because if there is anything that distinguishes
American higher education from that of all other countries, it is the
vast number and variety of institutions of higher learning. As long ago
as 1870, there were more institutions in the United States awarding
bachelor's degrees, more law schools, and more medical schools than in
all of Europe combined.34 Ten years later, President Frederick
Barnard of Columbia worndered how Englarnd, with a population of 23
million, managed with only four degree-granting institutions; whereas
the state of Ohio, with a population of only three million, supported 37

colleges and universities.35

And Max Weber observed in 1909, after
his visit to America, "The constitution of American universities and
much else about them is affected by the fact that American universities,
to an even greater degree than the German, are institutions which
compete with each other."36 Yet, somehow, the little competition that
existed has been muted and is certainly non-strategic.

The reason the 3,100 American colleges, universities, schools,
seminaries, and institutes have not been strategically competitive until

the past few years is that the market for higher education has been

expanding almost uninterruptedly since the Civil War; even through the

 

34Burton Bledstein, The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class
and the Development of Higher Education in America, (Norton, 1976) ,
p. 33.

351bid.

36Max Weber, On Universitism (ed.) trans. Edward Shils (University of

Chicago Press, 1974) , p. 25.

99

depression of the 1930's. Abundance breeds magnanimity. It is scarcity
that draws out competition and combativeness. Now higher education
faces scarcity. The number of colleges closing is accelerating.

Between 1960 and 1969, 95 colleges closed; between 1970 and 1979, 135

colleges ended their lives.37

Therefore, it is logical that comparative advantage has suddenly
becote a major new interest in higher education. What strengths and
advantages over other colleges and universities do you possess that your
competition does not? Here is how Carnegie—Mellon president Richard

cyert explained it to the learned audience at an American Council on

Education workshop in October, 1981:};8

The planning unit must determine what its comparative
advantages are. Comparative advantage means comparative to other
departments, colleges, or universities with which that unit is
competing. We must face the fact that colleges and universities are
in a competitive market.

Comparative advantage may stem from a location. It may be
based on particular strengths in the organization that have
develOped over the years, or may be based on a particular person or
group of persons who have flourished at the institution. It may be
based on the historical traditions of the organization.

The point is that there are some elements which the school can
build on to create an organization that has, if not unique
characteristics, special characteristics that only a few can match.
The aim of strategic planning is to place the unit in a distinctive

position.
4. Strategic planning concentrates on decisions; not on documented
plans, analyses, forecasts, and goals. Strategic planning is

action-oriented. It constantly asks: What shall we do? How shall we

decide? Where do we put our attention and energy? It especially

 

37Digest for Educational Statistics, 1981, (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 1981) , p. 116.

38Keller, loc.cit.

100

emphasizes the allocation of resources, asking how Shall we decide how
to spend our money and employ our people, buildings, and equipment? It
has revived the Charles Hitch invention of the planning, programming,
and budget system, because PPBS so neatly links strategies, university
programs, and the operating and capital budgets. Strategic planning
spends on what it believes; and what it believes derives from the
academic strategy to advance the institution. Strategic planning is
pggplg acting decisively and roughly in concert to carry out a strategy
they have helped devise.39 Registrars especially must understand that
strategic planning concentrates on decisions and is action-oriented.
Neither systems analysis nor traditional long—range planning nor
management science nor incremental confusion is decision-oriented.
Rational analytical planning is keen on the right approach, the proper
concept, the factually rich analysis. However, the decision to
implement or to act upon the rational plan is left as a separate matter
for the more political decision makers. Incrementalism is keen on
reasonable compromises, on tradeoffs that provide the least acrimony.
It wants controversies resolved, differences lessened. It seeks
immediate harmony, not long—range excellence. It avoids decisions that
are consciously made and soretimes unpopular, but necessary for
long-term health or new levels of quality or prosperity.
Incrementalists prefer to "arrive at" a position; they tend to duck fnom
the hard choices. Strategic planning is:more surgical. After careful
analysis and discussion, and using experience and prognoses, strategists

decide to cut, amputate, graft, inflate, or strengthen with injections

 

39mm.

101

of new blood or vitamins. For strategists, the decision is the
thing.40

5. Stratgy making is a blend of rational and economic analysis,
political maneuvering, and psychological interplay. It is, therefore,
participatogy and highly tolerant of controvergy. Just as the finest
scholars blend facts, interviews, historical wisdom, comparative
analyses, insights, and bold speculation in their depictions of a
situation; so collegiate strategies combine computer modeling, favorable
and unpleasant facts, research, discussions among many people, market
and competitive analyses -- and large spoonfuls of ingenuity, judgment,
and daring to come up with a course for the institution's future.
Strategic action recognizes that human nature is a combination of
intellect, power plays, and emotions such as fear, envy, anger,
compassion, greed, and desire for purpose and meaning. So, it gathers
the best information and forecasts; struggles to overcome political
jealousies, inertia, and sabotage; and builds psychological awareness
and commitment. Unapologetically, it marries rationality and
artfulness, financial facts, and politics. Good timing is essential for
the sequencing of these; and fOr capitalizing on a sudden retirement or
death, a budget crisis, or a competitor's sharp decline in leadership or
quality.41

Because the politics and psychology are important, strategy making
‘must be participatory, though not in a wide—open way. Several colleges

have tried the Athenian forum approach, with disastrous results.

 

4“mid. , p. 148.

41Quinn, op. cit., pp. 3-20.

102

However, most of those with management responsibilities on campus need
to be part of the meetings and deliberations. Nor should strategy
making be done without an agenda or persistent pressure for decisions.
Factual background materials, environmental reports, forecasts, arnd
financial likelihoods are imperative to pull people away from their own
concerns, viewpoints, and emotional preferences toward the larger world
of historical, economics, and educational reality, and institutional
purpose. Executives can guide the discussions, and must keep pressing
for decisions that benefit the whole institution. Politically, most of
the key people need to be on board the strategy train when it leaves the
station. Participation is imperative. There need not be a full
consensus. To encourage participation in strategy formulation among
academic leaders, registrars and other administrative officers need to
have a high tolerance for argument arnd controversy. The innermost
feelings and wildest thoughts of principals should be permitted to slip
out. If the emphasis is clearly placed on facts, important concerns,
ideas, honest doubts, and imaginative initiatives -- and not on
personalities; everyone gradually realizes that it is the institution's
strategy and welfare that is the issue, not each other's reputations.
In his book Men Wrno Manage, Melville Dalton wrote, "Conflict is
typical... We are currently so busy hiding conflict that we quake when
we must simultaneously deal with it and pretend it doesn't exist." As
Dalton says, "Perpetual harmony is alien to all life," and, "Conflict
and cooperation are usually intermingled in all advances, especially in

democrac ies . "42

42Melville Dalton, Men Who Manage (Wiley, 1959) , pp. 263-264.

 

103
6. Strategic planning concentrates on the fate of the institution
above everything else. In Three Thousand Futures: The Next Wenty
Years in Higher Education, Clark Kerr and his staff discovered a

fascinating fact:

Taking as a starting point 1530, when the Lutheran Church was
founded, some 66 institutions that existed then still exist today in
the Western world in recognizable forms. (These are) the Catholic
Church, the Lutheran Church, the parliaments of Iceland and the Isle
of Man, and 62 universities. Universities in the past have been
remarkable for their historic continuity... and have come4put less
changed than almost any other segment of their societies.
Universities in Western Europe have had extraordinary staying
power. Many of America's earliest colleges are also still alive and
well. Colleges and universities clearly have won a special place in
'Western society as an indispensable institution, one worth guarding and
fighting for as one would a religion or a parliament. The changes
within those venerable institutions have been many and radical, but the
organizations of learning themselves have endured in recognizable form.
The great British observer of America, James Bryce, once remarked that
"a university should reflect the spirit of the times without yielding to
it."44 Institutions of higher learning have done just that, although
not always very promptly. The endurance of universities is truly a
remarkable fact about western civilization.

Strategic planning places the long-term vitality and excellence of a

college or university first. It cares about traditions, faculty

salaries, arnd programs in Greek, agriculture, and astrophysics.

 

43Clark Kerr, Three Thousand Futures: The Next Twenty Years in Higher

Education, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980).

44Keller, loc.cit.

 

104

However, it cares about institutional survival more, so that there will
be places for scholars of Greek, agriculture, and astrophysics to teach
and do their research. Scholars cannot easily hang their shingle out

like physicians or architects. They need a universitas. In medieval

 

times, universitas and societas meant a body of peOple operating as a
single person; both words were used to designate the medieval

guilds.45 Professors still need to unite as a universitas.

 

Surely there are colleges and universities that are marginal in
quality, or that should never have been started, or that have lost their
flavor and reason for being. Not every existing institution of higher
learning will, or should, survive the 1980's, or the twentieth century.
According to a 1981 study of the National Association of College and
University Business Officers, fewer than 50 of America's 3,100 colleges
ard universities have endowments of $100 million or more, and fewer than
200 have an endowment larger than $10 million. Nine out of ten
institutions in the United States, therefore, are precariously financed,
and many live at the brink of jeopardy and instant retrenchment. Yet
the older and the superior campuses deserve to live on. And America
needs a rich variety of higher education institutions to help preserve
pluralism arnd freedom of choice. Strategic planning attempts to keep an
eye on the long-run viability of these institutions. Since the
fundamental aim of strategic planning is a Darwinian one of linking the
forward direction of an organization with the movement of historical
forces in the environment, the two critical areas for analysis are one's

own organization and the environment. It is necessary to look inside

 

Z5John Baldwin, The Scholastic Culture of the Middle Ages, 1,000-l,300

(Heath, 1971), p. 22.

105

and outside. In short, you need to know what your college or university

can or cannot do, and what it wants to do.46

Recommendations

 

This study indicates that the mission and guidelines statement of
the Association of American Universities' Registrars has historical
purpose and is germane to providing understanding and direction to the
relationship between the registrar arnd his or her respective AAU
institution. The AAU Registrar Mission and Guidelines statement is
listed below:

A. That continuing efforts be directed to enhancing the
professional status of the registrar within a major
research university.

B. That the AAU Registrars should strive to implement the
Mission and Guideline Statement of the Association of
American Universities' Registrars within their respective
institutions .

C. That the AAU Registrars continue to engage in research
concerning the history and development of higher education
in AAU institutions as a means of better understanding and
forecasting the future.

D. That AAU Registrars should engage in a continuing
evaluation and research program on the effectiveness of
the relationship between a registrar and his or rer
respective institution based on the AAU Mission and

Guidel ines statement .

 

46Ibid., pp. 151-152.

106
E. That AAU Registrars seek to assist each other in

professional growth and development in AAU institutions,
including:

Scholarly stature;

Capacity for understanding the variety of functions
of the University;

Administrative experience;

Energetic leadership;

Understanding the University's role in society, and
society's influence on the University;

Sensitivity to the many groups that constitute the
University community;

Establishing priorities for links to the University
and administration;

Serving as an effective spokesperson for the
University, its mission and role in society, arnd
being a University advocate.

F. That AAU Registrars focus efforts on facilitating the
exchange and flow of administrative data, and academic
teaching, research, and service. This includes keeping
abreast of current technology and information systems.

Accordingly, it is recommended that:
I. The AAU Registrars actively pursue the development of their
conference with strict adherence to the above Mission and

Guidel ines statement .

II.

III.

IV.

Summary

II.

107
The AAU Registrars continue to engage in research about the
history and development of AAU institutions of higher education
as a means of better understanding and interpreting the future.
The AAU Registrars organize an "Exchange Program" whereby AAU
Registrars visit another AAU campus at least once per year to
learn and view the operating philosophy and management of
another AAU institution. It is intended that such an exdhange
of information and experiences would be of equal value to the
individuals concerned.
The AAU Registrars Should foster a continuing evaluation and
researCh program on the effectiveness of the relationship
between a registrar and his or her respective institution based

on the Mission arnd Guidelines statement.

The relationship between a registrar and his or her AAU
institution should be based on the Mission and Guidelines
statement of the Association of American Universities'
Registrars.

The history of the position of a university registrar and the
history of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admissions Officers provides professional focus and
direction to understanding the role of the registrar in a major

research university.

108
III. In the evolution of American higher education, American

research universities emerged as a distinctive type of
institution. It is important for Registrars to note and
understand the factors tending to make the research
universities alike, i.e., the separate organization of academic
disciplines having intellectual sovereignty over their
respective subjects. Likewise, it is equally important for
Registrars to note and understand the factors tending toward
diversity, i.e., the different ways in which the research
universities relate to American society to secure the financial
support upon which they depend. Reference was included in this
study to the place of research universities within the national
system of research institutions, and to the ways in which the
research universities developed their research capabilities in
the period prior to World War I. Next were the experiences of
research universities during World War I and the far-reaching
consequences that ensued. Clearly World War I hastened the
expansion and differentiation of American higher education; and
also produced a glorification of collegiate, as opposed to
university, ideals. Another legacy of World War I was a
national, privately funded university research system. Next,
the foundations assumed leadership in encouraging the expansion
of university research. Largely as a result of the foundation
efforts, the research universities matured greatly during the
course of the 1920's. In these developments within the

universities there evolved important changes in student

IV.

109
recruitment, faculty careers, and arrangements for research.
The great economic Depression then dealt the research
universities a painful blow, but their research efforts were
largely able to sustain the monentum acquired in the earlier
period. It became apparent, however, that the university
research system of the years between World War I and World War
11, based as it was upon private patronage, would no longer _
suffice. New and more ample sources of support were required
before the research universities would lead the next thrust
forward in the advancement of knowledge.
The components of administration, management, leadership, and
governance have been reviewed.

By definition, administration is an act of administering;
the management of an activity; an executive. In the United
States, college presidents and their aides are known as "the
administration." Ttey are expected to minister to the needs of
the faculty and students. Administration is the provisioning
and coordinating of activities for the principals of the
campus: the professors, key staff, and students.

Management is the act or art of managing; more or less the
skilled handling of an activity; the conducting or supervising
of an activity. While administration sees that things are done
right, management sees that the right things are done. While
administration seeks for efficiency in the present structure,
management strives for effectiveness through an improved

structure. Management is an entrepreneurial element. It works

 

116
tijake things better and appropriately different. It seeks to
raise productivity and keep the university at the cutting edge
of new knowledge and new forms and content of academic
service. Management is the most neglected part of the
contemporary college and university.

Leadership, by definition, is the position of a leader.
LeaderShip is that intangible ability to touch people's nerve
endings and cause them to act. It is what a university
president must provide, quietly or with fire in his or her
breath, if he/she is to dignify the enterprise, rouse the staff
into a united drive toward excellence, and defend the work of
higher education against unknowing or unappreciative
assailants.

Governance, by definition, is the act or process of
governing. The definition includes government, authority, a
system of governing. One thing that distinguishes the
management of a college of university is that, unlike a
business, military, or religious organization —- it is a
republic of sorts. That is, the faculty are political partners
in the management of the vital heart of the enterprise, its
academic portion. Administrative officers must consult with,
seek advice from, and be guided by professors in anything
pertaining to academic matters. Whatever the means, campus
management must be tied somehow to acceptable governance
procedures. A university is a quasi-political body. In

current trends, the balance of power is shifting toward the

 

VI.

111

administration. Faculties are becoming more interested in
reviewing, criticizing, and modifying policy -- than in making
policy.

Before planning, there is need for understanding the importance
of information, quality, and people. With precise information;
real quality in most parts of an institution; and a nucleus of
gifted, innovative people -- the work of shaping an academic
strategy can begin.

Shaping an acadenuc strategy has a direct bearing on the
ability of a registrar in a major research university in
implementing the mission and guidelines of the Association of
American Universities' Registrars; and the professional
objectives of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admissions Officers. The ability to shape an academic
strategy is vital: to the developmental efforts of a
registrar; for complete institutional perspective; and for the
‘maintenance of a dynamic and viable academic relationship
between a registrar and his or her respective research

university.

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

 

112

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES
MEMBER INSTITUTIONS BY STATE

ARIZONA
University of Arizona

CALIFORNIA

California Institute of Technology
Stanford University

University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, San Diego
University of Southern california

 

COLORADO
University of Colorado

CONNECTICUT
Yale University

 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Catholic University of America

 

gnpRIDA
University of Florida

ILLINOIS
Northwestern University
University of Chicago

University of Illinois

INDIANA
Indiana University
Purdue University

IOWA
Iowa State University
University of Iowa

KANSAS
University of Kansas

LOUISIANA
Tulane University

MARYLAND
The Johns Hopkins University
University of Maryland

MASSACHUSETTS

Brandeis University

Clark University

Harvard University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

MICHIGAN
Michigan State University
University of Michigan

MINNESOTA
University of Minnesota

MISSOURI
University of Missouri
washington University

NEBRASKA
University of Nebraska

NEW JERSEY
Princeton University

 

 

we

Columbia University
Cornell University

New York University
Syracuse University
University of Rochester

NORTH CAROLINA
Duke University
University of North Carolina

 

OHIO

Case Western Reserve
University

Ohio State University

OREGON
University of Oregon

PENNSYLVANIA

Carnegie—Mellon University
Pennsylvania State University
University of Pittsburgh

 

RHODE ISLAND
Brown University

 

TENNESSEE
Vanderbilt University

TEXAS
Rice University
University of Texas

 

 

113
VIRGINIA

University of Virginia

WASH I NGTON
University of washington

 

WI SCONS I N
University of Wisconsin

CANADA
McGill University
University of Toronto

1900:

1904:

1908:

1909:

1916:

1917:

1918:

1923:

1926:

1929:

1933:

l.

N
o

QQO‘UWDW
O O

H
QKD
O

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.
17.

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.

25.

26.

27.
28.

29.

30.

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

Member Institutions in Order of Admission

University of
California, Berkeley
Catholic University of
America

University of Chicago
Clark University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Harvard University
The Johns Hopkins
University

University of Michigan
University of
Pennsylvania
Princeton University
Stanford University
University of
Wisconsin

Yale University

University of Virginia
University of Illinois
University of
Minnesota

University of Missouri
Indiana University
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Nebraska
Ohio State University

Northwestern
University

University of North
Carolina

washington University

McGill University
University of Toronto

University of Texas

Brown University

1934:

32.

33.
34.

. 35.

1958:

1964:

1966:

1969:

1974:

1982:

1985:

36.
37.

38.
39.

40.
41.

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.

50.

51.

52.

53.
54.
55.
56.

California Institute
of Technology
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology

Duke University
University of
Rochester

New York University
Vanderbilt University
University of
Washington

Iowa State University
Pennsylvania State
University

Purdue University
Tulane University

Michigan State
University

University of Colorado
Syracuse University

Case western Reserve
University

University of Maryland
University of Oregon
University of Southern
California

University of
California-L05 Angeles
University of
PittSburgh

University of
California, San Diego
Carnegie—Mellon
University

University of Arizona
Brandeis University
University of Florida
Rice University

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ro'fiflob . .
«39.3.8 H 09533.1;
# l l
_ p
3.3... O y
. .I 23880..
.H 0"
_. _ .
r (lies. .7
_. ..
_ 9.2.23 "M
«Sn-«mg .I .ll/
m
..
. hwmxuumuflm... .
r 00000000 'OO'NQLO}

 

WZOEDktmze mmmsm:
mWF~WIw>~ZD 2 (0333 < to 20:. 300mm<

116

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

Founded in 1900 by the fourteen American universities that then
offered the Ph.D. degree, the Association of American Universities (AAU)
currently consists of fifty-four American and two Canadian universities

with strong programs of graduate and professional education and
scholarly research.

At this time, half of the members of AAU are public institutions,
half are private. A member institution is represented in the AAU by its
chief executive officer. The invitation of new members, which requires
the assent of three-fourths of the membership is considered every three
years. The last addition to the membership occurred in July, 1985, when
the Universities of Arizona and Florida, Brandeis University, and Rice
University were admitted.

The Association serves its member institutions through activities
designed to encourage timely consideration of major issues affecting the
quality of academic research and advanced education and to enable member
institutions to communicate more effectively with the federal
government. Through its biannual membership meetings, the AAU also
provides the opportunity for the chief executive officers of its
institutions to engage in both formal and informal discussions with
their colleagues.

AAU Committee Structure

The AAU is organized into an Executive Committee and, at present,
the following six standing committees: Arts arnd Humanities, Graduate
Education, Health and Biomedical Research, Research Libraries, Research
Management, and Science and Research. The regular committee structure

is augmented by ad hoc committees of presidents and Chancellors and
their staffs as needed.

Each AAU member normally serves on one of the standing
committees. Service on ad hoc conmittees is in addition to a member's
appointment to a standing conmittee. The chairs of the standing
committees are appointed by the Executive Committee to serve for two
years. Although there is no fixed period for standing committee
membership, members are given an opportunity once a year to request a
change to a different committee.

The AAU Executive Committee comprises the AAU Chairman, Vice
Chairnman, Past Chairman, five at-large members, and the AAU President.
The Executive Committee members are nominated by a nominating committee
and approved by a vote of the membership. The positions of AAU Chair,
Vice Chair, and Past Clnair carry one—year terms. Members-at-large serve
three-year terms. The AAU President heads the Washington-based staff of
the AAU and serves for a period determined by the Executive Committee.

”117
Association of American Universities
Page Two

The Executive Committee meets three times a year in addition to
the biannual membership meetings. The Cormittee is charged with
providing general oversight of the organization and functioning of the
Association. Major shifts in policy or structure of the Association
must receive an initial approval by the Executive Committee, although
final approval typically is reserved for tie full membership.

AAU Staff

The Association's office is at One Dupont Circle, N. W., Suite
730, Washington, D. C. 20036 (202/466-5030). Robert M. Rosenzweig
became the second President of the AAU in February 1983. The following
is the division of responsibilities among the six other members of the
professional staff.

John C. Crowley, Director of Federal Relations for Science
Research. His areas of responsibility include federal programs
for the support of research and advanced education in the
sciences. He works principally with the National Science
Foundation, the Department of Defense, related congressional
cotmittees, and serves as liaison with scientific organizations.
He is staff to the DOD-University Forum and manager of the
AAU/National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges/Council on Government Relations policy project on the
research instrumentation needs of universities.

Carol R. Scheman, Director of Federal Relations for Health and
Biomedical Research. Her areas of responsibility are federal
programs for the support of biomedical research and advanced
training in the health professions. She is the liaison to the
Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes
of Health, arnd the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health
Administration and related congressional committees. She is the
AAU staff to the AAU/American Council on Education/National
Association of State Universities and Land—Grant Colleges Joint
Committee on Health Policy arnd to the AAU Committee on Indirect
Cost Reimbursement.

John C. Vaughn, Senior Federal Relations Officer. He is
responsible for issues related to graduate education, research
libraries, and international studies. He works principally with
the Department of Education arnd the congressional committees with
jurisdiction over it. He also oversees the AAU project on
Graduate and Professional Education and is staff to the
Association of Graduate Schools (AGS) .

118
Association of American Universities
Page Three

Thomas Head, Senior Federal Relations Officer. His primary
responsibilities include tax policy, legislation affecting
research procurement, and civil liberties. He is responsible for
liaison with the National Endowment for the Humanities, the
Treasury Department, arnd the Environmental Protection Agency.

April L. Burke, Director of Clearinghouse on University-Industry
Relations In addition to fer responsibilities as Director of the
Clearinghouse, she monitors antitrust and Food arnd Drug
legislation, patent law, and small business issues.

All of the above assignments include coverage of legislative,
appropriations, and regulatory issues. Since there are, inevitably,
both overlap among and gaps between assignments, there is a high degree
of collaboration among the staff on issues.

The AAU staff work closely with governmental relations officers
of member institutions. The executive head of each AAU institution
assigns one or two of his or her staff to serve as the federal relations
liaison with the AAU Washington office. These individuals constitute
the Council on Federal Relations (CFR) , which is organized to provide a

source of technical expertise and to work with the AAU staff on federal
relations issues.

AAU Membership Meetings

The Association holds two membership meetings annually. The fall
membership meeting is conducted on a member campus; the spring meeting
is held in Washington, D. C. The agendas of the meetings typically
cover a broad range of educational issues of interest to the AAU
membership. ,

The membership meetings are open to AAU executive heads and
spouses. The typical meeting runs from Sunday evening through Tuesday
morning. The schedule of meetings is set at least two years in advance.

Finances and Expenses

The operation of the AAU Washington office, as well as some of
the general costs of the membership meetings, is financed by dues paid
by the member institutions.

119

Association of American Universities
Page Four

Affiliations

In its development of policy and in its federal relations
activities, the AAU often coordinates its activities with those of other
organizations. For issues related to graduate education, the AAU works
closely with the Association of Graduate Schools (AGS), comprising the
graduate deans of the AAU member institutions. The AGS meets once
annually, just prior to the fall membership meeting of the AAU.

The AAU is affiliated with other higher education associations
through two interassociational organizations.

(1) The AAU joins with the American Council on Education (ACE)
and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges (NASULGC) to form the Research Universities Network
(RUN), a federal relations network comprising the major research
universities in each of the fifty states. This network makes
possible prompt, coordinated action on federal issues affecting
the vitality of research universities. The RUN holds a one-day
annual meeting each winter following the release of the federal
budget and shorter meetings throughout the Congressional session.

(2) The Joint Committee on Health Policy comprises
representatives of AAU, ACE, NASULCII, and invited participants
from professional groups such as the American Association of
Medical Colleges and the Association of Academic Health Centers.
This committee, which meets three times a year, deals with the
full range of issues affecting biomedical research and health
professions education.

The AAU works with a wide range of other organizations on an ad hoc
basis.

International Education

The AAU sponsored a major report in international studies, Beyond
Growth: The Next Stage in Language and Area Studies by Richard
Lambert. It is a comprehensive analysis of the national capacity to
conduct research and advanced education in language and area studies.
AAU activities in international studies are now focused on
implementation of the recommendations of that report.

Along with other higher education associations, the AAU is
actively involved in international associations. The AAU organizes its
own exchanges with tie West German Rectors Conference and the Council of
Vice Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United
Kingdom.

120
Association of American Universities
Page Five

Communications

In addition to continual, informal communications, the AAU
President and staff regularly communicate with member institutions
through the Federal Relations Report. This newsletter, published
bimonthly when Congress is in session, is sent to the members of the
Council on Federal Relations (CFR) .

The Washington office is linked with many of the AAU campuses by
an electronic communications system. This network links computers on
member campuses with each other and with the AAU Washington office. The
Federal Relations Report and other AAU communications are distributed to
members of this network, providing federal relations officers with the
documents in a timely fashion. In addition, the system enables campus
officials arnd AAU staff to exchange drafts of documents which are being
jointly written. Information on the electronic communications system
can be obtained from Gregory A. Dobie, Information Services Manager, at
AAU (202/466-5030) .

August, 1985

APPENDIX B

ORGANIZATION MEETING FOR AAU REGISTRARS

WEST LAFAYETTE, INDIANA

NOVEMBER 16, 1986

121
Dinner Meeting With Big Ten and
University of Chicago Registrars

Purdue Room - Sheraton University Inn
west Lafayette, Indiana 6:30 p.m., 11-16-86

Jerald W. Dallam
University of Iowa
(319) 353-3058

William F. Fierke
University of Illinois
(217) 353-0210

Donald G. Gwinn (Margi Hughes, Associate Registrar will attend)
Northwestern University
(312) 491-5234

Horace C. King
Michigan State University
(517) 355-3330

Samuel R. Lewis
University of Minnesota
(612) 625-1530

R. Gerald Pugh
Indiana University
(812) 335-1775

Gene Schuster
Ohio State University
(614) 292-1556

Alfred A. Stuart
University of Michigan
(313) 763-4294

Betty M. Suddarth
Purdue University
(317) 494-4600

Maxine H. Sullivan
University of Chicago
(312) 753-1234

Don J. Wermers
University of Wisconsin
(608) 262-3964

 

122
Dinner Meeting with Big Ten and University of Chicago Registrars
Purdue Room - Sheraton University Inn
west Lafayette, Indiana 6:30 p.m. 11-16-86

Agenda

A. Mission: Continuing efforts to enhance the professional
status of the registrar in institutions of higher
education.

B. Suggestion: Because all of the Big Ten institutions and the

University of Chicago are members of the Association
of American Universities (AAU), that consideration

be given to organizing a conference of the AAU
registrars.

That the format for such a conference be flexible to
include seminars, panel discussions, lectures, etc.

That the conference be restricted to a single
representative from each of the fifty-six AAU
institutions.

That the role of the registrar in a complex research
university continue to be analyzed and compared to
the current and future roles.

That we seek to assist each other in professional
growth and development in our AAU institutions,
including:

. Scholarly stature;

. Capacity for understanding the variety of
functions of the University;

. Administrative experience;

. Energetic leadership;

. Understanding the University's role in
society, and society's influence on the
University;

. Sensitivity to the many groups that
constitute the University community;

. Establishing priorities for links to the
University and administration;

. Serving as an effective spokesperson for the
University, its mission and role in society,
and being a University advocate.

That we focus our efforts on facilitating the
exchange and flow of administrative data, and
academic teaching, research, and service. This
includes keeping abreast of current technology and
information systems.

.123
Dinner Meeting with Big Ten and University of Chicago Registrars,
11-16-86
Page 2

C. Planning Committee: That the registrars of the Big Ten and

University of Chicago organize as the planning
committee or board for a registrar's AAU
conference.

That the organization and fonmat of the
registrars of the AAU be held to a simple and
uncomplicated model .

D. Timing: That consideration be given to a national
meeting of the fifty-six AAU registrars in mid
or late February, 1987, and thereafter.

E. Discussion: ........

APPENDIX C

AAU REGISTRARS CONFERENCE

FEBRUARY 28 - MARCH 3, 1987

LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA

124
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

OIflCl OI “II. REGISTRAR LAST [ANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 “IN-IO“
ADMINISTRATION IUILDING

February 18, 1987

Dear Colleagues:

AAU Registrars Conference

Enclosed is the agenda that has been developed from the topics suggested.
As a first order of business wten we convene the conference, I would like
you to react to the agerda and decide on any adjustrents or modifications
- and then approve the agenda before we proceed. In a telephone
conference call yesterday with the planning committee it was suggested
that we consider dividing into special interest grows related to the
operational questions in order to achieve a more complete coverage of the
agenda. In reference to the organizational/management/philosopnical
topics, the items listed in the agenda are intended to be representative
-- with the opportunity to add to or adjust the direction of our
discussions as we proceed. Of course, this same flexibility should also
prevail in reference to the operational issues.

Also enclosed is a current roster of the registrants for the conference.
I look forward to seeing you at the end of this month.
Best personal wishes in the meantime.

sincerely,
Horace C. King

drd

Enclosures

USU is on ”far-utiw Anion/Equal Wort-nit, Insulation

 

125

1987 Conference of Association of American Universities' Registrars

Flaming Committee

 

Jerald W. Dallam
University of Iowa
(319) 335-0217

William F. Fierke
University of Illinois
(217) 333-2530

Donald G. Gwinn
Northwestern University
(312) 491-5234

Horace C. King
Michigan State University
(517) 355-3330

Samuel R. Lewis
University of Minnesota
(612) 625-1530

R. Gerald Pugh
Indiana University
(812) 335-1775

Gene Schuster
Ohio State University
(614) 292-1556

Alfred A. Stuart
University of Michigan
(313) 763-4294

Betty M. Suddarth
Purdue University
(317) 494-6133

Maxine H. Sullivan
University of Chicago
(312) 702-7880

Don J . Wermers
University of Wisconsin
(608) 262-3964

1.

2.

3.

126
1987 Conference of Association of American Universities' Registrars

Longboat Key Hilton Inn
Longboat Key, Florida

February 28 — March 3, 1987

A G E N D A

 

Some aspects of the history of the registrar.
William F. Fierke, University of Illinois

A comparison of the position of registrar with the registrars of
British and other Commonwealth institutions.

 

J. P. Schuller, McGill University

‘What is our primary role in our institutions -- and what is it likely
to become?

What is the role of the registrar in the area of institutional
studies and research?

Are we a support unit to the educational mission of our institution?

If so, why are many of us reporting through Student Affairs and not
Academic Affairs? Does it matter?

Teaching by registrars.
Organizational placement of registrars in AAU institutions.

Upgrading staff - starting with ourselves.
Professional and staff develOpment, and career preparation.
Preparation and training of future registrars.

Leadership through service.

Enhancing the professional status of the registrar.

Rdbert E. Cyphers, The Johns Hopkins University
Jerald W. Dallam, University of Iowa

Peter DeBlois, Syracuse University
William F. Fierke, University of Illinois
Gary Gibson, Vanderbilt University

Horace C. King, Michigan State University
R. Gerald Pugh, Indiana University

J. P. Schuller, McGill University

Eugene Schuster, Ohio State University
Alfred Stuart, The University of Michigan
Maxine Sullivan, The University of Chicago

AGENDA
Page 2 127

4.

New systems development.
Mainframe computer systems — and subsystems.

Decentralized college/department student data bases on
microcomputers. Access to data.

Uploading and downloading -- and related institutional policies and
procedures.

On—line and telephone registration -- and related applications.
Integrated and automated Student Information Systems.
Institutional practices and policies regarding
verification/certification requests. Electronic processing? Fee
assessed for these services?

Athletic certification and related topics.

Constructing/producing class schedules.

Electronic production of course bulletins.

Automated screduling of classrooms. Classroom utilization.

Faculty utilization.

Electronic audit trails. Quality controls in the Office of the
Registrar.

Electronically distributed grading.
Computer networks -- how are we going to use them?

Cooperative agreements -- such as electronic transcript
transmissions. Starndards.

Coordination of codes and systems within the university.

Smart Cards .

Samuel D. Conte, University of Pittsburgh

Peter DeBlois, Syracuse University

Gary Gibson, Vanderbilt University

Keith E. Ickes, Cornell University

Zeita Lobley, Columbia University

John P. McCarthy, The Catholic University of America
Howard D. Saperston, University of Southern California
Eugene Schuster, Ohio State University

John J. Smolen, Jr., University of Pennsylvania
William C. Spann, University of Maryland

Vernon Voyles, University of Florida

 

AGENDA
Page 3 128

5.

6.

Legal questions, and relationship with legal staff.

Jerald W. Dallam, University of Iowa
vernon VOyles, University of Florida

College Day programs.
Formula Funding.’
I B programs.
Enrollment Management.
Vernon Voyles, University of Florida

Guidelines governing privacy and release of student records, and unit
and individual responsibility for computer-based student data.

Adjusting to new information technology.

RelationShips with colleagues in the controller's office, financial
aids office, admissions office, data processing department, etc.

Institutional studies and research. CONFER network. Do we want to
report trends to the New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, etc.?

Strategies for communication with colleges and units in a large scale
institution.

Improving services in the Office of the Registrar to students,
executive officers, and academic colleges and units.

Robert E. Cyphers, The Johns Hopkins University
Jerald W. Dallam, University of Iowa

Peter DeBlois, Syracuse University
‘William F. Fierke, University of Illinois
Gary Gibson, vanderbilt University

Horace C. King, Michigan State University
R. Gerald Pugh, Indiana University

Eugene Schuster, Ohio State University
‘William C. Spann, University of Maryland
Alfred Stuart, The University of Michigan
Maxine Sullivan, The University of Chicago
Vernon VOyles, University of Florida

 

AGENDA
Page 4 129

8. Visiting registrar or exchange program.
Maxine Sullivan, The University of Chicago
9. Forms exchange and a survey of mainframe systems and subsystems.

Howard Saperston, University of Southern California
Maxine Sullivan, The University of Chicago

10. What grading policy is utilized when a student transfers between
schools with different policies?

John J. Smolen, Jr., University of Pennsylvania

APPENDIX D

130

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

0'30"”!!qu ”W0m0mm
WWW

Ditch 10, 1987

W

16: AAU Registrars
Pros: Horses C. Ring

subject: armory and State Report on 1987 Conference of
AAU Registrars

 

Attendance

A total of 38 registered for the conference held Pebrrnry 28 - March
3, 1987 at the Longboat Key Hilton in Florida, as follows:

Sunny L. now, U. of Calif.-Berkeley
William R. Locklear, U.C.L.A.

Inward U. Saperston, 0.8.6.

Byron 6. mm, U. of Colorado

John P. ItCarthy, The Catholic Univ. of America
L. Vernon Voyia, U. of Florida

Donald G. Gwinn, Northwestern Univ.
Maxine I-l. Sullivan, TI: Univ. of Onicago
William P. Fierke, U. of Illinois

R. Gerald Pugh, Indiana Univ.

Betty N. anddarth, Purdue Univ.

Fred c. Schlunz, Iowa State Univ.
Jerald N. Dalian, Univ. of Iowa

Earl D. Rstif", ‘mlans University
Robert 2. typhus, the Johns Hopkins 0.
Willie: C. Spam, U. of Maryland
Ronald P. Smith, HJJ‘.

Horace c. King, Mich. Stats 0.

Alfred A. Start, ‘Ihe Univ. of Mich.
Samuel R. Lewis, U. of Minnesota

Ted Pfeifer, U. of Nebraska
Zeita-Marion Lobley, Colmbia Univ.
Keith B. Ickes, Cornell University
Millicent A. (gaunt, New York Univ.
Peter B. DeBlois, Mme Univ.
Jerome D. Uiver', Univ. of Rochester -
Harry I. UeMik, mks university

David c. Lanier, U. of North Carolina

Continued on Page 2

mus-WWW“

131

AAU Registrars Memorandun Continued ---— Page 2

R. Eugene Schuster, Ohio State Univ.
Herb C‘rnereck, Univ. of Oregon

Richard Rainsberger, Carnegie-Mellon U.
Warren R. Haffner, Pennsylvania State U.
John J. Smolen, Jr., U. of Pennsylvania
Samuel D. Conte, U. of Pittsburgh

R. Gary Gibson, Vanderbilt University
Roger O. Printup, U. of Virginia

Donald J. Wermers, U. of Wisconsin

Jean Paul Schuller, McGill University

* Unable to attend Conference.

The invited Enrticipants. The intent in the identification of the
person invited frcm each of the AAU institutions is to focus on the
single person who comes closest to being administratively and
functionally responsible for the Office of the Registrar operations
on the main campus of an AAU institution. Thus, one person from each
institution was invited. The restricted size of no more than
fifty-six participants is intended to facilitate the
seminar/discussion format of the conference.

 

General Statanents

 

Listed below are a set of summary statements from the conference that
set the stage for the discussions:

- A major goal of the conference is social -— to get to know each
other. We want to feel comfortable in calling each other, in
working together -- and, in that sense, in helping our respective
universities.

- Reference was made to the Mission and Guidelines statement (copy
attached for those who could not attend this first conference)
that was included in the initial mailing on the conference. If
we generally agree with this statement, it follows that our goal is
to enhance the professional status of the Registrar's position. We
need to chart our future. We need to do our homework , be prepared,
get involved. We must be canpetent and have self-confidence.

- Are we withdrawing to ever-increasing narrower specialization, or

do we need to be broadening our interests and horizons? (The
discussion indicated the latter is important.)

Continued on Page 3

132
AAU Registrars Memorandum Continued -—- Page 3

We need to learn frcm our mistakes. We must becane seasoned. We
must become more effective at cannunicating.

We need to have an institutional view.

We need to train future Registrars. We need to understand and
interpret the future.

- We need to work within the systen to achieve our goals. One
interpretation of working within the system recognizes that we all
represent major research universities. Thus, research is a key.
Another key is scholarly stature.

Agenda Enclosed

 

For those who could not attend this first AAU Registrars' conference,
a copy of the agenda is enclosed for your information.

Summarj of Comments From the Discussions

A summary of comments from the discussions includes, but by no means
is limited to, the following:

- The majority of the Registrars present appeared to report through
academic affairs. It was stated that "we are an academic support
unit -- not a student life operation." Wherever the Registrar is
assigned for reporting within the organization, the Registrar is
well advised to develop and maintain a network with the academic
units and deans.

— The majority of the universities represented did not seem to have
institutional research offices. However, the discussion revealed
that institutional research as a function is handled in a variety
of ways including assignments to the Office of the Registrar, and
to the Office of Planning and Budgets. Also, reference was made to
Information Czars -- and sane admonished that Information Czars
frequently have too little knowledge, and they over-interpret a
limited set of data.

- Definitions were cited for administration, managenent, leadership,
and governance. Administration is the provisioning and
coordinating of activities for the principals of the campus.
Management is the entrepreneurial element that works to make things
better and appropriately different. Management is the most
neglected part of an administrator's role. Leadership is that
intangible ability to touch people's nerve endings and cause them
to act - to rouse the staff into a united drive toward excellence
and defend the work of higher education. In reference to

Continued on Page 4

133
AAU Registrars Memorandum Continued --- Page 4

governance, the university is a republic of sorts. The faculties
are politically partners in the management of the academic
enterprise. Whatever the means, campus management must be tied
somehow to acceptable governance procedures. Discussion followed:

- Administrative management is vitally important. Registrars have to
be ready to respond. Registrars need to take the initiative. We
lost grournd by our predecessors, but we do have a global view. We
have been straddlers. Leadership through service -- it is the only
way! Honesty -- tell it like it is. We manage history. We have
the perspective of history. What's it going to look like on an
academic record twenty years from now? We are engaged in the roots
of history, and we are constantly planting more roots. menty to
thirty years from now we hope that what we have done can be
verified. Registrars have a rich heritage. We are a nerve center
of the university; but we have stopped! Too many of us do not take
time to write. We need to write and publish. We need a little
PR. Get involved in the academic community. Teaching! Training
the next Registrar. Registrars need to move in and fill the
vacuum. If someone doesn't complain, you haven't gone too far.

- The Office of the Registrar provides data -- not information. It
was suggested that the Registrar should offer some conclusions of
data interpretations.

- Trend is toward centralization of recordkeeping based on federal
audits.

— We need to reduce layers of people between you and the person
writing the code.

- We need to come up with some broad standards for electronic
transcript transmissions -- and smart cards.

— There was a healthy discussion on transcripts. It was agreed that
we would exchange copies of our current transcripts with the other
AAU Registrars. Our sample transcript should be one that includes
a degree awarded.

- It was also agreed to exchange copies of our Schedule of Courses
publication.

- Al Stuart of The University of Michigan was asked to share
information about his electronic classroom scheduler as a follow—up
to the conference.

- There was a discussion about starting an annual profile

questionnaire of AAU institutions and the Office of the Registrar
including hardware investment and level of staffing.

Continued on Page 5

 

134

AAU Registrars Memorandum Continued —-- Page 5

‘ Committee Assignments

By the conclusion of the conference, the following committees had
been established for follow-through studies, prdbable reports spaced
throughout the year, and for next year's conference:

— Institutional Profile and Analysis - Peter B. DeBlois, Syracuse
University, Chairperson

- Standards for Electronic Transcripts and Smart Cards -— Keith E.
Ickes, Cornell University, Chairperson

- Optical Laser Disk Storage of Records, Replacing Microfilm --
Zeita-Marion Lobley, Columbia University, Chairperson

- Upgrading Staff Starting With Ourselves; Professional and Staff
Development, and Career Preparation; and Preparation and Training

of Future Registrars —- Alfred A. Stuart, The University of
Michigan, Chairperson

- Procedure Manuals -- Richard Rainsberger, Carnegie-Mellon
University, Chairperson

- Data Control; Guidelines Governing Privacy and Release of Student
Academic Records; and Unit and Individual Responsibility for
Computer-based Student Data -- Jean Paul Schuller, McGill
University, Chairperson

- Independent Institutions -- Robert E. Cyphers, The Johns Hopkins
University, Chairperson

- Software Application Information Exchange; Reports from
Institutions on Major Software Packages -- Roger O. Printup,
University of Virginia, Chairperson

— Experiences of What Works and Doesn't WOrk; Successes; Failures —-
William F. Fierke, University of Illinois, Chairperson

In addition,

- General Conference Program and Administrative Coordination --
Horace C. King, Michigan State University, Chairperson

- Conference Facilities and Logistical Arrangements -- R.Gerald Pugh,
Indiana University, Chairperson

Continued on Page 6

 

135
AAU Registrars Memorandum Continued --- Page 6

AAU Registrars' Network Communication
Each of us is requested to obtain an address for using BITNET. When
Peter DeBlois sends out his institutional questionnaire, your

personal BITNET address will be collected at that time.

BITNET Comment

 

Wnile it appears that BITNET offers the best short-term
communications medium for AAU Registrars, we probably should keep a
number of points in mind.

The growth of INTERNET will probably bring about the long-term
dissolution and absorption of BITNET. INTERNET has a much greater
survival potential. In addition, from a technical standpoint,
INTERNET offers greater speed and data capacity and will provide a
better medium when we begin to seriously contemplate transcript data
transmission.

 

Transcript transmission will require hard encryption at or preferably
beyond NSA standards. Neither BITNET nor INTERNET provides security
sufficient to allow transmission in clear at this time.

Future Plans

 

It was agreed to meet again next year -- basically the same time and
same place. The dates are February 26 through March 1, 1988. The
same two hotels on Longboat Key (Hilton and Holiday Inn) will be
used, arnd the Hilton will be the principal hotel for conducting the
meetings.

Conclusion

 

On behalf of the planning committee from the Big Ten Universities and
the University of Chicago, appreciation is expressed to all who
attended and participated in making this a significant conference.

Follow-up activities are underway —- and we hope that all fifty—six
AAU "Registrars" will actively participate.

Finally, my personal thanks to each of you for your active
participation in our joint project that we are undertaking. Please
feel free to contact me whenever you think I can be of assistance,
including clarifying this general conference report in those
instances where I garbled the message. My direct telephone line is
517, 355-3330; BITNET address that is to be operational within the
next few days is HCKING@MSU. ‘

Best personal wishes to each of you.

Enclosures

136

Mission and Guidelines of the Conference:

That continuing efforts be directed to enhancing the
professional status of the registrar in institutions of higher
education.

That the conference be restricted to a single registrar
representative from each of the fifty-six AAU institutions.

That the organization of the AAU Registrars be held to a simple
arri uncomplicated model .

That the role of the registrar in a complex research university
continue to be analyzed and compared to current and future
roles.

That AAU Registrars seek to assist each other in professional
growth and development in AAU institutions, including:

. Scholarly stature;

. Capacity for understanding the variety of functions
of the University;

. Administrative experience;

. Energetic leadership;

. Understanding the University's role in society, and
society's influence on the University;

. Sensitivity to the many groups that constitute the
University community;

. Establishing priorities for links to the University
and administration;

. Serving as an effective spokesperson for the
University, its mission arnd role in society, and
being a University advocate.

That AAU Registrars focus efforts on facilitating the exchange
and flow of administrative data, and academic teaching,
research, and service. This includes keeping abreast of
current technology and information systems.

137
3-18-87

The Association of American Universities' Registrars

University of Arizona
David Butler, Registrar
Tucson, Arizona 85721
(602) 621-5670

California Institute of Technology
Lyman G. Bonner, Registrar
Pasadena, california 91125

(213) 356-6354

Stanford University

Sally Mahoney, Associate Provost & Registrar
Old Union Building

Stanford, California 94305-1684

(415) 497-2031

 

University of California-Berkeley
Sunny L. Low, Associate Director
Office of Admissions and Records
120 Sproul Hall

Berkeley, California 94720

(415) 642-7008

University of California-Les Angeles
William R. Locklear, Director

Office of the Registrar

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, california 90024

(213) 825-9296

University of California-San Diego, Q-021

Ronald J. Bowker, Registrar & Admissions Officer
La Jolla, California 92093

(619) 534-3192

University of Southern California
Howard D. Saperston, Director

of Registration and Records
University Park - MC0912
Los Angeles, California 90089-0912
(213) 743-7483

University of Colorado at Boulder

Byron G. McCaLmon, Associate Vice
Chancellor for Academic Services

Regent Administrative Center 207, CB 20

Boulder, Colorado 80309-0020

(303) 492-5390

Yale University 138

John R. Meeske, Registrar, Yale College
Office of the Provost

1504A Yale Station

New Haven, Connecticut 06520

(203) 432-4461

The Catholic University of America
John P. McCarthy, Registrar

6 McMahon Hall

620 Michigan Avenue N. E.

Washington, District of Columbia 20064
(202) 635-5311

University of Florida

L. vernon VOyles, University Registrar
135 Tigert Hall

Gainesville, Florida 32611

(904) 392-1365

Northwestern University

Donald G. Gwinn, University Registrar
Rebecca Crown Center

Evanston, Illinois 60201

(312) 491-5234

The University of Chicago

Maxine H. Sullivan, University Registrar & Director
of Student Information Systems

5801 S Ellis-Administration 103

Chicago, Illinois 60637

(312) 702-7880

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
William F. Fierke, Registrar

10 Administration Bldg.

506 South Wright Street

Urbana, Illinois 61801

(217) 333-2530

Indiana University-Bloomington
R. Gerald Pugh, Registrar
Student Services Bldg. 200
Bloomington, Indiana 47405
(812) 335-1775

Purdue University

Betty M. Suddarth, Registrar
Office of the Registrar

Hovde Hall

west Lafayette, Indiana 47907
(317) 494-6133

 

139
Iowa State University
Fred C. Schlunz, Dean of Admissions
and Records
109 Beardshear Hall
Ames, Iowa 50011
(515) 294-6976

University of Iowa

Jerald W. Dallam, Registrar
Room 1, Jessup Hall

Iowa City, Iowa 52242
(319) 335-0217

University of Kansas

W. Wes Williams, Dean
of Educational Services
Strong Hall

Lawrence, Kansas 66045
(913) 864-4422

Tulane University

Earl D. Retif, University Registrar
Richardson Building, Rm. 210

New Orleans, Louisiana 70118

(504) 865-5231

The Johns Hopkins University
RObert E. Cyphers, Registrar

75 Garland Hall, Homewood Campus
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

(301) 338-8080

The University of Maryland-College Park
William C. Spann, Director, Records
and Registration

North Administration Bldg., Room 1118
College Park, Maryland 20742

(301) 454-4168

Brandeis University

Barbara H. Palmer, Acting University Registrar
Kutz Hall 125

‘Waltham, Massachusetts 02254

(617) 647-2123

Clark University

Gerard T. Corcoran, Registrar
'Wbrcester, Massachusetts 01610
(617) 793-7711

Harvard University

Margaret E. Law, Registrar
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-1546

140

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
David Wiley, Registrar

77 Massachusetts Avenue El9-341
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

(617) 253-4781

Michigan State University

Horace C. King, University Registrar
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1046
(517) 355-3330

The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Alfred A. Stuart, University Registrar
1524 LSA Building, Office of the Registrar
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1382

(313) 763-4294

University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Samuel R. Lewis, Registrar

231 Pillsbury Drive S.E.

150 Williamson Hall

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

(612) 625-1530

University of Missouri-Columbia

Gary Smith, Director of Admissions and Registrar
130 Jesse Hall

Columbia, Missouri 65211

(314) 882-7651

washington University
Acting Registrar

St. Louis, Missouri 63130
(314) 889-5985

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Ted Pfeifer, Director, Academic Services
and Registration and Records

129 Administration Building

Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0416

(402) 472-2025

Princeton University
Anthony Broh, Registrar
Princeton, New Jersey 08544
(609) 452-6191

Columbia University

Ms. Zeita-Marion LObley, University Registrar
208 Philosophy Hall

New York, New York 10027

(212) 280-3936

141

Cornell University

Keith E. Ickes, University Registrar
222 Day Hall

Ithaca, New York 14850

(607) 255-6218

New York University

Millicent A. LeCount, Registrar
100 washington Square East

New York, New York 10003

(212) 598-3573

Syracuse University

Peter B. DeBlois, University Registrar
103 Steele Hall

Syracuse, New York 13244-1120

(315) 423-1034

University of Rochester

Jerome D. Diver, University Registrar
and Director of Registration

129 Administration Building

Wilson Boulevard, River Campus

Rochester, New York 14627

(716) 275-5348

Duke University

Harry E. DeMik, Associate Registrar
103 Allen Building

Durham, North Carolina 27706

(919) 684-2813

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
David C. Lanier, University Registrar

104 Hanes Hall 019A

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

(919) 962-8291

Case western Reserve University

Frank T. Barreca, University Registrar
Cleveland, Ohio 44106

(216) 368-4318

Ohio State University-Columbus
R. Eugene Schuster, Registrar
1250 Lincoln Tower

1800 Cannon Drive

Columbus, Ohio 43210

(614) 292-1556

University of Oregon
Herb Cheredk, Registrar
Eugene, Oregon 97403
(503) 686-3267

142
Carnegie-Mellon University
Richard Rainsberger, University Registrar
5000 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
(412) 268-2007

Pennsylvania State University

warren R. Haffner, University Registrar
114 Shields Building

University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
(814) 863-1926

University of Pennsylvania

John J. Smolen, Jr., University Registrar
221 Franklin Building

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

(215) 898-6433

University of Pittsburgh
Samuel D. Conte, Registrar

220 Thackeray Hall

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260
(412) 624-7600

Brown University

Katherine P. Hall, Registrar
Providence, Rhode Island 02912
(401) 863-2244

vanderbilt University

R. Gary Gibson, University Registrar
242 Alexander Hall

Nashville, Tennessee 37240

(615) 322-7717

Rice University

James G. Williamson, Registrar
P.O. Box 1892

Houston, Texas 77001

(713) 527-4999

University of Texas at Austin
Albert K. Meerzo, Registrar
Austin, Texas 78712

(512) 471-3434

University of Virginia

Roger O. Printup, Registrar
P.O. Box 9009

Office of the Registrar
Carruthers Hall
Charlotteville, Virginia 22906
(804) 924-4122

University of Washington 143
W. W. Washburn, Executive Director
Admissions and Records

Seattle, Washington 98195

(206) 543-5537

University of Wisconsin-Madison
Donald J. Wermers, Registrar
750 University Avenue

130C Peterson Building

Madison, Wisconsin 53706

(608) 262-3964

McGill University

Jean Paul Schuller, Registrar,
Acting Dean of Admissions
James Administration Building
845 Sherbrooke St. W.
Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T5
Canada

(514) 392-5298

University of Toronto

D. W. Lang, Assistant Vice President
arnd University Registrar

315 Floor St. W.

Toronto, Ontario MSS 1A1

Canada

(416) 978-7116

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aiken, Michael and Jerald Hage. "The Organic Organization and
Innovation," ociolggy, V (January, 1981).

Association of American Universities, Journal of Proceedings and
Addresses (thereafter JAAU), 1901.

 

Astin, Alexander. "Proposals for Change in College Administration,"
Maximizing Leadership Effectiveness, Rita Scherrer (ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.

Axtell, James. "The Death of the Liberal Arts College," History of
Education Quarterly, 11 (1971).

 

 

Baldwin, John. The Scholastic Culture of the Middle Ages, 1000 to 1300.
Heath, 1971.

Beach, Mark. "Professional versus Professorial Control of Higher
Education," Educational Record, XLIX (1968) .

 

Ben—David, Joseph. Trends in American Higher Education. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1972.

BishOp, Morris. A History of Cornell. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1962.

Bledstein, Burton. The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and
The Development of Higher Education in America. Norton, 1976.

Bok, Derek. Beyond the Ivory Tower. cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1982.

Boyle, Dennis. Registrar, western Michigan University, letter to
Dr. Horace C. King, Registrar, MiChigan State University, May 20,
1987.

Burke, Colin B. American Collegiate Populations. NYU: Columbia
University Press, 1982.

Cattell, James (ed.). University Control. New York, 1913.

 

Clark, Burton R. The H_igher Education System: Academic Organization in
Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1983.

Columbia University. President's Report. 1890.

 

144

145

Committee on Code of Ethics, American Association of Collegiate
Registrars. "A Code of Ethics for Registrars," Proceedings of the

American Association of Collegiate Registrars, XIII National Meeting,
1925.

Conlin, Julie A. Personal interview with Dr. Horace C. King, Registrar,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, August 8, 1987.

Conner, J. Douglas. A Statement on the History and Responsibilities of
The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers. AACRAO Executive Director, One Dupont Circle, N. W., Suite
330, Washington, D. C. 20026.

Constance, C. L. (ed.) . Historical Review of the Association.
Washington, D. C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers, 1973.

Corson, J. J. The Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York:
McGraw—Hill, 1975.

Curti, Merle and Vernon Carstensen. The University of Wisconsin: A
History. Vol. II. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1949.

Cyert, Richard. "Does Theory Help?" Wall Street Journal, (April 7, 1980) .

Dalton, Melville. Men Who Manage. Wiley, 1959.

 

Dexter, F. B. The Library Diary of Ezra Stiles. Vol. I. New York:
Scribner's, 1901.

Digest for Educational Statistics, 1981. National Center for Educational
Statistics, 1981.

Dorfman, Joseph. "The Department of Economics," in R. Gordon Hoxie
et. al., A History of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia
Universi_ty. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.

 

Drucker, Peter. Management, Tasks and Regnonsibilities. New York:
Harper and Row, 1974.

Eliot, Charles W. University Administration. New York, 1908.

Executive Secretary's report to the membership at the 1967 Annual AACRAO
Meeting. Collge and University, XLII (1967).

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Crack U). Edmund Wilson (ed.) . New
Directions Books, 1956.

Furniss, W. Todd. (ed.) . American Universities and Colleges. 11th ed.
The American Council on Education, Washington, D. C.

146

Geiger, Roger L. To Advance Knowledge. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1986.

Gerritz, E. M. and Thomas A. Jr. "The Admissions Office in Twenty-Eight
Selected Colleges and Universities," College and University, XXIX
(1953) .

Goodspeed, Thomas Wakefield. A History of the University of Chicago: The
First Quarter-Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973,

L

lst ed. 1916.

Gray, James. The University of Minnesota, 1851—1951. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1951.

Guralnick, Stanley M. "Science and the Ante-Bellum American College,"
Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 109.
Philadelphia, 1975.

Haddad, Sarah A. et. al. "New Management Techniques for the 1980's,"
College and Universi_ty. LV (Summer 1980) .

Harvard University. Statement of the Treasurer of Harvard College.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard, December, 1824.

Haskell, Thomas L. The Emergence of Professional Social Science.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977.

Hawkins, Hugh. Pioneer: A History of The Johns Hopkins University,
1874-1889. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1960.

Hawkins, Hugh. "Three University Presidents Testify," American
Quarterly II (1959).

Hechinger, Fred. "Hesburg Earned Respect the Hard Way," New York Times,
October 13, 1981.

 

Hofstader, Richard and Walter P. Metzer. The Development of Academic

Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press,
1955.

Hofstader, Richard and Wilson Smith (eds.) . "The Yale Report of 1828,"
American Higher Education: A Documentary History. Vol. II. Clnicago,
University of Chicago Press, 1955.

Jarman, B. H. "The Registrar in Institutions Accredited by the

Association of American Universities." College and University, XXIII
(1947) .

 

Johnson, W. E. Jr. "The Registrar in English Universities," Association
of American Colleges Bulletin, XXXV (1962) .

 

147

Keller, George. Academic Strategy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1983.

Kerr, Clark. Three Thousand Futures: The Next Twenty Years in Higher
Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

Leighton, Joseph A. "University Government," Education Review, LX (1920).

 

Lowry, Howard. College Talks. Oxford University Press, 1972.

Mallet, C. E. A History of the University of Oxford. London: Methuen,
1924.

McCaughey, Robert A. "The Transformation of American Academic Life:

Harvard University, 1821-92," Perspectives in American History, VIII
(1974).

McGrath, E. J. "The Evolution of Administrative Offices in Institutions
of Higher Education in the United States from 1860 to 1933,"
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1938.

Metzer, walter P. "The Academic Profession in the United States,"
Burton R. Clark (ed.) . The Academic Profession in Europe and
America. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986.

Miller, Richard. "Appraising Institutional Performance," Improving
Academic Managegent, Jedamus and Peterson (ed.) . New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1970.

M.I.T. President's Report, 1894.

Naylor, Natalie A. "The Ante-Bellum College Movement: A Reappraisal of

Tewksbury's Founding of American Colleges and Universities," History
of Educationguarterly, XIII (1973).

Olsen, Alexandra and John Voss (eds.). The Organization of Knowledge in
Modern America, 1860-1920. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1979.

Parsons, Talcott and Gerald M. Platt. The American University.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Partridge, F. A. "The Evolution of Administrative Offices in Liberal Arts
Colleges fron|1875 to 1933," Unpublished Master's thesis, University
of Chicago, 1934.

Perry, R. R. "The Office of Admissions - Role of the Administrator,"
A. S. Knowles (ed.). Handbook of College and University
Administration, II New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

Potts, David B. "American Colleges in the Nineteenth Century: From

Localism to Denominationalism," History of Education_gparterly, II
(1971).

 

148

Quann, C. James. Admissions, Academic Records, and Registrar Services: A
Handbook of Policies and Procedures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1980.

Quinn, James Brian. "Strategies for Change," Logical Incrementalism,
Irwin Press, 1980.

Quinn, James Brian. "Managing Strategic Change," Sloan Management Review,
XXI (Summer 1980) .

Rashdall, Hastings. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages,
Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895.

Reisman, David. On Higher Education: The Academic Enterprise in an Era
of Rising Student Consumerism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

Rosenzweig, Robert M. "Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us," The Chronicle
of Higher Education, (November 5, 1985).

 

Ross, Earle D. Democracy's College: The Land—Grant Movement in the
Formative Stage. Ames: Iowa State College Press, 1942.

Rudolph Fredrick. The American College and University: A History. New
York: Knopf, 1962.

Russell, William F. (ed.) . The Rise of the University: The Latter Days
of Columbia College. From The Annual Reports of Fredrick A. P.
Barnard. New York: Columbia University Press, 1937.

Selden, William K. "The Association of American Universities: An Enigma
in Higher Education," Graduate Journal, VIII (1968) .

Shils, Edward. "The Order of Learning in the United States: The
Ascendancy of the University," in Oleson and Voss, Organization of

Knowledge.

Slossin, Edwin E. Great American Universities. New York: McMillan,
1910.

 

Smith, Munroe. The Development of the University," A History of Columbia
University 1754-1904. New York: Columbia University Press, 1904.

 

Smyser, W. G. "Our First Fifty Years," College and University, XXXV
(1960) .

Solberg, Winston U. The University of Illinois, 1867-1894. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1968.

Stadtman, Verne. The University of California. New York: McGraw—Hill,
1970.

Stokes, Donald. "The Sterling Tough: How Stanford Became a World Class
University," Stanford Observer, (November, 1979).

 

 

149

Storr, Richard. The Beginnings of Graduate Education in America.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Stout, Edward M. "The Origin of the Registrar," College and University,
XXIX (1954).

 

Tappan, Henry. University Education. New York, 1851.

Thorndike, L. University Records and Life in the Middle Ages. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1944.

University of Michigan. President's Report. 1892.

 

Van Doren, Mark. Liberal Education. Beacon Press, 1943.

 

Veblen, Thorstein. The Higher Learning in America. New York, 1918.

 

veysey, Lawrence R. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1965.

VOn Clausewitz, Carl. On war, trans. M. Howard and P. Paret. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1976.

walker, C. U. "The Functional Structuring of Stanford University,"
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1964.

waylan, Francis. "Report to the Corporation of Brown University, on
Changes in the System of Collegiate Education," Read, (March 28,
1850), Providence: 1850.

weber, Max. On Universitism (ed.). trans. Edward Shils. Chicago:
Chicago University Press, 1974.

weisz, George. The Emergence of Modern Universities in France, 1863-1914.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.

wert, R. "The Impact of Three Nineteenth Century Reorganizations Upon
Harvard University," UnpubliShed Doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University, 1955.

‘Wiebe, Robert. The Search for Order 1877-1920. New York: Hill and Whng,
1968.

 

Wriston, Henry. Academic Procession. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1959.

 

 

 

   

1

7131:7115

g

"11111111111