It is always disruptive to have to cut a program.  However, with eight universities in this state of approximately 2.5 million people, it is a necessity.  There are some dynamics involved in universities that tend to lead to an “excess” of majors and degrees compared to the resources.  Some of the motives for implementing new programs or dismantling old programs are positive and some are not.

The positive aspect is the love of discipline that is embedded in most of us who have pursued a career in academics.  We have a passion for our discipline which is a great asset to the university.  If we were indifferent, we would not have the necessary incentive to conduct research and teach the topic well.  With that passion comes a set of blinders that obscure the realities of resource allocation.  Student choices ultimately drive the process.  The student credit hour is the currency that buys the resources.  Fortunately, we have programs of study that force students to diversify their course work(sometimes to the chagrin of many faculty).  Conversely, few faculty enjoy being members of a service department for obvious reasons.  Large classes, mundane principle lectures to the great unwashed, and grading large numbers of tests of mostly uninterested students, can be depressing and certainly not rewarding.  Faculty long to have a major that will be more satisfying to teach which is one source behind requests for programs that will not pass the resource test.

The negative incentive is the quest for resources by departments and colleges.  This is ubiquitous in all organizations from churches, universities, government, and corporations.  Deans, department chairs, and enterprising faculty relentlessly create new majors and/or programs to extend their spam of control over resources.  If the Board did not intervene, the practice would be to create new and never eliminate existing programs that consume extensive resources for very little output.