THESiVS

WC)?

IllllllllllllllllIlllllll'lllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 01810 3857

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE HISTORY OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE FOR PERSONAL AND CAREER DEELOPMENT:
1971-1975

presented by
Geoffrey Alan Quick

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhoD. degree in Higher, AdUlt, and
Lifelong Education

W

UM or professor

 

 

Date M9—

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

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN REI‘URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we chIRC/DdoDquS—p.“

THE HISTORY OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR
PERSONAL AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT: 1971 -1 975

By

Geoffrey Alan Quick

A Dissertation

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education

1 999

AN

are l

Abstract

AN ORAL HISTORY OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE
FOR PERSONAL AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT: 1971-1975

By
Geoffrey Alan Quick

Adult Ieamers are an ever-increasing segment of the student population in
institutions of higher education. However, many institutions of higher education
are unaware of how to structure programs for these students. This dissertation
is a historical study using oral and documentary methods of a highly successful
adult education program called the “Institute for Personal and Career
Development” which was created by Central Michigan University.

The research techniques and methods used in this study were archival
research and interviewing. The study found that a unique blend of personalities
and leadership allowed Central Michigan University to create the Institute for

Personal and Career Development.

COP

Geoi

1999

COPYRIGHT

Geoffrey Alan Quick

1 999

First, ll
her 86
erased;
histsry
study.

I
Univers
it. runs
like to t?

and ex:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the people who made this study possible.
First, I would like to thank my wife Mariana for always being there when I needed
her. Second, I would like to thank my mother, Arlene Quick, for providing
encouragement and my father, Alan Quick, for initially stimulating my love of
history as a small child and then providing inspiration and motivation during this
study.

I would also like to thank my dissertation committee at Michigan State
University: Drs. Ann Austin, Douglas Campbell, and James Snoddy assisted me
in numerous ways and were critical to the completion of this study. I would also
like to thank my dissertation advisor, Dr. Kathryn Moore, whose time and efforts
and excellent suggestions were greatly appreciated.

Lastly, I would like to thank the founders of the Central Michigan
University Institute for Personal and Career Development for allowing me to

interview them. If it were not for these individuals, this study could not have been

possible.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Background Information
Conceptual Frame

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A Brief History of the American University Degree

The Extension Degree

The Definition of an External Degree

History of the External Degree: Pre-World War II

History of the External Degree: Post World War II

Creation of the External Degree During the 19703

Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and
Career Development

Institutions Which Started Programs for Non-Traditional
Students

Innovations Within External Degree Programs

Problems with the External Degree

University Innovation

Bolman and Deal Model

CHAPTER 3: STUDY DESIGN

Research Question
Framework for the Questions
Sub-Questions

Methodology

Archives

Interviews

Oral History Analysis

10
13
17
18
20
21

29

31
37
39
45
49

52

52
52
52
55
55
56
58

CHAPTER 4: THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INSTITUTE FOR PERSONAL AND CAREER
DEVELOPMENT AT CENTRAL MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY FROM 1971 TO 1975

History of Central Michigan University

Questions concerning the history of the Institute for Personal
and Career Development

Questions concerning the structure of the Institute for
Personal and Career Development

Questions concerning the human resource aspects of the
Institute for Personal and Career
Development

Questions concerning the political aspects of the Institute for
Personal and Career Development

Questions concerning the symbolic aspects of the Institute for
Personal and Career Development

Other observations

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

Research Methodology
Summary of Institute Successes
The Vision of the Institute
Financial Success
Program Quality
Program Success
Future Research
The Participants: Where Are They Now?

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vi

61
61
66
106

130
142

161
167

170

170
173
173
175
177
178
179
181

186

194

1.
2.

LIST OF TABLES

Interviews

The Growth of the Institute for Personal and Career
Development in Student Enrollment, 7/1/72-6/30/7 5

vii

These
and De
Centra
wider a
Person
this wa:
Develo;

' A": I97,
{mutant

W31; :
MEi-Qpe

CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Two major problems in higher education are access and innovation.
These problems are the basis for my dissertation, which is about “The History
and Development of the Institute for Personal and Career Development at
Central Michigan University: 1971-1975.” An example of providing innovative,
wider access to higher education is the Central Michigan University Institute for
Personal and Career Development. I chose to start the history in 1971 because
this was when the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career
Development was founded. In addition, most of the key foundational,
institutional, and structural issues concerning the Institute for Personal and
Career Development were addressed during this time. The study ends in 1975
because that is when the two, principal creators of the Institute left Central
Michigan University and the initial phase of development for the Institute came to
an end.

I became interested in the Institute for Personal and Career Development
when I began teaching for the organization in 1992. During the years that I
worked for the Institute, I developed many questions. For example, Who
developed or created this organization? What were the ideas or goals behind
the creation of the organization? How was it decided that Central Michigan
University would offer a total degree program off campus, mostly utilizing adjunct
faculty? How was it determined and who determined how many credits students
would get for “prior Ieaming” to use towards their degree? These were some of
the initial questions that spurred me to want to conduct further research on the

development of the Institute.

I discovered that Central Michigan University leaders developed a very
well thought-out program that resulted in securing a nationally recognized role in
the delivery of off-campus degree programs. Specifically, I found that the
Institute for Personal and Career Development created innovative strategies and
techniques to give access to higher education to many Americans who

previously had been denied this access.

Background Information

The Institute for Personal and Career Development began in 1971 and
was especially designed for educationally disenfranchised students at some
Michigan military bases. People who developed this program realized that there
was a large segment of the population who were not being served by traditional
methods of higher education. A large part of this population were adult students
or non-traditional students over the age of twenty-five years who could not come
to a campus to take classes because of family, career, or military responsibilities.
The innovative idea was that if the students could not come to the Central
Michigan University campus, Central Michigan University onId bring the classes
and degree completion programs to the students.

In particular, Dr. William Boyd, who was president of Central Michigan
University, and Dr. Charles Ping, who was provost at Central Michigan University
during the early 1970s, believed that there was great need for change in higher
education. Dr. Boyd, Dr. Ping, and others decided that Central Michigan
University would utilize its long history of offering classes off-campus to develop
and offer a total Central Michigan University degree program off-campus. Dr.
Boyd and Dr. Ping decided to establish a new unit within the University that
would have the same status as its other off-campus program, the Division of Off-

Campus Education. For decades, Central had provided off-campus programs

through a traditional division of off-campus education, and the new unit was
designed to operate separately and independently from that division.

The Institute for Personal and Career Development started its programs in
a very forward looking manner. The founders of the programs for the Institute
tried to ignore much of what they knew about previous higher educational
practices, such as mainly offering classes on campus during the day and during
the work week. Instead they tried to develop a program whose overriding
mission was to serve disenfranchised adults. Many of the adult students that
they targeted were at military bases or were working for large corporations such
as Chrysler and Ford motor companies.

Some of the solutions that were developed to help these adults were
compressed class schedules and weekend classes, and the granting of college
credit for prior Ieaming that these students may have gained through their job, or
perhaps experiences in the military. The innovative ideas and practices that the
Institute began implementing and exploring were so new that not a lot had been
written about these ideas. The Institute for Personal and Career Development
did use some ideas from Northern Colorado University to help develop some of
its programs, along with some ideas from Goddard College in Vermont, Troy
State in New York, Empire State in New York, and Thomas Edison College in
New Jersey. These institutions had programs somewhat similar to what the
Institute was developing. However, though these programs offered examples,
the lnstitute’s founders essentially developed its own program as the Institute
progressed.

. - Historically, most institutions of higher education in the United States have
traditionally had an on-campus focus. In the early 1970’s, on-campus students,
on-campus classes, and in general, on campus issues were the main priority and

focus of most institutions of higher education (Geiger, 1986, p.116). Since the

19735
many.
pursui:
studen

experie

19703, this focus has been changing rapidly (Watkins, 1990, p.A1). Today,
many institutions of higher education are expanding their enrollments and
pursuing new markets through alternative delivery systems to non-traditional
students. However, many institutions of higher education have limited I
experience in the development of alternative delivery systems. Much can,
therefore, be gained by examining the innovative techniques developed by
Central Michigan University when it established its Institute for Personal and
Career Development.

Currently there is a sizable body of literature concerning the needs of
adult students or Ieamers. Disenfranchised adult students are usually defined as
students “age twenty-five and over,” who are usually employed, often full time,
and attend classes part time. Many are married and have children. They come
from a wide range of social, ethnic, and educational backgrounds” (Watkins,
1989, p.A27). In addition, there is now some literature on how to develop or
create an off campus extended degree program. However, no literature could be
found on the history or early years of one of the most successful extended
degree programs in the United States of America, the Central Michigan
University Institute for Personal and Career Development.

Today, the Central Michigan University College of Extended Learning,
which was built upon the foundation of the Institute for Personal and Career
Development and the Division of Continuing Education and Community Services,
is a world leader in this area. It would, therefore, seem that a historical analysis
of this innovative program would be pertinent, timely, and educational. It would
be pertinent and timely because many other colleges and universities are
exploring developing off campus extended degree programs (Hines, p.1). It
would be educational because the Institute, now called the College of Extended

Learning, has had twenty -five years of background and success in this area. It

is an exar
the succe
but all the
very suco
becoming
instiuiion:

Wll
edacation
greatly sir
the Uni
Career De
. 'ucation
ll‘SlOflcal l

heearty:

Eu ~.‘ I
SF-Uzb
AIM.
":56 Dr:

W: InCIEQ.

is an example of a historical case of innovation that has succeeded. Not only is
the successor to the Institute, the College of Extended Learning, thriving today
but all the individuals associated with the creation of the Institute went on to have
very successful careers in academia, with six of the innovators of the Institute
becoming university presidents. This history should prove beneficial to many
institutions of higher education.

With the increasing number of non-traditional students and their need for
educational access, innovative and dynamic education programs have increased
greatly since the development of one of the first and most successful programs
In the United States, the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and
Career Development. The Institute was on the cutting edge of a future
educational trend, and I believe it is important to explore its development and
historical roots. How did such a unique program develop? What were some of

the early obstacles it faced in its early development?

Conceptual Frame

The methodological approach that I used was a historical case study.
Historical work is important because it allows people to Ieam from the past,
understand the present, and plan for the future. Furthermore, historical analysis
of the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career Development
is useful because it alloWs one to Ieam what it takes to create an extended
degree program. Since off-campus education and extended degree programs
will increase in the future in higher education, a historical analysis of an
innovative and successful model program could be very enlightening for many in
higher education. I believe that this dissertation fills an important gap in the

present literature on extended degree programs.

hUSl

Persc

and ti

iE'Des

How one asks questions leads to the history one discovers, and one can
thus write history from a variety of ways. To help guide this study in
understanding the historical development and analysis of the Institute for
Personal and Career Development, the ideas of Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal
and their book Reframim Organizations (1997) were used.

Bolman and Deal have developed a'four -frame model for understanding
organizations. The first frame that they utilize when studying organizations is the
structural frame. When looking at an organization through the structural frame,
one analyzes the structure of the organization in addition to the rules and
policies of the organization. The second frame that Bolman and Deal use is the
Human Resource frame. Within this frame, one concentrates on humans within
the organization, specifically looking at areas such as needs, skills and
relationships (Bolman and Deal, p.15). The next frame is the political frame. In
the political frame, power, conflict, competition, and organizational politics are
analyzed. Lastly, Bolman and Deal advocate looking at organizations through
the symbolic frame. Within this frame, organizational ritual, ceremony, stories,
heroes, and meaning are studied (Bolman and Deal, p. 15).

The research framework and structure of interview questions for this study
were derived largely from Bolman and Deal’s book, Reframing Organizations.
Bolman and Deal, however, do not have a historical framework, and so a
framework of archival research and oral history was incorporated. Oral history,
although an old method of passing on legends and stories of heroes, has been
revived in recent years and contributed greatly to this study. This author was
influenced by three authors specifically who have undertaken historical research
in the oral history tradition. The first is T. Harry VVilIiams, who authored H_uey
ng, published in 1969. VWliams remarks in the preface of his book:

During the early 19503 I became greatly interested in the project in Oral
History being conducted at Columbia University. The sponsors of the

in his

a

503m

project had an idea that seemed eminently sensible to me. They were
concerned with preserving the history of the recent past, roughly the
period since 1930, but they emphasized that to do the job properly, a new
research technique would have to be utilized, the tape-recorded interview
with persons still living. This technique was necessary because of the
impact of modern technology on communications. For example, a
politician in the nineteenth century who had to get in touch with a
colleague would write that man a letter, where as politician of today’s era
in a similar situation would telephone his friend, and most probably the
conversation was not recorded. Therefore, said the Columbia people, the
historians of the recent past would not have available, at least in
abundance, the principal sources hitherto relied on by historians-letters
and diaries. These historians should get busy taping the recollections of
individuals who figured in recent history and have the conversations
reduced to typescripts, and thus rescue a history that would othenivise
disappear. (Williams, 1969, p. vii)

Another historian who also used oral history in his writing was Merle Miller
in his 1980 work Lyndon: An Oral Biogphy. Miller states:

Oral history is a relatively new way of dealing with the men and women

and the events of the recent past. It’s a particularly good way of dealing

with someone like Lyndon Johnson who almost never stopped talking
himself and about whom an extraordinary number of people had a great
deal to say. I first heard of Oral History thirty years ago when a group of
scholars at Columbia University, chief among them the historian Allan

Nevins, decided that a collection of taped interviews with people who had

memories of that past and of the people who shaped it would be a

valuable addition to the historical record. (Miller, 1980, p. xi)

The final historian who had an influence upon my research was Stephen
Ambrose. In his recent work, Citizen Soldiers, he also noted the importance of
Oral History as he commented:

Long ago my mentors, William B. Hesseltine and T. Hany Williams, taught

me to let my characters speak for themselves by quoting liberally. They

were there. I wasn’t. They speak with an authenticity no one can match.

(Ambrose, 1997, p. 13)

Innovative methods of access to higher education are still needed today,
so I believe it is very important to study an institution that has succeeded in this
area. The Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career
Development has been extremely successful with innovative methods of access.
This Institute is an example of innovation that has succeeded. As other

institutions of higher education develop innovative methods of serving new

students, perhaps they can Ieam from the previous success of the Central

Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career Development.

pr:

m:
~\v

a a
nU

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Throughout the history of higher education there has always been a
problem of access. This problem has been addressed in various ways. In early
American educational history, evening colleges were developed. Later, land-
grant colleges and universities were created to give additional access to higher
education. The extension degree was another means of providing increased
access. After World War II, the external degree was developed to allow greater
access to higher education. The Central Michigan University Institute of
Personal and Career Development was an innovative organization that
continued this trend in American higher education.

This chapter will look at the themes mentioned above in the following
sections: A Brief History of the American University Degree, The Extension
Degree, The Definition of an External Degree, History of the External Degree:
Pre WOrld War II, History of the External Degree: Post World War II, Creation of
the External Degree During the 19703, Central Michigan University Institute for
Personal and Career Development, Institutions which Started Programs for Non-
traditional Students, Innovations within External Degree Programs, Problems
with the External Degree, University Innovation, and the Lee Bolman and
Terrence Deal model for studying organizations. These sections provide an

overview of the main bodies of Iiteratureon the external degree.

w’r
ser

332

A Brief History of the American university Degree

Beginning with the founding of Harvard College in 1636 and lasting for two
hundred and fifty years, the college degree was an award for completing a set
course of studies pursued by all students in the same fashion and sequence.
Few alternatives were given to the individual student although they might enrich
their program by adding optional activities and utilizing literary societies which
were a core part of college life (Houle, 1973, p.3).

In the 17003, another type of school termed, the “evening school,”
developed in the United States. Evening schools were originally created “to
instruct apprentices whose indentures stipulated a certain amount of reading,
writing, and ciphering” (Bailyn, 1960, p.33). The evening school was designed to
serve all those “confined in business in the day-time" (Bailyn, 1960, p.33). In
addition, such a colonial organization as Benjamin Franklin’s Junto in
Philadelphia and its numerous nineteenth century imitations offered study
opportunities for adults through “mutual improvement” societies (Hall, 1991,
p.69). These programs and institutions became early antecedents to later
evening colleges and later university external degree programs.

Enrollment in American colleges grew slowly. As late as 1839 only eleven
colleges had more than 150 enrollees; and the average college enrollment was
far smaller. As one author noted, “Hardly anyone went to college” (Hall. 1991,
p.21). A report by a scholar in 1850 captures fully the failure of the college to
react to its environment. As this academic leader claimed:

We have provided an article for which the demand is diminishing.
We sell it at less than cost, and the deficiency is made up by
charity. We give it away, and still the demand diminishes. Is it
not time to inquire whether we cannot furnish an article for which

the demand will be, at least, somewhat more remunerative (Hall,
1991, p.22)

10

an imp
attlion'
agricul
imponz
becaus

official '

Anntnet
(1862) I
enrolling

E
within A
notion ii
unheard
lugs-i o
Caifsmj
mi. li

6R3,

V'lv.

30

When one looks back across the history of higher education in America,
an important event occurred with the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862. This act
authorized the creation of land grant colleges and stimulated early courses in
agriculture and technical subjects (Hall, 1991, p.71). The Morrill Act was very
important in the democratizing of education in America. As one scholar noted,
because the mandate establishing these colleges had specified research as one
official function, many land grant colleges began to seek students with greater
research potential, regardless of their social class (Boone, 1979, p.161).
Another researcher noted that “the innovative Morrill Land Grant legislation
(1862) encouraged students of small means to work their way through college by
enrolling in schools that were virtually free" (Solomon, 1985, p.xviii).

During the late nineteenth century many other changes were occurring
within American universities. Many American universities began to advance the
notion that higher education should be furnished to all citizens, a principle
unheard of in Europe at this time. Leaders in this movement were James B.
Angell of the University of Michigan, Daniel Coit Gilman while at the University of
California, and Vlfilliam Rainey Harper of the University of Chicago (Hall, 1991,
p.23). It was within this period that the idea that the university in America would
offer a comprehensive program of services to a diverse range of students began
to take hold and become established throughout the nation. For example,
Cornell University was founded in 1869 under the assertion that it would be “an
institution where any person can findinstruction in any study” (Hall, 1991, p.24).
Cornell then became one of the most aggressive of these newer universities in
offering a wide range of vocational, professional, and applied science courses
(Hall, 1991, p.24).

Also very important in the history of the American university, and to the

eventual development of the external degree movement, was the introduction of

11

the elei
and F0:
a tacit a

indiv'idu

College.
1921 ag
913ml a3
unite-i5:
9m; We
9’35 also
in 18,701

I(Tile in ‘

the elective system at Harvard in 1869 under President Charles W. Elliot (Boone
and Fox, 1979, p.161-162). The introduction of the elective system represented
a tacit acknowledgement that education serves not only society but also the
individual Ieamer. However,

an underlying assumption of both the prescribed and elective

based American degree pattems was that they were to be

secured only by full-time study by young people (mostly men

during this time) in residence on the campus of a college or

university (Houle, 1973, p.5).

In the late nineteenth century, a college education became more desired
in American society, and the female population of college students began to rise.
The American population at large began to find a real need for the services of
colleges towardthe end'of the nineteenth century. Consequently, in 1880,
115,817 students or only 2.7 percent of the 18-21 age group were enrolled in
college. However, a decade-later it was 156,756 students or 3.0 percent of the
18—21 age group. By the start of the twentieth century, roughly 4 percent of the
typical age group were attending college, and from then on, demand for a
university education increased markedly. In 1910, 4.8 percent of the 18—21 age
group were enrolled in college, and by 1920, over 8 percent (Hall, 1991 , p.25). It
was also during this era that the female proportion of the college population rose.
In 1870 the female proportion of the total college population was 21.0 percent,
while in 1910, it was 36.9 percent and 47.3 percent in 1920 (Solomon, 1985,
p.62).

This section provides a brief summary of the history of the American
university to approximately 1900. Evening colleges and mutual improvement
societies were designed for people who were busy during the day. These were
the forerunners of American universities’ external degree programs. University

access was greatly expanded through the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862.

This act provided access to colleges and universities to a broader range of

12

people. Many of the early antecedents of the American external degree were

established in this era.

The Extension Degree

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, another innovation became
important in higher education. This was the extension degree. As one author
explained,
The extension degree, in its purest form, is a degree awarded on
completion of a coherent and complete traditional degree
program offering all the necessary subjects and options at a time
or place accessible to those who cannot come to campus or
whose other responsibilities make it necessary for them to spread
their study over a longer period than the student on campus
(Houle, 1973, p.88).

Another scholar noted that university extension programs had from their earliest

days the goal to bring
the knowledge, skills, and sensitivities which are thought to result
from higher education to the broadest possible audience. The
baccalaureate program for adults is a present example of this
commitment to popularizing higher education and allowing adults
easier access to it (Hall, 1975, p.319—320). ’

Most historians trace the history of university extension to two
developments. The first was in 1862 when Congress created the land—grant
college system, which Was intended from the beginning to transmit knowledge of
engineering and scientific agricuiture. This was quite a radical idea because
prior to this time, colleges and universities were reserved largely for the sons of
the upper class. However, now institutions of higher Ieaming “turned their
attention to not only the scholarly, but also to the practical educational needs of
the common man” (Sharer, 1976, p.4). The Chautauqua Movement was also an
important advance in adult education and began in this era. The Chautauqua

Movement was one of the earliest types of educational opportunities for adults,

13

be
Tn

in I
(St

me

Sta

began in New York State in the 18703, and spread into Michigan in 1876.
Thousands of people attended educational meetings in hundreds of communities
in Michigan within the glory years of the Chautauqua Movement from 1880-1920
(Sharer, 1976, p.6). However, those attending Chautauqua educational
meetings did not receive college credit.

Adult education received a dramatic boost with the passage by the United
States Congress on May 8, 1914 of the Smith-Lever Co-operative Agricultural
Extension Act. The American education historian Ellwood P. Cubberley noted

Congress made the beginnings of what must ultimately prove to
be a very important national movement for adult education along
the lines of the improvement of agriculture and rural home life.
This Act was an outcome of the Report of the Country Life
Commission appointed by President Roosevelt, in 1909, to
examine into the life-needs of rural people and to suggest
remedies. After analyzing the rural-life problem, this Commission
recommended, among other things, that an effort be made to
improve life for both men and women on our farms, with a view to
making the country a more satisfying place in which to live
(Cubberley, 1947, p.599).

The c00perative extension service was an extremely important
development in American higher education because it changedthe nature of
higher education in two ways.

First, it epitomized the developing spirit of direct public
involvement by higher education institutions. By extending the
college to rural America, the extension service applied the
knowledge resources produced and stored in land grant colleges
to the social problems of society. Secondly, the extension service
systematically addressed the needs of a new market for higher
education, the adult learner. Further, attempts of the extension
services to educate adults legitimized the idea of nontraditional
edu601a)tion in a profound and dramatic way (Boone and Fox, 1979,
p.1 .

The other beginning point for the creation of university extension was
1873 when Cambridge University in England first offered instruction to adults.

This movement spread fairly rapidly, soon crossing to America and extending to

14

incl

sys
are;
to p

I68:

Ii
Uh;

include the work of all kinds of higher educational institutions (Houle, 1992,
p.133-134).

In Cambridge, James Stuart, who was a young professor, developed a
system of itinerant lecturing which brought the university to students in remote
areas. Stuart who was a fellow at Trinity College at Cambridge in 1867, started
to provide courses to local groups of working people, lawyers, ministers, and
teachers and in the process created lectures, syllabi, homework assignments,
discussions, and examinations that convinced the university authorities to
sponsor the work and give university credit to those who completed it
satisfactorily (Cremin, 1988, p.244). By 1875 Cambridge enrolled approximately
7,300 students in extension courses (Cremin, 1988, p.244). The idea then
spread to Oxford, which created its own programs, and by 1887 enrolled about
13,000 students in similar classes (Cremin, 1988, p.244). The movement then
crossed the Atlantic and appeared in several American locations. In
Philadelphia, it was enhanced by the effort of the American Society for the
Extension of University Teaching, which coordinated the efforts of many local
colleges, universities, schools, and institutes in providing lectures for the public.
In New York the extension idea started with the work of the University of the
State of New York (really the state education department) coordinating similar
efforts by the state’s institutions of higher Ieaming (Cremin, 1988, p.244).

The impact of extension courses in America seemed quite profound. As
one scholar noted:

As university extension was first considered and established
in the United States, it consisted mainly of efforts to make
organized knowledge, usually defined in terms of academic
courses and sequences, available to adults at times and
places convenient to them (Houle, 1992, p.141-142).

Commenting on this trend, president Nicolas Murray Butler of Columbia

University in his 1915 annual report stated, “Buildings that a generation ago

15

wen
five

(Hat

were closed at one o’clock in the afternoon, that ten years ago were closed at
five o’clock at night are now open and fully occupied until ten o’clock at night”
(Houle, 1992, p.141-142). The educational historian Lawrence Cremin stated,

On the eve of World War I, university extension was seen as ‘an

organized effort to give to the people not in college some of the

advantages enjoyed by the one-half of 1 per cent who are able to

attend campus classes.’ Scores of institutions were involved,

with programs that included correspondence courses, lecture

courses, short courses, club study, training institutes, community

forums, library service packages, and steropticon slide

demonstrations. Columbia University enrolled some 2,000

students in regular lectures and recitations leading to academic

credit; Pennsylvania State College had 4,800 students in

correspondence courses leading to the AB. degree; the

University of Michigan counted some 70,000 men and women in

attendance at over 300 lectures; and the University of Kansas

circulated almost 5,000 package libraries in connection with its

high school debating league (Cremin, 1988, p.245).

Another leader in the extension degree movement was Charles R. Van
Hise, who was president of the University of \Msconsin from 1903-1918. Van
Hise stated he would “never be content until the beneficent influence of the
University reaches every family in the state. This is my ideal of the state
university” (Cremin, 1988, p.246).
The extension degree is a traditiOnal degree program offered at different

times and/or places for those who cannot reside on campus. The extension
A degree traces its roots to the Morrill Act of 1862, the Chautauqua Movement,
and to the creation of the cooperative extension service which was created by
Congress with the passage of the Smith-Lever Co-operative Agricultural
Extension Act in 1914. The extension degree was an important mile post in
American education, and significant historical precedent for the Central Michigan

University Institute for Personal and Career Development to build on.

16

seesl
first Ill?
who alt
basis al
The re
[aquifer
location
1975. P-
T
program
program
program
{Wham
Degree l
nsycholc
A
manye
amen
Defifcaté
emphasi
evaluatio
he Comp

summed

The Definition of an External Degree

It is important to define exactly what an external degree is. Hall (1975)
states that there are essentially three different types of external degrees. The
first type he called the extension degree. This type of degree allows students
who are normally working adults to earn a baccalaureate degree on a part-time
basis at times and in places which adults are able to fit into their schedules.
“The requirements of the extension degree are usually identical to the
requirements of the corresponding full-time resident degree; only the duration,
location, and scheduling of the extension degree programs are changed” (Hall,
1975, p.318).

The second type, baccalaureate programs for adults, often varies from
program to program. But an assumption underlies all the baccalaureate
programs for adults which makes them different from extension degree
programs: that adults are psychologically and socially different from adolescents
(who are thought to be the primary audience of traditional degree programs).
Degree programs designed especially for adults attempt to take these
psychological and social differences into consideration (Hall, 1975, p.319).

A third type of external degree prdgram has begun to emerge within
recent years. This is called the assessment degree. In the assessment degree
programs, one Or more of the procedures of admission, teaching, evaluation,
certification, or license aremodified or separated from the others. Therefore, the
emphasis of the assessment degree programs is on the demonstration and
evaluation of students’ competence in relevant areas of Ieaming instead of on
the completion of formal requirements (Hall, 1975, p.319). Another writer
summed up the external degree in a concise manner when he stated:

An external degree is one awarded to an individual on the

basis of some program of preparation (devised either by
himself or by an educational institution) which is not centered

17

lithe” look
sulllmarize

deglees 0f

l
The

idea Of a d‘
when the A
However. it
its revised I
degree (Ha
was to exar
their own. I
Bntish Emp
degree tron
Many thous
the Uhi‘vers
examinatior
the United 5
watt done t
Department
that l, incre:

CitieGlE

on traditional patterns of residential collegiate or university

study. Essentially this definition is a negative one which, in

simplest terms, says that an external degree is not an

internal degree (Houle, 1973, p.14-15).
When looking at the various definitions of the external degree, they can be
summarized as the following: the external degree is a degree that is offered off-
campus. The Institute for Personal and Career Development offers all of its

degrees off-campus.

History of the External Degree: Pre World War II

The distinguished adult education author, Cyril O. Houle, notes that the
idea of a degree awarded by an authority external to the university dates to 1534
when the Archbishop of Canterbury was given the right to grant degrees.
However, it was the founding of the University of London in 1836, and especially
its revised charter in 1858, that marks the familiar antecedent of the external
degree (Hall, 1991, p.83). Until 1900, the University of London’s sole function
was to examine students who prepared at other institutions or completely on
their own. Most of the University of London’s students were citizens of the
British Empire. Later many, commonwealth citizens enrolled eager to obtain a
degree from a British university, but were unable to travel to Britain to do so.
Many thousands of distant students gained degrees in this manner. However,
the University of London itself, while it offered course reading lists and sample
examinations, offered no instruction to these students (Hall, 1991, p.83). Within
the United States, the external degree took its roots from previous extension
work done by universities and then from evening colleges, and the needs of the
Department of Defense. Evening colleges, which were flourishing before World
War I, increased in size after that war and exploded in enrollment as an outcome

of the G.l. Bill after World War II. As one author noted,

18

UOZIJ(\—°‘_ CT‘nC

A
‘—

twasbel
increase i

their regti

.—
P.-

439‘1; Q>5'I8’§';CR©Q

‘S

I” additlor

Depaftme

‘*f\———_—‘_ __

World War II transformed American higher education and in
particular the idea of service. On the one hand, it marked the
beginning of the vast research enterprises commissioned by the
federal government that would lead in the postwar era to what
Clark Kerr called the ‘federal grant university’. On the other hand,
it provided the occasion for the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act
of 1944-the so-called GI. Bill of Rights-that anointed the great
postwar popularization of higher education, especially for men
(Cremin, 1988, p.250).

It was believed that the GI Bill of Rights would create a temporary enrollment
increase in higher education and that colleges and universities would return to
their regular state. Cremin stated,

It was, after all, a federal legislative program directed
ovenivhelmingly to men and, beyond that to veterans, a group
generally older, more mature, and more preoccupied with family
responsibilities than the traditional college student. To
understand the longer -range effect, one must realize, not only
that the veterans performed better at their studies than anyone
had expected and that the expansive postwar economy was able
to absorb them when they graduated, but also that President
Hany S. Truman established a Commission on Higher Education
in 1946 and that the Commission’s report, Higher Education for
American Democracy (1948), marked a turning point in American
conceptions of the higher Ieaming.

What the Truman Commission argued was that American
colleges and universities could no longer consider themselves
merely the instruments for producing an intellectual elite; rather,
they would have to become ‘the means by which every citizen,
youth, and adult is enabled and encouraged to carry his
education, formal and informal, as far as his native capacities
permit’ (Cremin, 1988, p. 251).

In addition, a strong motivation for the external degree came from the Defense
Department. As Hall noted,

As with so many innovations in American higher education,
the impulse came from the Department of Defense, which
needed a system that would allow members of the military,
moved periodically from bases to bases at home or abroad,
to earn college degrees. Moreover, many technical training
programs (based upon military occupational specialties)
offered by the military itself were comparable to courses
offered in community colleges. With the guidance of
Cornelius Turner, in 1945 the American Council on
Education published its first Guide to the Evaluation of
Educational Experiences in the Armed Services. Institutions
of higher education everywhere were encouraged to accept
for academic credit non-collegiate programs evaluated by

19

the newly created commission on the Accreditation of
Service Experiences (now the Center for Adult Learning and
Educational Credentials) (Hall, 1991, p.84).

The University of London and the G.I. Bill were critical to the development
of the external degree. The University of London developed an external degree
program for citizens of the Commonwealth who could not come to London to
attend university. The G.I. Bill led to dramatic increases in enrollment in
American colleges and universities and also had a particularly large impact on
evening college programs because many veterans did not wish to attend college
full-time. The Institute for Personal and Career Development, which was

originally started to serve students on military bases in Michigan, was greatly

impacted by the G.I. Bill.

History of the External Degree: Post World War II

Access was one of the biggest issues for the American university after
World War II. Gould and Cross noted that there are three aspects of traditional
education that pose barriers to large numbers of people.

First, the notion that Ieaming requires physical presence in
the classroom restricts access for those with physical
handicaps, those in geographically remote areas, and those
who are temporarily or permanently confined—for example,
prison inmates and mothers of small children. Second, the
concept that it is the accumulation of credit hours that fulfills
degree requirements handicaps those whose lives dictate a
mobility too great to collect sufficient credits at a single
degree—granting institution - servicemen, business transfers,
wives leaving college before the completion of their own
degrees (Gould and Cross, 1972, p.43).

In addition, the idea that education is the leamer’s major activity and that it
customarily takes place between 9 am. and 5 pm. on working days creates
scheduling problems for vast numbers of potential part-time students.

In a sense, these barriers bear little relationship to Ieaming; they
can be said to be problems of being in the right place at the right .

20

ti.
h

However
between t
later by to
Act of 195

Amendme

In t
teams
and piesic
and com”
extemald
university
member 0
some Plot
elifi'lsiorj
migrants.

extenSlQn

time. Some people lack mobility, some are too mobile, and some
have scheduling problems (Gould and Cross, 1972, p.43).

However access was increased, and university enrollments continued to grow
between the 19503 and 19703. This was assisted by the G.I. Bill of Rights and
later by loans and grants made available under the National Defense Education
Act of 1958, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Higher Education
Amendments of 1972 (Cremin, 1988, p.555).

Creation of the External Degree During the 19703

In the first three years of the 19703, the impetus toward bold new
programs came from major academic and political figures, namely, chancellors
and presidents of universities along with governors, leaders of the legislature,
and commissioners of eduCation (Houle, 1973, p.139). The idea for a specific
external—degree program. can spring from almost any quarter: a politician, a
university board member, an administrator, an instructor, an entrepreneur, a
member of a pressure group, or a possible student (Houle, 1973, p.121). While
some programs were created in this manner, others grew out of the activities of
extension divisions, which have administered most, though not all, of these
programs. Special degrees for adults were largely the creation of a few deans of
extension divisions, sometimes initially assisted by foundation grants and
resources, and sometimes responding to the pressures of various branches of
the Armed Services eager to develop an officer corps whose members had
college degrees (Houle, 1973, p.139). The Institute for Personal and Career
Development at Central Michigan University was originally created to provide
higher edUcational opportunities for the Armed Forces.

In addition in the early 19703, there were two commissions on American

education that made important findings. In 1971, the US. Department of Health,

21

Education, and Welfare issued a document titled Report on Higher Education.
This report indicated that:

Despite the growth in the proportion of the population going
to college, traditional artificial limits persist as to when in a
person’s life he may be a college student, and as to what
type of person meets the established requirements...
Arbitrary restrictions and a lack of imaginative programs limit
the opportunities for those of beyond the normal college age
and of those for whom attendance at a conventional campus
is impractical (T routt, 1971, p.6).

The report by the US. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
noted there were literally millions of Americans who could benefit from new
approaches to higher education:

1. Young people who choose not to go to college or who
choose to leave in the middle of their college program, but
who want some contact with higher education.

Women who choose both family and education.

Those needing professional training for new careers.
Workers already involved with jobs and families.

Urban ghetto residents lacking the finances or self-
confidence to go to a campus.

Those who find the conventional college education
unsatisfying or unsuited to their needs (T routt, 1971, p.3).

9’ 9‘99”!”

In January 1971, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education also
issued a report on higher education titled Less Time, More Options: Education
Beyond the High School. This report drew similar conclusions, and stated,

America, also, despite its great recent progress, still distributes
opportunities for higher education inequitably. Degrees are more
often available to the young than to the middle -aged and the old;
to men-at a time they can readily be used-than to women; and to
members of the higher than to the lower income groups. The
American dream promises greater equality than this, and
American reality demands that age be served as well as youth,
that women be served equally with men, and that the poor be
served as well as the rich (Less Time, More Options: Education
Beyond the l-th School, 1971, p.10).

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education report Less Time, More

 

Options: Education Beyond the High School made recommendations on how it

felt American higher education could improve. One recommendation was

22

That opportunities be created for persons to reenter higher
education throughout their active careers in regular daytime
classes, nighttime classes, summer courses, and special short-
terrn programs, with degrees and certificates available as
appropriate (Less Time, More @tions: Education Beyond the

High School, 1971, p.19).

Another recommendation that this Carnegie Commission report made was

That alternative avenues by which students can earn
degrees or complete a major portion of their work for a
degree be expanded to increase accessibility of higher
education for those to whom it is now unavailable because of
work schedules, geographic location, or responsibilities in
the home (Less TimeJIlore Options: Education Beyond the

High School, 1971, p.20).

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education issued another report in
October of 1973. This report was titled, Toward a Learning Society: Alternative
Channels tojLife, Work, And Service. This report also included far reaching
ideas on changing American higher education. Some of these ideas included:

More opportunities in colleges for part-time and for adult students.
This means reducing current barriers in admission policies, in fee

structures, in course load requirements, in scheduling of classes,

in faculty attitudes against the ‘nontraditional’ student. It also

means more ‘short cycle’ programs (Toward a Learning Society:
Alternative Channels To Life, Work, And Service, 1973, p.5).

 

In addition the report stated,

New clienteles are developing for post secondary education-
persons who missed advanced education earlier in life and would
like access to it now; women who have raised their children and
now want a career; persons who want to change their
occupations or to update their skills and knowledge-to avoid
becoming obsolete; persons who want to understand their
personal situations better as, for example, in adjusting to a
serious operation; persons who are ill or handicapped or isolated
and want to add education to the interests of their lives; all those
who want to ‘stop-in’ into advanced education. We believe there
is now a major degree of under consumption of education by
members of such groups (Toward a Learning Society: Alternative
Channels To Life, Work, And Service, 1973, p.11-12).

In Toward a Leamirtq Society: Alternative Channels to LifeLWork, And
Service, The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education summarizes its view on

the future of American education by claiming:

23

Dei

Ear

3th

A new direction of growth is developing. The first was the largely
self—contained classical college beginning in 1636. The second
was the society-related land—grant university after the Civil War.
The third was universal access to college for the “college-age”
group after World War II. The fourth, now developing, is universal
access -even more approaching universal attendance-for persons
of all ages to more forms of post secondary education ( I oward a
Learning Society: Alternative Channels To Life, Work, And

—1

Service 1973, p.14). —

 

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, in Toward a Learning
Society: Altemattive Channels To Life, Work, And Service, sets out some
specific objectives that it believed would assist the United States in moving
towards a Ieaming society. Many of the objectives from this Carnegie
Commission report look as if they were incorporated into the creation of the
Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Development. For
instance, the Carnegie report noted,

When they do not have skill-training expertise in their own
companies, businesses will seek agreements with educational
institutions to provide technical aid for the development of
industry-based skill-training programs and for the evaluation of
such programs (Toward a Leamingfiociety: Alternative Channels
To Life, Work, And Service, 1973, p.91).

The Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career
Development incorporated much of this objective into its early creation as many
early classes offered by the Institute were at businesses and factories.

The Carnegie Commission report Toward a Learning Society stated
another objective that was to be incorporated into the creation of the Institute:

Educational activity provided by the armed forces to officers and
enlisted men at post secondary levels will yield credit that is
widely accepted as servicemen are transferred from military base
to military base. Some of this instruction will be of a quality that is
widely accepted for course credit in civilian educational
institutions after the servicemen is discharged ( toward a
Learning Society: Alternative Channels To Life, Work, And
Service, 1973, p.94).
A key part of the early Institute was the ability to grant servicemen credit for life

experience.

24

an ob.

Came

leamin

have t:

have b

Prepos
19705i
have bi
Unfl/ers
<

than ha

mining .

Lastly, the Carnegie Commission report Toward a Leamingfiociety stated
an objective which it called the creation of Learning Pavilions. According to the
Carnegie Commission:

Learning Pavilions designed and operated to encourage and
facilitate independent adult Ieaming will be developed in urban
centers and in areas that are remote from institutions of post .
secondary education. Funding responsibility for construction and
operation of such facilities will reside with metropolitan or county
governments (Toward a Learning Society: Alternative Channels
To Lie, Work, And Service, 1973, p.97).

The Carnegie Commission report even includes a suggestion of how a
Ieaming pavilion should be structured and set up. It appears the Institute must
have taken this to heart, because the lnstitute’s off campus centers seemed to
have been structured along the same path as the Carnegie Commissions
proposed Ieaming pavilions. The Carnegie Commission reports of the early
19703 which were advocating change in American higher education seem to
have been influential on the thinking of the developers of the Central Michigan
University Institute for Personal and Career Development.

Gould and Cross also delved into this area. They concluded that less
than half of the United States populace lived within an approximate forty-five
minute commuting distance of a low tuition, low selectivity college (Gould and
Cross, 1972, p.43-44). Stated numerically, they claimed that in 1970 there were
more than one hundred million people who were classified as geographically
remote from traditional free-access educational opportunities (Gould and Cross,
1972, p.43-44).

Serving the students or clientele became very important in regards to
university access. The reason was that, basically, higher education within the
United States had been designed for white middle-class people who could attend

residential programs. There were specialty schools for Native Americans such

as Carlisle in Pennsylvania, and colleges for African Americans in the South

25

such a
UMon
deenn
dass.i
1976.;
beenii
resourc
from thi
pomt a
deposh
general
be‘ave

P
universii

TEmarke

such as Hampton Institute in Virginia; however, these were the exceptions.
Unfortunately today and in the past, as one author noted, the truly
disenfranchised are often “the non-young, non-white, non-middle and upper-
class, non-fulI-time, and to a considerable extent, non-male students” (Keeton,
1976, p.38). It is not unusual that the education that has been sanctioned has
been most available to the elite; education that was available to those with
resources and status allowed for extended periods of uninterrupted withdrawal
from the world of work (Keeton, 1976, p.38). To briefly summarize the previous
point, all students — regardless of their educational background, personal
dispositions, employment situations, family responsibilities, and the like — must
generally find means to deal with an educational system which was designed for
the “average student” (Gould and Cross, 1972, p.16).

Perhaps the group of Americans who had the most difficult time with
university access was military personnel. The authors Gould and Cross
remarked on this by noting

There is almost certainly no occupational group in this country as
mobile as career military personnel. Every year, thousands upon
thousands of military men and women, many of them attempting
to earn college degrees through part-time educational programs
of one kind or another, are transferred to another community. For
such people, satisfactory fulfillment of the degree requirements at
any one institution—especially considering the large number of
academic credits “lost” in the transfer process and the usual one-
year residence requirement of most institutions—is extremely
difficult (Gould and Cross, 1972, p.18—19).

Extended degree programs in the United States expanded greatly in the
early 19703. There are many ideas as to why this event occurred. Some believe
that the 19603 with its emphasis on change led- to change not only in American
society in general, but also in American higher education. Others believe
declining student enrollment at American colleges and universities had a lot to do
with the creation of extended degree programs at many American colleges and

universities. As one author stated,

26

anc
inc:
Uni

mill

when the demographic curve at long last began to make a
dent on the euphoria of academic administrators, and it was
realized that there would be no vast increase in the
proportion of high school graduates attending college and
that majority of adult Americans had come of age at a time
when college—going was the pursuit of a small minority, with
an even smaller minority finishing the baccalaureate, there
was an eager belief that recruiting adults for evening,
weekend, or leaming-at-a-distance programs would replace
the1e41ghteen-to—twenty—four-year old cohort (Riesman, 1980,
p. .

Another author echoes this point, noting that it was around this time that
“many undergraduate colleges began to see a decline in the number of
applicants from secondary schools (Hall, 1991, p.2).”

Economics also factored into the increase in extended degree programs
and accessibility to higher education programs for adults. To compete in an
increasingly global economy, and also to alleviate income inequalities within the
United States, increased education was viewed as the key. There had been
much research to support these claims. One writer, E.F. Denison, had estimated
that greater education of labor increased output per man-hour in the United
States between 1925 and 1957 by one-third (Schwartzman, 1968, p.508). Many
years later other researchers also commented on this theme. One claimed that
“If America is to remain economically strong and vital, lifelong education is the
key” (Eurich, 1990, p.xiii). Another noted that

A number of changes in society have dictated the escalation
of interest in education for the people of all ages, but
perhaps the greatest force has been the recognition that
knowledge is power. For the individual, education is the
pathway to a better job, a better salary, and more of the
good things of life. For government, education provides the
potential power for solving social problems such as poverty,
unemployment, racism, and crime. For business, knowledge
is the power to produce the ideas and the goods to feed the
insatiable hunger of the American people for a rising
standard of-Iiving. For society, education holds the hope of
preparing citizens to accept personal responsibility for
solving problems such as environmental pollution, drug

usage, overpopulation, and racism (Gould and Cross, 1972,
p.4 ).

27

The external degree seemed like the right idea at the right time. A

researcher commented on this by saying
Ours has been called the ‘knowledge society,’ and rightfully
30. Today, knowledge is a key tool for the vast majority of
Americans—especially those in service-related employment,
including education, government, health, recreation, finance,
and communication. Manufacturing has acquiesced to
service, ushering in a post-industrial era where work is
increasingly the product of brainpower rather than muscle or
machine.

Consequently, ongoing higher education has become
more critical than ever, not only in maintaining and improving
our lives here at home, but in competing effectively in an
expanding global market. Where in the past we focused our
educational effort almost exclusively on the young, we have
now widened our embrace to include the growing number of
men and women who are middle-aged and elderly.

We must make higher education accessible to everyone
who needs it-—from high school graduate to the senior
citizen, and of course, with no barriers found on race,
religion, or creed (Hall, 1991, p.ix).

The target clientele for most extended degree programs is quite varied;
however, there are some key consistencies. First, there are numerous
homemakers and mothers who, in addition to canying out their traditional
responsibilities, desire to return to the job market or to participate more in
society. To accomplish many of these goals requires career updating as well as
additional education (Hall, 1991, p.ix).

Next, there are many mid-career workers on the assembly line in Detroit
or Cleveland who have gradually become aware that life is more than a turn of
the socket, over and over, day after day, or they suddenly find that foreign
competition or takeovers have led to a job loss and a new position requires a
different level of education.

The problems of the uneducated or low-skilled in our society have been
made more difficult by technological change. The demand for unskilled labor is
declining, while the demand for service, technical, managerial, and professional

jobs are on the increase. Today, higher education often offers the most direct

28

path to personal economy security, and to greater social acceptance for the adult
as well as the youth (Hall, 1991, p.x).

Another neglected group according to Hall is the elderly. Here are people
with energy, knowledge, wisdom, and most importantly time. With a small
amount of retraining, they might make their retirement years more rewarding
from their own perspective as well as society’s. Our system of higher education
has an important role to play in Ieaming how to respond and develop the
potential of these citizens as well (Hall, 1991, p.x).

The last group that could benefit from an external or extended degree
program is an individual who seeks adaptability. Here is an opportunity for
society to provide cultural and intellectual armor so that a person can weather
rapid change. Increasingly there will be growing needs and demands by our
citizens for assistance in coping with a world and society undergoing rapid and
explosive changes (Hall, 1991, p.x).

Access is a critical issue in higher education. The Institute for Personal
and Career Development was created specifically to assist the disenfranchised

student in obtaining a college degree.

Central Michigan University Institute for
Personal and Career Development

The founders of the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and
Career Development were influenced by many of the educational and intellectual
events of the late 19603 and early 19703. These events included the conflict in
Southeast Asia and campus student unrest, expansion of federal government
programs through the Great Society, and Carnegie Commission reports on

improving American higher education.

29

The Central Michigan University College of Extended Learning has partial
roots in Central Michigan University's Institute for Personal and Career
Development. The Institute for Personal and Career Development was designed
especially for students who could not come to campus, and it began in 1971 by
offering classes at Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Michigan (Hall, 1991, p.80). The
people who developed this program realized that there was a large segment of
the population that was not served by traditional methods of higher education. A
large part of this population was adult students or non-traditional students over
the age of twenty-five who could not come to campus to take classes because of
family, career, or military responsibilities. An innovative idea was developed that
if the students could not come to the Central Michigan University campus,
Central Michigan University would bring the classes and degree completion
programs to the students.

In particular, Dr. Charles Ping, who in the early 19703 was provost at
Central Michigan University, believed that there was great need for change in
higher education. Dr. Ping and others decided that Central Michigan University
would utilize its long history of offering programs off-campus to develop and offer
a total Central Michigan University degree program off-campus. 'Dr. Ping and Dr.
William Boyd, who was president of Central Michigan University during this
period, decided to establish another organization at Central Michigan University
that would have the same status as the other off-campus programs at Central
Michigan University. Traditionally, Central Michigan University had a large
system of delivering off campus classes for teachers in primarily 38 counties in
northern lower Michigan. The new organization was designed to operate
separately and independently from the traditional Division of Off-Campus

Education. It was called the Institute for Personal and Career Development.

30

3 ve
igni
the)
dise

mill

sch

doc

Dev

blag

The Institute for Personal and Career Development offered its programs in
a very avant garde manner. According to my research, the founders tried to
ignore much of what they knew about previous higher educational practices, and
they tried to develop a program whose overriding mission was to serve
disenfranchised adults. Many of the adult students that they targeted were at
military bases or employed by large corporations like Chrysler and Ford. Some
of the solutions that were developed to help these adults were compressed class
schedules and weekend classes and the granting of college credit for
documented prior Ieaming that these students may have gained through their
job, or perhaps experiences in the military. The Institute for Personal and Career
Development at Central Michigan University was very innovative for its time and

blazed a trail in many areas.

Institutions Which Started Programs for
Non-traditional Students

After World War II, more college level programs especially designed for
adults began to appear in America. Probably the earliest program especially
designed expressly for the adult working student was the Special Baccalaureate
Degree Program for Adults (SBDPA) at Brooklyn College (Hall, 1991, p.72).
Created with assistance from the Ford Foundation by President Harry Gideonse
in 1954, this program was headed by Bernard H. Stern from its creation until his
retirement in 1971 (Hall, 1991, p.72). This program also awarded credit for new
knowledge gained through experience, by trying to equatesuch knowledge with
existing college courses. I

The University of London was another institution that started an external
degree. The University of London originally came into being as an examining

body for students in other institutions, and from its creation in 1836 until 1900 it

31

hac
do .
the
low
the
rou;

old

Ain
we
lose
deg

nee

: 1
.01:

one

had no other function (Pifer, 1971, p.6). The University of London then did not
do any teaching but simply undertook to examine students annually and grant
them degrees if they passed their finals (Pifer, 1971, p.7). Nevertheless, in its
low cost and its impartial availability to a wide range of students irrespective of
their race, color, domicile, or economic circumstances, there has been a kind of
rough democratic quality about the London external degree that has made it one
of the world’s great higher educational achievements (Pifer, 1971, p.7).

South Africa also picked up on this idea, creating the University of South
Africa in 1916 as an examining and degree-granting authority for students who
were enrolled in and receiving their regular instruction in various other institutions
located throughout the country. Its purpose was to maintain a high, uniform
degree standard throughout the nation during the period these institutions
needed to mature (Pifer, 1971, p.6).

A student who wished to enroll in the University of South Africa had to
follow a set procedure. After admission, the student pursued his or her study in
one or more of thirty-six fields organized into courses taught by faculty members
who had equal status with professors at other universities in the country (Houle,
1973, p.39). The degrees offered were the baccalaureate, the honors
baccalaureate, the masters, and the doctorate. Students could create
discussion groups; they could write letters to or call upon their instructors, and
during summer vacation; they could attend special schools. Essentially, though,
teaching was by correspondence and Ieaming was undertaken independently;
textbooks, additional readings, audiotapes and when necessary, other materials
were sent to the student by mail. In 1972, there were 29,289 students directly
enrolled in courses taught by 524 instructors (Houle, 1973, p.39). Tests and
exams over the courses were offered in about five hundred centers in the

country and abroad (Houle, 1973, p.39). Today the University of South Africa

32

has

(hit

rec:
mat
wee

81 Si

“Gist

Cteai

0me

has approximately 130,000 registered students all over the world
(httpzllwww.uisa.ac.zalgeneralfindex.htrnl).

Another university overseas that implemented an interesting extended
degree program was Britain’s Open University. In January 1971, Britain’s Open
University started with approximately 23,000 adult students enrolled (T routt,
1971, p.34). Since that first year over 138,000 students have participated in the
Open University program (http:/lwww.outreach.usf.eduloucourseslhistory.html).
The Open University utilizes tutoring centers throughout the country, tape
recorded lectures, demonstrations on television and radio, correspondence
materials, and laboratory kits. In addition, each student is required to take two
weeks of full-time instruction each summer in classroom and laboratory facilities
at schools throughout the country (T routt, 1971, p.34).

The Open University is specifically designed for adult students, and
particulariy those employed full-time. Only men and women twenty-one years of
age or older can enter, and a very strong effort is made to reach working-class or
blue collar people for whom the university serves as a second chance for a
previously missed opportunity (Houle, 1973, p.34).

Extended degree programs have been developed at various institutions of
higher education in the United States. However, perhaps one of the most
noteworthy was the creation of Empire State College. Empire State College was
created as a non-residential degree granting college within the State University
of New York. Under its own administrative organization, it drew upon resources
of the entire university to devise new patterns of independent study and flexible
approaches to Ieaming. This provided accessibility for young people and adults
for whom an off-campus individualized pattern would be more effective (Hall,

1991, p.130).

33

This decision was of critical importance. From the beginning, Empire
State College was established not as an evening college or extension program,
not a school, not even as an office within the SUNY central administration, but as
a college (Hall, 1991, p.130). As a college, Empire State had the authority to
define its own academic program and to recommend degree candidates directly
to the SUNY regents (Hall, 1991, p.130).

Learning at Empire State College occurred in any or all of six types: 1.
Formal classes offered by any kind of institution, not merely by colleges or
universities. Empire State itself does not offer courses. 2. Cooperative studies,
in which many students with similar interests work together collaboratively. 3.
Tutorials, in which a teacher guides an individual student studying a certain area
of knowledge or competence. 4. Organized self-instructional programs, like
correspondence courses, programmed Ieaming, or televised instruction. 5.
Direct experience, which may be supervised or unsupervised, but permits self-
examination and reflection by the student. 6. Independent study by reading,
writing, travel, or other means (Houle, 1973, p.98).

Empire State College wanted to do many dynamic things in higher
education. One was to use mentors who assist the students. The mentor is an
academically trained person who has had experience as a faculty member
(Houle, 1973, p.99). The mentor may work full-time for Empire State (on either a
permanent or term basis) or be a faculty member at a different college or
university.

Empire State also wanted to find a means to recognize with a college
degree the vast number of talented individuals who had earned large numbers of
college credits and the knowledge that went with those credits. In addition, other
persons demonstrated substantial college-level Ieaming in the performance of

their jobs and lives; however, they were blocked from career advancement by

34

the lack of a degree. By recognizing such Ieaming in addition to assessing prior
Ieaming for credit, Empire State College enabled many otherwise talented
people to move forward toward personal educational goals (Hall, 1991, p.94).

Empire State initiated some other innovative ideas also. For example,
Empire State shipped books directly to students by parcel post with a 24 hour
order turnaround (Hall, 1991, p.76). It also allowed previous Ieaming, which
includes knowledge gained through completion of the degree requirement. A
student’s program included Ieaming approaches as varied as an independent
reading program, international travel, or registration in a formal classroom course
(Hall, 1991, p.96).

There are other universities that have also implemented innovative
extended degree programs. Florida lntemational University created a program
where the student and his or her- program advisor devised an “educational
contract plan” for completing the requirements for a degree, either by classes at
available institutions or by other acceptable means, and for evaluating the
student’s accomplishment (Houle, 1973, p.105).

Metropolitan State University, which originally opened as Minnesota
Metropolitan State College in 1971, also utilized innovative ideas. It obtained
legislative authorization—which meant working out an agreement not to compete
with the seven community colleges of the Twin Cities area but to establish itself
as an upper-division degree-granting institution that would give credit for
previous academic work and also for certified competence in “life experience”
(Riesman, 1980, p.114).

The University Without Walls was another innovative educational concept.
The University Without Walls was sponsored by the Union for Experimenting
Colleges and Universities, an association which in February, 1972, had twenty-

five members. Eighteen took part in the University Without Walls, along with two

35

nor
Ant
was

exp

C‘Jll‘
rear
wort

with

non-union colleges and universities. The Union, which was headquartered at
Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio, and whose president was Samuel Baskin
was created in 1964 as a way of cooperatively conducting innovation and
experimentation in college teaching (Houle, 1973, p.112).

For the most part the University Without Walls program was
individualized. The program began with a process of orientation followed by the
choosing by the student and his or her teacher-advisor of a plan of action using
different kinds of experiences chosen from an inventory of Learning Resources
built up at each institution. The student worked at a pace determined by his or
her abilities and by the availability of the resources to be used, keeping a
cumulative record of Ieaming plans and accomplishments. When the student felt
ready to present himself or herself for a degree, the final evaluation of his or her
work was made by a review committee of faculty members, students, and others
with whom the student had been working (Houle, 1973, p.113).

The institutions in the University Without Walls program represented a
broad spectrum of colleges and universities and included: Antioch College, Bard
College, Chicago State University, Friends World College,'Goddard College,
Howard University, Loretto Heights College, Morgan State College, New College
(Sarasota, Florida), New York University, Northeastern Illinois University, Roger
Williams College, Shaw University, Skidmore College, Staten Island Community
College, Stephens College, the University of Massachusetts, the University of
Minnesota, the University of South Carolina, and Westminster College (Houle,
1973, p.112).

The above mentioned institutions created external degree programs due
to the need to educate people who could not attend classes on-campus. These
people needed additional education to open up economic opportunities in the

global economy. The Institute for Personal and Career Development was also

36

one of these institutions that provided access to students who could not come to

campus, therefore, giving them an opportunity for economic advancement.

Innovations Within External Degree Programs

The external degree was innovative in many ways. However, perhaps
one of the most innovative aspects of many external degree programs was the
awarding of college credit for life experience. One author used the following
analogy to illustrate this point:

Imagine, if you will, a woman in her mid-sixties presenting
herself at your institution, seeking credit for her life
experiences. She has never been to college, but she brings
with her a list of her experiences, a thick portfolio of
reflections written about these experiences, and a collection
of commendations in her numerous social contributions.
From the list, it becomes evident that she has taught at a
private girl’s school, helped found a reform school for boys,
served as a delegate for her nation to an international
organization, aided in the drafting of an important
international convent, spent countless hours visiting
wounded servicemen, acted as an official in the ambulance
corps, traveled extensively with intensive purpose-—visiting
the disadvantaged, the ill housed, and the poor, looking into
working conditions in the mines and living conditions in
mental hospitals—and then turned her efforts to remedy the
conditions she had observed, and delivered over 1000
lectures on a variety of topics. As evidence of her reflection
on these activities, she provides you with three published
books and copies of several years of syndicated daily
columns in newspapers across the nation. As supporting
evidence, she offers examples of awards granted her by
institutions and organizations throughout the world.

At a great number of other institutions, her rich life
experience would yield only one year of credit. And at still
other colleges, no provision would be available for disposing
of her request except by denial (Keeton, 1976, p.ix).

The individual mentioned in the previous quotation was Eleanor Roosevelt.
Today her situation would have been altered greatly because the possibility of
earning academic credit for Ieaming through experience has grown dramatically

at most colleges. According to Keeton four reasons aided this growth:

1. Many involved in education have begun to realize that there
is too sharp a distinction between life and Ieaming.

2. The range of subjects taught in college has expanded.
Community colleges in large numbers have joined the ranks
of higher education, and the curricula of these colleges
include occupational and paraprofessional classes some of
which are taught better through apprenticeship and
experiential Ieaming.

3. As colleges and universities become more serious about
recruiting and serving adults it has become clear that some
of the precollege activities of these older students seem very
much like the in-college activities of others. Why should
some receive credit and others not?

4. The arguments of the day and various external pressures
have contributed to the increased demand for credit for life
experience. Many commissions have urged greater
recognition of Ieaming wherever and whenever it occurs
(Keeton, 1976, p.ix).

Gould and Cross made an interesting point when talking about granting

credit for life experience by stating,
why does the ‘regular’ student obtain ‘credit’ for a course in
say, student teaching while the Peace Corps student, who
has taught for several years in a foreign school, receives no
‘credit’ for his experience? Why does a traditionally enrolled
student earn credit for a course in something like “urban
problems” while the VISTA worker, who has spent months in
the ghetto working with those who live there, receives no
such recognition? Clearly, some procedure must be
provided for these kinds of genuine educational experiences
to be recognized (Gould and Cross, 1972, p.21).

Lastly, it should be noted that what is being advocated is recognition of
educational experiences, not just experience. Many advocate that educational
credentials should not be assigned to various work or travel experiences unless
academically relevant outcomes of these experiences can be demonstrated.
Non-traditional study should not be regarded as a way of receiving credit for
having lived a “well rounded” life (Gould and Cross, 1972, p.21).

The increased importance of assessing informal Ieaming and granting
credit for life experience led many of the University Without Walls programs to
join other institutions in 1974 in the formation of the Cooperative Assessment of

Experiential Learning or CAEL (now called the Council for Adult and Experiential

38

exi

col

sto

SCli

will

Ollie

unit

Learning) (Hall, 1991, p.99). This organization, which was initially funded by the
Carnegie Corporation and quartered at the Educational Testing Service in
Princeton, New Jersey, has played an extremely vital role, both in helping to
codify good practice and by encouraging the spread and acceptance of
experiential credit to hundreds of colleges and universities (Hall, 1991, p.99).
Another important factor in the development of the external degree is
college level achievement testing. These exams are taken by prospective
students, and if passed, allow the students credit for certain subjects like English,
science, mathematics, and the social sciences. Houle, in 1973, asserted that
when looking at the development of the external degree in America,
It is likely that the development of college-level achievement
testing (particularly the breadth and national coverage of
CLEP) will prove to have been the most significant factor in
laying the groundwork for the external degree in the United
States (Houle, 1973, p.76).
An innovation that the Institute for Personal and Career Development and
other institutions used included granting college credit for life experience. The
Council for Adult and Experiential Learning was vital in this area by helping to

encourage the spread and acceptance of experiential Ieaming to colleges and

universities.

Problems with the External Degree

There are many potential problems for external degree programs.
Perhaps the largest problem that external degree programs face is the
acceptance of their degree. Cyril Houle conducted a review of the possible
reasons for acceptance, notes when writing about the‘extemal degree, there is
often the question “Will the external degree be regarded as cheap and
unworthy?” (Houle, 1973, p.151). Based on new developments in American

practice, the answer in 1973 was, more than likely, no. Several forms of

39

BXI
bu:

on

our

iso

exti

Wag
suit
10 e)

adm

acceptance contributed. First, according to Houle there was leadership by
example. “Some of the most outstanding American leaders of government,
business, social, and academic life are the products of evening colleges or hold
other extension degrees” (Houle, 1973, p.151 ).

Second, other institutions and businesses began to accept it. Houle
quotes the president of one institution as stating,

We’ve had no difficulty. The baccalaureate we offer has
been accepted by other institutions and by business and
industry, for example, in- terms of tuition incentives; all
ac1c5e§)t it as a basic educational experience (Houle, 1973,
p. .

A third area of acceptance concerned graduate school admission, which
is possibly the thomiest issue as far as acceptability is concerned. But one
external degree program director gave the following testimony:

So far so good—particularly in terms of graduate admission.
About half of our students so far have gone to graduate
study, and I think one of the early figures several years back
was that eighty-two out of eighty-three applicants for
graduate or some form of higher study had been accepted.
What we find again and again is that the qualities of
autonomy and ability to define and execute independent
study are precisely those qualities which are treasured in the
better institutions of higher Ieaming (Houle, 1973, p.152).

There were many other obstacles when starting an external degree
program. For example, within the traditional framework, certain parameters, or
guidelines, are created and then accepted by everyone. However, when it came
to external degree programs Houle noted the comments of one program
administrator:

In a new operation none of this exists. What is a full-time
equivalent student? How do you decide that? We’ve had to
lay out new guidelines for that essentially, and then build into
our whole contractual format. How do you do such a simple
thing as have admissions, or charge tuition, particularly if
you’re operating without a fixed calendar? Suppose the
student just doesn’t work out well with a particular tutor, how
do you shift, how do you provide for that student to move
fonivard without being penalized for that? What does a
faculty member’s year look like? We have them on twelve-

40

A
mNast
wndob
mall9
supooni
universit
supponi

Vt

mmae
1
l
l
l

Inaddiic
mm$€1
bodies of
C0mmitte
pail-lime

9Uality of

month contract; how much of that is spent monitoring, how
much doing other kinds of preparation? Is it an appointment
like basis, client-related, or is there a collegial group that has
to discuss all these problems? These are absolutely the
most stunning academic questions you’d want to deal with.
They’re very much to the point and represent the real
challenge of what we’re trying to do (Houle, 1973, p.122).

Another problem of the external degree was the tendency for colleges and
universities in need of funds to turn to special off-campus courses for adults as a
way to turn a quick profit. Educational gimmicks can sometimes be the result
(Hall, 1991, p.76). Also, the extension degree and the administrative unit which
support it and other educational services often produce revenue for their
universities. In at least a few cases they are maintained just because they help
support other parts of the institution (Houle, 1973, p.132).

Who teaches in external degree programs could also be problematic. As
one researcher succinctly stated,

the teaching staff of theevening college typically consists of a

high ratio of part-time teachers recruited from the day college,

other educational institutions, the professions and the business

community (Jacobson, 1970, p.16).
In addition, the lack of full-time faculties make it almost impossible for the staffs
of these special programs to develop any substantial influence within the political
bodies of their institutions, especially within the faculty senates and curriculum
committees which make decisions on academic policy (Hall, 1975, p.353). Also
part-time faculty members were not expected to give the same intensity or
quality of service for students in these special programs or to the academic
community within which they work as full-time faculty members. Full-time faulty
members teaching in special programs on overload can be expected, in most
cases, to direct their primary loyalty and work toward their regular academic
departments (Hall, 1975, p.353).

The problem of who teaches in an external degree program was realized

by external degree program administrators. Theoretically, members of the

41

general faculty should be involved full time, part time, or on an overload basis as
independent study directors, tutors, counselors, teachers, and seminar directors.
Participation of regular faculty, rather than special faculty appointed only for the
special degree program, would help insure the maintenance of academic
standards and would keep open the channels of communications throughout the
academic community (T routt, 1971, p.15).

It was asserted at the time the Institute was founded that faculty for
external degree programs should be organized in an academic unit so that the
general faculty would retain ultimate control of the curriculum, instruction and
evaluation. The administrative location of the academic unit was really a matter
of convenience. It could be placed with the academic unit having responsibility
for non-traditional student-programming if such existed. If not, the new program
could be centered within an existing academic unit such as the College of Arts
and Sciences or a new academic unit could be established, such as a College of
Continuing Education or a College of Liberal Studies (T routt, 1971, p.15). In the
Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career Development the
faculty did retain ultimate control over the curriculum and instruction in the
Institute. .

A large problem when establishing an extended degree program is
obtaining faculty support for the program. The question often is how can faculty
support be won for the program? (Houle stated that in the early 19703 many
administrators indicated that the securing of positive and continuing collaboration
by the faculty was indispensable to change (Houle, 1973, p.141). As one
administrator in the early 19703 noted:

Looking at starting a program, I think the biggest major
problem is getting your faculty involved; getting them to
develop some confidence in this method of offering a degree
and the eventually winning them to the point where they

support it and then eventually become enthusiastic about it
(Houle, 1973, p.142).

42

A key question of importance to many faculty was, will the system of
academic promotion and tenure be changed to reward those who teach in
external degree programs? In the early 19703 the system worked heavily in
favor of those who taught in the internal degree program. Both administrators
and colleagues tended to favor the “regular” faculty member, the one who taught
on campus, was present to perform their committee duties, and made up a part
of the network of informal communication which is so vital in college and
university life (Houle, 1973, p.145).

Another large problem that many external degree programs had is that
most of the clientele or students they teach are adults. This can be problematic
because effective instruction for adults tended to be different from typical
instruction for 18-24 year old undergraduate students that most universities and
colleges were used to teaching. If so many adult students were coming to
university campuses, this brings numerous questions. Firstly, were university
faculty prepared and trained to teach adult students? Or as one author stated,
“can present teaching methods meet the requirements of the external degree?”
(Houle, 1973, p.166) Numerous researchers have concluded that adults should
be taught in a different manner than non-adults. When teaching adults, many
scholars believe it is important to foster mutual respect. As one scholar who
researched this topic in the late 19803 noted, “A fundamental feature of effective
facilitation is to make participants feel that they are valued as separate, unique
individuals deserving of respect” (Brookfield, 1990, p.12). Other key aspects of
teaching adults include action and reflection, or alternating teaching, or an
activity with time for the adult to reflect or contemplate. Another key aspect of
adult Ieaming is that teachers should be facilitators who should assist adults in
becoming self-directed Ieamers (Brookfield, 1990, p.18). Lastly, adults prefer

active or “hands on” teaching strategies. A problem is that most university

43

instructors do not teach in that manner. One study found lecturing to be the
mode of instruction of 89% of the physical scientists and mathematicians, 81% of
the social scientists, and 61% of the humanities faculty (Katz, 1988, p.161).
There is a question if university instructors have the knowledge and background
for teaching the adult learner, or perhaps if they will have to go through some
seminars or retraining in this area.

No current social issue has required such substantial response and
innovation from the university as the dramatic shift from first-time, full-time,
usually residential students, to part-time, usually commuting, almost always older
students. As one author noted,

Although this shift has now become the most pervasive, widely
accepted higher Ieaming innovation of the twentieth century,
higher education, with exceptions at some urban universities, has
historically regarded part-time students as second class citizens,
carefully segregating programs for part-time and older students
from those offered to full-time, ‘regular’ students. Educational
apartheid has been the rule. But that pattern is now changing.
(Hall, 1991, p.69)

In the 19703 adult students were often defined as those Over the age of
twenty-five, and their numbers were growing (Houle, 1973, p.47). In the early
19703 some researchers believed that nearly half the adult population could be
regarded as potential students (Gould and Cross, 1972, p.50). One study noted
that between the early 19703 and the late 19803, the percentage of part-time
students increased from 32 percent to 42 percent, and the percentage of
students over the age of 25 increased from 28 to 42 percent (Houle, 1992,
p.154). Another study noted in 1988 that “of the 12.8 million degree credit
students who enrolled in colleges, 5.5 million, or 43 percent, attended part-time”
(Hall, 1991, p.73). In addition, in this study part-time status correlates well with

age; the enrollment of part-time students is roughly equal to the number of

students age 25 and over (Hall, 1991, p.73).

There are numerous problems when creating an external degree program.
One problem is the acceptance of the degree. Other problems can include
general logistical obstacles for starting a program such as who will teach in the
program, gaining on-campus faculty support, and training teachers in effective
techniques for teaching adult students. The Institute for Personal and Career

Development has encountered these issues over its lifespan.

University InnOVation

Many experts argue that in order to deal effectively with the large adult
student population which needs access to American higher education,
universities need to be innovative. Change often is slow in American society, but
can be especially slow in the American university. As one scholar noted,
“resistance to fundamental reform Was ingrained in the American collegiate and
university tradition, as over three hundred years of history demonstrated”
(Rudolph, 1962, p.491). Another writer noted that when talking about innovation
and change, business models are often superimposed on universities. However,
this author noted that “the organizational characteristics of academic institutions
are so different from other institutions that traditional management theories do
not apply to them” (Bimbaum, 1988, p.28). The same author continues that a
large difference between business firms and universities is that “business firms,
unlike institutions of higher education, have no tenured faculty members, face no
criticisms from employees shielded by the principles of academic freedom, and
have no alumni” (Bimbaum, 1988, p.28).

How does a university innovate or change? Many scholars believe that
universities will undergo innovation and change to fulfill public needs. As one
scholar noted, “University response to student choice and initiative is the single

most powerful force for innovation and change” (Hall, 1991, p.78). Newman

45

echoed another view by noting, “The university must succeed in two dimensions:
it must be skilled in the arts of education and research, and it must be responsive
to the public’s needs” (Newman, 1987, p.1). Taylor claimed that “changes inside
the educational system have come primarily from outside. The society and the
goals it has set for itself exert the pressures, assert the demands, and supply the
funds for doing what society wants done” (Taylor, 1971, p.56).

Other authors have noted how difficult university change can be,
regardless of the circumstances. Robert Bimbaum stated that “institutional
processes and cultures, like individual habits and dependencies, are notoriously
resistant to change” (Bimbaum, 1988, p.226). Newman states that when
university change does take place it is often for complex reasons, for he notes
“effective change does not happen by chance nor does ittake place because
some simple set of caUses has obvious effects. Organizational change is an
extremely complex phenomenon” (Newman, 1987, p.173).

Martin Trow in his analysis of change in American universities felt that
historical conditions were key to understanding change in American universities.
Trow notes, I

The basic explanations lie, as often, in the peculiar historical
origins of the system, created in a European colony, on European
models, but without the body of Ieamed men who constituted
European universities of the time. That fact gave a special
preeminence and strength to the college president, at the
beginning usually the only Ieamed man, the only professor, on the
college staff. And the strength of the American college president
persists to this day. In addition, the weakness of government,
both at the federal level and in the States after the Revolution,
ensured that they could neither provide adequate higher
education nor constrain other private groups and organizations
from doing so. The resulting promiscuous chartering effectively
removed American colleges and universities from the close
control by central government that charters in Europe provided.

In the new United States almost anyone could start a college that
awarded degrees, and almost anyone did, without governmental
approval (or support), or their setting of academic standards.
Motives for founding colleges varied: supporting religious
denominations, resisting the threat of barbarism at the frontier,
even speculation in land, were among the motives of the founders

46

 

Trow believes 1
recent forces 0

1.

of colleges. The result was a system of colleges marked by great
diversity of standard, with a good deal of initiative but without
much support; certainly without any adequate guaranteed support
from the State. And that in turn led to a lively competition among
the myriad institutions of higher education for support, and
especially for students and their tuition payments which were
crucial for the private colleges, and important for all. And this
necessarily called for an entrepreneurial stance which
strengthened the power of the college presidents (Burgen ed.,
1996, p.28).

Trow believes that there are five characteristics that explain the historical and
recent forces of change in American higher education. These are:

1. Americans believe, as on the whole Europeans do not, that
competition in higher education, as in other areas of
organized social life, is the most effective way of planning for
an unpredictable future.

2. A corollary of the acceptance of competition is the high
measure of autonomy attached to our individual institutions,
and their consequent ability to go into the market for
students and academic staff without seeking approval
elsewhere, in a ministry or a regional board.

3. Another corollary of competition is a perennial shortage of
cash, since competition almost by definition makes current
income inadequate to achieve ever higher aspirations.

4. Central to our growth and diversity, both of student numbers
and of institutions, is the broad assumption, in the US, very
widely shared among all kinds of Americans, that education
is intrinsically a good thing, and that everyone should get as
much of it as they can be persuaded to enroll for.

5. Linked to that article of faith is that generally speaking there
is no cap, no upper limit to the number of students who can
be enrolled in the public institutions of higher education
(Burgen ed., 1996, p.29).

Other scholars have also looked at how the historical foundations of
American higher education have influenced change in American higher
education. D. Bruce Johnstone noted:

Because the United States has excess higher educational
capacity, this intensive marketing is carried out by nearly all
institutions, with handsome publications, direct mail solicitations,
traveling admissions staffs, college fairs, and other sophisticated
marketing techniques, all designed to meet enrollment targets to
earn the necessary tuition dollars or to meet the enrollment
quotas required in the public sector to secure state funding
(Green, 1997, p.138).

47

Johnstone further notes that it is competition that is driving much of the change
in American higher education today. Johnstone claims that

Public higher education is made further vulnerable by making up
a significant share of the discretionary portion of most state
operating budgets (that is, excluding debt service, Medicaid,
corrections, and local school aid), and by having alternative
income sources in tuition and private fund-raising, which make
public higher education seem better able (than other public
agencies) to withstand the new public sector austerity (Green,

1 997, p. 144).

Johnstone also believes that

The major leadership challenge for the less selective institutions,
both public and private, is to hold a market niche amid increasing
competition, growing price resistance, a nearly saturated higher
educational market for adults and other part-time students, and a
generally flat supply of high school graduates for the rest of the
decade. Most of the remedies on the cost side have been taken:
administrative, professional, and clerical staff has been cut;
faculty have been non replaced, non renewed, laid off, and
sometimes replaced by low-cost, part-time faculty; maintenance
has been deferred; and depreciation reserves depleted (Green,

1 997, p. 144).

Johnstone additionally notes'that a quest for revenue is increasingly driving
change in universities. Johnstone claims:

On the revenue side, most have already done the easy and the
obvious: sophisticated (and expensive) marketing campaigns,
fine tuned price discrimination, new and trendy academic
programs, foreign student recruitment, partnerships with feeder
schools, and student-friendly calendars featuring evening
colleges, weekend colleges, self-paced distance learning, credit
for life experiences, and other alternatives to the traditional full-
time, daytime nine month academic year. Whether imaginative
and courageous leadership can open new student markets
remains to be seen. But it seems possible that no amount of
‘leadership’ can overcome what is at the heart a combination of
bad demographics, excess capacity, and a softening of demand,
partly in reaction to price (Green, 1997, p.144).

The creators of the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and
Career Development seemed to have been greatly influenced by these trends
which were forcing change in American higher education. The founders of the
Institute incorporated many of these new ideas and concepts into the creation of

the Institute. Change is traditionally slow in American universities and when

48

change does occur, it is often the result of many forces. The creation of the
Institute for Personal and Career Development at Central Michigan University
was an innovation triggered by external events, and the educational philosophies

of the leaders of Central Michigan University in the early 19703.

Bolman and Deal Model

The framework that the researchers Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal have
developed to study organizations provides a framework for this dissertation. The
Bolman and Deal Model is used as a way to study the change process at Central
Michigan University, which resulted in the creation of the Institute for Personal
and Career Development. The Bolman and Deal Model is based upon four
frames: the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and
the symbolic frame (Bolman and Deal, 1997, p.15). Bolman and Deal advocate
that to have a fuller understanding of a total organization, it is best to view it
through these four frames.

The author would like to briefly define the four frame model of Bolman and
Deal. When looking at an organization through the structural frame, the
metaphor for the organization Bolman and Deal use is the factory or the
machine. In addition, the central concepts associated with the structural frame
are rules, roles, goals, policies, technology, and environment (Bolman and Deal,
1 997, p. 1 5).

The next frame that Bolman and Deal advocate is the human resource
frame. The metaphor for the organization that Bolman and Deal use for the
human resource frame is family. The central concepts that are key for them
when looking at an organization through the human resource frame are needs,

skills, and relationships (Bolman and Deal, 1997, p.15).

49

The third frame that Bolman and Deal advocate is the political frame. The
metaphor Bolman and Deal use when describing this frame is the jungle. In
addition, the central concepts that Bolman and Deal believe are key to
understanding this frame are power, conflict, competition, and organizational
politics (Bolman and Deal, 1997, p.15).

Lastly, Bolman and Deal advocate viewing an organization through the
symbolic frame. The metaphors they use to describe this frame are carnival,
temple, and theater. The central concepts they state that are key to
understanding this frame are culture, meaning, metaphor, ritual, ceremony,
stories, and heroes (Bolman and Deal, 1997, p.15).

Bolman and Deal’s frames lead the author to explore this historical case
study from several vantage points. These vantage points include the
structural setup, the people involved, the political climate, and the symbolism of
the creation of the Institute for Personal and Career Development.

The Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career
Development was a case of innovation that succeeded. The Institute started as
an idea in the early 19703 and now is a nation wide program that enrolls
upwards of 15,000 students a year. The framework articulated in Reframing
Organizations provided a framework for achieving a fuller understanding of the
Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career Development.

This study relates to the question of university access by non-traditional
students and the problems associated with how successful innovation
surrounding this issue of access occurs. The author has given a brief history of
this question of access by non-traditional students to higher education. In
addition to the author’s knowledge, there has never been a study about Central
Michigan University’s Institute for Personal and Career Development and how it

is an example of innovation in educational access that has succeeded. This

50

study will on
Personal an

how it applie

study will provide an understanding of Central Michigan University’s Institute for
Personal and Career Development as an example of the innovative process and

how it applies to access in higher education.

51

43:]

 

l
establisl
Persona
underste
Develop
research

and Ten

Br
guidance
the Sub.{
were bag

in the toll

Th

din
n A5136!
SubSedlie

CHAPTER 3
STUDY DESIGN

Research Question

The research question for this dissertation is, “What is the history of the
establishment and early years of the Central Michigan University Institute for
Personal and Career Development, and how do these early years help one
understand the subsequent success of the Institute for Personal and Career
Development?” The sub-questions were developed by utilizing the overall
research question in combination with the research framework that Lee Bolman

and Terrence Deal developed in their work Reframing Organizations (1997).

Framework for the Questions

Bolman and Deal’s Conceptual framework provided structure and
guidance for this study. The author applied Bolman and Deal’s four frames to
the sub—questions and research. The author asked extension questions which
were based upon the sub-questions and which fit under the four frames as seen

in the following section.

Sub-Questions

The first sub—question is from the structural frame:

“What structural factors contributed to the establishment and early years
of the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career
Development, and how do these structural factors help one understand its
subsequent success?”

52

The extension questions under this sub-question include:

* Why did Central Michigan University start the Institute for
Personal and Career Development?

* Why did CMU develop a new institution and not use the office of
Off Campus Education?

* Did CMU model their program from a program at another
university?

* How was the fee structure for Institute classes developed?

* Who came up with the idea of what suitable pay back would be
from the Institute to the University?

* How were students recruited into the program?

* How was it determined, and who determined, how many credits
students would get for “prior Ieaming” to use towards their degrees?

* What were some of the logistical problems with developing this
program, such as obtaining classroom space and contracting professors
to teach in distant classrooms?

* How were academic standards and the quality of the program
maintained?

* How would the Central Michigan University on-campus library
be utilized for off-campus students who needed its resources?

* Did the Institute have to be licensed or authorized to teach in the
various states and countries where it offered classes?

The second sub-question is from the human resource frame:

“What human resource factors contributed to the establishment and early
years of the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career
Development and how do these human resource factors help one understand its
subsequent success ?”

The extension questions under this sub.question include:

* Who initiated the idea of the Institute for Personal and Career
Development?

* Who came up with the idea of experiential Ieaming? Giving
credit for work experiences, etc.?

* Who decided where I.P.C.D. classes and offices would be
located?

* How, and at what rate were compensation packages developed
for professors who taught in this program?

53

* How was it decided that Central Michigan University would offer
a total degree program off-campus utilizing mainly adjunct faculty?

* How were professors recruited to teach in this program?

* How were adjunct professors who taught in this program
supervised?

My purpose was to gather information on who were the principal people and to
explore other human resource questions according to the Bolman and Deal

model.

The third sub-question is from the political frame:

“What political factors contributed to the establishment and early years of
the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career
Development and how do these political factors help one understand its
subsequent success?”

The extension questions under this sub-question include:

* What was the University Faculty Senate’s role in the
development of the Institute?

* What was the University Faculty Association’s role in the
development of the Institute?

* Did campus faculty accept this new program?

* What was the role of the Board of Trustees in the creation
of this Institute?

I chose to use the word “role” rather than the Bolman and Deal term
“power” because role is a more neutral term, but the intent was to get at power

relationships.

The last sub—question is from the symbolic frame:

”What symbolic factors contributed to the establishment and early years
of the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career Development
and how7do these symbolic factors help one understand its subsequent
success.”

54

The extension questions under this sub-question include:

* How was it determined that the degrees given to students
who graduated through this Institute would be the exact same as the
degrees of students who graduated from on-campus?

* How were off-campus Institute centers structured, set up, and
created to make them feel connected to the main campus?

I also added a historical frame of my own to the Bolman and Deal model
to put the findings into a time perspective and to permit me to explore the impact

of specific events in the immediate as well as national contexts.

Methodology

This study is historical in nature. The research consisted of archival
research and interviews with key individuals who were involved in the creation of
the Institute. I use the procedures and principles derived for oral history. It was
vital to understand the larger as well as local historical context for this

educational innovation.

Archives

The archival research for this study was conducted in Rowe Hall on the
campus of Central Michigan University in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan as this is where
the College of Extended Learning was located until 1998. It was at this location
that many of the archives for the Institute for Personal and Career Development
were housed. In addition, research was conducted at Park Library on the
campus of Central Michigan University where additional documents that pertain
to the creation of the Institute were stored.

The author utilized a variety of documents to prepare this study. Some of
these documents include books about the history of Central Michigan University.

These books included: The First Hundred Years: A Portrait of Central Michkgap

55

University 189fl92 by John Cumming; Proudly We Serve: Historical Sketch of
Central Michigan College by Administrations 1892-1955 by Rolland Maybee; and
For Myself Alone: An lrreverent Histoy of Central Micliqan University by
Sherman Riccards.

Magazine articles, newspaper articles, and pamphlets were also used as
resources by the author for this study. Some of the magazines, newspapers,
and pamphlets used by the author were: various articles from the Central
Michigan University student newspaper the Central Michigan University Life;
various issues of Outreach, which is the newsletter for the Central Michigan
University Institute for Personal and Career Development; articles from
Reflections: President’s Report, Centennial E_dition 1992-1993,which was put
out by Central Michigan University to celebrate its centennial; Silver Anniversani:
25 Years of Service, which was a pamphlet put out by the Central Michigan
University College of Extended Learning to celebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary;
also various brochures and pamphlets that were put out by the Institute.

Lastly, there were many specific docUments that were used by the author
in this study. These included: Master Agreements Between Central Michigan
University and the Central Michigan University Faculty Association; Academic
Council Minutes from the Institute for Personal and Career Development;
Academic Senate Minutes from the Central Michigan University Academic
Senate; Course Bulletins from the Institute for Personal and Career
Development; and Annual Reports from the Central Michigan University Institute

for Personal and Career Development.

Interviews

Interviews also played a critical role in this study. Interview research was

conducted in the offices or homes of people who were interviewed for this

56

project. The interviews were conducted either in person or by telephone. Each
interview lasted between forty-five minutes and an hour and a half. Attached to
the end of the dissertation is a copy of the interview questions used in this study.
There were consent forms for interviewees to sign, and all interviewees signed
the consent forms. Each interviewee agreed to be named for this study, and
agreed to be quoted. The interviews, which were all taped, were transcribed
after they were conducted. .

Table 1 presents a list of those persons who were interviewed and the

medium, telephone or face-.to-face, of the discussion.

Table 1: Interviews

Interview Institute Was Created Interview

n

T
President

Association
n person
Business and Finance
acu n
n person
Governmental Relations

 

57

Oral History Analysis

The interviews for this study were with numerous individuals who
participated in the creation of the Institute for Personal and Career Development.
The interviews for this study were in the form of first person narratives. This type
of research is referred to as oral history (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998, p.56).
Historians who do this type of research interview people to get the details of
history from those who participated in it (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998, p.57). The
potential for this type of history is mostly determined by the nature of the
potential subject. Are the individuals articulate and do they have good
memories? Have the individuals lived through the kinds of experiences and
participated in the types of organizations or events the historian wishes to
explore? Do the individuals have the‘time to give? (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998,
p.57).
When undertaking oral history research, or even general historical
research, the researcher must undertake his or her research with a critical eye.
Barzun and Graff comment on this in their work The Modern Researcher, where
they claim that
No matter how it is described, no piece of evidence can be used
in the state in which it is found. It must undergo the action of the
researcher’s mind known as the critical method. To appreciate
this requirement, consider the taped interview that the cassette
recorder has made so popular with biographers. They often
seem to think that they are catching the living truth before it
vanishes. But the interview, whether for a news article or an
archive of oral history, is a particularly treacherous source. The
interviewer’s questions no less than the answers he gets can
introduce bias, purposely or not; and unlike the published
reminiscence, the tape eludes the criticism -indeed the outcry— of
other witnesses (Barzun and Graff, 1992, p.156).

Barzun and Graft articulate some points to assist the researcher in uncovering

the truth:

58

state,

1. It is essential to ascertain with more than ordinary care what
the document states and what may be inferred from it. As in
law, false conclusions are ruled out by the good judge.

2. If the document or the coin is not by the ostensible maker, it
has no value as evidence. Gauging the truth of any
statement is obviously assisted by a knowledge of who
made it.

3. The value of a piece of testimony usually increases in
proportion to the neamess in time and space between the
witness and the events about which he testifies. An
eyewitness has a good chance of knowing what happened;
a reporter distant from the event by only a few years has a
better chance than one separated by a century.

4. A single witness may be quite accurate, but two witnesses, if
independent, increase the chances of eliminating human
fallibility. If a dozen reports already exist, a thirteenth just
discovered is compared point for point with the others in an
effort to resolve puzzling allusions or contradictions, to
strengthen or destroy an interpretation.

5. What can be learned about the author’s life and character
helps to make up our judgment on several of the previous
points. If we know his life we can answer the queries: Was
he there? Had he the expertness to appreciate the facts?
Was he biased by partisan interest? Did he habitually tell
the truth? (Barzun and Graft, 1992, p.158).

Barzun and Graft also explain as to how historians find out the truth. They

...truth rests not on possibility nor on plausibility but on probability.

Probability is used here in a strict sense. It means the balance of
chances that, given such evidence, the event it records happened
in a certain way; or, in other cases, that a supposed event did not
in fact take place. This balance is not computable in figures as it
is in mathematical probability; but it can be no less reliably
weighed and judged. Judgment is the historian’s form of genius,
and he himself is judged by the amount of it he can muster. The
grounds on which he passes judgment are, again, the common
grounds derived from life: general truths, personal and vicarious
experience (which includes a knowledge of previous history), and
any other kind of special or particular knowledge that proves
relevant (Barzun and Graff, 1992, p.167).

Barzun and Graff explain that the historian “knows” something by: (1) we

have abundant documentary evidence, and (2) a critical examination of it

discloses the high probability of truth (Barzun and Graff, 1992, p.170).

Finally, Barzun and Graff believe that,

59

the need to choose among conditions in order to delineate events
points to the truth that history, like all narrative, must present a
pattern to the mind, must have form. Vtfithout a form, the
accumulation of names and events is unintelligible and useless.

It is the organization of the past that makes the past valuable, just
as it is the organization of phenomena in scientific formulas that
makes the study of nature valuable.

The ultimate question for the historian therefore is: What pattern?
(Barzun and Graff, 1992, p.180).

The author of this study was aware that oral history presents challenges
to historians. Often, the interviewees portray themselves in only a good light.
Also, time has gone by, and often the interviewee’s memory of past events is not
as precise as it once was. Each interview was interpreted through historical
events and times. In addition, archival research and other interviews were used
to help make more sense of each interview. Corroborating interviews and
archival support assisted in the elimination of interview bias. In sum, the author
believes that interviews in this study, which were in the oral history tradition,
combined with archival evidence, provided adequate documentation and
evidence for this study. In addition, the author folldwed the guidelines laid down
by Barzun and Graft in their work, The Modern Researcher, with regard to oral

historical research and general historical research.

60

CHAPTER 4

THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INSTITUTE FOR PERSONAL AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT
AT CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FROM 1971 TO 1975

This chapter is set up in the following format. Initially there is a brief
historical overview of Central Michigan University which includes a synopsis of
the history of off campus education at Central Michigan University. Following
this there is a brief background of the history of Adult Continuing Education in
the state of Michigan. Following this background information is the main body of
the chapter, which is the history and development of the Central Michigan
Institute for Personal and Career Development from 1971-1975. The history of
the Institute began with its creation in the fall of 1971, and for this study
concluded on August 31, 1975, when both the keyfounders of the Central
Michigan Institute for Personal and Career Development left Central Michigan
University. The remaining sections of this chapter encompass specific questions
pertaining to the creation and operation of the Central Michigan University

Institute for Personal and Career Development.

History of Central Michigan University

Central Michigan University is located in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, and
traces its roots to when members of the Mt. Pleasant Board of Education and
local businessmen advocated establishing a Normal school in the early 18903.
Mayor Michael Devereaux and citizens Samuel Hopkins and John M. Brooks
thought the school would provide for better trained teachers. They also hoped

that the school might become a business asset to the town as well (Maybe,

61

1955, p.1). Under the name Central Michigan Normal School and Business
Institute, the school opened for classes on September 13, 1892. Thirty-one high
school age students attended, composed of 29 girls and 2 boys, mostly from Mt.
Pleasant and nearby towns (Maybee, 1955, p.1).

Professor Charles Fitzroy Bellows, who was formerly a mathematics
professor and principal at Michigan State Normal school at Ypsilanti, became the
principal of the new private Normal school for its first four years. Students
originally attended classes on the southeast corner of Main and Michigan streets
in downtown Mt. Pleasant. A ten-acre tract of orchard and swamp land almost a
mile south of downtown Mt. Pleasant was chosen for the building site for the
$10,000 Normal school building (Maybee, 1955, p.1). Enrollment grew to 135 in
1893 but this was below projections. Expenses became a real problem for the
local supporters, e3pecially with the coming of “hard times” in 1893 (Maybee,
1955, p.1). After two years of hard political campaigning, local citizens
persuaded the Michigan legislature and Governor John T. Rich to take the
private school as a gift. It thus became the second state Normal school in
Michigan in 1895 (Maybee, 1955, p.2). Charles McKenny, a new principal, was
appointed—in 1896, and by 1900 the enrollment had grown to 456. In 1900, he
left to accept the presidency of Milwaukee State Normal School and later was
named president of the Michigan State Normal School at Ypsilanti (Quick, 1977,
p.1).

Charles T. Grawn, former superintendent of the Traverse City schools,
served as principal from 1900 until 1918, and the campus grew to twenty-five
acres. Faculty increased from 15 to 44, and four more buildings were built
(Quick, 1977, p.1). Eugene C. Warriner, former superintendent of the Saginaw
public schools, followed Grawn as president and served for twenty-one years.

Under his tenure the institution received full college status, the faculty grew, and

62

by the end of his presidency in 1935 the student enrollment had increased from
376 to 1650 (Quick, 1977, p.1)

Graduate studies were added with the cooperation of the University of
Michigan. Dr. Charles L. Anspach became president in 1939 and served until
1959. Many new buildings were added during his administration, and full
university status was granted in 1959. Dr. Judson W. Foust was President from
1959 until 1968. During this period student enrollment grew rapidly, growing
from 4,860 in 1959 to 10,475 by 1968.

Dr. William B. Boyd served as the institution’s seventh president from
1968 until 1975. Under his tenure the University matured into a multi-purpose
university. Dr. Boyd came to Central Michigan University after being vice-
chancellor of student affairs at the University of California in Berkeley. Boyd
encouraged the acceptance of new ideas and innovative teaching and is well
known for his skilled handling of student demonstrators in the early 19703
(Reflections: President’s Repcm, Centenniagdition, 1993, p.3-4). Student
population increased to over 15,000 during his administration. He resigned in
1975 to become president of the University of Oregon.

Dr. Harold Abel was president from 1975 until 1985. His administration
among other things established general education requirements for all students.
Mr. Arthur Ellis was president from 1985 until 1988 . Enrollment grew to 17,070
during Mr. Ellis’s presidency (Reflections: President’s Report, Centennial Edition,
1993, p.3-4). Dr. Edward B. Jakubauskas was president from 1988 until 1992
and during his presidency Central Michigan University started offering its first
competitive scholarships to attract top Michigan high school seniors. Dr.
Leonard Plachta has been president of Central Michigan University since 1992.

Serving theneeds of off campus students has had a long history within

the state of Michigan, and at Central Michigan University. At the state level, one

63

of the earlier developments occurred in 1922 when Michigan State University
developed WKAR as Michigan’s first educational radio station. In 1934, WKAR
began transmitting university courses for adults (Quick, 1989, p.6). In 1935, the
University of Michigan created its first regional extension office in Detroit; over
the next twenty years, all of the state colleges in Michigan established off
campus regional offices. Central Michigan University opened its first regional
office in Saginaw in 1948, and has maintained that office ever since (Quick,
1989, p.6). Another significant event in continuing education in Michigan
occurred in 1942, with the opening of the University of Michigan Rackham
Memorial Center in Detroit. The opening of this Center made University of
Michigan graduate degrees and courses available to thousands of Detroit area
residents (Quick, 1989, p.6). In 1951, the first Kellogg Center in the world
opened at the Michigan State University campus. The building was created to
I serve as a training center for students in hotel management and as an adult
education facility (Quick, 1989, p.6). In 1954, at Michigan State University
WKAR television began telecasting educational courses (Quick, 1989, p. 6).
Off campus and adult education for Central Michigan University began in
the early 19003 and was designed to provide educational access for teachers in
northern Michigan, and this expanded greatly in the post World War II years.
The 19503 and 19603 provided large enrollments in the public schools which in
turn created a critical shortage of teachers and brought appeals to Central
Michigan University to offer classes off campus in convenient locations where
teachers could take credits to qualify for teaching certificates (Cumming, 1993,
p.197-198). As one historian noted:
Nearly every weekday afternoon and on Saturday
mornings carloads of Central professors headed off in all
directions to teach evening or Saturday classes. Limited
by the State Board of Education to 38 counties as its

sphere of influence, Central covered its allotted territory
with efficiency. Using classrooms in local school buildings,

64

Central professors taught courses in all disciplines, thus
enabling teachers to complete their degree requirements
and improve their teaching competence (Cumming 1993,
p. 1 97-1 98).

However, not all instruction was for teachers. Occasionally, individual
businesses and professionalorganizations appealed to the Division of Field
Services, the extension arm of the college, for assistance to meet educational
needs. In 1948, Field Services employed Howard R. Sommer, whose job was to
work with business and industry by providing instruction or programs designed to
solve their problems. Mostly by working through the Chambers of Commerce,
Mr. Sommer provided instructional programs for over one hundred communities
(Cumming, 1993, p.198).

After the revision of the State Constitution in 1963, which gave Central its
own governing board, the University was no longer required to limit its off
campus instruction to its designated 38 counties. Now it was easier to go
wherever there was sufficient demand. In the 19703, Central made a
commitment to accommodate the educational needs of Ieamers whose needs
were not being met by traditional off campus programs. Most of these programs
were designed to assist teachers in obtaining a master’s degree. This resulted in
the creation of the Institute for Personal and Career Development whose mission
was to reach the educationally disenfranchised adult, the student who due to
employment or family responsibilities could not participate in higher education as
it was traditionally offered (Cumming, 1993, p. 198). With authorization from the
Academic Senate, the Institute for Personal and Career Development was
created and given specific duties, which included the establishment of degree
programs, the final approval in the selection of faculty to teach in its extended
degree programs, and the approval of innovative delivery strategies to serve the
students. The IPCD was responsible to the Academic Senate through a Senate

committee, the Academic Council, which has a large role in the overall direction

65

of the program and was very involved in the planning and making of policy
(Cumming, 1993, p. 198).

The following portion of chapter four answers the question, “What is the
history of the establishment and early years of the Central Michigan University
Institute for Personal and Career Development, and how do these early years
help one understand the subsequent success of the Institute for Personal and
Career Development?” This general historical question is answered through a
series of questions that the author researched for this study. Some of these
questions naturally overlap to an extent but the author has attempted to minimize

this. The first section of questions are:

I. Questions concerning the history of the Institute for
Personal and Career Development.

1 . What is the history of the establishment and early years
of the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal
and Career Development?

The Idea

While Central Michigan University had been involved in providing off
campus extension courses and correspondence classes since the early 1900s,
there was no comprehensive program focused on delivering external degrees to
working adults until the creation of the Institute for Personal and Career
Development (Silver Anniversary : 25 Years of Service, 1996, p.1). When
analyzing the history of its establishment and the early years of the Institute for
Personal and Career Development, the first question that needs to be answered
is, Who came up with the idea and why?

The idea for the Central Michigan Institute for Personal and Career
Development came from Dr. William B. Boyd and Dr. Charles J. Ping. Dr. Boyd
became president of Central Michigan University on July 1, 1968, and Dr. Ping

66

became Provost of Central Michigan University on September 1, 1969. Both
men seemed to be very open minded, or visionaries in the field of education. As
one member of the Central Michigan University administration at the time noted:

It came about through the unique leadership of Bill Boyd,
who was the president at that time, and Charles Ping who
was the provost. They had worked together in other
institutions at other times and when they joined together,
they had this vision of reforming higher education and
making it much easier and more flexible for adults to have
access to higher education, to complete degrees or do
advanced degrees (Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998).

A member of the Central Michigan University faculty drew a similar

conclusion, stating,

Both of these people played a very major role in

‘ determining that C.M.U. needed to do something more
than it was doing in order to serve these older students. In
fact, President Boyd was quoted many times talking about
the institution of higher education simply being a post-
adolescent ghetto, in other words, really designed for
people who were 18-23 years of age who came to campus
and stayed in residence halls and so forth. So these
fellows played a leadership role in encouraging
development of this kind of program (Yantis, interview,
April 21, 1998).

It is very difficult to determine who actually had the idea, or which
individual was more influential in developing the Institute for Personal and Career
Development. One person who had an inside view during this time gives a bit
more influence to Dr. Ping’s role. As Dr. Charles B. House, assistant to the

president, stated,

The early history as I remember it was that the proposal
came basically from the office of the provost and the
provost at that time was Charlie Ping, and his name will
come up frequently I am sure in your research. I had kind
of a unique viewpoint because I was a friend of both
Charlie Ping and Bill Boyd. Charlie Ping and l were both
ordained Presbyterian clergy among other things, and we
were office mates in the religion department at Alma
college. Bill Boyd was our Dean at the time, so the three
of us, were often referred to on the campus as the Alma
mafia. But my role was a kind of quiet observational one,
because I was often the silent third party in the
conversations that went on between the president and the

67

provost. It was Charlie's conviction that something like this
was needed, and he was the one I think who provided the
energy and incentive behind it. Charlie is a philosopher, I
mean that was his academic discipline, and he was
philosophically convinced, and I think this is important
because there was a change that took place, not in him,
but in the whole concept of the program. Charlie believed,
and believed profoundly that there was a population of
students out there that was not being served and that it
was the obligation of public institutions to serve them. And
the Institute for Personal and Career Development was the
particular shape that the conviction took. And I want to
make that point fairly strongly that the original impetus for it
came from somebody’s profound conviction that it was a
responsibility of the institution to do something for a
population of students that was being unserved (House,
interview, June 2, 1998). ,

Another person who was critical in the creation of the Institute for
Personal and Career Development was Dr. Neil- S. Bucklew, who was Assistant
Provost at the time. He credits Dr. Boyd with the idea to create the Institute for
Personal and Career Development. He indicates:

I think you would have to go back to Bill Boyd who was
president to really understand the roots of this. He was in
many ways a very non-traditional thinker about issues in
higher education. He had been at Berkeley as a vice-
president then came to Central as President, he then left
Central to go to the University of Oregon and after he
finished his presidency at the University of Oregon he
became president of the Johnson Foundation. He was the
single best speaker I’ve ever heard in my life, for a person
in higher education. He was a spellbinder, it was
interesting he was a spellbinder not by the power of his
delivery which was very simple, there was no dramatics to
the way he talked, it was the power of his words. He was
an excellent thinker. He was highly persuasive because
he held himself to such high standards of thinking and he
was persuasive (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

When asked if it was Dr. Boyd who had the original idea for the Institute,
Dr. Bucklew responded:

He had the original idea of the importance of Central
Michigan University reaching out and serving populations
in new and different ways. In almost every area he looked
at I think you would have had to call him innovative and
non-traditional. But he was very concerned about the fact
that higher education was place bound but that the need
for higher education was not place bound in fact it was

68

often very diverse and the people who needed it, he would
say most, because they were in places in their life where
change was occurring and they needed help with facing
that change. You often found them in jobs, with families,
unable to come, discover higher education on our terms.
Remember in 1970, you want to do graduate work you
come to us on our schedule, and you come to our places.
And we don’t do much to accommodate your situation or
your style, or your'demands (Bucklew, interview, April 20,
1998 .

Dr. Boyd was very open minded and questioned many aspects of higher
education. As he stated when talking about the creation of the Institute,

But I can tell you the vision that I had in mind as a hope at
the beginning. The idea of moving away from the
traditional academic idea of hours in the classroom
coinciding with points or credits given toward graduation
seemed a terribly outmoded idea and if I could of got rid of
it on campus as well as off campus I certainly would have.
And I still think it’s an outmoded idea that is not useful to
higher education or any education for that matter. But
academic life is tradition bound as I think all of the
professions are and it is therefore very difficult to break out
of bounds of that tradition. But there were external critics
of the traditional academic structure and the owners that
come to mind right now are the Carnegie Corporation. I
think that Corporation is an enormously important force
operating in our society and it is under appreciated in my
view. One of the ideas that it was pressing for was to give
people credit for what they already knew so that people
who didn’t go into a university environment first off but
went into a work environment and Ieamed many of the
things in that work environment that non work people had
to Ieam in college. And they shouldn’t be penalized for the
fact that they gained their knowledge in a different way, it
should be just as credited as knowledge gained in the
classroom and that seems to be the underlying prevailing
commitment for things like the Institute. But at least that
was my vision: Break away from the standard hours in the
classroom and make a college degree available to people
who Ieamed much of the content off of any campus.

It also seemed true that we were moving into an era where
communications were very different and I couldn’t believe
that if radio and television had been available when the
first universities were established that universities would
have taken the form that they did absent those. And yet
after these different communications, rapid transit by the
automobile after those remarkable things developed,
universities hardly changed at all, they were ignoring some

69

of the greatest changes that had happened in human

history and that made no sense at all (Boyd, interview,

April 23, 1998).

The idea for the Institute came from the minds of Dr. William B. Boyd, and

Dr. Charles J. Ping, combined‘with current demands and issues of the time.
Why these men created the Institute will be explored in much greater detail when
the next question is answered; however, it is worth noting that it seems the
Institute was created to fill a niche in society by giving adult students greater
access to education. It is also noteworthy that money and the idea of the
Institute making money came up in some interviews as the reason the Institute
was created. The president of the university Faculty Association at the time
noted,

I think they really wanted to set up a program that would

expand the educational aspect of the university but I think

they also wanted to get some excess money, some extra

money and I certainly, well, we all thought that the idea

was to make some money that would not be part of the

regular budget. I know the legislature at times was a little

unhappy about that because it was not part of the budget,

often our raises each year for the university were based on

the previous years budget, they give you a three percent

raise for the whole university or a five percent raise

whatever, and this money was set aside and not counted

as that so they had some extra money to do something
(Bulger, interview, June 3, 1998).

The Model

Central Michigan University had a long history of offering classes off
campus. However, most of the off campus classes were tied to providing
courses for teachers, principals, and other school personnel to obtain advanced
degrees and certification. As one person noted, “We were offering classes, but
not programs. There’s a big difference of course, and the courses were offered
at various locations primarily for teachers and administrators” (Yantis, interview,

April 21, 1998). As a matter of fact, by fall semester 1971, Central was offering

70

160 courses in 35 off campus centers (“Off campus centers expand curriculum
and locations,” Central Michigan Life, August 30, 1971, p.3). One of these
centers was at Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda, Michigan, and the program
at this Air Force Base became a pilot plan or eventual model for the Institute
(Rummel, November 12, 1971, p. 2). Dr. Ernest L. Minelli, who was vice provost
for research, instruction, and planning and one of the key creators of the
Institute, stated,

This may be little known by most people at the institution,
the origin of the Institute. It began when l was still with the
department of Industrial Education and Technology (at
Central Michigan University). Four of us at the invitation of
the educational director at Wurtsmith, attended a session
up there with him. And department Chairpersons Roger
Goenner and Dick Kirschner and myself plus Graduate
Dean Olaf Steg. We attended a meeting at Wurtsmith.
They were obviously interested in a program, one that
might lead to a degree. And at that meeting was the
director of Educational Development for all of the Strategic
Air Command bases. And during our discussions the three
departments provided, or indicated that they could provide
programs in community development, and one in
recreation, and the one in industrial education with
supervision and administration. That kind of initiated the
Institute. At that particular point it wasn't the Institute, they
were courses that we were going to be able to offer but we
put it in the form of a total program, not just courses. And
even at that point we guaranteed that the individual if he
met all the requirements would be able to get a degree
with the university (Minelli, interview, May 28, 1998).

The program at Wurtsmith was really quite avant garde and different from
Central’s traditional off campus programs and courses at the time. As Dr. Minelli
continued describing the unique program at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, he noted,

It was different in a sense that we had to tailor the work to
the individual that would be registered. And of course at
that particular point it was all military, from Wurtsmith.
Fortunately the university Academic Senate just before
that allowed departments to offer special courses. This
provided an opportunity to design something on the spot.
And also at that particular time they gave us the option of
breaking a three hour semester course for example into
three one hour courses. And it was through the availability
of those two changes, we were able to generate the total
program, not just courses. And we came back to campus

71

and each department sat down and developed a program.
In our case it was a Masters degree program, I am not
sure about recreation. Community Education was
obviously a Masters as well because it came out of that
department, they were basically a graduate department.
So we developed, a curriculum within the guidelines of the
university but with the elimination of the limitations of
rigidity of delivery as well as offering courses. That was
the beginning of the Institute (Minelli, interview, May 28,
1998)

The ideas of Dr. Boyd and Dr. Ping combined with the improvised and
experimental program at Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda, Michigan were
combined over the summer and early fall of 1971 into a document dated
September 20, 1971, and titled, “A Study On The Feasibility And Organizational
Framework Of An Adult Degree Program At Central Michigan University.” This
feasibility study was paid for by Central, and written at the request of president
Boyd and provost Ping The contents of this document, which justified the
creation of the Institute for Personal and Career Development, will now be
analyzed.

The feasibility study for the development of an Adult Degree Program at
Central Michigan University was a comprehensive study written by Dr. Leslie H.
Cochran, who was Assistant Dean in the School of Applied Arts. This study was
presented to the Academic Senate on October 11, 1971, and was a broad
assessment of the feasibility of Central Michigan University implementing a
comprehensive adult degree program. The following are some highlights from
the feasibility study. Initially the study makes a passionate cry for Adult
Education, claiming, f

While there is an ever pressing need for the University to
continue to provide a challenging educational experience
for its students’ as emphasized in the 1971-72 Guide to
Academic Planning, there is a growing national concern

that higher education should be made available to all who
are qualified to benefit from it. For example:

72

There are millions of persons who recognize
themselves as seriously handicapped, educationally
disenfranchised, invisibly branded as ‘uneducated’ for
lack of a visible college degree but who cannot leave
their jobs to study on campus.

There are some young adults who would prefer to
postpone college after high school, but society in effect
tells them its college then or never.

There are many very able adults who, because of
physical handicaps, economic circumstances,
responsibility for dependent parents, or other reasons,
simply never had a chance to go to college. Possible
groups here include adult women, veterans, and retired
individuals.

There are some students who would prefer to interrupt
the educational sequence for a few years after
completing high school with a job or other experience.

There are thousands of college dropouts and
community college graduates who are unable to fit into
existing institutional structures (Cochran, September
20, 1971, p.2).

The study then points out how Central Michigan has already initiated
some of the major prerequisites for such a program, some of these prerequisites
the study claimed included

Administrative leadership has set the stage for non-
traditional approaches and innovative thinking.

Basic operational procedures (packaging courses, taking
programs to individuals, use of different units of time, etc.)
necessary to such a program have been initiated and
demonstrated on a small scale at Wurtsmith and Kincheloe
Air Force Bases.

The University has been recognized by leaders in federal

agencies (US. Air Force and Department of Housing and

Urban Development) as an institution with the philosophical

orientation, curriculum options, and personnel to operate a

broad-based adult degree program (Cochran, September

20, 1971, p.4).

The Feasibility Study then identified supportive factors in the adaptation

process. These include points under what was termed “Institutional

Advantages.” Some of these points were

73

The geographic isolation (parochial character of life) would
be modified as a result of faculty and administrative
opportunities with other age groups with different
backgrounds, experiences, etc.

The University could be put in the position of a leadership
role in the development of a new university concept, e.g.
“University Without Walls” (Cochran, September 20, 1971,

p. 6).
The report lists some potential faculty advantages, of which some were:

Improved professional stature of existing faculty, with the
possibility of attracting other high level faculty through
involvement in the program, would be gained.

There would be greater involvement with a different type of
study and different type of student (Cochran, September
20, 1971, p.6).

The report then looks at what it calls Restraining Elements to the
Adaptation Process, some of which were

The use of income from the program to other unrelated
activities could limit the effectiveness of the program.
Some faculty may be alienated because they are not
directly involved in the program. They may use ‘cheap
degrees’ or other techniques to attack the program.

Some students may oppose the program because of ties
with federal and military agencies.

Other institutions and state units may become upset with
CMU because of involvement in ‘their areas.”

Political officials may question the institution‘s role in non-
state activities (Cochran, September 20, 1971, p.8).

The next section of the report provided distinctive features of the program.

Some of these were

The program provides alternative ways of scheduling
courses, packaging course materials, and identifying
faculty that are not currently possible in the ongoing
campus program.

The program incorporates a systematic procedure for the
assessment of professional experiences and competency
in determining equated credit so the individual can

progress to his goal (Cochran, September 20, 1971, p.9).

74

The study then develops an overall organizational framework for the
implementation of this program. There are three key areas the study claims in
which decisions must be made. They are: Scope of the Program, Campus

Relationships, Organizational Structure.
Within the scope of the program, some of the key questions are

Work with major Michigan businesses and industry in
establishing undergraduate and graduate programs
according to their needs.

(and)

Expand the Air Force program as capabilities permit
(Cochran, September 20, 1971, p.11).

Under Campus Relationships some interesting points were noted:

As suggested earlier, the intent of the program is to
supplement and expand the academic offerings of the
University. For the most part, then, only administrative and
course material development activities will be performed on
campus. Further, since most of their teaching faculty will
not be campus personnel, it is imperative that individuals
on campus be involved in the program as much as
possible, that a sound working relationship be maintained
with other administrative and academic units, and that
faculty members participate in decisions related to the
program (Cochran, September 20, 1971, p.13).

7 Vlfithin the last section, on Organizational Structure, the structure of the

proposed organization is laid out. The key points within the Organizational

Structure section are:

The flexibility required in the program, its experimental
character, and the response time required for new
programs, options, courses, etc., necessitate the
establishment of a new council that has complete
academic responsibility for the program. Functioning as
an arm of the Academic Senate or the Office of the
Provost, the council needs the power to approve, reject, or
modify major academic decisions related to the program.
Acting on an experimental basis, typically, the council’s
decisions relating to degree programs would have a one-
year time lapse before final Senate approval. The council
might include the Academic Senate Chairman, a
representative of the Office of the Provost, key faculty
members related to the types of programs being offered,
one or two selected faculty members, and the individual

75

responsible for the program (Cochran, September 20,
1971 , p. 14).

In addition it was advocated that:

The program be established on par with ongoing academic
programs.

The individual responsible for the program be recognized
(title, compensation, etc.) at a corresponding level.

The individual responsible for the program report directly to
the Provost.

The individual responsible for the program be located on
campus.

A separate management system be developed for the
program (Cochran, September 20, 1971, p.14).

“The Feasibility and Organizational Framework of an Adult Degree
Program at Central Michigan University” then concludes with three interesting
charts. The first chart is a detailed model of the proposed Management System
for this new organization. The second chart is a detailed numerical chart. This
chart states that income from a three-hour class containing 20 students would be
estimated at $3700, while expenses for a class would be approximately $2500
(Cochran, September 20, 1971, p.18). There would be a $1200 surplus or profit
according to these calculations for each class. It is apparent from these
numbers that Institute classes would at least pay their way, and most likely be
quite profitable from the very beginning. The last chart in this document is a
detailed chart titled Program Creation. This chart is a step by step, and date by
date time frame for the creation of the Institute.

This document will be referred to later in this dissertation when answering
other questions; however it is worth noting now how much of what was proposed
and described in this document was eventually implemented.

On October 11, 1971, a proposal for an Adult Degree Program was

introduced for approval to the Central Michigan University Academic Senate.

76

According to Provost Dr. Charles J. Ping, the program was designed “to serve
the needs of those whose family, work, etc., prevent them from taking courses
on campus or at specified times away from campus” (Varee, October 11, 1971,
p.12). In addition Dr. Ping noted there would be some other unique
characteristics of the program. Some of these were that “it will be composed of
a limited number of courses which will be flexible and adaptable to the student’s
needs" (Varee, October 11, 1971, p.12). In addition, he added that “an effort will
be made to find time for students to take courses, with the University structuring
course time to meet student needs” (Varee, October 11, 1971, p.12). He noted
that the University may send instructors to the student’s place of employment or
any other convenient location. Dr. Ping also noted that “an effort will be made to
analyze a student’s professional or occupational experience and apply it to
course credit” (Varee, October 11, 1971, p.12). A report on the final study of this
proposed program has been received by the University Academic Senate and
will be up for action at this aftemoon’s Academic Senate Meeting (Varee,
October 11, 1971, p.12). A detailed account of the Academic Senate debate to
this proposal will be given in this dissertation when answering the question
“What was the University Faculty Senate’s role in the development of this
Institute?” However, in this section a general overview of the Central Michigan
University campus’ reaction to this proposed program will be provided.

The Adult Degree program was attacked almost immediately for its
perceived closeness to the military and big business. In the Vietnam era these
were both controversial subjects on many college campuses. As the Central
Michigan Lif_e_, the Central Michigan University student newspaper, noted in its
November 12, 1971, edition,

A group of Academic Senators, including all student
government appointees, have voiced criticism of the

program for its involvement with the military in the form of
Defense Department organizations. As the plan is

77

presently being planned the first large-scale expansion of
the program would offer classes to personnel at selected
military bases throughout the United States (Rummel,
November 12, 1971, p.2).

Dr. Ping responded that “the Adult Degree program is an alternate way of
education, and would be a significant and direct contribution to aiding poor
persons’ attempts at receiving education ”(Rummel, November 12, 1971, p.2).

The controversy forced the Academic Senate to postpone having a
hearing on the Aduit Degree Program, and the administration was concerned
that the Academic Senate might not approve the program. Dr. Ping then
arranged a fact-finding conference call on November 10, 1971, between several
Academic Senators and some members of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development in Washington DC. (Rummel, November 12, 1971, p.2).
Members of Housing and Urban Development became interested in the creation
of this Adult Degree Program. Dr. Leslie H. Cochran, author of the feasibility
study, indicated,

And there’s a connection with HUD and I can’t recall how
that came in or whether it was from grants or whether it
was from some people that we were dealing with. But the
HUD people were very helpful and very instrumental in our
development. And you need to find out, it seems to me,
that connection because HUD, at the time, was very
interested in working in cities and under prepared and
underdeveloped areas of our country, and that was an
important piece because we got lots of insights from them,
and they gave us materials, helped us draft some
materials and procedures. A lot of that came from the
expertise from HUD and the contacts there (Cochran,
interview, April 29, 1998).

Later in the interview, Dr. Cochran claimed that the HUD connection came

out of Central’s original connection at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, as he states:
And the first place that we started doing it was at
Wurtsmith and that reminded me that the Air Force
connection were also connected with HUD and maybe

that’s how HUD people got into it (Cochran, interview, April
29, 1998).

78

It was these contacts that Dr. Ping now utilized to try to persuade a
wavering faculty about the worth of such a program. Melvin W. Wach, senior
program officer for Community Development Programs at HUD, fielded questions
and articulated HUD's position (Rummel, November 12, 1971, p.2). Wach stated
that worries about teaching military techniques to armed services personnel is
unfounded. Wach claimed that many of the military men

plan to get out of the service as soon as is possible, and
most of the programs we teach are urban -related careers.
We’re trying to find ways to make life more amenable to
the men already in the service. And, we’re not training
them in military fields, but in urban-related programs
(Rummel, November 12, 1971, p.2 and p.6).

Nevertheless, there was still great controversy on campus. Articles and
letters to the editor of the campus newspaper reflect this. There was a campus-
wide Open Hearing on the proposal on November 15, 1971. After that hearing
there were many articles and letters in the school paper. One stated,

Notwithstanding. the high sounding rhetoric about “sewing
the community’, the proposal is at least specific about
whom it will serve first—the military establishment.

In this regard, when the question of student constituency in
one present program at Wurtsmith Air Force Base arose at
the Open Hearing of November 15 it was disclosed that
approximately 80 percent of the students are officers!
Thus, the ‘needs of the community’ begin to translate into
more privilege for the already privileged. The enlisted man
who has, for the most part , been forced into military
service for lack of opportunity is very little benefited (Ad
Hoc Committee for a Real Adult Education Program,
November 22, 1971, p.4).

Another writer in the CMU _l._if_e_ on the same day noted,

Is it necessary to provide military officers with accreditation
for business management and public administration when
every business in the country knows these officers not only
have experience but also military training in these areas?
These particular skills are desperately needed in the black
ghetto, the Chicano settlements, the Puerto Rican Barrios
and the Indian Reservations. It is these areas that Central
Michigan University should ‘expand the walls of the
University’ (Robertson, November 22, 1971, p.4).

79

After two months of controversy the Academic Senate approved the Adult
Degree program unanimously, 29 yes and 0 no, on November 29, 1971
(Minutes, Academic Senate meeting, November 29, 1971). This unanimous vote
was deceptive though because members of the Academic Senate barely totaled
a quorum after many student and faculty members left the meeting when their
repeated motions for adjournment were defeated. As the newspaper account of
the meeting noted,

Finally, the vote was taken Monday evening after another
two hour session of questions and answers. Many
Senators left the meeting in what appeared to be an
attempt to postpone action for another week by denying
the body a quorum.

However the exact number needed were present and the
vote went on record as being unanimously in favor of the
motion for those in attendance.

‘lt’s unfortunate. The Senate spent such a long time on it
that people were frustrated on each polar end of the
spectrum’ said Robert E. Kohrman, Senate chairman.
Now that the program has been approved, initial steps in
setting up the machinery for the plan will begin (Samelson,
December 1, 1971, p.1 and p.16).

At the next Senate meeting on December 6, 1971, there was a motion
calling for reconsideration of the voting procedure utilized at the November 29,
1971 Senate meeting which approved the external student’s degree program.
The motion calling for reconsideration of the degree program voting procedure
was made by Senator David L. Lawton of the English Department, because of a
perceived breach in procedure by the Senate (Varee, December 8, 1971, p.1).
This procedure would have mandated a secret ballot in voting on the Adult
Degree Program, which had passed unanimously. If the motion to reconsider
would have passed, the previous vote would have been eliminated and a new

vote taken by secret ballot. However the motion was defeated 16 yes to 22 no

80

(Varee, December 8, 1971, p.1). The motion needed a two-thirds majority for
approval.

After the idea for an Adult Degree program passed the Academic Senate,
a new issue arose concerning what to call the program. The name was decided
in late 1971 in a most unusual way. As Mr. Arthur Ellis, who was Vice-President
from 1970 until 1985, recalled,

I was the lobbyist for the University, and I drew from a
background of budgeting and understanding the state
budget, and things like that. And I explained that in the
event the IPCD program became a money maker, and we
started to count those people as we do all other students,
those revenues would flow in and disappear in the state
appropriations process and we wouldn’t have any control
over it. And I didn’t think it was a very good idea to do that.
We should maintain control over the revenues and
operations of that. And the general consensus developed
that it should be outside of the regular academic structure
or organization, something which we created. Because I
had spent 5 years running the budget operation for the
legislature and also at Eastern Michigan University, I had a
template, if you will, for how the various institutes were run
at Michigan Tech, at Michigan State, and especially in Ann
Arbor. And I said if we create this and called it the Institute
for, and then you pick the right words, you are walking into
a political framework with the bureau of budget, the
legislative staff, all the existing leadership that they know
what an Institute is, and we do not want to have to take on
the political battle of explaining to all these people that we
were that different and that innovative. I personally would
have to say ‘oh, this is just an institute we’re going to run’
and move on. Well, Charlie Ping, one day, they were
wrestling with the names personal and career
development, and personal is a real part of it as they were
very interested in making this available to women, married
women who wanted to come back, and I think that the
provost locked onto the names personal and career, and I
insisted on the Institute piece and somehow the decision
was made to go with the Institute for Personal and Career
Development. And I believe to this day, the Institute is
structured outside the core of the academic structure of the
university, probably reporting directly to the provost
although I don’t know. It also, at times in its life, made
massive amounts of money, which we were able to bring
back inside the university and use for the growth and
development of all programs. It functioned pretty much as
we had hoped it would when we had started (Ellis,
interview, June 16, 1998).

81

Mr. Ellis offered additional insight into why it was so important to call this
new program an Institute and keep it separate from other parts of the university:

The legislature in Michigan has never funded the
institutions based on their enrollment but they will use
enrollment both for and against you if it fits their political
needs. So you just say there is a base line budget that is
available to Central or any university, most of the budget
process are just plus and minuses from the base line. To
dump our IPCD program on that base line budget and walk
down to Department of Management and Budget some
year and say we want to change all of our student counts,
we’re going to have 3,000 new students, so we’re going to
go from 15,000 students to 18,000 students with the snap
of a finger, people are going to say ‘well, how can you do
that?’ We can’t afford to pay that and we say we can pay
for that ourselves. And the revenue starts to flow in, and

, these were all based on estimates and hopes. There was
no concrete data to say that this would work or anything.
In politics in the political process of state budgets, we can
live with anything except massive uncertainty. If it’s
uncertain, if there are clouds, there are doubts, then no. I
mean, that’s just kind of the way it is. We never wanted
this to be voted in the legislature, we didn’t want this to be
a major discussion item, we just wanted to do it and be
free ourselves to shape it, and let it function, if it could be
successful (Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998).

On January 3, 1972, Dr. Leslie H. Cochran, who was the Assistant Dean
of the School of Fine and Applied Arts, was named acting director of the Institute
for Personal and Career Development. His appointment was approved by
Central Michigan University Board of Trustees at its January 19, 1972, meeting
(“Assistant Dean Named As Head Of New Development Institute,” January 21,
1972, Central Michigan Life, p.16). The Institute was approved by the Central
Michigan University Board of Trustees at its December board meeting, and was
expected to begin offering its first programs in the Spring of 1972 (“Assistant
Dean Named As Head Of New Development Institute,” Central Michigan Life,
January 21, 1972, p.16).

As soon as it was authorized, the Institute started to expand. This early
expansion started in January, 1972, at Air Force bases in Ohio. As Dr. Ernest

Minelli noted,

82

We went to Wright Patterson Air Force Base and to \Mlbur
Wright Air Force Base and also talked with the education
director there, and the civilian education director, and we
visited with base commanders, both of them as I remember
were generals, and presented the opportunity of earning a
graduate degree with Central. Those were the original
programs, the three Air Force bases. Then out of that
people in Washington were interested particularly because
of the educational director for SAC. Out of his connection,
people in Washington became interested. We went from
the military to Model Cities, and our first Model Cities
program was in Hawaii (Minelli, interview, May 28, 1998).

The Institute was fast and responsive, it saw a need, it created a program
and it responded. One of the reasons the Institute was able to do this was
because it had a unique feature called an Academic Council which governed it.
As the first permanent director of the Institute, Dr. John Yantis commented,

But we also, more importantly, had our own academic
decision making body that was established by the
Academic Senate of the university. So it could be more
responsive to these clientele groups away from campus so
that we would not have to go through the bureaucracy as
far as the department, colleges and trying to play the
political games of this kind of thing which takes forever.
That was the governing body of the Institute, and it had a
lot of authority. I haven’t seen another entity like that
anywhere like that in higher education. Not only did it take
actions from the standpoint of academic, but we could take
policy actions from the stand point of administration. So
the Institute really became a little university within a
university (Yantis, interview, April 21, 1998).

The Institute was accountable to the provost, Academic Council,
president, and Board of Trustees. However, when one looks at the minutes from
the early Academic Council meetings, they read like the minutes of a university
board of trustees or other governing body. For instance, at an early Academic
Council meeting, Dr. Ping spoke to the Council about issues which should come
to the early attention of the Institute and its Academic Council. Some of these
issues included: How substantial is the IPCD administration structure? Do they
have a large enough staff to do an effective job? What effect will North Central

Accreditation have on the classes of IPCD? The issue of CMU Institute joint

83

faculty appointments was debated. Provost Ping noted that a permanent
Institute faculty might diminish the ability of the Institute to respond to change
and may increase the potential of having a vested interest in the status quo. Dr.
Ping also noted some of the academic problems of external degree programs at
other institutions, such as having too close a link to the university, or not having
a close enough link to the university (Minutes, Institute for Personal and Career
Development Academic Council, September 19, 1972).
The next Academic Council meeting formally identified the role of the
Academic Council. This indicated:
The Academic Council for the Institute was established by
the University Academic Senate as an extraordinary group
with the powers to:
1. Initiate and give preliminary approval to degree
and contracted programs for external students
with the locally situated disadvantaged

(students in the central Michigan and Michigan
area) as a priority target population;

2. Define graduation requirements in these
programs;
3. Approve unique instructional procedures and

student evaluation patterns;

4. Approve short term appointments for regular
and visiting faculty to carry out programs
(Minutes, Institute for Personal and Career
Development Academic Council, October 17,
1972)

The Academic Council for the Institute was made up of representatives
from the University who had various areas of interest or expertise. The members
were elected by the Academic Senate. The representation included curriculum
specialists, various academic units, and the student body. The original
membership of the Academic Council was:

University Academic Senate William Swart—Math
Department

University Curriculum Committee Bee Hallett—Physical
Education Department

84

University Graduate Committee John Geisler—Counseling
Education Department

University Student Body Michael Wall

Community Development and Leadership Evelyn Rouner—
Home Economics Dept.

Industrial Management John Novosad—Industrial
Education and Technology Dept.

Management and Supervision Robert Croll—Management
Department

Public Administration Samuel Lukens—Political Science
Department

Director Institute for Personal and Career Development
John Yantis (Minutes, Institute for Personal and Career
Development Academic Council, October 17, 1972).

A change for the Institute occurred in the summer of 1972. Dr. John
Yantis, associate professor of Educational Administration and Community
Leadership, was appointed permanent director of the Institute for Personal and
Career Development, replacing Dr. Leslie H. Cochran, who was the initial
director.

The first bulletin for the Institute for Personal and Career Development,
issued in 1972, noted the avant garde nature of the program. The bulletin noted,
“Instruction offered by the Institute is independent of the university on-campus
academic calendar. Courses can begin and end at any time in accordance with
needs of students being served” (Bulletin, Institute for Personal and Career
Development, 1972, p.3). The bulletin also describes the structure of the
Institute:

The program is under a Director who reports directly to the
Provost of the University. Each project is coordinated by a
program manager who is responsible for all aspects of the
academic, counseling and service of the program in the
geographic area. The program manager assists students,
agencies and corporations participating in the program,
and expedites paper work, books and material delivery,
scheduling of courses, counseling and other matters. He
serves as the contact person between the student,
sponsor and Central Michigan University (Bulletin, Institute
for Personal and Career Development, 1972, p.3).

The bulletin also described the unusual class formats stating:

85

Courses are usually scheduled during intensive time
blocks to maximize instructional efficiency and to minimize
conflicts with time schedules of the participants. Some of
the typical class formats include: (1) a week of intensive
sessions; (2) two or three days one week followed by two
or three days the following week; (3) Friday-Saturday
sequences spaced over a longer time period; and (4)
combinations and modifications of these patterns in
different time constraints. Regardless of the format,
sessions are preceded by a four-to eight-week period of
preparatory reading and study. During this time, students
have the necessary references, course syllabus and
assignments at their disposal (Bulletin, Institute for
Personal and Career Development, 1972).

During this time frame there were two undergraduate degree options
available from the Institute. Each required the completion of 124 semester
credits, of which a minimum of 34 credits had to be earned through the Institute.
One option was a Bachelor of Arts Degree, while the other option was a
Bachelor of Science Degree. Concentrations were available in Community
Development, Management and Supervision, and Public Administration (Bulletin,
Institute for Personal and Career Development, 1972, P8). There was also a
Master of Arts offered. The basic requirement for the Master of Arts was 30
graduate semester hours, of which at least 15 had to be earned from the
Institute. This could include courses, field studies, independent study,
internships and other experiences individually planned by the student and his or
her assigned counselor. Concentrations were available in Community
Leadership, Management and Supervision, and Public Administration (Bulletin,
Institute for Personal and Career Development, 1972, p.8).

The Institute, in-the Words of Dr. Ernest Minelli, “just kind of snowballed”
(Minelli, interview, May 28, 1998). Dr. Yantis, the first permanent Director of the
Institute, comments on a similar point by noting that the Institute started to gain
attention from different government agencies and corporations:

Housing and Urban Development people came to us and

wondered if we would be willing to work with them in
providing programs for some of the Model Cities people.

86

Model Cities was a program where they would go into
inner cities and help disadvantaged people become more
self-sufficient. And education is an important part of that.
We said we’d be interested in doing that and they said
they had a dream to helpus develop a program if we
would be willing to do it in a particular city where they were
having trouble finding a reliable institution to work with
them, and that was Honolulu, Hawaii. And so we went out
there really with a grant from the federal government to
deliver a program in that city. So now we’re working with a
federal agency. Now we have the military, I mentioned
where we started, of course in that area, other branches of
the military became very interested and not only other Air
Force bases where these people were moving around to
and being transferred to because they would take this
word that CMU is providing this wonderful program, this
wonderful opportunity for officers and potential officers and
so the Air Force was very interested in expanding that
program. Well it wasn’t long until the Army got involved
and theg)later the Marine Corps (Yantis, interview, April
21, 199 .

About the same time private industry started to be interested in the
lnstitute’s programs. As Dr. Yantis further notes,

So about the same time Chrysler corporation came along
and said we have; again remember the time, cities were
burning in the late 1960s and early 19705 because of
concerns with race. Chrysler was trying to be socially
responsible and they said we have a lot of minority
supervisors who are on the line who have potential to be
supervisors or managers but they need a degree. Would
you be willing to come to our plants and offer the degree at
the convenience of the students in the plants of Chrysler
and so forth? And so we decided to do that. They also
gave us a little grant to help them develop that program.
And that was important because with the president and the
provost asking me to come in and develop this program
and serve as its first director, they said, John, we don’t
have any money for you to do it, you will have to be
financially self supported. So the military was the logical
place to go because they had tuition assistance. Number
two, the Chrysler Corporation came along with a grant and
then here came the federal agency with a grant. And so
we had some seed money that way in order to get the
program up and running. And of course many of these
programs were offered out of state. And therefore, we
charged a higher tuition rate than we would charge on
campus or that would be charged through off campus
division, because, again, it could be an out of state tuition
rate (Yantis, interview, April 21, 1998).

87

Table 2 is a summary of the growth of the Institute for Personal and

Career Development during the time of this study. The table reflects the

explosive growth of the Institute during its early period of development.

Table 2: The Growth of the Institute for Personal and Career
Development in Student Enrollment, 7I1I72-6I30I75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

711172- 7l1l73- 711/74-
6I30I73 6I30I74 6/30I75

Graduate Student Credit Hours 7,596 17,376 39,516
Widergramte Student Credit 7,666 3,791 6,379
Hours
[0 I AL Student Credit Hours 10,262 23,167 45:886—
FuIl-Time Equated Graduate 31675 724 1,646.5
Hours ‘
Full-time Equated 86 187 205.8
Undergraduate Hours
Students Grafiuatfiig wfih 116 343 602
Masters Degrees
Students Graduating with 2 21 34

 

Undergraduate Degrees

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: Annual Report, 1972-73, Institute for Personal and Career

Develo9pment, July 1973, p. 1; Yantis, Annual Report, 1973-74, Institute for
Personal and Career Development, July 1974, p. 1; Yantis, Annual Report,
1974-75, Institute for Personal and Career Development, July 1975, p. 1.

These data indicate that the Institute was more oriented toward

graduate education than undergraduate. At the end of the 1972 fiscal year, the

Institute was offering classes in over ten locations throughout the United States,

and the Institute anticipated greater expansion. As the 1972-1973 Annual

Report noted, “It is very feasible that this non-traditional aspect of Central

Michigan University’s educational program could double in size during the next

year” (Annual Report 1972-1973, Institute for Personal and Career Development,

July 1973, p.6). However, the Annual Report cautioned, “Of course, continuous

planning, organizing, and coordinating are imperative ingredients in meeting the

demands of new expanding programs so as to assure that important element in

88

any educational program—quality” (Annual Report 1972-1973, Institute for
Personal and Career Development, July 1973, p.6).

As the Institute grew, its procedures and guidelines became more
formalized. By 1973 the Institute had an lnforrnation Brochure that was quite
detailed in explaining Institute programs and procedures. According to this
brochure, in order to gain admittance to the Institute as an undergraduate all one
needed to have was a high school diploma or to have successfully passed the
GED examination. To be admitted as a graduate student, one needed a
baccalaureate degree from an approved institution (lnforrnation Brochure,
Institute for Personal and Career Development, 1973, p.2). The transfer credit
policy was also spelled out in this new brochure which stated that for
undergraduates up to 90 hours could be applied to their degree programs. The
brochure further explained the transfer process, claiming students would meet
with their Ieaming consultant to determine which credits would apply to their
program. However, the brochure also alerted the student that “Since credit from
some unaccredited schools may be transferred, all such work should be
submitted” (lnforrnation Brochure, Institute for Personal and Career
Development, 1973, p.2).

For graduate transfer credit, the Institute would accept 15 semester hours.
After admission the student was to make an appointment through the regional
center where they attended classes, to meet a Ieaming consultant. The two of
them would then constmct a personal degree program. The requirements to
graduate from the Institute were as follows: an undergraduate must complete
1 24 semester hours, of which at least 34 must be from Central Michigan
University. The student must complete all courses required from the program
guide they are under, and the student must have at least a 2.00 or “C”

cumulative grade point average. A graduate student must complete 30 semester

89

hours, at least 15 of which must be from CMU. Complete all requirements stated
on their program guide, and have at least a 3.00 or “B” cumulative grade point
(Information Brochure, Institute for Personal and Career Development, 1973,
p.3).

The 1973-1974 Annual Report is much more detailed because the
Institute had been operating longer, so there were simply more data and
activities to include in the Annual Report. This Annual report also looks more
professional, and includes a mission statement, which stated, “The major
objective for the Institute is to research, develop, and experiment with various
alternatives for providing educational opportunities in higher education for mature
adults for whom the traditional college setting and/or program is not appropriate”
(Yantis, Annual Report 1973-1974, Institute for Personal and Career
Development, July 1974, p.2). Within this fiscal year, the Institute also engaged
in numerous “Special Activities.” Some of these activities included the
development of an individualized degree program for isolated individuals and the
decision of the Institute’s Academic Council to successfully lobby for two
academic council members to receive part-time leaves of absence from their
respective departments in order to work more closely with Institute endeavors
(Yantis, Annual Report 1973-1974, Institute for Personal and Career
Development, July 1974, p.9). In addition, the Academic Council of the Institute
created an evaluation steering committee whose job was to evaluate the
progress of the Institute in reaching general objectives. The Academic Senate
also appointed visiting boards to evaluate the academic quality of the different
program offerings. The steering committee and the visiting boards both started
the evaluation process (Yantis, Annual Report 1973-1974, Institute for Personal

and Career Development, July 1974, p.10).

90

The December 1973, commencement listed a number of Institute
graduates: 96 students received Master’s degrees and eight received bachelors
degrees (Wells, editor, Outreach, March 1974, p.1). The students receiving the
degrees participated in Institute programs in almost a dozen states; however, a
majority of the graduates were from Ohio, Hawaii, and Michigan (Wells, editor,
Outreach, March 1974, p.1).

By December 1974, the Institute had grown quite dramatically. As the
local Mt. Pleasant newspaper noted on December 31, 1974:

The Institute currently enrolls 5,000 students and its
programs have led to about 1,000 degrees granted by the
university since 1972. Its 15 locations range from Hawaii
to the Azores and include programs in inner cities, on
military bases and Indian reservations (“Career Institute
Aiming At Individual Now,” (Daily-Times News), December
31, 1974, p.5).

One of the problems for the Institute was that it was simply growing too
fast. At the February 10, 1975, Academic Senate meeting it was disclosed that
thirty-one Institute classes were taught by twenty-six instructors who were not
approved by the Academic Council or the respective departments. Most of the
classes were taught in Hawaii according to Dr. John Schmidt, who was
chairperson of the lnstitute’s Academic Council. The classes were within the
lnstitute’s Community Leadership program (Reynolds, February 12, 1975 p.1).
This caused a major uproar on campus. Dr. Ronald Johnstone, a member of the
Academic Senate, called the lnstitute’s teaching of classes without departmental
approval “a flagrant violation” of the Institute charter (Reynolds, February 12,
1975 p.1). Dr. John Schmidt claimed that the rapid growth of the Institute since
its creation in 1971, plus the use of field managers to contract the instructors,

and also a general lack of experience, which was why the situation occurred

(Reynolds, February 12, 1975 p. 1). Dr. Schmidt stated, “We do not condone

91

the past mistakes . . . we are well on our way to take corrective action”
(Reynolds, February 12, 1975 p.1).

Among the remedies taken by the Institute included designating Richard
Potter, an administrative coordinator for the Institute, as the sole person
responsible to contract instructors. Previously all field managers could hire
instructors. Schmidt further stated that “I know of no evidence whatsoever that
there was an attempt to deliberately deceive the Senate, the Academic Council,
or to violate procedures” (Reynolds, February 12, 1975 p.1). One faculty
member’s account of this event indicated that this incident created a “furor in the
Academic Senate” which “almost killed the IPCD, but some adroit footwork,
including tighter controls, an oversight committee, and IPCD’s solemn promise to
‘straighten up and fly right’, managed to save it” (Riccards. 1982, p.511).

The minutes of the Academic Senate of February 10, 1975, include
considerable discussion around the apparent violation of the Senate regulations
set down for the approval of Institute faculty prior to the teaching of a given
course. Discussion dealt with steps undenivay in the Academic Council to insure
that these errors were corrected and that further violations would not occur
(Minutes, Academic Senate. February 10, 1975). It was decided that the
Institute would continue with the recommendation approved at the end of every
semester; departments on campus would be sent a list of the Institute classes
taught in their area, with the name of the instructors and location of the class
(Minutes, Academic Senate, February 10, 1975).

As a response to the crisis in the Academic Senate over unapproved
instructors teaching Institute classes, the Institute employed a full time program
coordinator in the 1974-1975 fiscal year. This person worked with academic
advisors and special projects. In addition, an advisor’s handbook was created

during this fiscal year (Yantis, Annual Report, Institute for Personal and Career

92

Development, July 1975, p.7). The Institute also put a much greater emphasis
on staff development during this fiscal year. In September, 1974 all program
managers and academic aides from the various Institute regional centers met
with Central Michigan University faculty and administrative personnel to review
Institute procedures. Also, program managers met with the administrative staff
of the Institute several times during the year for inservice training (Yantis, Annual
Report 1974-1975, Institute for Personal and Career Development, July 1975
p.9).

On June 30, 1975, Dr. William Boyd left Central Michigan University to
become President of the University of Oregon. On August 31, 1975, Dr. Charles
Ping left Central Michigan University to become President of Ohio University. By
that time one of their greatest legacies at Central Michigan University, the
Institute for Personal and Career Development, had outgrown its infancy and
was proceeding towards a. more mature stage of development. The vision and
idea of Dr. Boyd and Dr. Ping, which provided for the initiation of the Institute,

would continue and prosper long after their departure.

2. Why did Central Michigan University start the Institute for
Personal and Career Development?

Research indicates that a key reason that Central Michigan University
started the Institute was to help disenfranchised adults who needed or desired a
college degree but who were unable to attend classes at a university campus.
As Provost Charles Ping stated,

It was largely out of a concern for a student population not
well served by college and university education, namely,
the so called nontraditional student. The student whose
work or family responsibilities limited their access to
education. I had, myself, worked with this problem while
serving as Dean and Interim President of a small college in
the South. And at that time, mid to late 19605, there really
were only a couple of places that were offering the

93

possibility; of degree completion in a way that was
gupportiv)e of this student population (Ping, interview, April
9, 1998 .

Dr. Ping brought these ideas and beliefs with him when he came to
Central Michigan University, as he further stated,

The questions were questions of schedule, location,
access to the material that you need and how you dealt
with that student population as a distinct group. I
remember well a conversation I had with an older woman
who came to my office to talk about the fact that she was
laboring according to Central’s standards to complete a
degree. And discovered that she was required to take a
physical education course in her curriculum that included a
course in sex education, and she said that I am the mother
of four children. And I have raised all four of them and I sit
in this classroom with a group of 19 and 20 year—old
students which just seems to be blatantly absurd. I
couldn’t agree more. And she sort of illustrates, rather
defines the problem. How do you deal with people whose
career or work or life experiences translate into
understanding and it’s that translation that is the key. How
can you turn that credit toward the requirements of a
degree program. And so those were several issues, time
and place, access, trying to deal with the population in
terms of where they were. The program was consciously
geared to try to work at finding ways to deal with the non-
traditional student. That is a student not fresh out of high
school, a student who may have some college work but
not enough to complete a degree who now wanted to
complete a degree (Ping, interview, April 29, 1998).

The very first Annual Report for the Institute, which covers the period
January 1, 1972 until June 30, 1973, reinforces this theme in its preface:

At this point in the evolution of higher education it has
become evident that the conventional two or four year
residency at a post secondary institution is neither feasible
nor preferable for a large number of people desirous of
continuous, even life-long Ieaming but who are isolated
from formal education by reason of their income,
geographical location, or the particular demands of their
daily responsibilities. The need for an extended university,
an external degree program, or a university without walls is
obvious as is emphasized by reports by the Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education and the Commission on
Non-Traditional Study sponsored by the College Entrance

94

Examination Board and the Educational Testing Service
(Annual Report, Institute for Personal and Career
Development, July 1973, p.i).

The Preface continues:

When the Institute for Personal and Career Development
was originated in January of 1972, it represented one
answer to this nationally and locally felt need to provide
access to education for groups and individuals hindered in
some way from receiving the traditional on-campus
education. The Institute was designed to provide an
administrative aim of the university for the purpose of
administrating this “university without walls” program
(Annual Report, Institute for Personal and Career
Development, July 1973, p.I).

The first bulletin put out by the Institute for its students also stresses this
point:

The programs of the Institute are designed to serve
individuals whose career and personal responsibilities limit
their access to education, who plan to interrupt their career
or educational sequence, or who have been educationally
disenfranchiSed because of economic circumstances,
physical handicaps or for other reasons (Bulletin, Institute
for Personal and Career Development, 1972, p.2).

Dr. Ernest Minelli, who was vice provost at Central Michigan University,
and who together with Dr. Leslie Cochran was charged by Dr. Boyd and Dr. Ping
with setting up the Institute, explained why he thought the Institute was created:

We saw that that was the future, for the university as well
as the future in education. We also realized that there just
weren’t many institutions that were doing it. And there
weren’t institutions that were providing a guarantee that
you would get a degree on the end. That pretty much
answers why. That’s probably the reason, the evolution of
it and the reason why Central went with it, and of course I
suspect that those that were in the higher echelons more
than Cochran and me also saw that there was a possibility
to not only increase enrollment but increase the revenues
for the university (Minelli, interview, May 28, 1998).

That the creation of the Institute was a means to make money for Central
Michigan University is mentioned by a minority of people, mostly faculty. Dr.
Vlfilliam Bulger, who was head of the Central Michigan University faculty

association during the creation of the Institute, commented,

95

As I said it was to take the university into some new areas
but also to make some additional money, that money part
was important, it was a good way to bring in some
additional funds. In those years we were at the bottom or
next to the bottom at the state funding in dollars per
student, we used to alternate with Ferris State University
either being the lowest or next to the lowest, and I think
this was a way they thOught to catch up a bit, and it
certainly has expanded the university. I remember when I
went to commencement in 1993 when I retired, and the
graduate students, most of them had never seen campus
before (Bulger, interview, June 3, 1998).

Another Central Michigan University faculty member, Dr. Robert Mills, who
started teaching for the Institute when it was first created, said,

I think they started it for several very varied reasons. One,
to be on the cutting edge, to always be willing to change
and try new and different things. Two, obviously to serve a
market that obviously was not being served. Third,
obviously they went into it for profit. There’s a large
financial market out there. The university is like every
other business, it has to make money, or it would literally
go out of business (Mills, interview, June 9, 1998).

The potential financial impact of creating the Institute was there from the
very beginning. When Dr. Leslie Cochran gave an early presentation of the
creation of the Institute to the university Academic Senate, he noted, “The early
steps of the program would both provide revenue and serve individuals. This
income, to come from the military and the US. Department of Housing and
Urban Development would enable CMU to develop other programs for
individuals and minority groups” (Marti, November 17, 1971 p.1). This
philosophy caused a member of the Academic Senate to question, “Are we
doing it to receive the extra money and resources from the federal government?”
(Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1971).

With regard to the money that the Institute brought in for the university,
one Central Michigan University faculty member claimed that President Boyd

said, “I hope we never come to count on that money.” In this faculty member’s

96

opinion, “The IPCD program is like a dreaded druguonce having become
addicted to it, one cannot ‘kick the habit’” (Riccards, 1982, p.385).

Dr. Richard Potter, who started working for the Institute in February, 1972,
and was one of the first employees of the Institute, believed that the focus on
making money really affected how the Institute developed:

As it turned out, the Institute didn’t turn out the way they
envisioned it at all. They had a vision, they saw it more as
helping individuals rather than working with groups. The
drive to work with groups was due largely to the fact that it
had to be self-supporting, that was one of the things that
had been introduced during the discussions in the Senate.
People wanted to make sure that it wasn’t draining the
resources from campus. 80 it was stuck in there that it
had to be self-supportive. Well that really changed the
tenor of the whole organization because it then had to
spend a great deal of its time on survival and developing
revenue streams to make sure that it was self supporting.
So we started immediately working with groups. Almost all
our attention, throughout the time of the Institute was in
existence, was towards groups because that was where
you made money. There was an individualized degree
program that was in Michigan but it was always, I shouldn’t
say second class, but it was always a smaller part of the
organization, where less attention was spent on it. And I
sensed from things that Boyd and Ping said later that they
were sorry that this had happened and that this was not
what they wanted. They wanted the Institute to help
individuals. And you would hear Boyd speak of, you know
this was designed to help the housewife in Alpena, the
farmer in Manistee. I mean there were not enough farmers
in Manistee who wanted to complete their degree program
to make it worthwhile to work with them. We were working
with groups and later on we went all over the country
working with groups, and so it did turn out differently than
they envisioned, and it was, I believe, primarily because
during the debate that led to the establishment, it was
stuck in there that this thing had to be

self-supportive, could not use any funds from the general
fund which would take away from on campus programs
(Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

97

3.

Why did CMU develop a new institution and not use the Office
of Off Campus Education?

When creating the Institute three different alternatives were proposed for

its relationship with Central Michigan University's present division of Off Campus

Education. These three alternatives were spelled out in detail in the feasibility

study for the Institute. The three different alternatives were:

1.

It could be completely dependent upon Off Campus
Education (both academically and managerially).

It could be semi-dependent upon Off Campus
Education (dependent academically and independent
managerially).

It could be completely independent of Off Campus
Education (both academically and managerially)
(Cochran, September 20, 1971, p.14).

The feasibility study notes that a case could be made for each of the three

alternatives. However, based upon existing programs at other institutions and

the advice of Dr. Milton Goldstein, who was a program consultant, and Mr.

Melvin Wach, from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the best

arrangement is to have a completely separate or independent unit (Cochran,

September 20, 1971, p.15). The feasibility study stated that the separate unit

idea was justifiable for the following reasons:

1.

The State budgetary system requires that any derived
income would be channeled back into the University
budget, thus having the affect of reducing University
appropriations. '

Diverting the present resources of Off Campus
Education may reduce the effectiveness of the
current program.

The entire staff of Off Campus Education would have
to be retrained while continuing present operations.

If the program is tied to Off Campus Education, there
is an automatic contractual arrangement that is not
appropriate for the program.

The operational aspects (magnitude, logistics, etc.)
provide dissimilar functions.

98

6. The type of program under consideration and the
groups to be served vary considerably from the
present teacher oriented approach.

7. All income generated by the program must be
channeled directly into program development rather
than having a possibility of being diverted in some
other direction (Cochran, September 20, 1971, p.15).

The idea for a separate unit was chosen for all of the above reasons.
Different individuals seemed to believe that different points were more critical in
developing a whole new unit of the university. One group believed that the
Institute needed to be separate from Off Campus Education because it needed
more “aggressive leadership” than the leadership in Off Campus Education
could provide. A second group believed that the Institute should be separated
from Off Campus Education so it could develop an identity of its own. A third
group believed that the overriding reason’s were because of financial and
collective bargaining issues (collective bargaining issues included; faculty load,
faculty salary, and transportation costs when faculty taught off campus).

Dr. Leslie Cochran, who wrote the feasibility study that created the
Institute, believed that the Institute was separated from Off Campus Education
because it needed more aggressive leadership. As he comments on the then
Dean of Off Campus Education, Dr. J. D. Marcus,

And he was really a person of stature and had done a
great job and the people in the community recognized him,
but as I recall he was getting close to retirement. He was a
good person but was certainly not the kind of person who
was into all of this current literatureand different ways of
doing things, and he was working pretty hard, just doing
what he was doing. And so I think Charlie (Ping) said if
we’re going to do any of this we need to have one of these
young Turks who are bugging me all of the time. And so I
think it was nothing personal or anything like that it was
simply saying that we’re going to need aggressive

leadership (Cochran, interview, April 29, 1998).

Mr. Arthur Ellis concurred with Dr. Cochran:

99

J.D. Marcus was the head of Off Campus Education at that
time I believe, and Off Campus was a traditional teacher
service operation. And it really wasn’t structured
management wise with the type of person you’d need to
start this brand new program. And I’ll just say it rather
directly to you, I think they needed younger more visionary
leadership, and they didn’t want to tamper with a good
thing there, the teacher training part, and they just never
seriously considered it. I don't remember, but I’m sure
there had to be some discussion and then we moved away
from it, but why I think it’s just clear, younger, more
aggressive leadership (Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998).

Others believed that the Institute needed an identity of its own. Dr.
Richard Potter, who was one of the first employees of the Institute, subscribes to
this idea:

Les Cochran developed in his report in talking to a lot of
other people around the country, the feeling that these
programs had to start fresh, that you couldn’t add them on
to an existing bureaucracy because they wouldn’t flourish,
they wouldn’t get the attention they needed. And that
often the needs of a continuing education, an extension
organization were set up to do different things and their
mind set was in a different place, and you had to kind of
break the pattern and the best way to do that was to start
with new people, a new organization (Potter, interview,
July 27, 1998).

Dr. Neil Bucklew, who was Assistant Provost at the time and actively
involved with the establishment of the Institute, had a similar view:

Let me just mention that our Off Campus office was very
traditional. It was traditional Off Campus. Its view of its
audience was school teachers and school administrators,
that made up a great majority of the work it did. It did very
little with the business community in those days. 80 Off
Campus was in many ways if you called it technically what
it was, it was Off Campus for the School of Education.
Now that was all changed, but in those days that was what
Off Campus education was almost everywhere. I would
tell you that probably 80-90 percent of their business were
people in education schools, teachers coming back to get
hours because that helped them on the pay scales or
getting certifications that were necessary in order to move
inggadministrative positions (Bucklew, interview, April 20,
1 .

Dr. Bucklew also discussed the need for the Institute to be a new

organization:

100

It was going to have a very different focus, it was going to
do different things. Different people were going to do it. It
wasn’t just education we were now going to have different
parts of the university who were delivering who had not
done much that was off campus. Departments like
business and industrial education and technology,
psychology, these were just areas that hadn’t done much
off campus. We also had a new audience, the new
audience was both the military who were very interested in
this and were out looking for innovative institutions they
could work with, and some of our earliest biggest contracts
were with the Air Force. But also big companies, primarily
the automobile companies in the greater Detroit area. I
think one of our first big contracts (contracts included a
space provided to teach, certified staff provided by CMU,
and a guaranteed number of students for the program) was
with Chrysler. I can remember in those days in effect we
created Mastersdegree programs to deliver to these
people in their locations on their time frames. It was very
unorthodox, it still is, but in those days it was shockingly
unorthodox. We would put people on an airplane from Mt.
Pleasant, Michigan they’d go over to Tri-Cities airport
they’d fly to Wilmington, Delaware they’d get on a cargo
transport plane and fly to the Azores and teach for two
days and come home. It was amazing! We were doing
the same thing in Hawaii. We were doing this in other
locations. And I went to a couple of these sites and these
people we were training were people in S.A.C. who were
on alert. You had to understand they were out in the
middle of the airplanes in the middle of the airfield, this was
a special place where when you were on alert that was
where you slept and lived. And what they historically did
was slept, and played ping pong. But now they could get a
Masters Degree, because they had to be there ready to get
in those planes and be in the air in a matter of three to four
minutes. So they couldn’t be anywhere else. But they
would probably sit there for days and days and do nothing,
but if an alert came then they had to be there. It was all
part, you got to remember times were different when we
thought the Russians were going to bomb us. They were
always doing fake alerts in order to keep these guys on
their toes. I was there in the middle of a class and the
bells go off. I mean the books fly and these guys are gone.
I mean they’re gone, in ten to fifteen seconds the room is
cleared (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

Dr. Bucklew and other founders of the Institute were still convinced they
could offer an effective program, even under these conditions, with a new and

independent Institute. As Dr. Bucklew further stated,

101

Now we were convinced that you could offer quality,
professional and graduate education to people in these
very unique settings. And to tell you the truth we decided it
was better to start that thing new than to try to change the
old Off Campus. The old Off Campus business didn’t go
away it had its own business but the fact is that the things
we had to do through the Institute they were not geared up
to do. We had to create libraries that were in distant sites,
we had to handle all this traveling, you had to handle these
funny strange time frames. To tell you the truth no one
was interested in getting a graduate degree in education.
That’s primarily what they peddled. So we created a new
degree, that was something I had a hand in. We had an
MBA but it was an accrediting problem to take it on the
road. Because the accrediting agency was so
conservative, they just couldn’t understand how you could
do anything like that, you had to teach in a classroom on a
college campus, or it didn‘t count. I took a year’s leave and
part of my task was to from scratch get a new degree in
place, which became the Masters in Public Administration.
It was a university degree, and we couldn’t put it in the
College of Business even though there was distinct
elements that they taught. The reason we couldn’t put it
there again was an accreditation problem. But Bill Boyd’s
attitude was, I am not going to accept all of these reasons
why we can’t do things. Get it done, find a new way. If
you will, he said we’ve got a new bottle and if it takes new
wine, the old wine won’t fit in it, get new wine. And so we
did a lot of innovative things.

Dr. Boyd also remarks on this noting:

I didn’t think that a traditional structure would ever be
approved by a faculty, and I didn’t want to use the-Off
Campus education because I thought that the quality was
probably not as good as I wanted and so I wanted the
Institute to be as nearly autonomous as possible. I didn’t
-. want every single thing to haveto be examined by the
traditional standards (Boyd, interview, April 23, 1998).

The last reason a new unit was created instead of putting it in Off Campus
Education concerned finances and collective bargaining. Dr. Boyd alludes to
this:

Remember we were dealing with collective bargaining as
well as an Academic Senate as well as a Board of
Trustees. Three institutions to check, to guard against
change, to see to it that tradition was upheld. And so to
thrive in such a situation one really needed a new institute
as nearly autonomous as one could make it (Boyd,
interview, April 23, 1998).

102

Provost Ping made a similar case when answering questions in the

Academic Senate:

The program is separate from the Off Campus operation
because it must be financially self supporting and the
program would drain the present staff of Off Campus
education. The nature of the (collective bargaining)
contract would also place restrictions on us which would
prevent use of the Off Campus office (Minutes, Academic
Senate, October 1 1, 1998).

Dr. Alan Quick, who was Chairperson of the Department of Student
Teaching, echoed these points:

Central Michigan University was just getting started in
collective bargaining with the faculty association. By the
way Central Michigan University was the first public four
year institution in the United States that had collective
bargaining, and I presume that Dr. Vlfilliam Boyd, who was
then president, and Dr. Charles Ping, who was provost,
were a little bit hesitant to get mixed up with collective
bargaining and some of these issues may have to be
bargained and so on. And so, therefore, the way the IPCD
was established really was excluded from the collective
bargaining agreement. I don’t think there was any mention
of it in the early collective bargaining agreements of CMU
whereby Off Campus education was incorporated as a
bargaining issue. The Division of Off Campus Education
bargained salaries for faculty, load for faculty, and travel
expenses for faculty (Quick, interview, June 1, 1998).

All of these factors then seemed to play a part in the Institute for Personal
and Career Development being established as a totally separate entity and not

part of the Central Michigan University Division of Off Campus Education.

4. Did CMU model their program from a program at another
university?

It does not appear that CMU modeled their program after any other
university, but it rather took bits and pieces, and perhaps influences from a

variety of different colleges and universities. The feasibility study for the Institute

states,

The Open University experiment and operational programs
at Goddard College, Northern Colorado University,
Syracuse University, and the University of Oklahoma
reveal the opportunity such programs afford for
experimentation with new curriculums and new
instructional technology, and the opportunity they afford for
meeting the needs of individuals currently not being

served by higher education (Cochran, September 20,
1971,p.). - . -

Dr. Boyd and Dr. Ping, .while perhaps not using other institutions directly
as a model for their vision for the Institute, certainly were influenced by ideas and
concepts from other institutions. Dr. Boyd was influenced by the Carnegie
Foundation: “The Carnegie Foundation was not the only institution pushing the
idea of breaking out of the traditions and freeing higher education up, it was just
the one that was the most influential to me” (Boyd, interview, April 23, 1998). Dr.
Ping was influenced by Goddard College of Vermont. Dr. Ping noted that he
was impressed by Goddard’s attempt to try “to build some translation into
knowledge experiences, the translation of life experiences into knowledge value”
(Ping, interview, April 29, 1998).

When writing the feasibility study for the Institute, Dr. Cochran looked at
Northern Colorado, the University of Maryland, the University of Oklahoma, and
the University of Southern California. As he recalls,

Then we analyzed these and the person from HUD gave
us his advice as to the shortcomings, the weaknesses, the
good things that were going on, the problems that they had
had, because you know you don’t have to reinvent the
wheel. So we were Ieaming from them, Ieaming from the
literature, those things that seemed to be on the cutting
edge and that were working and those areas that were
dysfunctional. For example, one of the principles that we
Ieamed outside the curricular process was that the
decision making for experiential Ieaming, for curriculum
development and all of those things had to be invested in
the academic departments of CMU. Many of the others, in
fact, all of the other programs had been started as
administrative functions outside of the academic division;
run as their own, as a kind of entrepreneurial spirit. And
many of them were nine or ten years old at the time and
were experiencing significant difficulty on campus because
technically they had never been approved by an internal

104

governing structure; and, secondly, the academic ties to
the departments on those campuses, I’d say was marginal
at best. They were really run like an administrative unit.
And so those were, for example, two fundamental
organizational structures that we Ieamed from practice
from these other schools that said if it is going to happen at
CMU it had to be approved by the faculty senate and the
curricular authority, and the approval of experiential
Ieaming credit, and all of those things had to be invested in
the faculty of CMU. And that’s a fundamental difference
where we’ve all of a sudden become distinctly different in
our design model from an organizational point of view than
any other institution that was doing that at that time
(Cochran, interview, April 29, 1998).

Northern Colorado University was mentioned by Provost Ping to the
Academic Senate as the model that they used to develop the Institute (Minutes,
Academic Senate, October 11», 1998). However, even Northern Colorado was
not the perfect model for the new Institute. As Dr. John Yantis, noted:

The only one that we were aware of that was trying to do
anything similar, and they were strictly on military
installations, (we were much more diversified than they
were), but that was Northern Colorado University at
Greeley, Colorado, and they had a program that was
similar in naturethat was a masters degree program for
military personnel. They had hired a consulting firm to run
their program and we didn’t want to do that. In fact, they
got into some trouble with their accrediting agency
because of that later. But we didn’t want to do that, we
wanted to run that program ourselves and that’s how the
Institute was developed (Y antis, interview, April 21, 1998).

Dr. Neil Bucklew believes that Central did not really model its program
after any other:

There was a period of time when there wasn’t much in the
world but us. You need to know that the University of
Maryland had a lock on dealing with the military. In part
that is because of their location right there in the greater
DC. area. But for probably twenty years right after World
War II, before we ever got into this kind of business, they
were the world wide graduate degree university for the
military. You had to do a lot of things through
correspondence, they were pretty traditional, they had
developed a model, and they were not willing to make
some of the changes the military wanted. But they didn’t
come on with nearly the innovative attitude we did. There

105

was no other place that I can recall who had done all the
other things we were willing to try to do (Bucklew,
interview, April 20, 1998).

Dr. Bucklew further states that “I would tell you that we were out on the
point on sort of the administrative organization of this thing. There wasn’t really
anybody who had really modeled that very well” (Bucklew, interview, April 20,
1998).

Dr. Ernest Minelli thought that what separated the Institute from other
models and programs they looked at was the guaranteed degree:

The one thing that the other programs didn’t have that we
built in ours was, you meet the requirements, and we will
deliver the program, and you get a degree from Central.
And not one of the other programs guaranteed a degree.
They’d let people take a course, and take courses, and
take courses, but never provide the requirements to meet
the degree (Minelli, interview, May 28, 1998).

When developing the Institute, the visions of Dr. Boyd and Dr. Ping were
paramount. Although other institution’s programs were examined, especially
Northern Colorado, much of the new Institute was built from scratch or evolved

on its own.

II. Questions concerning the structure of the Institute for
Personal and Career Development.

5. How was the fee structure for Institute classes developed?
Administrators used a variety of sources to help establish a fee structure
for the classes it developed. Dr. Cochran, who authored the feasibility study for
the Institute, said,
We looked at the common practice of other institutions,
and, very significantly, the amount that the federal
government was willing to reimburse the federal
employees because many of these programs would .be
with HUD or on military bases, at least in the beginning,

and so the level of support that would come from those
was a driving force. And then, of course, making sure that

106

we could live within those means. Also we decided that
we did not want to be at the top or at the bottom and I think
that we placed ourselves in a pricing structure that we
would be about 70% of the max that were being charged
out there. Which was still a lot more than, remember the
time, Central was a low fee institution, so it looked like a lot
of dollars to us (Cochran, interview, April 29, 1998).

Central could also use the fee structure for Off Campus Education and the
pilot program at Wurtsmith Air Force base in Oscoda, Michigan, as guides in
developing the cost structures. Dr. Charles Ping explained the process when
addressing Academic Senate: “The cost detail was based on the experiences of
Northern Colorado.” In addition, “our program at Wurtsmith has worked well at
$60.00 per credit hour. The program would not drain resources from campus but
add resources to campus” (Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1998). Sixty
dollars per credit hour was the dollar amount eventually used when the Institute
started offering classes. This amount was significantly higher than on campus
tuition rates, which were $15 per credit hour for in-state undergraduate, $35 per
credit hour for out-of-state undergraduate, $20 per credit hour for in-state
graduate, and $40 per credit hour for out-of-state graduate (Class Schedule,
Central Michigan University, Fall 1971).

Other financial aspects of the Institute included what to charge the
Institute for its use of campus space, electricity, etc. Dr. Neil Bucklew and others
commented on this aspect of the creation of the Institute:

We tried to set it up asa tub on its own bottom. Meaning

that we would allow it to keep the income that it brought in,

and then give it a lot of freedom on how it expanded it, but

then we would just charge them, if you will, a rate for being

part of the university. So in effect we made them like a

business (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).
Dr. Bucklew further explained about the charges that the university charged the
Institute:

It was based on for every dollar they made, we claimed a

certain piece of that. That was based on the fact that they
used our payrolls to pay their people, our purchasing to

107

purchase their stuff. We gave them physical space, and
they used our vehicles. But more importantly they were
using our faculty. They were also using the time of our
executive staff etc. So in effect we said you’re a business
inside of our bigger business and were going to let you
operate independently, meaning you know, we wanted
them to have a lot of flexibility on what. they paid people,
and how they handled things. We didn’t want them to be
burdened, they were non-traditional and we didn’t want
them to be burdened by all of our traditional rules. So we
tried to give them a great deal of freedom and flexibility.
But we also saw it as a money maker (Bucklew, interview,
April 20, 1998)

Mr. Jerry Tubbs, Vice President of Business and Finance when the
Institute was created, was heavily involved in these issues and decisions. He
claimed,

One of those things we were concerned about in the
business area was getting those costs which were
associated either indirectly or directly. Particularly the
portion that involved the indirect overhead cost. It takes a
lot to run a university that people don’t see in terms of
heat, power, light, cost of buildings. And I do remember
we spent a lot of time on that formula to get something that
was agreeable that would transfer the appropriate cost, not
the total real cost because for the most part much of that
was then rented space some place else. So it wasn’t a
total application of overhead, but we were concerned
about that. All of the direct costs was fairly easy, you
know, salaries of the faculty and travel, and room and
board and lodging, etc. But to get a reasonable.
expectation and agreement was a big issue. How much
power for the area in Rowe Hall that the Institute used? Or
how much of time of the provost’s annual year? Was ten
percent of his time put towards this project? If it was, and
his salary at that time was $35,000 then $3,500 of that
should be applied in the gross. All of those costs have to
come from someplace (T ubbs, interview, June 8, 1998).

When setting the fee structure for Institute classes the originators of the
Institute did not have much to go on. They looked at Northern Colorado’s fees,
and then they looked at reimbursement rates that the federal government paid
for the education of its employees. The initial fee structure for Institute classes
was derived from these sources. However, the critical factor with the Institute

was that it not drain resources from on campus, or cost Central money. It had to

108

be self supporting. That is why extensive effort was made to “recapture” all of
the cost Central could from the Institute. That is why calculations were made as
to how much electricity the Institute used, and how much time Institute business
took up of certain Central personnel. The financial impact of the Institute to
Central becomes even more evident in the next question, which analyzes surplus

or profit that the Institute made and what was done with that.

6. Who came up with the idea of what the suitable payback would be
from the Institute to the University?

The idea of suitable payback to the University, or return of surplus to the
University, has been a lingering controversial issue with regard to the Institute,
and the problem was present at the very creation of the Institute. The feasibility
study noted that “the use of income from the program to other unrelated
activities could limit the effectiveness of the program” (Cochran, September 20,
1971, p.8). In addition, Dr. Charles Ping, when speaking to the Academic
Senate about the creation of the Institute, stated, “This is not intended to make a
profit” (Minutes, Academic Senate, December 6, 1971).

Dr. Leslie Cochran and others who were involved have a somewhat
different view. Dr. Cochran claims,

We saw this as a new venture; we saw that the possibility
of this had two distinct advantages. The driving force was,
it was a way to bring about curricular change and to get us
to think about doing things differently, and I would say to
you, at least in most of the conversations that I recall, the
driving force was change and a way to enhance CMU and
to get us into the current philosophy and way of doing
things. The second principle was we weren’t going to lose
money. And we had to make sure that there was a
process set up that we would generate money. And I can’t
recall, it seems to me that we did see that the model itself
produced significant income. But we weren’t as sure that
the model would in fact produce that. And I’d have to
admit, knowing Charlie Ping, raising an added revenue

109

stream to do some things was an important ingredient but
was not the driving force (Cochran, interview, April 29,
1998)

Dr. Neil Bucklew noted that he believed the Institute would be a profit-
making venture for the university. “That was not its primary reason but we were
convinced that it could be, and it was” (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998). And
the Institute surely returned money to CMU. In its first fiscal year, 1972-1973, it
returned $115,253 to the university (Annual Report 1972-1973, Institute For
Personal And Career Development, July 1973, p.1). Its second fiscal year,
1973-1974, it returned $233,086 to the university (Yantis, Annual Report 1973-
1974, Institute For Personal And Career Development, July 1974, p.1). Its third
fiscal year it returned $687,143 to the university (Yantis, Annual Report 1974-
1975, Institute For Personal And Career Development, July 1975, p.1).

Others familiar with the Institute believed that Institute surplus or profit
was increasingly important to the university. Dr. Richard Potter, who worked for
the Institute in this era, remembered, “I mean this was a money machine. The
programs would start off, and Bingo! You would get all of the students that you
would want. It was crowd control. How many courses could we run?” (Potter,
interview, July 27, 1998). Dr. Ernest Minelli, \fice Provost for Instructional
Research, recalled that around 1973 the Institute was critical to the university
because “the Institute kept the university afloat during the hard time years,
recession years that we had” (Minelli, interview, May 28, 1998). Dr. Vlfilliam
Bulger, who was head of the University Faculty Association, concurred, “I think
making money was very important in those days. This is the early 19705; we
were hard pressed to get money; we had some faculty cuts in that period, and so
we were fearful of what was going to happen” (Bulger, interview, June 3, 1998).

Another problem with the money that the Institute immediately started

returning to the university was the potential it could have to corrupt the

110

university’s purpose. This concern centered on the idea that the money was
paramount, and that quality and other academic issues involving the Institute
were secondary. Dr. Charles House, Assistant to President Boyd, voiced this
concern:

It was sensitive because there was recognized danger that

something which becoming popular could become a cash

cow and for that to happen would subvert both the

philosophical purpose of it and be dangerous for the

institution. If you get hooked on that kind of money, that

kind of soft money you’re in trouble if change takes place.

It was the suspicion of soft money. The president was

quite articulate on that. I mean he said “let’s hope that we

don’t get hooked on it.” When it becomes a resource and

people begin to depend on it then your priorities begin to

change. You begin to think more about its financial

productivity than about whether you’re actually

accomplishing something educationally (House, interview,

June 2, 1998).

Mr. Arthur Ellis, then Vice President of Public Relations, also described

the controversy:

That used to be the source of real civil. and almost fun

debates about the management of the Institute. (Them)

trying to hide their money and the rest of us trying to get

our hands on it. (Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998).

Behind these “civil and fun debates” were large philosophical and moral

questions regarding money and education which loomed for Central.

7. How were students recruited into the program?

Despite some of the early rhetoric the Institute really did not recruit
individual students initially but rather it recruited organizations. These
organizations were of three types: the armed forces, government agencies, and
large corporations. This is not what was envisioned by the Institute founders, but
this is what developed at the Institute rather quickly.

President Boyd, who was one who had the vision for the Institute,

commented,

111

It was not in my mind to recruit like you would recruit for a
freshman class for a university, you know you send an
admissions officer out and you make presentations at
college nights at high schools and you set up public
broadcasting inorder to call attention to yourself, all of the
things that universities do to recruit, and they do a lot to
recruit because of the fact that funding is always on a per
capita basis. But it was not my idea for people to be
recruited for the Institute. It was my idea that the
opportunity would be presented and people who were out
there, ambitious to get a college degree and who had all
kinds of good experience but not much classroom
education, would flock to it. I guess its just sort of like build
the field and they’ll come. I really didn’t see it as a
recruitment device, but one thing that probably influenced
it early on, probably for good and for ill, was that it was a
natural fit with the Army, and providing education for
people who were on duty was attractive to them. And it
was attractive to us because we wanted to get started and
build the experience and so on. And so part of our
audience turned out really to be a captive audience (Boyd,
interview, April 23, 1998).

Dr. Charles Ping noted that in the early years of the Institute they were
relying on students who came with some type of organizational support:

A large pool of them were recruited through base offices
and then we began to branch out in Washington DC. and
elsewhere to reach other government employees. And
then we moved into industry sponsored. As I remember, it
was Ford or GM (and Chrysler) who had a group of
students in the Institute program. Basically we were, in the
early years at least, relying largely on students who came
with some form of support. It could be military personnel
who had this as a benefit, it could be civil service, non
military federal employees who came with this as a benefit;
it could be employees in the corporate world that came
wggawmorate sponsorship (Ping, interview, April 29,

1 ).

The growth of the Institute was rapid, because it really seemed it was
filling a demand that wasn’t being met. Dr. John Yantis, Director of the Institute,
remarked on this:

We really had our plates full. We probably said no to
groups who wanted our program more than we said yes.
Because we did want to be sure that we would be able to
monitor a quality program where we went with it. And so
we tried not to grow too fast and yet there were so many
demands. So recruitment was not a problem. A lot of
times a person might take our degree program on one

112

base or start at it and move to another location and then

encourage that location to ask CMU to come in and

provide that program. Because there just weren’t other

universities that were doing this. And so we would go in, I

would just say by word of mouth, and I think that people

were pretty well pleased with the quality of the program,

they felt they were getting their money’s worth. And so

when we would go in why we would have no trouble at all

filling the classes (Yantis, interview, April 21, 1998).

There was a key change in the military of the United States at this time.

The military began requiring officers to have advanced degrees in order to be
promoted. This policy created very strong demand on military bases for the
lnstitute’s programs. As Dr. Charles House commented,

The recruitment was ready-made. It was also helped by

the fact that at the time that this was being developed, and

probably Still, the military was requiring advanced degrees

of its officers for promotion. At one point all of the crews of

Air Force One were graduates of Central Michigan

University, and the entire Marine helicopter squadron that

served the White House, were CMU graduates (House,

interview, June 2, 1998).

Dr. Richard Potter, who was in charge of setting up classes for the

Institute, noted that it was “like going fishing in some pristine lake in upper
Canada, you didn’t worry about what bait you used, you just threw your line over”

(Potter, interview, July, 27, 1998).

8. How was it determined, and who determined, how many credits
students would get for “prior Ieaming” to use towards their degree?

One of the more controversial aspects of the Institute was the policy of
awarding credit for “prior learning” or experiential Ieaming. This was Ieaming
that had occurred during a person’s life, but outside of the traditional academic
environment. The Institute newsletter Outreach in 1974 explained, “credit for
experience is granted in three areas: 1. formal income producing activities (job
skills); 2. non-academically accredited formal training programs and courses

(self-enrichment); 3. informal Ieaming experiences (personal growth) ”(Wells,

113

editor, Outreach, March, 1974, p.3). Nonetheless this was a controversial idea.
According to Dr. Leslie Cochran, the founders of the Institute “got the guidelines
and materials from the military, and guidelines and material from C.A.E.L.
(Council for the Advancement of Experimental Learning)” for this (Cochran,
interview, April 29, 1998). The idea was particularly controversial with the
faculty. Dr. Robert Mills, a faculty member who was on an early experiential
Ieaming team, recalled,

It was very controversial to give prior credit because we

couldn’t do that and didn’t do that on campus. There was

always a lot of tension to give the non traditional student

credit for prior Ieaming experiences. It’s pretty well

mellowed now after 20, 30, years but at the onset that was

a great complaint by the-critics of a non traditional program

(Mills, interview, June 9, 1998).

The Institute established a developmental experience team of six persons
who were initially appointed by the Institute. They represented each school at
CMU and were to evaluate students’ requests for credit for such experiences
toward a degree. The initial team consisted of: I

Business Administration: Richard Featheringham

Fine and Applied Arts: John Novosad

Arts and Sciences Joseph DeBolt

Arts and Sciences William Browne

Health, Physical Education and Recreation: Richard
Kirchner

Education: Robert Mills (Minutes, Academic Council,
Institute for Personal and Career Development, September
19, 1972, p.1).

The Institute allowed 60 hours of “developmental credit,” as this credit
was known, to be used for an undergraduate degree out of the 120 hours
required for an undergraduate degree. At the graduate level, the Institute
allowed 10 hours of developmental credit to be used out of the 30 hours required
for a graduate degree (lnforrnation Brochure, Institute for Personal and Career
Development, 1973, p.2). To receive prior Ieaming credit, students put together

a portfolio of past life activities that they felt could be applicable for such credit.

114

The por
Quick, I
entailed

Associa

Was COR

The portfolio was evaluated by the Developmental Experience Team. Dr. Alan
Quick, who served on the team in the 19705, noted what evaluating a portfolio
entailed:

l was on the prior Ieaming team. I did assess experiential
Ieaming and when I was on that particular team, there
were parameters that were involved. If you give a certain
amount of credit for undergraduates, I think we could give
up to 60 semester hours toward an undergraduate degree.
Towards a masters degree I think we could give up to 10
hours of experiential Ieaming. I can remember then we
would equate courses, well we would equate activities with
courses. For instance, I had a person deeply involved in
the Berlin Airlift, and now that was a management
participatory role that he had and there was a lot of good
management techniques that had to be used in that airlift,
and so he documented all of the things that he did and I
applied it then to a management class because we’re
talking about active experiences resulting in Ieaming
equating to college credit (Quick, interview, June 1, 1998).

Dr. Charles House, Assistant to president Boyd, recalled:

So a fairly complex system was set up whereby students
with the advice of the local director, whoever that might be,
put together portfolios, and they would come in, in crates
and boxes. And departmental persons, departmental
faculty who were selected by what process I don't
remember, but they were given overload credit and paid,
for going through those boxes and barrels of portfolio
materials, and making a judgment about what information
was reflected in that, and how many credits it ought to be
given. Quite a complex process. And they were pretty
stringent because the people who did it were no patsies
(House, interview, June 2, 1998).

Another faculty member, Dr. William Bulger, who headed the Faculty
Association, commented about the Institute giving prior Ieaming credit, claiming it
was controversial but also,

It was a lucrative job by the way, the people who did the
evaluating were paid very, very well. You had to fill out a
lot of forms. A lot of faculty were interested in having
those because it was above and beyond their regular
salary and many did that in preference of teaching summer
school because you could do it on your own, and they
were well paid (Bulger, interview, June 3, 1998).

115

Dr. Richard Potter, who was one of the first employees of the Institute,
recalled how the North Central Accrediting Association, when reviewing the
Institute, had questions about prior Ieaming. As Dr. Potter remembered,

I remember when the North Central Association came for
the first time accreditation visit and we had a big meeting
for the accreditors and the administration. They were
coming to do a regular review of CMU but the university
asked them to look at IPCD separately, because we
wanted to make sure that it stands on its own feet and not
just under the accreditation of the university. And one of
the accreditors said all right, this experiential Ieaming, and
I think that was 4 or 5 years after we started. Well this guy
says, what is this 10 hours, if you really believe In this stuff
why couldn’t the person get a complete degree? And
nobody knew the answer to that. I mean if you really do
believe in this why couldn’t a person get a complete
degree, and Neil Bucklew said because we’re 50%
chicken. Everybody understood that. You were doing
something that other people are not typically doing, and
yet, you ought to be cautious, you ought to be a little
concerned, and people accepted that (Potter, interview,
July 27, 1998).

The Institute charged students $25 per credit hour for prior Ieaming credit

(Cochran, September 20, 1971, p.18).

9. What were some of the logistical problems with developing this
program, such as obtaining classroom space and contracting
professors to teach in distant classrooms?

There were three major logistical problems that were part of the creation
of this new Institute. The first were logistical problems on campus with regards
to incorporating this new Institute into campus structures. The second logistical
problem was obtaining classroom and work space off campus. The third
logistical problem involved contracting professors to teach in these distant
classrooms.

Initially many of the logistical questions involving the Institute and its

students involved the Registrar’s Office on campus. Mr. Robert Connell, who

116

W85

1850i

eXIJGr

’ecali

was the Registrar during this time, remembers many issues that had to be
resolved regarding the Institute:

We had had experience with Off Campus Education, with
the grades coming through the instructor to Off Campus
Education and then coming through the Registrar’s Office
for running through the computer recording and sending
out grade reports. Basically that carried over to IPCD.
Everything was handled at the IPCD office as far as
sending out grade reports to the instructors’, they graded
them, sent them back to IPCD and then to us for
processing. We had the precedence of Off Campus
Education, so it was an easy follow up .from procedures
that had been developed over the years for Off Campus
(Connell, interview, May 28, 1998).

Mr. Connell stated how admission was handled:

Now the same. thing on the admission process. They
would admit the students, notify us, and we would put them
on board, in the computer. We had several, I can recall
having many meetings with IPCD representatives plus
school representatives, School of Business, various
schools where IPCD programs were being offered. And
then at graduation IPCD would check probably again in
conjunction with the schools that all graduation
requirements were met. When they were cleared they
notified us, names were put on, and diplomas were ready.
There were many meetings and a lot of procedures had to
be worked out both with our office and the various schools
and departments (Connell, interview, May 28, 1998).

The most controversial aspect of IPCD according to Mr. Connell was the
experiential credit:

Because there had been nothing on our campus at that
point for giving credit for previous work experience. So
that took many, many meetings to work out the details on
that because as- you can understand the departments and
schools were very concerned with this. But as it turned out
the procedure was worked out. Basically it was handled
the same way as transfer credit (Connell, interview, May
28, 1998).

The next logistical problem that the Institute confronted was obtaining
classroom and office space off campus. Dr. John Yantis, Director of the Institute,
recalled,

Generally speaking, the sponsor or the client that asked us
to provide the program usually provided the classroom

117

profes

to tear

space. For example, on a military base there is usually an
education office that has military classrooms. Many
corporations will have an education facility or an education
unit and then they will have classrooms. So we really
didn’t have a whole lot of problem in doing that. And then
again, when we went out on our own, we just rented
(Yantis, interview, April 21, 1998).

The next logistical problem that the Institute confronted was getting
professors to these distant classrooms to teach. Dr. Neil Bucklew recalled,

Some of the logistical problems was of course getting our
faculty there. Those were realities, because these were
the same faculty who had a Monday, Wednesday, Friday
class. We had to urge them to start having some flexibility.
We had to lean on the deans because there were probably
30 faculty members that we needed, and we needed some
of their time. Eventually we got to the place where we
could buy out a piece of their time. But when you could get
graduate faculty it tended to work better because they had
more flexibility in their traditional teaching. That was a
problem (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

Dr. Alan Quick recalled what it was like for an on campus faculty member

to teach for the early Institute:

During this particular period I taught for the IPCD and I
taught on military bases, I taught in classrooms that were
both good and bad. The military has always been avant
garde usually in the techniques and materials that they
used but not always in the facilities. But I don’t think that
facilities were difficult to acquire because the military
certainly helped out considerably in that respect.
Contracting professors to teach in distant classrooms was
no different than regular on campus classes until the IPCD
expanded outside the state of Michigan. I taught a great
deal in Ohio and it was a six hour drive whether I went to
Dayton or I went to Columbus. I went with another
professor. We would leave at about noon on Fridays and
would get back about noon on Sunday or sometimes we
came back right after our Saturday classes and got back at
midnight on Saturday night.

I taught a lot of those classes. I was motivated to teach for
the Institute for the extra money and I enjoyed teaching the
military personnel. As the Institute expanded, first they
had to recruit other faculty other than CMU faculty, and it
got to a point that about 90% of the faculty for the IPCD
were actually external to CMU. But I think that CMU
personnel, by and large, enjoyed teaching for the Institute.
It gave them interaction, opportunities with graduate
students that they might not always get in an on campus

118

faculty situation. The students were motivated, they
wanted to get their master’s degree to “fill out the square,”
as they called it. It helped them with their military
advancements and so on, plus when they got ready for
civilian life they had their masters degree. So there was a
great deal of motivation there on the part of the students,
and the faculty also. I’ve not talked to many faculty that
didn’t enjoy teaching at military bases. I can remember
teaching people that graduated from Harvard, West Point,
Annapolis, the Air Force Academy and so on. These were
all good students. And they were interested in what they
were doing and they were motivated often times because
their commanding officer was right in the same classroom
getting the same degree with them, so this added extra
incentive (Quick, interview, June 1, 1998).

Another logistical hurdle the Institute had to overcome was recruiting
professors from other universities to teach for it. Dr. Richard Potter who was
involved with this recalled how this was often done:

We tried advertising and that was worthless. More than
anything it was word of mouth. We would ask faculty here
if they knew people at schools and that worked a little but
mostly it was word of mouth from non CMU faculty we had
previously contracted with (Potter, interview, July 27,
1998)

Many logistical dilemmas had to be confronted with the creation of the
Institute. This ranged from restructuring policies on campus that involved the
Registrar, to obtaining classroom and office space off campus. A large dilemma
was obtaining on campus CMU faculty to teach at these distant sites. As the
Institute grew it relied increasingly on non - CMU faculty to teach its courses,

which often opened up many more questions and controversies.

10. How were academic standards and the quality of the program
maintained?

A critical aspect for the Institute’s success was maintaining academic
standards and quality for its programs. President Boyd provided his view of

academic standards for the new program:

119

Pi
the DIOQI

”H‘—

My assumption was that that would depend on the quality
of the people we recruited and so my original idea was that
while we would not be bound to use university faculty, that
the university faculty should be allowed to determine the
qualifications of the people that were going to teach credit
courses. So the original idea in my mind was that if you
were going to offer a history course in Grand Rapids, for
example, the history department should have the right to
examine the credentials of a person and say yes, that
person’s qualified. I wanted to have an auxiliary faculty, I
didn’t want it to be bound by rules that the department
made but I didn’t ever want anyone to be able to think that
courses were being offered by someone less qualified than
the people who were on campus, otherwise it would have
begg)viewed as second rate (Boyd, interview, April 23,

19 .

Dr. Neil Bucklew Assistant Provost noted:

Bill would not tolerate anything that wasn’t first class. I
mean he just said: I want this to be the best quality that we
have anywhere. I want it to be a model for the programs
on campus. He wasn’t interested in any cheap product.
We used good faculty. And good faculty, they may be
teaching in the middle of a bunch of airplanes, but good
faculty will teach good stuff, and teach it well. And so we
tried to use good faculty. And from the very beginning we
went to the North Central Accrediting Association’s Patty
Thrash. She, at that time, was just a program director and
she has since become the president of North Central
Accrediting, and that‘s the regional accrediting body that
accredits Central Michigan. Bill Boyd knew her and he just
contacted her and said we are going to do something very
innovative but exciting. We’re going to do it with good
quality but it is going to look different. We’d like you guys
to get in with us from the ground zero on this. And I
remember that Patricia Thrash and some others came over
and we said to them from the very beginning we’re going to
do this well, but you need to understand it and be there
guiding us. And they worked closely with us. So when we
came up for our accreditation this thing was like grease
through a goose. We tackled that head on because we
knew that that's where it could be very vulnerable if it was
gee? 338? fly- by-night operation (Bucklew , interview, April
0, .

Provost Ping provided his view on trying to maintain academic quality in

the program:

It was clearly a very fundamental issue and I think it
remains with all programs trying to deal with the
nontraditional student. In some ways I think the processes
that can be generated can be more stringent in terms of

120

COI
Ac
acr
ani

bui

review of syllabi, in terms of review of assignments, and
review of test work, and in review of student’s papers or
tests is more stringent than is typically the expectation for
most classes taught on campus. Campus has the ease of
proximity and that gives it the kind of illusion or conviction
of credibility. I think the Institute was very conscious,
especially in the early years, of a need to justify and to
defend the academic standards and the quality of the
program. And I think that if you did the same thing on
campus you’d have a riot (Ping, interview, April 29, 1998).

The first Annual Report of the Institute devoted extensive space to issues
concerning academic quality. The Annual Report noted that the North Central
Accrediting Association visited in March, 1973, and gave preliminary
accreditation to the Institute (Annual Report 1972-1973, Institute for Personal
and Career Development, July, 1973, p.2). The Annual Report noted all the
built-in quality control the Institute had. These included:

1. Departmental and/or faculty committees have input in
the development of various program options.

2. After programs have been developed, they are
submitted to the Academic Council for review and
approval.

3. After potential instructors have been identified by the
Institute administrators, the vitae of those instructors
are submitted to academic departments for
evaluation and approval.

4. After departmental approval of instructors, those
instructors are then submitted to the Academic
Council for review and approval.

5. In order to avoid the “long distance” approach, full
time administrators have been employed at locations
where major programs are in operation. These
administrators are responsible for continuous, on site
administration and supervision of the program. Full
time managers are located in Washington DC,
Hawaii, Ohio, Detroit, and out state Michigan. The
managers are supported by part time administrative
aides who help register, sell books, schedule
appointments for counselors, and serve as a CMU
contact for students.

6. Academic counselors are available each month on a
regularly scheduled basis to work with individual
students.

121

step

7. Students register for classes several weeks in
advance of the beginning of the classes. At the time
students register they are given textbooks, course
syllabus, and assignment sheets in order that they
may begin their work prior to the beginning of the
class sessions.

8. Course syllabi, class assignments, and examinations
are kept up to date and on file in the Institute office.

9. At the end of each course, students are requested to
complete an evaluation of the class and instructor
(Annual Report 1972-1973, Institute for Personal and
Career Development, July, 1973, p.3).

Dr. John Yantis, the first director, felt quality was critical and elaborated on
steps that the early Institute took to maintain quality:

We were very concerned about that from the beginning
because, number one, our own internal community would
look very, very, closely at us because CMU is a traditional
institution and there were many people on campus who
were very concerned that this experiment might be a
prostitution of higher education and so quality was
important there. We knew that it would be important to our
accrediting agencies and we knew that that would be
looked at very closely by our accrediting agencies. So
quality was always very important. But we did that several
ways. First of all, of course, our own academic faculty
were involved in developing of programs and approving all
of the instructors who were teaching. Probably eighty
percent of the instructors who taught for us were
practitioners from other locations, maybe other institutions
or maybe practitioners from the corporate world or
government world but yet had traditional academic
credentials so that they were approved by our departments
on campus to teach those courses that had those
dagggtmental designators (Yantis, interview, April 21,

Dr. Yantis also stressed the important role the Academic Council played:

Also our Academic Council would review those faculty
credentials. And then we would follow up each course with
an end of course survey by the students. And, again,
these are adults who are paying a lot of money for these
courses. They had high expectations for what they were
going to get in these courses. So we paid a lot of attention
to those end of course surveys. And every once in a while
we would find out that teachers were not doing what we
expected them to do and we would not contract them again
to come back and offer those classes. So we monitored

122

ager

and s
ASSOC

Stand;

the faculty that way. We monitored the development of the
courses through our own faculty and the programs. And
then the Academic Senate established a Board of Visitors
that every three years would go out and review the Institute
programs. And they would go out to the sites and they
would talk to students, they would talk to faculty and they
would review materials and assignments that had been
completed and write a report. And they would report back
to the Academic Senate - not to our Academic Council -
this was the Senate now, a Senate instrument that was
being utilized to oversee, in a sense from-the university
standpoint, the academic quality of these programs. And
they’d come back and they’d now make some
recommendations for us to do some of the things a little bit
differently than we’d done; therefore, we might do that, but
generally we got pretty good reviews (Yantis, interview,
April 21, 1998).

Dr. Yantis also mentioned the role of the North Central Accrediting
agency:

And of course we went through the same accreditation
process that an on campus unit would do. And they looked
at us about every five. to ten years. It’s typical for a
regional-accrediting agency to grant accreditation to a
university for ten years unless they have programs that
they are watching very carefully. And our program was
one that they were watching because it was new; it was a
pioneer, and, by the way, North Central Association was
very supportive of what we were trying to do. In fact, they
tried to help us every way they could to do it right so we
could become accredited, and continue our accreditation.
But they would come back and send a team in about every
t2h1ree9y9e8a)rs to review our program (Y antis, interview, April

The key that the Institute felt to maintaining quality was on campus faculty
and Senate support. Dr. William Bulger, then president of the University Faculty
Association, recalled the Academic Senate’s role in the maintenance of
standards:

Well, the Senate was influential in that the University
Senate kept up all the standards. Anything the Institute
wanted to do had to be approved by the Senate, and the
Senate frequently changed the requirements and I am sure

people around the Institute didn't always like that, but they
did do it (Bulger, interview, June 3, 1998).

123

fa

Dr. Charles House, recalled that the campus faculty was quite suspicious
of whom the Institute hired to teach, and therefore scrutinized potential Institute
faculty credentials rigorously. As he stated,

My impression is that the adjunct faculty were scrutinized
as to their credentials far more stringently than people who
were being hired on campus. And that‘s properly so
because, obviously, a program of that kind, unless it is
purer than Caesar’s wife, is going to be viewed as a
diploma mill. I think that there was backwards leaning
there to be sure that didn’t happen (House, interview, June
2, 1998).

Dr. Alan Quick summarized the lnstitute’s attempt at maintaining quality in
this manner.

Academic standards and quality rests with the professors.
The individual professor has to realize that this is merely
an extension of CMU and what are the standards and the
requirements we have on campus are provided in a flexible
manner to those in an off campus environment. So if your
faculty has standards, if your faculty believes in quality,
then you're able to maintain those standards. I think that
the problem the IPCD had over time was three -fold: one,
the motivation that we need to get out there and make
money for the university; we need to meet our quota, our
dollar quota for the university, that’s tremendous pressure
and so that’s therefore, sometimes an effect on standards.
Although not at military bases. I didn’t see the standards
being dropped much at military bases. I think that
standards may have been dropped just a little bit at the
undergraduate level, but at military bases I think that the
standards were maintained. The second standard that
maintained the quality in the military, is scrutiny. I don’t
think that the military wanted a fly by night operation there.
They didn’t want a non-quality program, and so they
looked at the program very carefully and tried to ensure
that there was quality. I think that the administrators for
the IPCD also tried to maintain quality. They early on had
course evaluation by the students, where the students had
the opportunity to evaluate the instructors. I‘m assuming
that they were looked at carefully and that the poor
instructors were weeded out and not used again. But as
time progressed, and you had more and more non CMU
faculty involved in the delivery of courses for the IPCD, I
think probably you had some sort of a mutation overall of
the quality, because these people had no allegiance, no
alliance to CMU (Quick, interview, June 1, 1998).

124

Academic standards and the quality of the lnstitute’s classes and
programs were of paramount importance in the development of the Institute,
numerous procedures and guidelines were implemented to insure quality
programs. Some of these procedures included a policy that on campus faculty
must authorize the hiring of all adjunct Institute instructors; all Institute classes
had to have a course evaluation where Institute instructors were evaluated and,
in addition, the Academic Senate appointed a Board of Visitors which consisted
of on campus faculty monitoring the Institute on a regular basis. Finally, the
North Central Accreditation Association was utilized to monitor Institute quality.
The Institute went to great lengths to insure program quality. Nevertheless, as
the Institute ventured further and further away from the state of Michigan in
offering courses, and as it relied increasingly on adjunct facuity to teach these
courses who had no allegiance to CMU, questions of teaching quality were

raised.

11. How would the Central Michigan University on-campus library be
utilized for off-campus students who needed its resources?

Library services was a difficult issue that the Institute had to confront. Dr.

Boyd claimed that “I never really thought that library resources would ever really
be a problem” (Boyd, interview, April 23, 1998). But they would be. Initially
instructors would bring library material with them to their classes and rely on local
libraries for their students to use. However, this became much more problematic
as the Institute relied increasingly on non CMU instructors. Dr. Neil Bucklew
recalled how library resources were handled when the Institute was originally
created:

In those days what they tended to do is, we would make

up library packets, but the truth is our library didn’t have a

lot to do with it. The Institute did it itself. So if I was going
to teach a course on conflict management, I would say

125

lnstit

that Ill

opera

laugh:
1974-

regaldi

here is twenty standard reference books that if you’d go to
the library would be the primary things a person would
probably get their hands on. And we would just package
those up and ship them off to that site where these
students were (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

Dr. Robert Mills, an on campus CMU professor who taught classes for the
Institute, recalled how library material was arranged:

Professors would be asked to get a list of books that they
wanted, resources, references, and the library would then
package those up and ship them to the location the course
was being offered so library resources in some ways were
very good because they were prepared in advance, taken
to the site and accessible on the site by the students. I
remember carrying boxes of reference books up and
saying you’re welcome to use these, leaving them for
maybe a three week period, a six week period, and then
collecting them back (Mills, interview, June 9, 1998).

Dr. Richard Potter, who worked for the Institute during this period, noted
that with regard to library services, during the first few years of the Institute’s
operation “we didn’t pay much attention to it” (Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

As the Institute expanded, and as more and more non CMU instructors
taught for it, this system simply did not work adequately. This was noted in the
1974-1975 Annual report by the Institute which was issued in July, 1975:

A thorough study of library resources, facilities, and
student needs in Institute service areas was conducted in
cooperation with the Central Michigan University library
during the past year. As a result of that study, the Institute
is now preparing to provide additional library services and
professional library personnel to strengthen that aspect of
the Institute program (Yantis, Annual Report 1974-1975,
Institute For Personal And Career Development, July 1975,

p.8).
The North Central Accreditation of the Institute was positive except with
regards to library resources. As Mr. Art Ellis recalled,
It came out better than we had ever had hoped that it
would ever be, and they put their stamp of approval on the
academic quality of the program. I remember the one

exception to that was the library offerings and library
services, and we took that very seriously and then

126

developed a whole new method of the delivery of library
services which has been the model for a lot of other people
(Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998).

Dr. John Yantis recalled how this new library program was implemented:
“We developed a program on campus whereby students could actually order the
materials that weren’t out there in the libraries that they had access to” (Yantis,
interview, April 21, 1998). Dr. Yantis continued noting that this library program
was very expensive, “to develop this library program we’re talking hundreds of
thousands of dollars by the way. You know we’re not talking tens, we’re talking
hundreds of thousands of dollars going into the library program each year"
(Yantis, interview, April 21, 1998). Dr. Alan Quick commented on the Institute’s
library resources:

They put a lot of money into a network that would provide
off campus students with ready access to the CMU library.
And in talking to the students with whom I have taught,
they’re delighted with the response that they get and the
access that they get from the CMU library. This is a very
costly item as I mentioned, but I think that it also has had a
lot to do with the preservation of quality for the extended
degree program. I know that the program has always
been under scrutiny from a lot of different sources and that
they‘ve been able to combat that scrutiny through a good
library system (Quick, interview, June 1, 1998).

Library resources was something that was not thought out extremely well
by the designers of the Institute. As a matter of fact, in the early years the
Institute and professors who taught for the Institute just improvised. However, to
the lnstitute’s credit, after the initial North Central Association accreditation
report, the Institute made library resources a high priority, and spent a lot of

resources to develop a model off campus library program.

127

12.

Insl
ear
offe
esp
regi
Uni.
Ohi
Inst
that
Hov

prog

auth

12. Did the Institute have to be licensed or authorized to teach in the
various states and countries where it offered classes?

Permission through licensing or other authorization by other states for the
Institute to offer programs in their states could have been a big issue for the
early Institute. However, it really wasn’t, for two reasons. First the Institute
offered most of its initial classes out of the state of Michigan in federal enclaves,
especially military bases. Federal enclaves are exempt from some state
regulations. This was true with regards to educational authorization. If the
United States Air Force authorized the Institute to conduct classes on bases in
Ohio, this took precedence over the Ohio Board of Regents. Secondly,vthe
Institute took a very diplomatic approach. If local institutions offered a program
that was similar to the! Institute, then the Institute would not go into that area.
However, in 1972, very few other colleges or universities were offering any
programs.

Provost Ping commented about state authorization:

This varied, of course, from state to state. In almost all
states there is a statutory requirement that any degree
granting program be authorized by some sort of state
coordinating or governing agency that had state wide
authority. They would look at and examine, how do you
insure adequate resources, how do you insure the
professionalism of staff, how do you insure that academic
standards and quality are maintained and this will vary
from state to state, you have to have authorization (Ping,
interview, April 29, 1998).

Dr. Neil Bucklew did not recall the Institute ever having a problem with
authorization:

That was a mixed bag. There. was sort of a reciprocity in
the United States. Since we were a fully accredited
licensed institution we tended to be able to go in any place
we wanted and teach this. I know that we sometimes got
inquiries from other states, but they didn’t know how to
stop us. They just didn’t have any basis for stopping us.
Sometimes you had to register in the state, and show that
you were there doing a degree, etc. But I don’t recall
another state ever stopping us and disapproving us doing
this (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

128

Dr. John Yantis recalled only one time that the Institute had a problem

with authorization:

We were asked to deliver a program in Ohio to a hospital in
Cleveland and when we went for approval they did send in
a team to review us and they approved us. The team gave
us a very good review, but when it went to their Board of
Regents we were turned down. And I think primarily
because the local institutions were concerned about
whether or not CMU might be taking some of their
students. But that’s really been the only time that we’ve
ever really had a problem with a licensing situation (Yantis,
interview, April 21., 1998).

The Institute originally would not go in or it could pull out if they were
competing with a program that was offered by a local college or institution. Dr.
Ernest Minelli, who set up programs for the Institute, recalled an early meeting
involving this issue when the Institute first expanded into Ohio:

The other universities resisted the fact that we were going
in and offering, and we always said to them if you have a
program to offer we won’t go in. I remember making this
statement myself when we were in the initial stages.
When I was at Wright Patterson, the provost of Ohio State
University was at a meeting and I said at that particular
point we will not infringe upon any area providing that you
will provide programs. If your university does not want to
provide programs then its fair game. I didn’t use that
language but that's what it amounted to. I remember the
provost of Ohio State said, ‘we could never pull this off at
our institution, the faculty would resist. We could never
pull it off. How you guys were able to do it, I don’t know?’
(Minelli, interview, May 28, 1998).

State authorization and state licensing would have seemed to be a big
hurdle for the Institute to overcome. However, since most early Institute classes
were on military bases, they were able to get around that. In addition, the
Institute was offering a service that most states did not, and because this was

true, states had great difficulty in prohibiting Institute programs.

129

13

coun
need
leach
thelfi
interje
arid e.-

Ping

the ide

IEflecte

D.
himeid

III. Questions concerning the human resource aspects of the
Institute for Personal and Career Development.

13. Who initiated the idea of the Institute for Personal and Career

Development? .

Many factors allowed the Institute to be created. Three stand out in
particular. First, the long history Central Michigan University had with offering
classes off campus. Second, the timing in the late 19605 and early 19705 which
was an era of great change in which many societal institutions, including higher
education were questioned. Last, the vision of President Boyd and Provost Ping
whose ideas coalesced into the Institute for Personal and Career Development.

Central Michigan University, since 1917, had delivered off campus
courses and programs, both graduate, undergraduate and certificate, to meet the
needs of various off campus constituents. Most of these programs involved
teachers. As a result Central had a strong Off Campus Division, formerly called
the Field Services division. Upon this foundation two things were then
interjected, the upheaval and quest for change which came out of the late 19605
and early 19705, and the thinking and vision of President Boyd and Provost
Ping.

It is difficult to credit the idea for the Institute to any one individual, rather,
the idea seems to have come from a variety of individuals. Dr. Neil Bucklew,
reflected on this:

Dr. Boyd set the climate, the actual idea, it was one of
those things where a general idea was developed and then
a group was put together to build this. We want to develop
something that flies in the air. Would you guys design this
thing. And we came back and said, this is a 747 aircraft,
here‘s what it looks like. The key players in that would
have been Ernie Minelli, Les Cochran and myself
(Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

Dr. Les Cochran, while noting it was a team approach, gives more credit

for the idea to Provost Ping:

130

I guess if you had to name a person, Chariie’s guiding the
whole process. So he’s the one probably to get the
appropriate credit. Ernie Minelli and myself were doing a
lot of the details and a lot of the work. I did a lot of the
writing and the charts and the structures, but it ended up
being a kind of team approach I guess. But Charlie’s the
one that had the say, ‘yes this is it’, ‘yes that’s the name of
the Institute’. He was obviously the decision maker that
had to say yes on all of those things. And I think he was
the one who should be credited with the idea and the initial
thstnking of what might be (Cochran, interview, April 29,

1 98).

Dr. Charles House, assistant to President Boyd, gives the credit to both
Dr. Ping and Dr. Boyd. As he commented:
You know how ideas come about. Somebody has an idea
and it gets talked about over drinks in the afternoon late,
and it gerrninates. And other people get pulled in and
opinions expressed until an idea is shaped . And then it
begins to get formalized. Maybe there is a committee
appointed and a program or a proposal gets authored and
then (it) goes through the standard academic approvals
(House, interview, June 2, 1998).
These remarks indicate that Dr. Boyd and Dr. Ping together came up with
the idea of developing the Institute. In this process they were assisted by
several others who helped in shaping the final formation of the Institute. These

included: Dr. Cochran, Dr. Bucklew, and Dr. Minelli.

14. Who came up with the idea of experiential Ieaming? Giving credit
for work experiences etc.?

The idea of granting credit for experiential Ieaming or giving credit for
work experience was part of the Institute from its very creation. The feasibility
study for the Institute that Dr. Cochran submitted in September, 1971, stated,

The program incorporates a systematic procedure for the
assessment of professional experiences and
competencies in determining equated credit so the

individual can progress to his (sic) goal (Cochran,
September 20, 1971, p.9).

131

Dr. Ping cannot recall who actually came up with the idea; however, he
recalled that it was “in the air” at the time:

I think it was an issue being talked about and it still is being
talked about. It also produced a wide spectrum of
responses. There was a traditional academic scorn for the
whole effort. You were just giving people academic credit
for work and that didn’t have any translatable quality. It’s a
question that most institutions that are trying to serve that
student population have wrestled with in one way or
another (Ping, interview, April 29, 1998).

Dr. Boyd recalled that he first heard about it from the Carnegie
Corporation (Boyd, interview, April 23, 1998). Dr. Les Cochran believes that the
idea to utilize experiential Ieaming came from the advisors from HUD who
assisted Central in getting its program, and other programs going:

That came from advice that if we were going to do this,
and I know we had lots of conversations, that was a big
step for us because we had not done those things, but if
you’re really serious about getting out and serving these
kinds of people you cannot be competitive if you’re not
willing to take some of these Ieamers where they are and
to take them to the next level. And so there was advice
coming from the external consultants and the programs
that were out there (Cochran, interview, April 29, 1998).

Dr. Richard Potter also believed that the idea came from HUD, especially
Mel Wach, who was an advisor to Central from HUD (Potter, interview, July 27,
1998). .

The minutes of the Academic Council of September 19, 1972, state, “Dr.
Goldstein (who was a HUD official that advised Central) discussed in detail the
methods used to evaluate practical experiences of students and translate these
experiences into academic course credit (Minutes, Academic Council, Institute
for Personal and Career Development, September 19, 1972).

My research shows that the idea of experimental Ieaming or giving credit
for work experience was a current issue at the time that the Institute was
created. Dr. Boyd believed that he was first exposed to this concept through the

Carnegie Corporation. Others heavily involved in the creation of the Institute

132

recall the idea as emanating from HUD advisors who assisted Central in creating
the Institute. Nevertheless, this controversial and far-reaching idea became a

key practice and element of the Institute.

15. Who decided where IPCD classes and offices would be located?

In the early years of the Institute, classes and courses were created in
locations associated with specific contracts. If there was a contract, or potential
for classes at Air Force bases in Ohio, the IPCD went there. Likewise if there
was a contract for potential classes in Hawaii or Washington DC. they went
there. Classes, and offices then followed. Dr. Neil Bucklew reflected on this:

In the early days because, you know those were big
contract decisions for the university. So the idea, the
work-up of a preliminary proposal, would have been
worked up by the Institute director. They would have had
to run that by probably me, maybe Ping if it was big
enough, Boyd if we really thought it was important. It was
sort of like a family. The group that you needed to get
their concurrence with was, I mean everybody saw
everybody five times a day. I might say the lnstitute’s got
an interesting proposal. It’s going to be with Ford Motor
Company; this is what it’s going to be for, and Ping and
Boyd would say, ‘sounds good’. The approval
arrangement in the early days, the administrative
arrangement was in house, and we set it up so we didn’t
have to get a lot of approvals from faculties or colleges.
It’s the reason we set them up as a degree-granting
independent institute (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

Decision-making in Central’s IPCD at the time appears to have been
rapid, and often times very informal. The rationale for such an approach was the
desire'to create classes where the students and the contracts were located.
During this era, the Institute did not have to work very hard to drum up business;
the business came to Central. Dr. Les Cochran, recalled it this way: “It was
really people coming to us, so we weren‘t out selling our wares. These were all

people coming to us, organizations that were coming to CMU because we were

133

really on the cutting edge of what was going on” (Cochran, interview, April 29,
1 998).

Dr. Richard Potter who was one of the first employees of the Institute

seconded this notion:

It really wasn’t planned where we would offer courses and
where we would locate offices. In the first few years of the
Institute we responded to requests, if we got a request and
the opportunity looked good, we would take it and that
meant that we ended up on a lot ofmilitary bases. So it
was primarily the result of requests. And so we ended up
with a number of offices that we would lump into regions,
and we kind of lumped them geographically. It wasn‘t
really planned as much as it kind of evolved based on
requests that we got (Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

The structure of the Institute was designed to be able to respond rapidly.

The decisions were kept in house. Even the separate Academic Council did not

get involved in these decisions.

16. How, and at what rate, were compensation packages developed for
professors who taught in this program?

Central Michigan University had had a long history of offering classes off
campus. So when the Institute was created there was a ready-made
compensation model for what to pay Institute instructors. Dr. John Yantis

remarked on this:

Well right at the beginning, we of course, had been running
courses away from the campus through our Off Campus
division for many years prior to the Institute and our
external degree program and that would give us the basis
to start with. And very frankly that’s pretty much what we
USS?) what they were paid (Yantis, interview, April 21,

1 .

Dr. Les Cochran seconded this but also noted that the Institute looked at
what other universities were paying for off campus teaching at the time. Dr.
Cochran recalled,”l think there was a blending of what we were doing in

continuing education and what others were paying, and what people were saying

134

the
Ho

you probably need to offer to get the kind of quality people that you were trying
to get” (Cochran, interview, April 29, 1998). It is important to note that initially
compensation packages for professors who taught in this program were not
negotiated through the collective bargaining agreement of the faculty
association. In fact, that is one of the reasons that the Institute was set up as a
completely separate program. Dr. William Bulger, the president of the faculty
association at the time remarked on this: ”The faculty association didn’t
determine the raises for those people, but I know they couldn’t be paid more
than we made. We negotiated the pay for campus instructors” (Bulger,
interview, June 3, 1998). _

On campus CMU faculty who taught for the Institute received overload
pay. The rate for this overload pay was basically the same compensation rate

the CMU faculty received for teaching in CMU off-campus education.

17. How was it decided that Central Michigan University would offer a total
degree program off campus utilizing mainly adjunct faculty?

The Institute was created to assist people who had great difficulty in obtaining
a college degree. This was a founding principal of the Institute, and something
that set it apart from most other off campus programs at the time. Dr. Charles
House, assistant to President Boyd at the time remarked on this:

Well, first of all the forming concept of the thing was to be
able to produce a degree, because that's what people
wanted. That was the concept of the credit bank idea (the
idea that students could bank credit and take it with them
as they moved around the country). There were people
who were by virtue of their mobility having to move from
place to place, and each time they move they have to start
the degree over again. So part of the identified need was
a portable program that would lead to a degree. And
without that you’d beback with the same kind of
conventional program that was already quite available from
a number of places. Your Air Force officer would go from
Wurtsmith to Omaha and find that the University of
Nebraska or University of Omaha had lots of courses and

135

indeed would admit them to a degree program. But they'd
have to start it all over. And so the idea was something
that would not be dependent on location. And so that was
part of the basic and forming concept of the program
(House, interview, June 2, 1998).

The Institute became a credit bank as students could “bank” credits towards an
Institute degree as they moved throughout the United States.

The feasibility study noted that in order for the Institute to offer a total
degree off campus it would have to offer that degree using mostly non-Central
faculty: '

For the most part, then, only administrative and course
material development activities will be performed on
campus. Further, since most of the teaching faculty will not
be campus personnel, it is imperative that individuals on
campus be involved in the program as much as possible,
that a sound working relationship be maintained with other
administrative and academic units, and that faculty
members participate in decisions related to the program
(Cochran, September 20, 1971 , p. 1 2).

The Institute realized that it would be controversial to offer a CMU degree
to students who were taught mainly by non-CMU faculty. So the Institute
implemented policies to try to satisfy on campus faculty. First, on campus CMU
faculty were given first rights to teach any Institute classes. It was only if they
refused or turned the class down that the Institute looked for adjunct faculty.
Second, on campus faculty reviewed and authorized which adjunct faculty would
be allowed to teach for the Institute. Dr. Ernest Minelli, a person involved in the
creation of the Institute commented on this:

You see we’ve used adjunct faculty for many, many years
prior to [the Institute. And again the department controlled
it, and the goal of the Institute was to use our own faculty
first, and then if we didn’t have someone who wanted to do
it, or we didn’t have the expertise or some darn thing then
the Institute went out and hired adjunct’s from other
universities, but they had to be approved by the
department. Any time you give that prerogative to a
department then you eliminate some of the problems

you’re obviously going to have (Minelli, interview, May 28,
1998).

136

Dr. John Yantis, was amazed that the extensive use of adjunct faculty was
not more controversial on Central’s campus; however, according to him,

We had talked to Northern Colorado and knew that they
used a lot of them. We knew that we would use a lot of
them. We knew that we did not have enough faculty
members here on campus to support the program, in the
programmatic areas where we were developing, so
therefore we knew we were going to have to go off and use
a lot of adjuncts, and so that just kind of evolved, and that
has very frankly not seemed to have been an issue on this
campus at all. I have been kind of amazed at that
considering the fact that probably 85% of the teachers who
teach for this program are adjunct professors (Yantis,
interview, April 21, 1998).

Others who were associated with the Institute recall the use of adjunct
faculty as being more controversial. Dr. Richard Potter, one of the first
employees of the Institute, recalled,

The fact that they are not full time employees of CMU
shouldn‘t make any difference but it still bothered a lot of
faculty. They felt that they weren’t colleagues even though
they approved their credentials. They didn’t get a chance
to talk to them. There wasn’t a common understanding
with these people and that continues, I think, to this day
(Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

Dr. Robert Mills, a faculty member who taught classes for the Institute at
the very beginning, also viewed the extensive use of adjuncts as very
controversial:

It most definitely was controversial. Anytime you use
adjunct faculty it’s very controversial, and I remember
some heated debates at the Academic Senate over that
very issue. If it’s a CMU program, CMU faculty said we
ought to be involved. It has always been controversial and
I believe still is. To this day I hear comments about why
are they using so many non CMU people, adjuncts if you
will, to offer a CMU program (Mills, interview, June 9,
1998)

It seems amazing that a student can receive a degree from Central
Michigan University without ever traveling to Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, or ever
taking a class from a CMU faculty member. It seems even more amazing that

the CMU faculty would permit this. Mr. Art Ellis, who observed the creation of

137

the Institute, believed that some of the most controversial aspects of the Institute

were just finessed through. As he recalls,

They didn’t tell the faculty and all of the hangers on all of
those things. I think it was fed out piece-meal, and all of a
sudden they realized, hey, we’ve got a university of adjunct
professors spread out all over the country offering CMU
degrees. But that was never laid out, none of that was laid
out at one time, at one place. It wasn’t politically
opportune to do that. Just some things you have to
finesse through-(Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998).

18. How were professors recruited to teach in this program?

The Institute from its very inception planned for many of its courses to be
taught by non CMU personnel. The first student bulletin for the Institute, which
was created in 1972, tells potential students,

The distinctive character and scheduling of courses by the
Institute provides an opportunity to attract recognized
leaders in their respective fields. Instruction is provided by
university resident faculty and visiting professors drawn
from universities throughout the nation, or selected from
the ranks of public officials, practicing specialists and
leaders in business and industry (Bulletin, Institute for
Personal and Career Development, 1972).

First priority for the staffing of Institute classes was given to on campus
CMU faculty. As faculty member Dr. Robert Mills, who often taught Institute
classes recalled, “The courses, right from the onset, were always advertised like
in the CentraLite for the IPCD courses being offered in the future and you could
request what course you wanted to teach if you were qualified” (Mills, interview,
June 9, 1998).
However, not all on campus faculty were prepared for what they would
encounter in the Institute classes. Dr. Ernest Minelli noted:
The original students that we had when I went up to
Wurtsmith, there wasn’t anyone in there who was less than
a captain. There were colonels. And I didn’t care to go up
and teach any courses because those people, those

people were worldly, they had experiences well beyond
our faculty in many cases. You had to know your stuff,

138

boy, they were motivated; they were bright. And even
selecting professors on campus, I can talk about my own
program now. I was very selective I was very, very,
selective. You know, I had some that might have liked to
have gone up there and teach a course. While they were
good professors dealing with freshman and sophomores,
dealing with young adults. they may even been better at
their job, dealing with that level than some of the others
that went up there. But I wouldn’t, I didn’t want to send
anyone up there that I knew was going to be embarrassed,
because those people were on top of things. They were
highly motivated, highly motivated, and those that
participated in that program when l was still in the
department would tell me, you can’t bull roar your way
through those courses, you’ve got to know your stuff.

They demanded it, unlike some of our students who would
rather have a vacation than go to school (Minelli, interview,
May 28, 1998).

The decision of who could teach for the Institute was based on many
factors. First, the Institute had to authorize someone to teach for them. Second,
if it was a CMU faculty member, the CMU faculty members Department Chair
had to authorize that individual to teach for the Institute. Third, the CMU faculty
member had to volunteer to teach for the Institute and have the proper
background to teach which ever class was being offered. Lastly, the Institute did
not have to worry about collective bargaining and union regulations.

As the Institute grew and started offering more classes, especially classes
further and further away from Mt. Pleasant, it came to rely increasingly on the
use of adjunct instructors. Recruitment of these adjuncts was done by the
Institute, and was usually done through word of mouth, or the academic
grapevine. Dr. Richard Potter, who was one of the first employees of the
Institute, recalled,

Recruitment was primarily personal involvement and word

of mouth. Our current faculty, the people that we were

using, would help recruit friends and they would tell people

of our program and they would contact us. The advertising

that we tried was never effective. It always seemed to

attract people who really weren’t interested in it, it just

wasn’t helpful at all. Personal contact was by far the most

important, and often it required us to contact them. We
would get lists of faculty from schools and see what their

139

areas of emphasis were and go after people that we knew
were needed (Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

As the Institute continued to grow, they set up offices in the field and hired
what were called field representatives or program managers. A major part of
their job responsibility was to find faculty members to teach (Yantis, interview,
April 21, 1998). When the Institute initially started, it tried to rely on on campus
CMU faculty members. Very quickly it was obvious that this would not work.
Adjunct faculty were increasingly utilized, and the Institute through word of
mouth, and recruitment efforts hired adjunct faculty.

19. How were adjunct professors who taught in this program supervised?
The Institute as noted previously tried to copy many of the procedures of

the Division of Off Campus. Off Campus had the procedure of having adjunct
instructor’s credentials approved by the appropriate department before the
individual could teach for Central (1970-1971 Master Agreement between
Central Michigan University and Central Michigan University District of Michigan
Association of Higher Education, March 30, 1970). The Institute followed this
procedure. Therefore, the first type of supervision that adjunct Institute
instructors went through was having their credentials approved by the academic
department in which they wished to teach. These adjunct instructors were also
to follow a CMU department authorized syllabus, thus giving another type of
supervision over these instructors. Dr. Vlfilliam Bulger, a history professor during
this period, recalled, A

Well as I recall in the departments, after we approved

them, we never had anything to do with them after that. By

the way we set up the classes, we set up the curriculum in

our department. Our history course was used. There was

a master syllabus. They were the same courses (Bulger,
interview, June 3, 1998).

140

int

Initial supervision of the Institute’s adjunct instructors involved them being
authorized to teach by an academic department, and then having them follow, or
teach from a pre - approved department syllabus. After that, monitoring of these
adjuncts occurred out in the field. Dr. Richard Potter recalled how adjuncts were
monitored:

We would look at the feedback by students. We would
informally get feedback from center representatives. An
approval process was one where when a person was
approved to teach one course then all of the materials they
used, the exams they used, would go back to the
department and they would be reviewed again, and they
would approve them for three years. Every three years
they would have to be re-approved. That was essentially
what we did. It was not close supervision by any means.

It was kind of supervision by exception. If we heard that a
person was bad we would move on it, get rid of people that
we felt were bad. Not contract them. We never took the
position that we had to improve them. We had
professional development, but if somebody is not doing a
good job we would just not use them (Potter, interview,
July 27, 1998).

Dr. Les Cochran, echoes these thoughts, claiming,

I don’t know if they were supervised in the traditional
sense. We had the class evaluations that we used on
campus. The person who, as the employee contact there
on the base, was a direct source of feedback to us. And
when you’re dealing with colonels and majors and if
they’re not happy you know right away. This is not a
typical 18 year-old who can be intimidated by somebody.
So that was a very direct flow of information, and then the
class evaluations. And one nice thing about this anyway
was that if somebody didn’t do particularly well they taught
one course for you. So there were some quality controls
(Cochran, interview, April 29, 1998).

Supervision of adjunct Institute faculty was considered fairly lax by some
associated with the Institute. Dr. Neil Bucklew supports this example by noting,
“most degree programs had someone who was responsible for that degree
program, so supervision was pretty loose. But you supervised the way you
would most professional faculty in an off campus environment” (Bucklew,

interview, April 20, 1998). Once Institute faculty were approved to teach by the

141

on campus CMU academic department, most supervision involved student
feedback. Student feedback came in two forms, through mandatory course
evaluations that all instructors who taught for the Institute had to use (Ringquist,
interview, May 5, 1998), and word of mouth from Institute students. If an adjunct
instructor for the Institute was deemed of poor quality, that instructor was simply

not contracted again by the Institute.

IV. Questions concerning the political aspects of the Institute
for Personal and Career Development.

20. What was the University Faculty Senate’s role in the development of
the Institute?

The Academic Senate at Central during 1971-1975 was designed to assure
participatory democracy on campus. Each academic department had
representation and each dean and various other administrators were members
due to their position. Although primarily involved with curricular approval, the
Academic Senate became involved in practically every issue of the university.
Vice president Arthur Ellis stated, “they were the debating body, as by the very
nature of their constitutional structure. They advise and debate anything they
want to, from who the football coach is to campus parking” (Ellis, interview, June
16, 1998).

Therefore, on October 11, 1971, Provost Ping presented to the Academic
Senate a “Proposal for the Establishment of Programs for the Development of
Human Resources and Career Development.” Dr. Ping pointed out that the
proposal was “ahead of schedule due to the energies of Les Cochran, the aid
from other schools who already have programs, and the assistance of

governmental agencies such as HUD” (Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11,

142

 

1th

in:

1971). Some of the basic assumptions Dr. Ping used to promote the proposal
were:

A. What an individual experiences in life has a value in changing his

skills.

B. There are many people who want degrees that find the usual

patterns of traditional degrees inappropriate.

C. As a group, the students who use these programs would be highly

motivated (Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1971).

Ping indicated that the program would not set aside pre-established
programs, but the present pattern of instruction would not be followed. Most of
the teaching would be done by part-time faculty in an off-campus setting. The
instruction would consist of brief and intense periods of time. CMU would not
make a long term commitment. If it did not work it would be abandoned. Ping
also noted that the program would be separate from the “Off Campus operation
because it must be financially self supporting and this would drain the present
staff of Off Campus Education” (Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1971).
He also stated, “The nature of the (collective bargaining) contract would also
place restrictions on us which would prevent the use of the Off Campus office”
(Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1971).

Dr. Ping moved to adopt the recommendations of the proposal on the
same day he presented them. But the proposal ignited a number of questions
from faculty members who were members of the Academic Senate. Dr. Joyce
Pillote of the Sociology Department asked, “Why are we always in a rush to
approve items?” (Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1971). She further
stated that the proposal needs further clarification before it can be adopted. Dr.
Robert Lovinger of the Psychology Department stated, “There seems to be a

lack of financial feasibility in the program. Where is the budget? What is the

143

demand for a person with such a degree? It seems to be a ‘cheap’ degree”
(Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1971).

Dr. Ping responded that the cost details were based upon the experience
of Northern Colorado and that Central’s program at Wurtsmith has worked well at
$60.00 per credit hour and that federal funds would help. Dr. Ping further felt
that the program would not drain resources from the campus. Concerning the
matter of cheap degrees, Dr. Ping indicated that this question will always be a
problem. He felt it is a matter of external versus internal programs. External
programs are usually thought to be “cheap” compared to internal ones. Dr. Ping
noted that Central was committed to a quality program and will prevent the
cheap degree (Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1971).

Dr. Henry Fulton from the English Department raised a series of issues.
He questioned the expansion to an Air Force Base such as Wright Patterson in
Dayton, Ohio. “How would it work? Would faculty be flown down? How long
would the classes last?” (Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1971). Dr. Les
Cochran responded,

We would not expand outside the state until we had tried
the program here. There would be a program coordinator
on the base who would direct the program. Faculty would
be selected from qualified people in the Dayton area.

Each class would be based upon need. The classes would
be short term and concentrated and carry the same
number of hours as it would on campus (Minutes,
Academic Senate, October 11, 1971).

Dr. Henry Fulton asked, “Why are we getting into such a program? The
basic nature of the program is unstable. Our faculty would not be able to
participate. Are we only doing it to receive the extra money and resources from
the federal government?” (Minutes, Academic Senate, October 11, 1971).

Dr. Ping answered by saying that “The lasting benefit to Central Michigan

University would be a greater understanding of the differences between

individual students, their needs, abilities, etc. We would receive financial aid and

144

resources from the federal government” (Minutes, Academic Senate, October
1 1, 1971).

Dr. Leonard Lieberman, Sociology Department, stated that he “endorsed
the principle of such a program but would like to consider populations other than
Air Bases, such as large urban centers and prisons” (Minutes, Academic Senate,
October 11, 1971).

Dr. Robert Croll of the Business Department asked if subject matter
accreditation groups that require a specific department to maintain control of its
curriculum would object to the proposed program? He felt that because our
campus departments would not have its members teach the classes or control
the curriculum, “We may lose our accreditation by some groups” (Minutes,
Academic Senate, October 11, 1971).

Dr. Ping responded that we are using Northern Colorado University as a
model and they did not seem to have such a problem (Minutes, Academic
Senate, October 11, 1971). _

The senators accepted the concept of the recommendation, but they
created an ad hoc committee to clarify and modify the proposal and to have a
committee report to the Senate on the November 8, 1971 meeting. The ad hoc
committee was comprised of members appointed by the Senate, and by the
administration.

Reflecting back, President Boyd felt that he understood the faculty
anxieties. He compared it to today’s out-sourcing which is obnoxious to unions.
He believed the proposal had some resemblance to out-sourcing and he felt it
promoted some totally legitimate anxieties (Boyd, interview, April 23, 1998).

At the November 8, 1971, Academic Senate meeting, Chairperson Robert

Khorman introduced the report of the ad hoc committee. Dr. John Schmidt of the

145

Speech department presented the committee’s report. He stressed the

following:
A. Importance of autonomy of the programs.
B. The ability to terminate the programs at any time.
C. The attempt to meet individual needs.
D. We are not an arm of the military, we are providing
sewices.
E. HUD, penal institutions, minority groups and the

military bases will be served.

F. Revenues generated by the program can be used to
support programs for the poor.

G. The program is designed in such a way that the
university has complete control (Minutes, Academic
Senate, November 8, 1971).

Robert Joyner, a student representative and a member of the ad hoc
committee, disagreed and presented a minority report. He stressed that it was
his understanding that the program was intended for minority groups such as
blacks, native Americans, and Chicanos. From the documents it seems that we
are providing services to the Air Force and not minority groups. He questioned
the rush we seem to be in to receive money from the government (Minutes,
Academic Senate, November 8, 1971).

Dr. William Swart of the Mathematics Department responded by asking,
“Can anyone tell me how this program will prevent us from helping the minority
people?” (Minutes, Academic Senate, November 8, 1971).

Dr. David Lawton of the English Department stated that “I cannot agree
with the concept the means justifies the ends. What would happen if HUD stops
supplying money? Would the program stop?” (Minutes, Academic Senate,
November 8, 1971).

An unidentified student said, “Big business has destroyed our

environment and the military has developed wars. How can we justify supporting

146

them? Do we want the military in control of our academic programs?” (Minutes,
Academic Senate, November 8, 1971).

Dr. Leslie Liberrnan of the Sociology Department felt the University lacked
adequate controls over the program and that there was a lack of control and
clarity in the populations being served (Minutes, Academic Senate, November 8,
1971)

Dr. Leslie Cochran was asked if there were any universities in the country
who had programs like the proposed one. He responded by indicating that there
were other schools with similar programs. Among them were the University of
Oklahoma, the University of Tulsa, Syracuse University, the University of
Maryland and the University of Northern Colorado. Central used Northern
Colorado as a model but tried to take good points from all of them (Minutes,
Academic Senate, November 8, 1971).

Charles Coleman, a student, said,

This is supposed to deal with people who cannot afford
higher education rather than military men who can afford it.
Why aren’t we serving these people who cannot support
themselves such as Indians and urban blacks? The
military and big business can afford to take care of their
own (Minutes, Academic Senate, November 8, 1971).

Student Robert Joyner moved “not to adopt the report of the ad hoc
committee and present the sense of the Senate that we voice disapproval to the
entire project” (Minutes, Academic Senate, November 8, 1971). The motion was
seconded. The motion was defeated.

Provost Ping indicated the university would not have designated search
procedures for the director of the proposed organization. “It is up to me to find a
suitable person” (Minutes, Academic Senate, November 8, 1971). He continued
by saying that

The use of the term ‘military control’ of the program is

disturbing. The military will not control the program. We
recognize the needs of minority groups and are concerned

147

about them. The money generated by the program will
hopefully be used to develop programs for minority groups.
This is not a program under the dominance of big business
or the military. It is an educational program designed to
serve individuals. The military has a high priority because
HUD is willing to provide the money necessary to begin the
program. There is no absence of controls. There is a
degree of risk. We cannot develop this program within the
standard format of education. The program as designed
demands a process of review stronger than any of our
gre159e7n1t programs (Minutes, Academic Senate, November

Further discussion and action on the proposal was postponed until the
Academic Senate meeting of November 29, 1971.

An editorial in the November 10, 1971, issue of the CMU Lif_e indicated

Many logical (as well as some illogical) questions were
raised to members of the ad hoc committee involved with
the adult degree program and many of these questions
were asked because certain aspects of the committee’s
proposal are particularly vague. Nearly all if not all the
senators are in agreement with the adult degree program
itself (“Wednesday roundup Senate, pot and such,”
November 10, 1971, p.4).

The editorial then brought out an interesting reason as to why the
university community should support the adult degree program. “We are all
realizing that C.M.U.’s specialty -teachers- are getting to be an expendable
commodity. If Central is to progress and make innovative steps fonivard, some
new areas must be explor ” (“Wednesday roundup Senate, pot and such,”
November 10, 1971, p.4). The editorial continued, “as we’ve said, the basic idea
behind the adult degree program is a good one. We should provide services of
an educational value to all persons possible” (“Wednesday roundup Senate, pot
and such,” November 10, 1971, p.4).

The CMU Life of November 17, 1971, quotes student Robert Joyner, a
senator:

I am strongly in favor of the concept of schooling without
walls but this program does not explain the process. The

plan itself states that a great deal must be accepted on
faith. Well, about 10 years ago, the US. President asked

148

the people to accept a war on faith and consequently we
are mired down in the Vietnam War (Marti, November 17,
1 971 , p. 1 ).

A special open hearing regarding the adult degree program sponsored by
the Academic Senate was held the week of November 15, 1971. Faculty and
students were invited. It was hoped that the session would provide the entire
university community with the opportunity to voice their opinions on the degree
program. Nearly 100 persons attended (Guiette, November 17, 1971, p.6).

Mike Mobey, a student, wrote a letter to the CMU Lif_e indicating that the
proposal was the usual, unworkable response to social ills (Mobey, November
17, 1971, p.5).

A November 22, 1971, letter to the CMU Lie signed by a campus group
called an ad hoc committee for a real adult education program, felt that the
administration had not answered the basic questions raised about the control
and implementation of the program. There were just too many answers the
committee claimed like, “God only knows,” “Time will tell,” and “Too early to say”
(“Adult Program Unconvincing,” November 22, 1971, p.4). The letter continued:

The broadly delegated authority to designate visiting
professors and consultants particularly for those programs
half way across the country suggests an elaborate spin off
program with ‘God knows’ who in control and using CMU to
legitimize its accreditation (“Adult Program Unconvincing,”
November 22, 1971).

At the November 29, 1971, Academic Senate meeting discussion
centered on control and governance of the proposed program. It was moved
and seconded that the provost appoint a director pro tem. In addition, it was
decided that three councils were needed due to the three proposed degree
programs. The title for the councils was later changed to Board of Visitors. But
one very important council was agreed upon by the Senate (Minutes, Academic

Senate, November 29, 1971). This body was called the Academic Council and

its development would have far reaching impact upon the now named Institute

149

for Personal and Career Development - a name chosen due to state politicians
familiarity with the word institute.

Members of the Academic Council were to be selected from the Graduate
Committee, the University Curriculum Committee, the Academic Senate, and the
student body. The initial charge of the Academic Council was to provide a
review no later than the beginning of the third year of the Institute (Minutes,
Academic Senate, November 29, 1971).

The main ingredients of the proposal for the Institute for Personal and
Career Development passed at the November 29, 1971, Academic Senate
meeting with a 29 yes and 0 no vote (Minutes, Academic Senate, November 29,
1971)

The December 1, 1971, CMU Life reported “passage for the degree
programs has been a long tough wait” (Samelson, December 1, 1971, p.1). In
addition, student Mike Mobley wrote in the December 1, 1971, issue of the CMU
we “Once again academic senate proved itself to be aligned against the
students, against the real concepts of education and nothing more than a rubber
stamp cartel for the more whimsical members of the administration” (Mobey,
December 1, 1971, p.5). Dr. Sherman Riccards of the Sociology department in
his autobiographical book, For Myself Alone, called the Senate approved
program “The Outhouse Program" (Riccards, 1982, p.384-385).

Dr. Leslie Cochran remembers the passage this way:

It happened on a day when Mt. Pleasant had a horrendous
snow storm. Charlie Ping if he had his choice, probably
would have closed the university down. We were trying to
get the proposal passed and it was important for us to
move forward. The attendance at that afternoon Senate
meeting was sparse and there was an attempt for some
senators to speak out against the proposal and then leave
the room thinking there wouldn’t be a quorum. They
proceeded to speak against the proposal and walked out
of the Senate meeting but after they left two administrators

came in late, a quorum was met and the proposal passed
unanimously (Cochran, interview, April 29, 1998).

150

In

Various individuals contributed to the passage of the proposal. However,
the key leaders were President Boyd and Provost Ping. Dr. Charles House
remarked on this by noting, “It passed due to the leadership of Dr. Boyd and Dr.
Ping” (House, interview, June 2, 1998). Dr. William Bulger noted, “Dr. Boyd was
a very persuasive speaker, and he could convince you of just about anything”
(Bulger, interview, June 3, 1998). Dr. Neil Bucklew said, “Bill was a spellbinder
and could be very convincing” (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

Debate continued to rage however during the December 6, 1971
Academic Senate meeting as to who should be served by this external adult
degree program. Dr. David Lawton of the English Department stated that “the
powers of the Church and state were separated for good reason and the same is
true for the university and the military” (Minutes, Academic Senate, December 6,
1971). Dr. Lawton continued noting he was “opposed not only on moral and
ethical grounds but because we should not be identified with such institutions”
(Minutes, Academic Senate, December 6, 1971). Dr. Leonard Lieberman of the
Sociology Department indicated, “I think this is the wrong time for this program.
Most Americans oppose the Vietnam war. Why does this university want to go
on record as supporting a branch of the military involved in that war?” (Minutes,
Academic Senate, December 6, 1971).

Dr. Henry Fulton of the English Department moved that 10% of all profits
of the Institute shall be set aside for scholarship and grants in aid for individuals
in degree programs of the Institute. It was amended to 30% by a student. A
substitute motion passed indicating that a full financial report of the Institute be
presented to the Academic Senate annually and that the Senate consider and
recommend as to the disposition of any excess funds (Minutes, Academic

Senate, December 6, 1971).

151

Although at the December 6, 1971, meeting an attempt was made to have
senators revote concerning the issue, the matter was pretty much settled. The
remaining Senate meetings from 1972 through mid-1975 were basically devoted
to watchdog efforts. For example, at the May 24, 1973, meeting of the Academic
Senate approval was given to establish the temporary director on a permanent
basis (Minutes, Academic Senate, May 24, 1973).

Minutes of the September 10, 1973, Academic Senate meeting reflect Dr.
John Yantis, director of the Institute for Personal and Career Development,
reviewing the first full year of operation. He emphasized the Institute was
working on quality control and the development of programs and instructional
packages for individual students (Minutes, Academic Senate, September 10,
1973). Also at this meeting it was recommended that the Dean of the Graduate
School be an ex-officio member of the Academic Council of the Institute. This
passed as a motion at the September 24, 1973 meeting (Minutes, Academic
Senate, September 24, 1973).

Administrators of the Institute indicated that there was an excess of
$492.00 over expenses for the first year. The Academic Senate recommended
that this amount be given to the Mt. Pleasant high school parents and youth
program to help disadvantaged youth (Minutes, September 10, 1973).

At the May 13, 1974, Academic Senate meeting the Senate elected Board
of Visitors or Evaluation Boards for IPCD degree programs. The Management
and Supervision board included Dr. Robert Croll, Business and Administration,
Dr. Joseph Skupin, Industrial Education and Technology, Dr. Rollie Dunston,
Business and Administration, and Dr. David Fetyko, Accounting.

Elected to the Board of Visitors of the Community Leadership program

were Dr. Roger Grabinski, Educational Administration, Dr. Ivan Parkins, Political

152

Science, Dr. Hugh Rohrer, Alma College-Mott Foundation, and Dr. John Dinse,
Political Science.

Educational programs board members included Dr. Frank Meyers, Health
Education, Dr. Frank Stancato, Secondary Education, and Dr. John Childs from
Wayne State University.

Community Development board of visitors elected were Dr. Thaddeus
Zolty, Political Science, Dr. Robert Oana, Elementary Education, and Dr.
Jackson Anderson, Recreation and Parks Administration.

Liberal Studies board of visitors included Dr. Richard Archer, History, Dr.
Marlyn Zorn, English, Dr. Carol Billingham, Business and Administration, and Dr.
Thomas Delia, Chemistry (Minutes, Academic Senate, May 13, 1974).

At the May 13, 1974, Senate meeting there was extensive discussion as
to whether members of the Boards of Visitors should be allowed to teach for the
Institute. A motion carried to accept the slate, even though several had taught a
course or two. It appears, however, that most agreed that one should not teach
for the Institute and be a member of its evaluation board (Minutes, Academic
Senate, May 13, 1974). The remaining Academic Senate meetings from mid
1974 to mid 1975 deal primarily with Institute refinements and reports of the
Boards of Visitors.

From the October 10, 1971, proposal to the Academic Senate by Provost
Ping to establish a non-traditional degree granting off-campus program until both
Dr. William Boyd and Dr. Charles Ping left for administrative posts at other
universities in 1975, the Academic Senate was deeply involved in the
establishment and development of the Institute for Personal and Career
Development. There were probably several reasons for the depth of the
involvement. First, on campus faculty historically have been suspicious of off

campus academic programs. Second, the target population was military

153

personnel and in the early 19705 this was controversial. Third, the senators took
their responsibilities to curricular oversight seriously and debated the issues as

they should. All in all, the proposal to establish the Institute likely was passed by
the Senate due to the powers of persuasion of President Boyd and Provost Ping,

and the fact that most faculty supported both administrators if not the idea in full.

21 . What was the University Faculty Association’s role in the development
of the Institute?

The University Faculty Association had very little role in the development of
the Institute. The Faculty Association was created in 1969, as the faculty
representative in the collective bargaining agreement, and as Mr. Art Ellis
remarked, “was only three years old at the time, and they were still in the
process of figuring out who they were too” (Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998). Dr.
Neil Bucklew, who was an expert in this area and in charge of negotiating
contracts, agreements, and settlements with the faculty association (Ellis,
interview, June 16, 1998), claimed that the Faculty Association was “supportive,
they didn’t give us any trouble about it” ( Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998). Dr.
John Yantis recalled that the faculty association “really had no role” (Yantis,
interview, April 21, 1998) in the creation of the Institute. Dr.Richard Potter, an
employee of the Institute reiterates this view by claiming, “the faculty association
role was initially there was no role at all” (Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

Dr. William Bulger, president of the faculty association in this era, recalled
that

The standards, they were worried about the standards like
the Senate. They were also worried, was this a danger,
was it going to take students away from us? \Nill this cut
our summer school down? The question about how these
people would be paid; they didn’t want them to get more
money off campus than they did on campus. The Faculty

Association was mostly interested in that. I can’t recall any
talk about trying to organize these people. The union on

154

campus was brand new having started in 1969 with the
first contract. We had one of the first unions of faculty at
four-year schools in the country. They had them at
community colleges, but this was one of the first. They
were interested mostly in protecting the faculty here. We
didn’t represent these other people, so we didn’t do much
to help them at all. We didn’t try to hurt them at all either
(Bulger, interview, June 3, 1998).

It was not until the contract that was signed on September 9, 1974
between the university and the Faculty Association that covered the years 1974-
1977 that the Institute was even mentioned. In the 1974-1977 contract a letter of
agreement was included establishing a committee to

1. Study and recommend the compensation plan for
those bargaining unit members who are performing
services for the IPCD.

2. Study and recommend the amount of reimbursement
for travel and expenses incurred by those bargaining

uggsnembers who are performing services for the
l .

3. Study and recommend a program of fringe benefits
for bargaining unit members who provide services for
the Institute while on leave of absence (Agreement
Between Central Michigan University and Central
Michigan University Faculty Association 1974-1977,
September 9, 1974, p.i).

The committee was to consist of two members appointed by the
Association, and two members appointed by the University. In addition the
committee was to report its recommendation to the University and to the
Association on or before December 1, 1974. The committee then was to be
reappointed at the start of fall semester of each succeeding year of the contract,
and should report its recommendations to the University and the Faculty
Association in each succeeding year of the contract on or before ninety days
following the first day of classes of that semester (Agreement Between Central
Michigan University and Central Michigan University Faculty Association 1974-

1977, September 9, 1974, p.i).

155

IE

The University Faculty Association was not involved in the development of
the Institute. Eventually, after the Faculty Association was more established,

and the Institute had grown, it became more interested in the Institute.

22. How did campus faculty accept this new program?
Campus faculty accepted the Institute program with a wide spectrum of
opinion. Dr. Charles House, assistant to the president, recalled:

My impression is that by the time it had been accepted and
ratified and approved they accepted it very well because
they worked with a good spirit in doing these evaluations of
experimental Ieaming and responding to the opportunities
they had to teach (House, interview, June 2, 1998).

Mr. Arthur Ellis, Vice President for University Relations, concurred with Dr.
House, stating, ”I think that the faculty, by and large, accepted this without any
problems” (Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998). Dr. Cochran also recalled faculty as
being very supportive. He noted,

I think that the level of support at least in those early years
became very strong because our goal was to involve
faculty; they had control of it; it was vested there.
Graduate programs at CMU were pretty small and so this
is pretty exciting to be out teaching with classes, faculty, or
students that certainly weren’t available on campus.
People were teaching more graduate classes and a lot of
new faculty and all of us were glad to get a few more
bucks. And so I think that in those early stages particularly
there was a pretty strong level of acceptance of the
program (Cochran, interview, April 29, 1998).

The ability to make extra money teaching for the Institute, and the added
resources the Institute brought to CMU definitely played a role in swaying some
faculty opinion. Dr. Alan Quick, a faculty member during this time, stated:

Well I think there were mixed feelings. We had purists on
our campus who felt the only education you can receive in
college is on a college campus. We had people that were
concerned about, as you extend a program like that off
campus, that you dilute the program, that you dilute the
quality of the program. I think that many had a great
nervousness about the fact that a tremendous number of
non-CMU faculty would be teaching these courses. I

156

would say that there was a very, very strong concern by
the faculty about this particular program. However, if
people are given money and are motivated by money to go
out and do something and can earn extra money, they may
overlook the deficiencies. And so I think that the faculty
may have had some reservations about the program, but
had the option to make some extra money by teaching in
the program, and found that it was exhilarating to teach the
military students. So I think that you had a lot of faculty
that accepted it, while others didn’t (Quick, interview, June
1,1998)

Beside being financially rewarding to faculty, the Institute tried to be
rewarding to the university in other ways, also. The Annual Report for the
Institute for the period July 1, 1974 until June 30, 1975, noted that during this
fiscal year the Institute sponsored a lecture series which brought to campus and
locations in the field speakers who had national reputations. Some of these
speakers included Mr. Roger Blough, who served for fourteen years as chairman
of the board of directors and chief executive officer of the United States Steel
Corporation; Dr. Thomas Cronin, who was a scholar in residence at the Aspen
Institute and had been on the staff of Lyndon B. Johnson; Dr. Aaron Wildavsky,
dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy and Professor of Political Science
at the University of California at Berkeley whose specialty was American and
international public policy and economics (Yantis, Annual Report 1974-1975,
Institute for Personal and Career Development, July 1975, p.8).

Regardless of what the Institute tried to contribute to Central overall, or to
individual faculty financially through contracting their time, not everyone was
happy with the Institute. Dr. VVilIiam Bulger, a faculty member during this time,
notes that many faculty were suspicious of the Institute:

A lot of them were very suspicious about a program that
had no library, no permanent faculty, and no campus. I
mean just really selling degrees that‘s what they were
worried about. You had this credit for work experience and
people thought you had to pay for that, you know, and
people thought well they are selling this. People are

getting a cheap degree, particularly if it was a Master’s
degree. There were a lot of Master’s degrees at this stage

157

and people thought the on campus Master’s was better
than the off campus Master’s. It was a very controversial
issue for the first two or three years. Every time you got a
questionable person applying for a job and the department
had to approve or disprove you got a big to do about that,
and not just the history department, all departments. I
think that an awful lot of faculty were very suspicious. And
I would say more than half regarded it with great suspicion
the first two years. They thought it was a just a tricky
system to earn more money and hide it from the
legislature. I think that is what they believed (Bulger,
interview, June 3, 1998).

Dr. Bulger commented on another faculty member who also looked on the
Institute with suspicion:

I remember a good friend of mine now deceased, Sherrn
Riccards, he called it the Outhouse University. The only
reason he called it the Outhouse University was because
he didn’t swear, otherwise he’d of used stronger language.
I think he worried about the standards. I think he didn’t
think the standards were going to be very high. A lot of
people at that time had worked with or knew about the
University of Maryland which had the big overseas
program and some of the reputation then of some of their
campuses weren’t as good. I think that's what Riccards
was worried about (Bulger, interview, June 3, 1998).

Dr. Robert Mills, another faculty member at Central when the Institute was
created, supports Dr. Bulger's view of the faculty viewing the Institute with great
suspicion:

When it first got started it was totally unaccepted; it was an
issue of criticism, complaint and controversy for on campus
faculty. Many refused to teach in it because they felt they
were lowering themselves, because they were doing
something that was non-traditional, non academic, and low
quality. And so it was always a very controversial topic on
the onset. Now I think it’s pretty well accepted after 30
years (Mills, interview, June 9, 1998).

This research shows that the faculty viewed the creation of the Institute in
widely varying ways. Some thought it was a great idea; some adamantly
opposed it, and many were in between. Dr. Richard Potter, an early employee of
the Institute probably sums up the faculty’s views of the Institute, best:

People are often apt to say that the faculty feels this way or
the faculty feels that way and actually when you get 500

158

people they feel a lot of different ways. There were a
number of people who were very strong supporters of the
Institute. There were some people that were very strongly
opposed, and the majority probably didn’t care because it
didn’t impact them at all; they weren’t involved in it. It’s
sort of like any issue regarding faculty; some people care a
lot one way, some people care a lot the other way; the vast
majority could care less because it doesn’t effect them
(Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

23.What was the role of the Board of Trustees in the creation of this
Institute?

The Board of Trustees approved its creation at its meeting in December,
1971. Other than that the Board of Trustees did not have much of a formal role
with this new Institute. Dr. Neil Bucklew recalled the role of the Board of
Trustees as

Limited, they did a final approval on it, but again Bill was
very compelling with those people, and I don’t recall any
difficulties with that. The Institute had amazingly few
political problems for something as dramatically different
as it was (Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

Dr. William Bulger, agreed with Dr. Bucklew’s assessment:

They had to approve it. They didn’t approve the details,
they just approved the general thing. Boyd was in charge,
and as president his attitude, he once told me, was that
the Board of Trustees should meet every so often and its
main job was to see if the president’s doing a proper job or
not. If he isn’t doing a proper job they should fire him and
get somebody new. If he was doing a proper job then they
should adjourn. He was very skillful. He just took the
general things to the board. The financial aspects, and
how it was going to be, they were interested in standards
too. I think they foresaw this as a good system to raise
some money to do some other things around the campus,
and we were really strapped in the early 19705 (Bulger,
interview, June 3, 1998).

The Board of Trustees was going through some growing of its own during
this era, which allowed a persuasive president to be even more powerful. As Mr.
Art Ellis recalled, “the Board was a lot different in those days than it is now, but

remember this is also in the first 5,6,7 years of the Board’s autonomous

159

independent existence, so they were still evolving what their role was and how
they dealt with things” (Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998). Dr. Ernest Minelli
remembers the Board of Trustees during this era as deferring quite a bit to the

administration:

At that time the Board pretty much kept their hands off of
running the univer5ity. They saw themselves as policy
makers and they stayed out of administration and running
the university or trying to run the faculty.They pretty much
were a hands off board other than policy. They saw their
role as policy makers (Minelli, interview, May 28, 1998).

Dr. Richard Potter recalls the Board as being supportive of the Institute

because of the positive reports the Board got on the Institute through the press:
They were very supportive, and I think because the
Institute got for them what they considered to be good
press. There were a lot of favorable articles, when they
went to meetings, people had always heard of CMU
because we were often in everybody’s backyard. Often
there were a lot of human interest stories, some guy who,
no way he could get a degree and along comes the
Institute and it’s changed his life. There were a lot of
stories like that, and they liked to hear them. They liked to
hear that the institution that they were overseeing did this
kind of thing (Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

Apparently the Board of Trustees had only limited involvement in the
creation of the Institute. ,They approved the creation of the Institute, but that was
about it. It had only been an autonomous board for about six years, and was still
trying to find its role and evolving as an organization. Likewise, President Boyd
was perhaps the most persuasive speaker, and brightest president that Central

ever had. He persuaded the Board to authorize the creation of the Institute.

160

V. Questions concerning the symbolic aspects of the Institute
for Personal and Career Development.

24. How was it determined that the degrees given to students who
graduated through this Institute would be the exact same as the
degrees of students who graduated from on campus?

The feasibility study that advocated the creation of the Institute wanted the
degrees given to Institute students to be the same as the degrees of students
from on campus. The feasibility study states, “these should be regular university

degrees and so designated on the student’s transcript” (Cochran, September 20,

 

1971, p.11). However, having the same degrees was very controversial,
because the on campus and off campus programs were so different. Dr. Robert
Mills, a faculty member, recalled,

There was tremendous controversy about how the degrees
were awarded. The controversy among the on campus
faculty that the degrees should be different, that it
shouldn’t be‘ the same degree because it was non
traditional, it should say non traditional, it should say IPCD,
and I think that even to this day there’s still some
controversy over it, is it equal to the same degree that
we’re giving on campus? (Mills, interview, June 9, 1998).

However, the same degree was given to both types of students. There
were many reasons for this. Dr. Richard Potter remarked,

In the Original proposal it was stated that all of the degrees
and transcripts would be the same and that was for a
couple of reasons. Internally it was to say that we are
going to adhere to the same standards so that the faculty
did not have to worry that this was going to be a watered
down degree, so it was part of that argument. To the
students it was something similar, we are not offering you
a second class program out here. This is the same
program you’d get on campus and therefore you get the
:ggiae) diploma and transcript (Potter, interview, July 27,

Dr. Boyd was also adamant that the Institute issue the same degree as on
campus:

But I never wanted it to be different. I wanted to make it
clear that people didn’t have to spend four years on a

161

campus to be certified as having the same degree, the
same set of skills and the same body of knowledge. I
would have considered it a kind of treachery to use
another, and there also was a quality control insurance
because the faculty have to recommend someone to
receive a degree. The Board will give it but the faculty
recommends it (Boyd, interview, April 23, 1998).

Dr. Ping seconded Dr. Boyd’s view:

Well I think that that’s one of the dilemmas of trying to deal
with the nontraditional student. If you give them a sort of
secondary degree or a degree of lesser value, you make it
suspect. Is it possible to deliver comparable education
programs in distinct ways for this population? I think ifthe
answer to that is no, then you ought to give a different
degree program; if the answer to that is, yes, then it ought
to be the same degree. Now you obviously cannot offer
specialized degrees. You can offer a degree perhaps in
general management. You’re unlikely able to offer a
degree in cost accounting. You can offer a degree in
human development, (but) you’re not able to offer a
profeggigpal degree in psychology (Ping, interview, April
29, 1 .

Dr. Cochran, who wrote the feasibility study, noted that the consultants
Central talked to strongly advocated against offering a separate degree:

I guess that discussion evolved again from the consultants
who said that you can’t have this look like something that’s
not high quality. And if you start giving it a secondary thing
it will give that impression. Secondly, it was Charlie Ping’s
insistence that this thing was going to be vested in the
academic parts of our campus and therefore it was not a
separate degree and we were expecting it to have the
same quality indicators. He was one at the time who often
would say the university is not a place, it is a process. It is
a process that we take one through and it doesn’t all have
to be done within the confines of the brick and mortar of a
particular site (Cochran, interview, April 29, 1998).

One of the arguments that was made for a separate degree concerned
the number of class hours for semester credit between on campus and off
campus. The on campus students went to class for 45 clock hours per semester
hour, while the Institute students only went for 36 hours. Dr. Richard Potter, who
worked for the Institute, commented on the justification of the difference:

Part was based on the fact that students were enrolled

several weeks ahead of time. They got the materials and

162

all the assignments and what to do. The other thing was
that 45 hours are really 50 minute hours so if you take out
10 minutes per hour it’s considerably less. That’s a much
weaker argument because I know they did breaks during
our program as well. There was always the rationale that
because we had been given a compressed time format
that there was less start up and wind down time in every
class, so that added up. So there was a lot of justification
that was given (by Institute administration to questioning
faculty) (Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

Although controversial, it was decided at the outset that the students who

graduated from the Institute would receive the same degrees as students who

 

graduated on campus. Some did not think this was right because the programs
were so different. Nevertheless, it was decided by the administration that this
would be so for many reasons. Probably the foremost reason was that the
University, and the creators of the Institute, did not want to give any appearance
that an Institute degree was in any way a “cheap” or lessor degree. Mr. Arthur
Ellis puts perspective on the dilemma:

I think that again this was evolving on the campus, if the
Institute was to have true credibility it has to have the
support of the central campus because everything derives
from the 1964 constitution which makes CMU a
constitutional body governed by an 8 member Board and
all things flowed from that. And I don’t think that there was
ever any attempt to have a second class degree or a
degree that didn’t meet standards. The standards were
always there, they were always insisted upon. Are these
exactly the same degrees? I never thought they were. I
think that they were different, not in the outcome but in the
methods of delivery and the various content which was
measured against its experiential part of the student body
and so on. So I think that people had and are getting or
earning degrees that have merit and credibility, but they
have little nuances of differences. But the paper says that
they are the same thing (Ellis, interview, June 16, 1998).

The time difference between Institute classes and on campus classes still
prevails, as does the policy of Institute students paying to receive prior Ieaming

credit.

163

25. How were off campus Institute centers structured, set up, and created
to make them feel connected to the main campus ?

Two issues were involved in making Institute centers seem connected to the
main campus. First, the Institute wanted to make its center representatives or
field representatives feel connected to CMU, as they were employees of CMU
and representing CMU. Second was the attempt by the Institute to make its
students in these far off locations feel connected to CMU.

The first issue the Institute had to confront in this area was making sure that
their program managers and that field centers. seemed connected to campus.
The way they made their program managers connected to campus was by
bringing them on campus on a regular basis for seminars and workshops. Dr.
John Yantis, commented on this:

They become acquainted by coming in and Ieaming. We
bring them in and they spend a week on campus, up front,
to Ieam about the university, know who the people are,
know what the policies and processes are. And they do
that periodically. At that time we’d bring them in about
every six months to a staff meeting on campus so that they
would begin to feel part of it. And we’d have a lot of
activities when they’re together to build an espirt de corps
which is very crucial. They are CMU, therefore, when a
student comes to them, whether the problems with Veteran
Affairs or Registrars and grades, that person has got to
help them solve that problem. Whereas on campus that
student would go to various offices. This person, is what I
mean, is CMU, so that really makes them feel that they’re
a part of it. So that commitment, I think, and the fact that
they have felt a good part of it is very, very important. Of
course they are treated as CMU employees by the
university as a whole. You know they would come in, for
example, for longevity awards. I’ll mention Kansas City,
the person from Kansas City was here last month to
receive a service award for 25 years of service at CMU as
part of everyone else who was receiving that award
(Yantis, interview, April 21, 1998).

Mr. Arthur Ellis recalled the Institute bringing its program managers to Mt.
Pleasant in this way:
They came to Mt. Pleasant and spent a period of days and

extensive workshops on management, where they were
going, what they were doing, they ate breakfast, lunch and

164

 

 

dinner together, it was 24 hours a day for them. But it cost

. a lot of money to fly in people from all over. And I’ll tell you
I remember speaking to one of those groups, and l was
amazed at how many people there were on payroll over
there, from everywhere. That was the money that was well
spent to deal with exactly the question you asked,
connected, how to stay connected. They connected
through personal contact. It’s a very expensive way to run
that program, you know. But they did it; they did it. They
had huge travel budgets (which were derived from excess
revenue over expenses) for everybody (Ellis, interview,
June 16, 1998).

Dr. Richard Potter, who worked for the Institute during this era noted it
was also important to make the Institute centers look professional. He recalled
“the offices, as much as anything, were set up to be attractive to people, to feel
this is a substantial organization and not some fly by night place” (Potter,
interview, July 27, 1998).

The other group they wanted to make feel connected to Central were the
students. One way to make the students feel connected to campus was through
graduation. Institute students were encouraged to come to the main campus for
graduation, or if that was not possible, someone from the main campus often
went to Institute centers to speak at, or be part of, a graduation ceremony. Dr.
Neil Bucklew recalled,

I remember we made quite a point of getting as many of
the graduates as we could to come back and participate in
regular graduation. That may be the only time they ever
saw the campus. But we tried to just find symbolic ways to
make them part of the university (Bucklew, interview, April
20 ,1 998).

Dr. Ernest Minelli stated that there was a conscious effort to make sure

the graduates felt part of the University and not just the Institute:
We instill upon them that they are students, they are
graduates, they have a master’s degree from Central
Michigan University. It’s not a masters degree from the
Institute, it’s a masters degree from Central Michigan
University. They are listed in our program as graduates on
graduation day. They are listed in the program as

graduates of Central Michigan University. They are invited
to commencement, and some come to commencement,

165

 

 

those that are within driving distance (Minelli, interview,
May 28, 1998).

Dr. William Bulger recalled meeting an Institute graduate at
commencement:

I remember one time I went to commencement some years
ago, on a hot May day and there was a lady who was lost,
and she was trying to find where she should go into the
stadium. She was getting a master’s degree and she was
in her early sixties, I would say she was excited because
she said she had never been here. I believe she was from
somewhere in Virginia. She said, “I have never been
here,” but she said “I decided when I was about half way
through this that l was going to come and see where my
alma matter was at graduation.” She said, “I’ve had two
heart attacks in the last year” but she said, “I was
determined I was going to get here, and here I am!” She
had her family with her, and she was all excited (Bulger,
interview, June 3, 1998).

If the students couldn’t come to campus, someone from campus often

went to them for their commencement. Dr. Charles Ping recalled “going out to

speak at commencement from Hawaii to Wright Patterson” (Ping, interview, April

29, 1998). Dr. Charles House also recalled going out to speak at Institute

graduations:

It often fell to me to go out and do the courtesies, in some
of these places. I went down and I spoke at Wright
Patterson Air Force Base; I went to Fort Meyer and
Andrews Air Force Base, and out to Hawaii, speaking to
10-15 graduates. And these would be glittering affairs
because the military really responded to those things. But
I did come away with some very interesting impressions,
and one of them was that though the students undertook
the program for purely practical reasons, you know military
advancement or business qualification or something of that
sort-just bread and butter issues-again and again at those
basically academic events I found them more appreciative
of education itself than on campus students...they really
had the sense that somehow or other through this thing
they were becoming educated persons and they valued
that. And that hit me time and time again as I talked with
those people, before or after those events (House,
interview, June 2, 1998).

There were other ways that the Institute tried to make the students at its

centers feel connected to the main campus. One way was by publishing a

166

newsletter. This newsletter, which was called Outreach, was published twice a
year. By July 1, 1975, it had a circulation of 5,500 (Yantis, Annual Report 1974-
1975, Institute for Personal and Career Development, July 1975, p.9). Dr. Neil
Bucklew recalled,

I know the Institute when they went into a place, and were
given a classroom where we were going to do our teaching
we’d load it up with CMU materials. These people always
liked to buy sweatshirts and t-shirts. They really wanted to
be part of some place. Even though they were going to be
doing it in the Azores. The Institute gave a lot of attention
to making people feel part of the CMU family (Bucklew,
interview, April 20, 1998).

A professor who taught many early Institute classes reinforced this theme:

I think that the university right from the onset absolutely
went out of their way to maintain the identity of CMU. It
would be CMU banners; there would be cards printed up;
there would be lots of literature supporting the university.

It was a university program and it really exemplified the
university. I think that the students were always given an
opportunity to buy CMU memorabilia, like CMU
sweatshirts, rings, etc. The faculty that were coming from
the main campus certainly brought the main campus to the
non traditional student. I think the Institute tried as hard as
they possibly could to the maximum. They tried to take the
university to the remote location (Mills, interview, June 9,
1998).

VI. Other observations
Most of the people associated with the creation of the Institute look back
at that time in their lives with fond memories. Dr. Bucklew noted,

I look back on those years, and I went on to become a
provost at another university, and a president at two
others, and I think I Ieamed a great deal from the Institute
experiment that l was able to bring to those institutions. It
really was a cutting edge experience, and if you think of it
as giving birth to something I look at the baby and it looked
good, and it- even got through its teenage years fine. So I
think it was a good process that delivered a good product
(Bucklew, interview, April 20, 1998).

Dr. Richard Potter recalled what it was like to work for the early Institute:

167

 

There was a feeling among the staff that we were involved
in a real cutting edge activity. We could tell by the
literature that we were out ahead of most other schools.
That was a source of pride and helped us develop an
espirt de corps that brought the organization together.
Another thing that brought the organization together was
the fact that other organizations on campus that we had to
deal with tended to resent the Institute mainly because our
existence required that they change their procedures. This
was true in the Business Office and the Registrar’s Office
and a lot of different areas, so there was a kind of a we
against them attitude that developed. And there was a lot
of criticism from these offices and we would get criticism
from faculty and that would kind of make us feel like a
group. So there was a tremendous excitement and part of
that too was that there were so many programs just
starting up and there were new things all of the time and
new groups were contacting us and we were getting a lot
of very positive feedback from students. Things were
written in papers and there was just such a tremendous
excitement about the job and the organization. I know
personally, I was just excited to go to work every day,
because there would be new stuff. And we worked hard
and there was a lot of pressure and a lot of decisions to be
made (Potter, interview, July 27, 1998).

 

Dr. Robert Mills, a faculty member who really enjoyed teaching for the
Institute, stated,

I truly enjoyed the delivery system, I enjoyed teaching in
the program. It was usually a Friday, Saturday, or
Saturday, Sunday and on the weekends it provided me a
different opportunity or a different class. Students in the
Institute were always very serious about Ieaming. You
never had any problems with the students. They were
committed. They didn’t sign up for a program that they
didn’t want to complete. They were hard workers and it
was a real joy to get involved in the program. Obviously
there was some charisma about going to a remote
location. If you taught at Hawaii, as I did, or if you taught
at Columbus Ohio, you’d go off campus for two or three
days, have a real intense session, meet good people, and
then return. I really felt that the whole ambiance on being
a young faculty member was very positive. I Ieamed a
great deal in teaching for the Institute. I think it augmented
the on campus teaching. I think it really helped. It brought
a different perspective to me being a traditional on campus
faculty member (Mills, interview, June 9, 1998).

Others who were more critical of the Institute initially have mellowed their

criticism over the years. Dr. William Bulger, for instance, reflected,

168

-_th|

 

I think it has gained respectability over the years. I was
very suspicious of the whole thing, maybe simply I’ve
become accustomed to it over a quarter of a century. I
think its rules and regulations are pretty well set now, and I
think its gained respectability. Most people on the campus
I don’t even hear them discuss the Institute, they just take
it for granted (Bulger, interview, June 3, 1998).

Others looked back at the creation of the Institute, and commented on the
need in society they felt it fulfilled. Dr. Charles Ping stated:

Well, I think the whole effort to address, I wish there was a
better phrase, the non-traditional student’s needs is an
ongoing imperative in higher education. There are a lot of
people who, for personal circumstances or personal
motivation, didn’t move from high school to the college
campus, who are not going to be able to go to do
university work the same way that a young person fresh
out of high school can do. And I think this is a very major
problem for those who have had bits and pieces of college
work and those who either because they were indifferent
students or who were in poor high schools and wake up
ten years later and discover that they’re not going
anywhere and would like very much to have a college
experience. How do you serve those students? (Ping,
interview, April 29, 1998).

Dr. Alan Quick, who taught classes for the Institute, concurred with Dr.
Ping:

I think that the IPCD has served a tremendous number of
people that probably would never have had the opportunity
to get a degree if it hadn’t been for CMU. I think that the
weekend configurations, the week long configurations have
enhanced opportunities for disenfranchised students, I
think that Central has made a great attempt to maintain
quality. I think they provide wonderful library services to
these students. It’s a costly program but yet they charge a
great deal (Quick, interview, June 1, 1998).

The creation of the Institute for Personal and Career Development is
remembered fondly by those that participated in this endeavor. Many
participants in this process recall this as an exciting and dynamic time in their
careers. Some look back fondly at the challenge and joy they had while teaching
for the Institute during this era, others still believe that the creation of the Institute

was vital for Central because it placed Central squarely on the cutting edge of

169

educational change, and allowed many for whom a college education was only a
far off dream to make that dream a reality. Dr. Ernest Minelli aptly sums up the
influence the Institute had on the numerous individuals who were interviewed for
this study:

It’s remarkable that you were able to interview all those

people, remarkable. And it gives you some idea of the kind

of individuals that were involved with it. They are still, still

interested, and went ahead and gave you an interview
(Minelli, interview, May 28, 1998).

170

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I will summarize how the study was conducted and what
the main conclusions have been, including a summary of Institute successes and

recommendations for future research.

Research Methodology

The book RefraanlOrganizations by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal,
formed the frame work for this study of the history and development of the
Institute for Personal and Career Development at Central Michigan University.
Bolman and Deal developed four frames for studying organizations. The four
frames are structural, human resource, political, and symbolic.

These frames were beneficial because they gave organization and
direction for this study. A historical case study can become all encompassing, as
one is never quite sure where to draw the line on research, or how to give
meaning to the study. How much history of the event or organization does one
include? The possibilities are limitless, and the historical tangents that one could
follow, endless. The Bolman and Deal model gave guidelines and boundaries
for this study to follow. Not only did the model provide general guidelines of
direction for the study, but it also provided specific questions to use to analyze
the organizations. Without the Bolman and Deal model, I might have missed
many things within this study. The model forced me to think of the creation of
the Institute from many angles and led me to ask questions and explore areas I
most likely would not have done had I not utilized the model. For example, many

questions concerning the human resource, political, and symbolic aspects of the

171

 

 

 

creation of the Institute might have not been pursued if it had not been for the
Bolman and Deal model.

In addition, because much of this study was dependent on the interviews
with leaders who created the Institute, it is easy to see how one could perhaps
only get a sympathetic view of the creation of the Institute. The Bolman and
Deal model fosters analysis through its different frames and encourages the idea
that to understand an organization in its totality, one must view the organization
from different perspectives. This led the author to ask questions of these
leaders from different perspectives and many angles, hopefully leading to a
broader view of the history of the Institute.

The author Ieamed through questions within the structural frame of the
Bolman and Deal model that the Institute was initially structured after a pilot
program that was undertaken at Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda, Michigan.
Its early shape developed along the lines of a document written by Dr. Leslie
Cochran entitled “A Study on the Feasibility and Organizational Framework of an
Adult Degree Program at Central Michigan University.” However, as the Institute
grew, it encountered many new structural problems for which it had to find
solutions.

The author Ieamed through the human resource frame of the Bolman and

Deal model that the leaders who developed this program had vision and passion.

It was a combination of right timing and right leadership that allowed the Institute
to be created. In this regard, this study echoes the Bolman and Deal view that
effective leadership within an organization is crucial for its success. The Institute
was fortunate to have been created and initially guided by some very effective
leaders.

The author Ieamed through the political frame of the Bolman and Deal

model that the leaders of the Institute were able to effectively “manage” the

172

‘5. .

 

faculty at Central Michigan University. They did this by being respectful of
faculty prerogatives. For instance, the Institute had to be approved by the
Academic Senate and then overseen by the Academic Council, which was
elected by the Academic Senate. Instructors who taught for the Institute had to
be approved by on campus faculty, and syllabi used in Institute classes were the
same as syllabi used on campus. The degree requirements were also the
same. This study shows that a key to the lnstitute’s success was the ability of
its leaders to effectively involve faculty with its creation and early development.
Moreover, when conflicts arose as they did in 1975, the leaders responded
effectively to faculty concerns. .

The author Ieamed through the symbolic frame of the Bolman and Deal
model that the creators of the Institute spent much time and effort on making
Institute students and Institute centers symbolically linked to CMU. This was
done through using banners, posters, and other paraphernalia at the centers.
More importantly, they insisted on awarding to Institute graduates the same
diplomas that on campus graduates received. A concentrated effort was also
made to attract Institute students to campus for commencement exercises.

The author is indebted to the frames of study suggested by Bolman and
Deal. The Bolman and Deal model is an excellent one for studying the creation
of the Institute. All in all, that model contributed great insights for this study.
Using all four of the Bolman and Deal frames together helped the author
understand the full development of the Institute. The Bolman and Deal frames
were also of assistance in understanding how institutional innovation occurs.

However, the Bolman and Deal model did have its limitations.
Specifically, the Bolman and Deal model largely ignores the historical aspects of
organizational development. It does not include a historical frame.

Understanding both the larger as well as the local history of the Institute made a

173

 

 

historical frame necessary. A historical frame was therefore developed by the
author and was the first frame of questions used in the interview protocol.

The historical frame involved using oral history and archival research.
Oral history as a process of research worked very well in this study. Giving the
questions to the interviewees ahead of time was beneficial because it allowed
the interviewees to reflect on the questions and have better interviews. In
addition, all the interviewees appeared open and forthcoming during the
interviews, and there was a high degree of consistency in their responses. The
interview protocol also seemed very appropriate. When interviewees were
asked during the last question of the interview if anything was missed or if other
questions should be added, all said “no,” that the interview protocol covered all

relevant points.

Summary of Institute Successes
The Vision of the Institute
In 1971, former president of Michigan State University, Clifford Wharton,
noted:

I am convinced that one of the greatest challenges facing
higher education in the years ahead lies in the area
broadly defined as Lifelong Education. Similarly, I am
persuaded that all of higher education'must undergo major
alterations and revisions in content, approach, and
organizational structure in the next two decades if we are
to respond meaningfully to society’s increasing demands
and needs. Our historical vehicles such as Continuing
Education, Extension and Adult Education, undergraduate
education and graduate education simply will not provide
us with the organizational models to effectively respond to
the needs of our emerging society. In my opinion, the
great universities of the 19805 and 19905 will be the
institutions which anticipated the need, committed
themselves, and then marshaled their resources to meet
the needs of society. This will require a willingness to take
risks and to invest both manpower and financial resources
in new endeavors by building on historic strengths while
ever conscious of changing needs. History, and even
more importantly, the society will hold us accountable for
our efforts (in Quick, April 8, 1989, p.13-14).

174

 

 

It was out of this era and this school of thought that the Institute for
Personal and Career Development was created at Central Michigan University in
the fall of 1971. The Institute was created to address many of the points and
arguments that Dr. Wharton so eloquently stated. Specifically, the Institute was
created to give an opportunity for many Americans to complete a college degree

who othenNise would not have the opportunity. Dr. Charles Ping, who along with

 

Dr. William Boyd, had the vision and initiative to create the Institute, reflected on

what the creation of the Institute meant to him. He recalled the debates that

 

occurred in the Academic Senate about the creation of the Institute:

It was an interesting debate and it continued heatedly for
some time and finally when the vote or several votes were
cast, there was authorization. I remember it well because
my father who had lived in Florida had had a heart attack
some time before this debate occurred and was
recuperating and I used to regularly try to find things to
share with him to keep his mind occupied during this period
of recovery. And I shared with him some of the position
papers and the newspaper accounts from this debate and
he read them with interest and then one night out of the
blue called and said, you know, Charlie, I had a long
career in public health service and it was a good career.
He was a hospital administrator. And he was one of the
more highly regarded public administrators in the public
health service. But dad went into hospital administration
by route of coming out of the first World War as a chief
pharmacist, made licensed nurse, and did hospital work
during the Depression with the public health service and on
to hospital administration; however, he did not have a
college degree. And he said, you know, all those years, in
one way or another, in Washington they would pull my
personnel file and they would read the file and they would
throw it aside and say well, Ping doesn’t have a degree,
and dad was good enough that when he was stationed in
New York City he actually taught in the Columbia
University Health Administration Program. And he said
you know, it always rankled me, Charlie, and I’ve been
reading what you’ve been saying and ljust might sign up
for one of those degree programs. I’ll probably take a
degree in art history if I can. Well, dad, you’re exactly the
person that I hope we can reach. Yeah, it has this sort of
personal connotation for me. He didn’t do it, of course, but
as he read the stuff and was trying to guess at what we
were talking about and trying to do, it was a very
interesting response (Ping, interview, April 29, 1998).

 

175

The development of the Institute then had a personal story behind it for
Dr. Ping. His father was like the people the Institute was created to assist. And
the Institute has helped individuals like this by the thousands. Presently, there
are 44,000 graduates from Central’s College of Extended Learning, which is
what the Institute is called now. This number is impressive in and of itself;
however, when one notes that there are only 132,000 graduates from Central
overall, the idea that 44,000 of those graduates alone come from the Institute is

truly amazing (Ringquist, interview, May 5, 1998).

Financial Success

Another way the Institute has benefited CMU over the years is financially.
From its creation the Institute has returned a profit to the university. That profit
has grown considerably over the years and now averages about three million
dollars a year (Ringquist, interview, May 5, 1998). The money that the Institute
returns to the university does raise aspects of the Institute that are called into
question. From the very beginning, critics of the Institute saw it as a money-
making scheme for the University, and there are those who still hold this view.
Some critics of the Institute see the Institute as too money-driven, with quality
and other considerations being of secondary importance.

The Institute developed through the vision of Drs. Boyd and Ping. It did
not develop originally as a way for Central to make money, but more out of an
altruistic idea of bringing educational accessibility to disenfranchised students.
Dr. Boyd and Dr. Ping wanted the Institute to break even; making money was
secondary. What happened is that the Institute proved much more popular than
either of them envisioned. In addition, if the Institute were to break even, it
could not provide educational opportunities for various individual student

scattered around the United States. Instead, the Institute had to concentrate on

176

 

where the students were concentrated, and this tended to be at miliary bases or
corporate settings. This study ends in 1975, and it is after 1975 that the primacy
of financial return became of increasing importance for the Institute. Initially the
issue of money was secondary at the Institute, although as the Institute grew,
money became of greater importance.

Dr. Boyd said he hoped that the university never came to rely on the soft
money that the Institute would bring in, but many believe that it has. Often the
talk involving the Institute today is over budgets and money rather than students
served and program value. Dr. Alan Quick, who has taught for the Institute and
was also Dean of the CMU School of Continuing Education and Community
Services, succinctly stated this when he commented in a presentation: .

The dependence of a university upon revenues generated ‘

by the off campus student can be disastrous. Program

success often is judged by ‘how much money did you

make’ rather than ‘how successful were your programs

and how many citizens were served’. When one looks at

the bottom line of a monthly financial report as the prime

indicator to judge program value, we have serious

problems (Quick, April 8, 1989, p.9).
Unfortunately, some believe that the Institute has serious problems with this
issue today. I

The money that the Institute brought in benefited many aspects of the
university. The faculty association was able to negotiate better contracts on
behalf of its members due to the greater financial resources that the Institute
brought in for the university. On campus students who attended Central also
benefited as the money that the Institute brought in was used to subsidize tuition
for on campus students, thus keeping it artificially low. Central, which has
received very low state funding compared to other universities in the state of
Michigan, was able to take extra initiatives that they normally would not have

been able to because of the money that the Institute brought in.

177

Program Quality

A problem that the Institute has struggled with throughout its history is
program quality. The Institute has utilized North Central Accreditation and
reviews of Institute programs by the Central Michigan University Academic
Senate’s Boards of Visitors to maintain the quality of its programs and academic
standards. However, questions over academic quality persist. Dr. Charles Ping
reflected on this by noting:

Now I think that the truth to the matter is, we have, or we
live on campuses with an easy presumption of academic
standards and quality assurance. Under the guise of
proximity and tradition. I don’t know what some of the
colleagues in the Department of Philosophy are doing. I
know them and I have reasonable assurance that anything
that they would do would be demanding and have good
quality. But that’s because I have a sort of daily working
relationship with them and that’s the basic form of
academic standards and quality assurance. Oh we have
all sorts of program review and course approval and all of
that but, in fact, over the course of time, its proximity and
course assurance. Now what’s the counterpart of that in
an adult degree program taught at remote sites, heavily
dependent on faculty that are at best in a limited
relationship with the host campus. (Ping, interview, April
29,1998)

The problem for the Institute is that, as Dr. Ping noted, it is very difficult for
an adult degree program taught at remote sites to develop a daily working
relationship among its faculty members. If faculty members do not know each
other it is very difficult to have as Dr. Ping called it, “quality assurance” of each
other. The Institute has done much to address issues of quality in its programs,
spending much time and resources on this issue. However, this is still a matter
that the Institute must confront on a daily basis, and one that seems especially
problematic for programs like the Institutes that are taught at distant and remote

shes.

178

Program Success

The Institute has also won awards and has many distinguished alumni. In
1996, it received the Military Division Program Award from the National
University Continuing Education Association; and in 1997, it received the-
Strategic Marketing Planning Silver Award from the University Continuing
Education Association. The Institute also has numerous outstanding alumni.
One of these is Kathleen Oswald, who was graduated from the Institute twice,
once as an undergraduate in 1979 with a Bachelor of Science degree in
industrial management, and once as a graduate student with a Master of Arts
degree in personnel and supervision in 1986. Ms. Oswald is currently Vice
President for Corporate Personnel at Chrysler Corporation. Another outstanding
alumnus is John Henry Stanford, who was superintendent of Seattle Public
Schools until his death in early 1999. Mr. Stanford earned his Master of Arts
degree in Management and Supervision from the Institute in 1975. He spoke on
national television at the 1996 Democratic National Convention on the subject of
education (Hunter, personal correspondence, September 18, 1998).

The average age of an Institute student today is 37 years, and two-thirds
of the lnstitute’s students are female (Ringquist, interview, May 5, 1998). In
addition, over the last few years, because of the Institute, more African American
males have received their Master’s degrees at CMU than at any other university
in the country (Ringquist, interview, May 5, 1998). So, as the founders
envisioned, the Institute today is still filling a need.

Besides filling a need for students, the Institute also fills a need for CMU.
Throughout its history and today, the Institute has raised the profile and visibility
of CMU throughout the United States. There are many people who would not

have heard of the CMU if they or their friend or relative had not graduated from

179

the Institute. In addition, the Institute has enriched numerous on-campus faculty

who have taught for it. As one long-time faculty members noted:
I think the faculty have grown and become more innovative as a result of
having taught for the Institute. I think that any time you teach four hours
on a Friday night and eight hours on a Saturday, you turn out to be more
creative, more flexible, more adjustable than you do at a traditional
college class that meets for one hour or two hours a day. Extended class
periods cause you to have to use various teaching methods, especially

audiovisual aids. And so I think improved teaching has been the result.
(Quick, interview, June 1, 1998)

Future Research

Since this study was undertaken, the Institute has faced a major calamity.
Fire broke out in Rowe Hall where the Institute was housed. This fire had two
large consequences. First, many Institute records, including historical ones,
were destroyed. Second, as a result of the fire, the Institute has been physically
removed from the university campus and is now located in a rented building on
the north end of Mt. Pleasant. Not only did the Institute lose many of its
historical records in the fire, but the fire accomplished something that has been
feared for a long time; namely, the physical removal of the Institute from
Central’s campus. There have been arguments throughout the history of the
Institute that it needed to be more integrated with on—campus programs. Now,
due to the recent fire, the location could prove to be a serious problem.

Future research on the Institute will be more difficult due to the recent fire,
but should concentrate on the Institute after 1975. It is this author’s opinion that
much happened to the Institute in the years after Dr. Boyd and Dr. Ping left
Central. There is much future research that could be conducted on the Institute.
For instance, an interesting research question would be, how did succeeding
administrations view the Institute? Did later administrators change the Institute
in dramatic ways? Another interesting study would be to trace the finances of

the Institute as finances became larger and more important. Also, what became

180

 

 

of those monies; how were they used? Another study would be a general history
of the Institute from 1975 to 1980. It is in this time frame that the Institute grew
rapidly, and a study of that era would be interesting. In addition, to complete the
history of the Institute, a study of the period from 1980 to 1999 should be
undertaken. Lastly, an interesting question would be how and why the Institute
was melded with the Division of Continuing Education and Community Services
to create the CMU College of Extended Learning.

The findings of this study indicate that when certain forces coalesce, and
the timing is right, dramatic changes can be made in institutions of higher
education. This was the situation at Central in the early 19705. Leaders at
Central were ready to make dramatic changes. They used Central’s prior
experience with Off Campus Education, combined with a pilot program at
Wurtsmith Air Force Base along with supporting literature by the Carnegie
Commission and encouragement by governmental agencies to create the
Institute. The timing was right in the United States for the development of the
Institute at Central. Not only was the timing right for the development of the
Institute at Central, but Central in the early 19705 was blessed with a gathering
of leaders who were visionary, thoughtful, and hard working individuals.

Through their skills and leadership, combined with good timing, they were able to
take the initiative and create the Institute.

The implications of this study for practicing administrators and faculty are
manifold. First is the importance of timing in innovation in education. There is
an old saying that “timing is everything”; and this study does support the notion
that timing of innovation or change is important. This study also shows the
influence that articulate, persuasive, and visionary leaders can have in
implementing organizational change. At the time that the Institute was created,

Central had strong, articulate, visionary leadership which was crucial in getting

181

 

 

consensus from various University constituencies to support the far-reaching
change which resulted in the Institute for Personal and Career Development at

Central Michigan University.

The Participants: Where Are They Now?

Lastly, in it is interesting to note what happened to the individuals
associated with the creation of the Institute for Personal and Career
Development at Central Michigan University. All went on to extremely
distinguished and successful academic careers. Dr. William Boyd, who was
President of Central Michigan University at the time the Institute was created, left
Central Michigan University on June 30, 1975 to become President of the
University of Oregon. After being President of the University of Oregon, Dr.
Boyd became President of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Today Dr.
Boyd is retired and living in Racine, Wisconsin where he is President Emeritus of
the Robert Wood Johnson foundation.

Dr. Charles Ping, Provost at Central Michigan University when the
Institute was created, left Central Michigan University on August 31, 1975 to
become President of Ohio University. Dr. Ping recently retired from the
presidency of Ohio University as President emeritus. He still teaches in the Ohio
University Philosophy Department.

Dr. Neil Bucklew, who was associate provost at Central Michigan
University when the Institute was created, left Central to become Provost at Ohio
University. He left Ohio University to become President of the University of
Montana, and then left the University of Montana to become President of West
Virginia University. Presently, Dr. Bucklew lives in Morgantown, West Virginia
where he is President emeritus of West Virginia University, and teaches in the

West Virginia University College of Business and Economics.

182

Dr. Ernest Minelli, who was assistant to the provost when the Institute was
created, stayed at Central Michigan University where he became vice provost.
He retired from the University in the late 19805, and currently resides in the Mt.
Pleasant, Michigan area.

Dr. Leslie Cochran, who wrote the feasibility study for the creation of the
Institute, and was the first director of the Central Michigan University Institute for
Personal and Career Development, left Central Michigan University. Currently
Dr. Cochran is President of Youngstown State University and resides in
Youngstown, Ohio.

Dr. Charles House, who was assistant to the President at Central
Michigan University when the Institute was created, left Central Michigan
University for Valley City State University in North Dakota. Dr. House was
President of Valley State University when he retired. Today Dr. House is
President Emeritus of Valley State University, and is living in Park Rapids,
Minnesota.

Mr. Arthur Ellis, who was vice president for university advancement at
Central Michigan University when the Institute was created, is presently .
Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Michigan. Mr. Ellis, served
as President of Central Michigan University from 1985 to 1988. He currently
resides in Mt. Pleasant,.Michigan.

Mr. Jerry Tubbs, Vice President of Business and Finance at Central
Michigan University, retired from Central Michigan University with emeritus
status. He lives in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

Dr. John Yantis was a faculty member in the Educational Administration
and Community Leadership Department when the Institute was created. Dr.
Yantis became the the first permanent director for the Institute in 1972. The

Institute melded with the Division of Continuing Education and Community

183

Services and became the Central Michigan University College of Extended
Learning. Dr. Yantis became the first Dean of the College of Extended Learning.
He returned to the Educational Administration and Community Leadership
department in 1993. Dr. Yantis is now retired from Central Michigan University
and living in the Mt. Pleasant,- Michigan area.

Dr. Richard Potter was hired to work in the newly created Institute in
February 1972. Dr. Potter served in various positions in the Institute from 1972
until he left Central Michigan University in 1993. Presently Dr. Potter is Director
of Continuing Engineering Education at the University of Missouri - Columbia.

He resides in Columbia, Missouri.

Dr. VIfilliam Bulger was a professor in the History Department when the
Institute was created. In addition Dr. Bulger was president of the Faculty
Association when the Institute was created. Dr. Bulger is presently professor
emeritus of History and lives in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

Dr. Alan Quick was director of student teaching at Central Michigan
University when the Institute was created. Dr. Quick became Dean of the School
of Continuing Education and Community Services at Central Michigan University.
In 1990 he rejoined the Teacher Education and Professional Development
Department as a professor. Dr. Quick received a honorary doctorate in
education from Central Michigan University and delivered the university
commencement address in December 1997. He retired from Central Michigan
University in January of 1998. Dr. Quick presently resides in Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan.

Dr. Robert Mills was a faculty member in Central Michigan University
department of Educational Administration and Community Leadership when the
Institute was created. He went on to become a director of the Central Michigan

University Charter School office. Dr. Mills is presently a professor in the Central

184

 

 

Michigan University Department of Educational Administration and Community
Leadership. He resides in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

Dr. Delbert Ringquist was a faculty member in the Political Science
department at Central Michigan University when the Institute was created. Dr.
Ringquist became Chairperson of the Central Michigan University Political
Science department, and held that position until he became Dean of the Central
Michigan University College of Extended Learning. He resides in Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan.

Mr. Robert Connell was the Registrar at Central Michigan University when
the Institute was created. Mr. Connell retired as Registrar from Central Michigan
University in the late 19805. He currently resides in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

In final retrospect, the Central Michigan University Institute for Personal
and Career Development has stood the test of time. Twenty-six years after its
creation it is still going strong. Over 44,000 students have graduated from the
Institute, or its successor, the College of Extended Learning. The Institute was
the result of the work of many individuals at Central, but most notably the efforts
of President Boyd and Provost Ping. The Institute has grown from very modest
beginnings in the fall of 1971 to a large organization with an enrollment of
approximately 15,000 students in January of 1999. These students are taking
classes in 26 states, involving 77 sites operational at various times in the United
States and about 10-15 sites operational in Canada and Mexico. It is presently
exploring new sites both internationally and within the United States (Ringquist,
interview, May 5, 1998). For fiscal year 1998, the Institute grossed $25,865,000
and netted or returned to the University $3,067,000.

If one looks at survival and growth, the Institute would have to be deemed
a huge success. However, perhaps there is an even better way of looking at the

success of the Institute, by seeing what happened to the careers of those who

185

were most closely associated with getting the Institute started. The Institute was
started by a group of young administrators who were all under 40 years old at
the time, with the exception of President Boyd who was a few years older (Ellis,
interview, June 16, 1998). Of this core group of six individuals who started the
Institute, amazingly, each went on to become a college president Based on the
leadership record of these individuals, the Institute for Personal and Career
Development at Central Michigan University is one of the most successful ideas

to have ever come out of Central Michigan University.

186

. rem-sea

 

“b.

 

APPENDIX

187

Appendix

Interview Protocol
My name is Geoffrey Quick. I am here to conduct the interview that we
have arranged. This interview will be used towards completion of my doctoral
dissertation for Michigan State University. The title of my doctoral dissertation is
“What is the history of the establishment and early years of the Central Michigan
University Institute for Personal and Career Development, and how do these
early years help one understand the subsequent success of the Institute for

Personal and Career Development?”

1. Questions concerning the history of the Institute for Personal and Career

Development:

* What is the history of the establishment and early years of the

Central Michigan University Institute for Personal and Career?

* Why did Central Michigan University start the Institute for

Personal and Career Development?

*Why did CMU develop a new institution and not use the office of

off campus education?

*Did CMU model their program from a program at another

university?

188

 

 

 

Questions concerning the structure of the Institute for Personal and

Career Development:

* How was the fee structure for Institute classes developed?

* Who came up with the idea of what suitable pay back would be

from the Institute to the University?

* How were students recruited into the program?

* How was it determined, and who determined, how many credits
students would get for “prior learning" to use towards their
degree?

* What were some of the logistical problems with developing this
program, such as obtaining classroom space and contracting

professors to teach in distant classrooms?

* How were academic standards and the quality of the program

maintained?

* How would the Central Michigan University on-campus library

be utilized for off-campus students who needed its resources?

* Did the Institute have to be licensed or authorized to teach in the

various states and countries where it offered classes?

189

 

 

 

Questions concerning the human resource aspects of the Institute for

Personal and Career Development:

*Who initiated the idea of the Institute for Personal and Career

Development?

* Who came up with the idea of experiential Ieaming? Giving credit

for work experiences, etc.?

* Who decided where I.P.C.D. classes and offices would be

located?

* How, and at what rate were compensation packages developed

for professors who taught in this program?

* How was it decided that Central Michigan University would offer

a total degree program off-campus utilizing mainly adjunct faculty?

* How were professors recruited to teach in this program?

* How were adjunct professors who taught in this program

supervised?

190

IV. Questions concerning the political aspects of the Institute for Personal and

Career Development:

* What was the University Faculty Senate’s role in the

development of the Institute?

 

* What was the University Faculty Association’s role in the

development of the Institute?

 

* How did campus faculty accept this new program?

* What was the role of the Board of Trustees in the creation of this

Institute?

V. Questions concerning the symbolic aspects of the Institute for Personal and

Career Development:
* How was it determined that the degrees given to students who
graduated through this Institute would be the exact same as the

degrees of students who graduated from on-campus?

* How were off-campus Institute centers structured, set up, and

created to make them feel connected to the main campus?

VI. Other observations:

 

191

Background of individuals involved with the creation of the Institute.

VVrlIiam B. Boyd (1968) President of the University.
A.B., Presbyterian College; M.A., Emory University; Ph.D., University of
Pennsylvania; LL.D., Alma College.

Charles J. Ping (1969) Provost.
B.A., Southwestern College at Memphis; B.D., Louisville Presbyterian

Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Duke University.

Arthur E. Ellis (1970) Vice President for Public Affairs and Treasurer, Board of
Trustees. B.A., Michigan State University; M.A., Eastern Michigan

University.

Jerry R. Tubbs (1964) Vice President for Business and Finance.
8.8., Ferris State College.

Neil S. Bucklew (1970) Vice Provost for Administration.
A.B., University of Missouri; MS, University of North Carolina; Ph. 0.,

University of Wisconsin.

Charles B. House (1969) Assistant to the President.

B.S., University of Nebraska; M. Div., Princeton Theological Seminary.
Ernest L. Minelli (1955) Professor, Chairman, Industrial Education and
Technology. 8.8., Northern Michigan University; M.Ed., Ed.D., Wayne State

University.

192

 

 

Leslie H. Cochran (1969) Associate Professor, Industrial Education and
TechnologY. and Assistant Dean, School of Fine and Applied Arts. B.S.,
M.A., Western Michigan University; Ed.D., Wayne State University.

John T. Yantis (1968) Assistant Professor, Educational Administration

BS, MS, Kansas State College; Ed.D., Wyoming.

William T. Bulger (1957) Associate Professor, History
A.B., Kenyon College; A.M., Ph.D., Michigan.

Alan F. Quick (1963) Professor, Director, Student Teaching
B.A., Western Michigan University; M.A., Michigan; Ed.D., Oregon; D.Ed.,

Central Michigan University-honorary.

Robert C. Mills (1970) Assistant Professor, Student Teaching
B.S., Central Michigan University; M.A., Ph.D., Michigan State University.

Source of previous material Central Michigan University Bulletin 1971-1972.

Delbert J. Ringquist (1971) Assistant Professor, Political Science
BS, Central Michigan University; M.A., Ph.D., Oklahoma

Robert E. Connell (1962) Registrar
B.A., Coe College; M.A., Michigan

Richard H. Potter (1972) Program Coordinator, Institute for Personal and

Career Development. 3.8., M.B.A., Central Michigan University.

193

Estimated Operational Costs from the Feasibility Study for the Institute

SOURCES OF INCOME:

Admissions (first registration) $1 5
Learning Activity Packages $35 credit hour
Career Development Equated Credit $25-$150 (# of credits)

Course Fees (plus books and service charge) $60 credit hour
Examination Fees (CLEP, etc.) ?
Average Income (20 students in 3-hour course)

20 x $180 = $3600

books = M
$3700
FIXED COSTS
Instructor (average) $1 300
Travel and Expenses $200
Guest Lectures and Teams $400
Miscellaneous $300
$2200

Administrative
(Office, Counselors) $400-$500
(prorated on 200 classes)

Management and Overhead $300

194

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

 

Bibliography

Agreement Between Central Michigan University and Central Michigan
University District of Michigan Association of Higher Education 1970-
1971. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University Press, March
30, 1970. -

Agreement Between Central Michigan University and Central Michigan
University Faculty Association 1974-1977. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan:
Central Michigan University Press, September 9, 1974.

Academic Council Minutes. Institute for Personal and Career Development.
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, September 19, 1972.

Academic Council Minutes. Institute for Personal and Career Development.
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, October 17, 1972.

Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. October 11, 1971.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. November 8, 1971.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. November 29, 1971.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. December 6, 1971.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. May 24, 1973.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. September 10, 1973.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. September 24, 1973.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. May 13, 1974.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. February 10, 1975.
Ad Hoc Committee for a Real Adult Education Program. “Adult Program
Unconvincing.” _antral Michigfl UniversityLife, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan,
November 22, 1971, p.4.

Ambrose, Stephen. Citizen Soldier. Simon and Schuster: New York, New
York, 1997.

Bailyn,Bemard. Education in the Forming of American Society. Chapel
Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1960.

Barzun, J. H.F. Graff. The Modern Researcher. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich:
San Diego, Califomia, 1992. -

Bimbaum, Robert. How Academic lfiadership Works: Understanding
Success and Failure in the College Presidency. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1992.

196

Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Onganizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Bogdan, Robert C. and Sari Knopp Biklen. Qualitative Research in Education.

Needham Heights, MA.: Allyn and Bacon, 1998.

Boone, Edgar J. and Robert D. Fox. “A Historical and Philosophical
Perspective on the external Degree.” Peabody Journal of
Education vol. 56 number 3, April, 1979: 159-166.

Boyd, VVIIIiam. Interview. April 23, 1998.

Brookfield, Stephen D. Understandinggnd Facilitating Adult Learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

Bucklew, Neil. Interview. April 20, 1998.
Bulger, William. Interview. June 3, 1998.

Bulletin. Institute for Personal and Career Development. Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan, 1972.

Bulletin. Central Michigan University 1971-1972, volume 77, number 3,
Mt.Pleasant, Michigan, July 1971.

Bulletin. Central Michigan University 1973-1974, volume 79, number 3,
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, June 1973.

Burgen, Arnold ed. Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the gist
Century. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: Bristol, Pennsylvania, 1996.

Central Michigan University. Class Schedule. Fall 1971.
Cochran, Leslie. A Study on the Feasibility and Organizational Framework of

an Adult Degree Program at Central Michifln University. September 20,

1971.
Cochran, Leslie. Interview. April 29, 1998.
Connell, Robert. Interview. May 28, 1998.

Cremin, Lawrence. American Edlucation: The Metropolitan Experience 1876-
1980. Harper and Row: New York, 1988.

Cubberley, Ellwood. Public Education In The United States. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, The Riverside Press, 1947.

 

Cumming, John. The» Fiirst Hundred Years: A Portrait of Central Michigan
University 1892-1992. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, 1993.

Ellis, Arthur. Interview. June 16, 1998.

 

197

 

 

Eurich, N. Thgeaminglndustry: Education for Adult Workers.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, 1990.

Gieger, Roger. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American
Research Universities 1900-1940. Oxford University Press:
Oxford, 1986.

Gould, Samuel B. and K. Patricia Cross. eds. Explorations in Non-
traditional Strm. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972.

Green, Madeleine ed. Transforming Higher Education. Phoenix, Arizona:
American Council On Education and Oryx Press, 1997.

Guiette, Bob. Photo with caption. Central Michigan University Life, Mt.
Pleasant, Michigan, November 17, 1971: 6.

Hall, James W. Access Through Innovation. New York, New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991.

Hall, James W. A History of Special Braccalaureate Proggns for Adults,
1945-1970. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the division
of the social sciences in candidacy for the degree of Doctor of
nggsophy, Department of Education. Chicago, Illinois: June
1 .

Hines, Edward. Higher Education and State Government: Renewed
Partnership Cooperation or Competition? Association for the
Study of Higher Education: Washington D. C, 1988.

Home page. British Open University.
http:l/www.outreach.usf.edu/oucourses/history.htm

Home page. University of South Africa.
httpzllwww.unisa.ac.zalgeneralfIndex.html

Houle, Cyril. The External Degree. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.

Houle, Cyril. The Literature of Adult_Education. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1992.

House, Charles. Interview. June 2, 1998.
Hunter, Susan. Personal Correspondence. September 18, 1998.
Jacobson, Myrtle. fight and Day: The Interaction Between an Academic

Institution and Its lEvening College. Metuchen, New Jersey:
Scarecrow Press Inc., 1970.

 

Katz, J. and M. Henry. Turning Professors into Teachers. New York:
Macmillan, 1988.

Keeton, Morris T. and Associates. Experiential Learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1976.

198

Less Tune, More Options. A Special Report and Recommendations by The
fialmfgfi Commission on Higher Education. Hightstown, NJ: McGraw-
I , .

Marti, Andy. “Student Senate Rejects Proposal.” Central Michigan University
Life, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, November 17, 1971: 1.

Maybee, Rolland. Proudly We Serve: Historical Sketch of Central Michigag
College by Administrations 1892-1955, Field Services, Central Michigan
College Press: Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, 1955.

McGinnis, Carol, Editor. Reflectionsiresident’s Report, Centennial Edition
1992-1993. Alumni Relations Office, Alumni House, Central Michigan
University: Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

Miller, Mgearlg. I_.yndon: An Oral History. Ballantine Books: New York, New York,

Mills, Robert. Interview. June 9, 1998.
Minelli, Ernest. Interview. May 28, 1998.

 

Mobey, Mike. “Degree Program Should Be Denied.” Central Michigan
University Life, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, November 17, 1971: 5.

 

 

Mobey, Mike. “How CMU Really Runs.” Central Michigan University Life, Mt.
Pleasant, Michigan, December 1, 1971: 5.

Newman, Frank. Choosing Quality: Reducing Conflict Between the
States and the University. Denver, CO: The Education
Commission of the States, 1987.

Pifer, Alan. “Is It Time for an External Degree?” College Board Review,
vol. 78, WInter 1970-71: 5-13.

Ping, Charles. Interview. April 29, 1998.

Potter, Richard. Interview. July 27, 1998.

Quick, Alan. “Al’s Column.” Off Campus, School of Continuing Education and
Community Services, Central Michigan University: Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan, volume 10 number 1, 1977: 1.

Quick, Alan. Interview. June 1, 1998.

Quick, Alan. Off Campus Education in Michigan —1Leamigg from the Past -
Looking to fithe Future. Presentation, Off Campus Instructor In Service
Day, Central Michigan University, April 8, 1989.

Reynolds, Sue. “Senate Discovers 26 Instructors Not Approved for IPCD

Courses.” Central Michigan University I_.jfg, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan,
February 12, 197511.

199

 

Riccards, Sherman. For Myself Alone: An lrreverent History of Central
Michigan University. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, 1982.

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

Ringquist, Delbert. Interview. May 5, 1998.

Robertson, CharlesW. Jr. “Let’s Examine Program” Letter to the Editor. C__e__ntral
Michigan University Life, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, November 22, 1971: 4.

Rudolph, Frederick. The American Collgge and University: A History.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962.

Rummel, Mark. “HUD Official Fields Questions.” Cenjtral Michm University
Lie, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, November 12, 1971: 2, 6.

Samelson, Judy. “Academic Senate Approves Proposed Degree Program.”
Central Mighigan University Life, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, December 1,
1971: 1, 1 .

Schwartzman, David. “The Contribution of Education to the Quality of
Labor 1929-1963.” The American Economic Review, vol. 58 June
1968: 508-514.

Sharer, Robert. A Story Of Adult Education In Michigan 1876-1976. Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1976.

Solomon, Barbara Miller. In the Company of Educated Women: A
History of Women and l-Lgher Education in America. 1985.

Toward a Learning Society. A Report and Recommendations by The Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education. Hightstown, NJ: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Troutt, Roy. Special Degree Programs For Adults. Iowa City, Iowa: The
American College Testing Program, 1971.

Tubbs, Jeny. Interview. June 8, 1998.

Varee, Ken. “Academic Senate Defeats Voting Procedure Motion. ” C__e__ntral
Michm University Life, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, DecemberB— 1971: 1.

Varee, Ken. “Proposal to Face A. Senate.” Central Michigan University Qfg,
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, October 11, 1971: 12.

Watkins, B.T. “Growing Number of Older Students Stirs Professors to
Alter Teaching Styles.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc.: Marion, Ohio, August 1, 1990.

Watkins, B. T. ‘Wrth More Adult Students on Campuses Some Colleges
are Adjusting Their Curricula and Teaching Methods. ” T__he
Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Inc.: Marion, Ohio, January 18,1989.

200

 

 

 

Wells, John. Editor. Outreach, Institute for Personal and Career Development,
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, March 1974.

WIIIiams, T. Harry. Huey Long, Alfred A. Knopf: New York, New York, 1969.

Yantis, John. Institute for Personal and Career Development Annual Report:
1973-1974. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, July, 1974.

Yantis, John. Institute for Personal and Career Qevelgpment Annual Report:
1974-1975. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, July, 1975.

Yantis, John. Interview. April 21, 1998.

 

NA. “Assistant Dean Named as Head of New Development Institute.” Central
Michigan UniversityLIfe, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, January 21, 1972: 16.

 

NA. “Career Institute Aiming at Individual Now.” Daily-“limes News, Mt.
Pleasant, Michigan, December 31, 1974: 5.

NA. lnforrnation brochure. Institute for Personal and Career Development. Mt.
Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University, Information Services,
1973.

NA. Institute for Personal and Career Development Anngal Report: 1972-1973.
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, July, 1973.

NA. “Off Campus Centers Expand Curriculum and Locations.” Central
Michigan University Life, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan August 30, 1971, p.3.

NA. Silver Anniversary: 25 Years of Service, The College of Extended
Learning, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, May
1996.

 

NA. “Wednesday Roundup Senate, Pot and such.” Editorial, Central Michigan
University Life, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, November 10, 1971: 4.

201

General References
Academic Council Minutes. Institute for Personal and Career Development.
Mt. PIeasant,Michigan, January 24, 1973.

Academic Council Minutes. Institute for Personal and Career Development.
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, February 21, 1973.

Academic Council Minutes. Institute for Personal and Career Development.
Mt.Pleasant, Michigan, April 17, 1973.

Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. December 13, 1971.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. April 29, 1974.
Academic Senate Minutes. Central Michigan University. January 27, 1975.
Bensimon, Estela M. and Anna Neumann. Redesigningfiollegiate

Leadership: Teams anc_l Teamwork in Higher Education.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

 

Bimbaum, Robert. How ColleggWork: The Cypemetics of Academic
Q_rganization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988.

Bulletin. Institute for Personal and Career Development. Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan, 1975.

Carr, David. “Minds in Museums and Libraries.” Teachers Collegg
Record, 93 (1991): 6-27.

Central Michigan University Student Government. “Education for the Poor...and
not the Military.” Central Michigan University Qfg, Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan, November 8, 1971: 4.

Cross, K. Patricia. Adults as Learners: Increasing Participa_tion and
Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.

Gieger, Roger. Research and Relevant Knowledgg: American Research
Universities Since World War II. Oxford University Press: Oxford,
1993.

Graff, Gerald. Beyond the Culture Wars: How Teachigg the Conflicts Can
Revitalize American Education. New York: Norton, 1993.

Guest, Robert H., Paul Hersey, and Kenneth H. Blanchard.
gganizational Chame Through Effective Leadership.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1977.

Kennedy, Mary. “lnexact Sciences: Professional Education and the

Development of Expertise.” Review of Educational Research, 14
(1987): 133-67.

202

 

 

Marti, Andy. .”..as S-Senate Follows Suit.” Central Michigan University Life,
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, November 10, 1971: 1.

Morgan, Gareth. Images of Organization. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986.

Posner, George J. and Alan N. Rudnitsky. Course Design: A Guide to
Curriculum Development for Teachers. Fourth Edition. New York:
Longman, 1994.

Read, Gerald H. “The Open University in Britain.” Phi Delta Kappan,vol.
53 December 1971: 230-233.

Rogers, Everett. Diffusion of Innovation. New York: The Free Press,
1 995.

Samelson, Judy. “Senators Ascertain Discussion Need.” Central Michigan
University Life, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, October 13, 1971: 1, 7.

Shulman, Lee S. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New
Reform.” Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1987): 1-22.

Smith, Daryl. The Challenge of Diversity: Involvement or Alienation in
the Academy? Report No. 5. Washington, DC. School of
Education and Human Development. The George Washington
University, 1989.

Svinicki, Marilla D. (Ed) “The Changing Face of College Teaching.”
New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 42. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1990.

Valentine, John A. “The Liberal Arts College and the Experienced
Learner.” Adult Leadership, February 23, 1975: 235-242.

Wells, John. Editor. Outreach, Institute for Personal and Career Development,
Mt. pleasant, Michigan, November 1973.

NA. “A-Senate Tables Proposal.” Central Michigan University Life, Mt.
Pleasant, Michigan, November 10, 1971, p.1.

NA. “CMU Offers On Base Degree Opportunities.” Wurtsmith News, Oscoda,
Michigan, February 21, 1973.

NA. “Session Scheduled for Degree Program." Cenflal Michigan University
LIE, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, November 15, 1971.

203