Tweet
DR. VARTAN GREGORIAN TO BE HONORED BY ARMENIAN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY
By Florence Avakian
AZG DAILY
03-11-2009
Diaspora
On November 7, Dr. Vartan Gregorian, President of the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, will be honored as "Professional of the Year"
by the Armenian Professional Society, at the Sheraton Universal Hotel
in Universal City, California.
An Interview with Dr. Vartan Gregorian is a unique experience. He
impresses one as a brilliant, wise, self confident, and utterly
forthright individual. As he came out of his office on Monday
afternoon, September 28, his well known exuberance was evident as he
warmly greeted me with a big bear hug and a beaming smile. Expecting
to see an opulent office with expensive furniture for a person of
his exalted position, I was happily surprised to find a cozy room
lined with thousands of books, many double-stacked in bookcases,
on his desk and some even crowding the seats. It could have easily
doubled as a comfortable library setting. As befitting the man,
it was truly a working office, not a showplace.
Dr. Gregorian is a man on a mission, and his relaxed down-to-earth
demeanor belies the intense passion he feels on the subject closest
to his heart, that of education. His responses in the first of two
parts of this exclusive interview reveal that earnest feeling.
PART ONE----EDUCATION, ITS VALUES AND PITFALLS
FA -- Dr. Gregorian, why are you so devoted to the need to foster
higher education?
VG -- The United States has been the world's leader in higher education
because of several factors. First, even in the middle of the Civil
War, Abraham Lincoln established land grant universities. That was
historically one of the most important turning points for America,
whereby every state would have a university. He put universities
in populated areas, and where the potential of those states would
be realized. Lincoln's foresight in expanding access to higher
education provided America with leadership later on, in the industrial
revolution.
Second, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was instrumental in promoting
a future for science. During World War II, because of Roosevelt and a
landmark report by his science adviser, Vannevar Bush, science, unlike
in Europe and the Soviet Union, was to be centered in universities, in
order to bring competition, different perspectives, and also so that
undergraduates and graduates could be exposed to research. This was
very important. Even after Roosevelt died, his successor, President
Truman, adopted that policy so that a post-War strategy for advancing
science in the U.S. was firmly established.
Third, the G.I. bill democratized American higher education. Eleven
million returning military servicemen, instead of becoming unemployed,
went to universities; similar programs are in place today. In the
decades following the end of World War II, a related concern was how
to provide support for the growing number of students who wanted to
attend institutions of higher education. This problem was addressed,
in part, through the 1973 Pell Grant program, which has awarded more
than $100 billion in grants to an estimated 30 million postsecondary
students, rather than giving it to the universities. The portability
of these grants led to much competition and put universities on the
defensive. They had to satisfy their clients, the students.
Then, worries that Sputnik meant the Soviet Union was outpacing the
U.S. resulted in a resurgence of science in America, which also led
the way for men to go to the moon. Though this was a reactive mode, not
planned, the Cold War in many ways did accelerate the organization of
higher education in the U.S. The Fulbright, Muskie, Humphrey, NEH,
NIH fellowships, etc., promoted research in all the fields, from
humanities to the sciences. America has been the leader in all of this.
PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES
FA -- Yes, I was one of the recipients of the NEH (National Endowment
for the Humanities) fellowship at Cornell University. You have said
we were the leader in higher education. This all sounds very positive.
What have been the problems, and what are the challenges of obtaining
this higher education in the United States?
VG -- We were, and still are the leader, but the rest of the world
is catching up, and we're "sleeping" for two reasons. First, only 50
percent of our high school students graduate. In the 19th century,
higher education was only for the elite. And we had a population of
under 100 million. Now our population is about 300 million.
Second, as land grant universities were established, higher education
was supposed to be supported by the state. For example,
I came to California in 1956 as a freshman. At that time, tuition was
$750 at Stanford University. Berkeley was $50 a semester. Today, it is
somewhere around $40,000 at Stanford, and at Berkeley, somewhere around
$10-$14,000. And it's important to note that Berkeley is a public
university, not private. When I was at school, the states underwrote
the entire cost of public higher education, but are no longer doing
this, because they don't have the funds. The State of Michigan,
for instance, provides only seven or eight percent of the support
needed by the University of Michigan, one of the best universities
in the country. The California university system is turning people
away because the demand is so great and there are not enough seats
for all the students who want to attend. The situation is exacerbated
by the fact that 90 percent of the funding that the university needs
now has to come from tuition, fund raising and faculty research.
FA -- How can this very serious problem of finances be resolved?
VG -- States have to provide support, but there are even more obstacles
in the way of universities developing their own resources.
For example, Michigan says you can only have 33 percent of the students
from other states-and it is out-of-state students who pay higher
tuition fees. State universities also welcome foreign students because
they are among the few who can pay full fare in terms of tuition. So
more and more, we are educating foreign students in order to make
money and help our universities survive. And the worst thing is,
the more we increase the number of students, the more tuition goes
up. We also have a 19th century infrastructure trying to serve 21st
century educational needs. So new solutions are required.
One solution is to fundraise for public universities. In the past,
that was the province of private higher education: private institutions
relied on private sources and public institutions relied on public
sources. Now, in that realm, there is no division between public and
private universities-both try to raise funds from both sectors. But
public universities have another roadblock in their way: since the
state is the major shareholder in state universities, even if you
want to build a new campus building or facility, you need to get
state authorization.
FA -- From what you have discussed, is this part of the 20-year plan
you had envisioned?
20-YEAR PLAN
VG -- I was misquoted on this. What I had said was that there ought
to be a 20-year plan. And what I have now described should be in this
plan. How do you fix all these problems? Maybe you have to have a
special tax. For example, perhaps five percent of the tax Californians
pay should go to their universities. There has to be a solution,
or else people who want to study but can't afford it will go into
great indebtedness or simply not be able to access higher education,
especially now with the economy still in such trouble. Thankfully,
interest rates remain low, so student loans are still relatively
reasonable enough to encourage people to pursue higher education. On
the graduate level, ironically, if you study for your PH.D, the
university will underwrite the cost, but if you study for any other
graduate degree, you have to pay.
FA -- Dr. Gregorian, you mentioned that the rest of the world is
catching up to the United States. What are the advantages that they
have that the United States doesn't have? Can you elucidate?
VG -- From Singapore to China to India to Germany, etc., many countries
have state-supported programs that make tuition affordable.
Two years ago, the University of Denmark President came here and
we were talking at NYU. He was astonished at the idea that public
institutions in the U.S. had to raise money from private sources:
he said that in Denmark, it was illegal for him to raise private funds.
CURRENT SITUATION IN ARMENIA
FA -- Those are the Scandinavian states. What is the current situation
in Armenia? They had free tuition under the Soviet rule.
How do they manage now?
VG -- There is no more free tuition-and who said they're managing? The
first thing that Armenia has to invest in, like the Scandinavian
countries, is education. Even in the Armenian army, they should teach
computer science, mathematics, and other sciences. Speaking to that
point, let me mention that the last time I was in Armenia, I could not
find a bookstore. Ethnically, Armenians and Jews during the Soviet
period had the highest percentage of degrees in science, chemistry,
mathematics, etc., and one could order books from Eastern Europe.
Books could be obtained from bookstores and libraries. The collapse of
the Soviet Union, in many ways, has washed away many of our gains. And
now, there is no modern bookstore where you can order foreign books.
FA -- What is the reason for this regression in Armenia?
VG -- After years of a repressive regime, suddenly Armenians have the
freedom to focus on personal gain first, and only after that come the
interests of the family and of society. When I was in Armenia, I found
an abundance of karaoke singing, casinos, hamburger joints, cafes,
ostentatious houses, and many, many churches. Following eighty years
of Communism, I believe that we have built enough churches now. The
church itself should begin to invest in education. We like to think
we're the first nation to become Christian, that we're the best,
the cleanest. But Armenians have a long way to go to accept the very
concept that the state is now theirs. That means that if something
goes wrong in the country, it is likely to affect all the people. I
don't blame Armenia, because for centuries it was under foreign rule.
Self-preservation was the major issue. That's why rebuilding Armenia
is a major challenge today.
By Florence Avakian
AZG DAILY
03-11-2009
Diaspora
On November 7, Dr. Vartan Gregorian, President of the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, will be honored as "Professional of the Year"
by the Armenian Professional Society, at the Sheraton Universal Hotel
in Universal City, California.
An Interview with Dr. Vartan Gregorian is a unique experience. He
impresses one as a brilliant, wise, self confident, and utterly
forthright individual. As he came out of his office on Monday
afternoon, September 28, his well known exuberance was evident as he
warmly greeted me with a big bear hug and a beaming smile. Expecting
to see an opulent office with expensive furniture for a person of
his exalted position, I was happily surprised to find a cozy room
lined with thousands of books, many double-stacked in bookcases,
on his desk and some even crowding the seats. It could have easily
doubled as a comfortable library setting. As befitting the man,
it was truly a working office, not a showplace.
Dr. Gregorian is a man on a mission, and his relaxed down-to-earth
demeanor belies the intense passion he feels on the subject closest
to his heart, that of education. His responses in the first of two
parts of this exclusive interview reveal that earnest feeling.
PART ONE----EDUCATION, ITS VALUES AND PITFALLS
FA -- Dr. Gregorian, why are you so devoted to the need to foster
higher education?
VG -- The United States has been the world's leader in higher education
because of several factors. First, even in the middle of the Civil
War, Abraham Lincoln established land grant universities. That was
historically one of the most important turning points for America,
whereby every state would have a university. He put universities
in populated areas, and where the potential of those states would
be realized. Lincoln's foresight in expanding access to higher
education provided America with leadership later on, in the industrial
revolution.
Second, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was instrumental in promoting
a future for science. During World War II, because of Roosevelt and a
landmark report by his science adviser, Vannevar Bush, science, unlike
in Europe and the Soviet Union, was to be centered in universities, in
order to bring competition, different perspectives, and also so that
undergraduates and graduates could be exposed to research. This was
very important. Even after Roosevelt died, his successor, President
Truman, adopted that policy so that a post-War strategy for advancing
science in the U.S. was firmly established.
Third, the G.I. bill democratized American higher education. Eleven
million returning military servicemen, instead of becoming unemployed,
went to universities; similar programs are in place today. In the
decades following the end of World War II, a related concern was how
to provide support for the growing number of students who wanted to
attend institutions of higher education. This problem was addressed,
in part, through the 1973 Pell Grant program, which has awarded more
than $100 billion in grants to an estimated 30 million postsecondary
students, rather than giving it to the universities. The portability
of these grants led to much competition and put universities on the
defensive. They had to satisfy their clients, the students.
Then, worries that Sputnik meant the Soviet Union was outpacing the
U.S. resulted in a resurgence of science in America, which also led
the way for men to go to the moon. Though this was a reactive mode, not
planned, the Cold War in many ways did accelerate the organization of
higher education in the U.S. The Fulbright, Muskie, Humphrey, NEH,
NIH fellowships, etc., promoted research in all the fields, from
humanities to the sciences. America has been the leader in all of this.
PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES
FA -- Yes, I was one of the recipients of the NEH (National Endowment
for the Humanities) fellowship at Cornell University. You have said
we were the leader in higher education. This all sounds very positive.
What have been the problems, and what are the challenges of obtaining
this higher education in the United States?
VG -- We were, and still are the leader, but the rest of the world
is catching up, and we're "sleeping" for two reasons. First, only 50
percent of our high school students graduate. In the 19th century,
higher education was only for the elite. And we had a population of
under 100 million. Now our population is about 300 million.
Second, as land grant universities were established, higher education
was supposed to be supported by the state. For example,
I came to California in 1956 as a freshman. At that time, tuition was
$750 at Stanford University. Berkeley was $50 a semester. Today, it is
somewhere around $40,000 at Stanford, and at Berkeley, somewhere around
$10-$14,000. And it's important to note that Berkeley is a public
university, not private. When I was at school, the states underwrote
the entire cost of public higher education, but are no longer doing
this, because they don't have the funds. The State of Michigan,
for instance, provides only seven or eight percent of the support
needed by the University of Michigan, one of the best universities
in the country. The California university system is turning people
away because the demand is so great and there are not enough seats
for all the students who want to attend. The situation is exacerbated
by the fact that 90 percent of the funding that the university needs
now has to come from tuition, fund raising and faculty research.
FA -- How can this very serious problem of finances be resolved?
VG -- States have to provide support, but there are even more obstacles
in the way of universities developing their own resources.
For example, Michigan says you can only have 33 percent of the students
from other states-and it is out-of-state students who pay higher
tuition fees. State universities also welcome foreign students because
they are among the few who can pay full fare in terms of tuition. So
more and more, we are educating foreign students in order to make
money and help our universities survive. And the worst thing is,
the more we increase the number of students, the more tuition goes
up. We also have a 19th century infrastructure trying to serve 21st
century educational needs. So new solutions are required.
One solution is to fundraise for public universities. In the past,
that was the province of private higher education: private institutions
relied on private sources and public institutions relied on public
sources. Now, in that realm, there is no division between public and
private universities-both try to raise funds from both sectors. But
public universities have another roadblock in their way: since the
state is the major shareholder in state universities, even if you
want to build a new campus building or facility, you need to get
state authorization.
FA -- From what you have discussed, is this part of the 20-year plan
you had envisioned?
20-YEAR PLAN
VG -- I was misquoted on this. What I had said was that there ought
to be a 20-year plan. And what I have now described should be in this
plan. How do you fix all these problems? Maybe you have to have a
special tax. For example, perhaps five percent of the tax Californians
pay should go to their universities. There has to be a solution,
or else people who want to study but can't afford it will go into
great indebtedness or simply not be able to access higher education,
especially now with the economy still in such trouble. Thankfully,
interest rates remain low, so student loans are still relatively
reasonable enough to encourage people to pursue higher education. On
the graduate level, ironically, if you study for your PH.D, the
university will underwrite the cost, but if you study for any other
graduate degree, you have to pay.
FA -- Dr. Gregorian, you mentioned that the rest of the world is
catching up to the United States. What are the advantages that they
have that the United States doesn't have? Can you elucidate?
VG -- From Singapore to China to India to Germany, etc., many countries
have state-supported programs that make tuition affordable.
Two years ago, the University of Denmark President came here and
we were talking at NYU. He was astonished at the idea that public
institutions in the U.S. had to raise money from private sources:
he said that in Denmark, it was illegal for him to raise private funds.
CURRENT SITUATION IN ARMENIA
FA -- Those are the Scandinavian states. What is the current situation
in Armenia? They had free tuition under the Soviet rule.
How do they manage now?
VG -- There is no more free tuition-and who said they're managing? The
first thing that Armenia has to invest in, like the Scandinavian
countries, is education. Even in the Armenian army, they should teach
computer science, mathematics, and other sciences. Speaking to that
point, let me mention that the last time I was in Armenia, I could not
find a bookstore. Ethnically, Armenians and Jews during the Soviet
period had the highest percentage of degrees in science, chemistry,
mathematics, etc., and one could order books from Eastern Europe.
Books could be obtained from bookstores and libraries. The collapse of
the Soviet Union, in many ways, has washed away many of our gains. And
now, there is no modern bookstore where you can order foreign books.
FA -- What is the reason for this regression in Armenia?
VG -- After years of a repressive regime, suddenly Armenians have the
freedom to focus on personal gain first, and only after that come the
interests of the family and of society. When I was in Armenia, I found
an abundance of karaoke singing, casinos, hamburger joints, cafes,
ostentatious houses, and many, many churches. Following eighty years
of Communism, I believe that we have built enough churches now. The
church itself should begin to invest in education. We like to think
we're the first nation to become Christian, that we're the best,
the cleanest. But Armenians have a long way to go to accept the very
concept that the state is now theirs. That means that if something
goes wrong in the country, it is likely to affect all the people. I
don't blame Armenia, because for centuries it was under foreign rule.
Self-preservation was the major issue. That's why rebuilding Armenia
is a major challenge today.