The tone and style of the book often remind one of a "bull" session. Like many bull sessions, the arguments in the book are sometimes rambling, often poorly substantiated, superficial and sometimes contradictory. It would be easy for an audience, particularly one that prides itself on deep scholarly analysis, to dismiss the text. However, like many bull sessions, there are perspectives and ideas presented in the diatribe that ring true (at least to this reviewer) and that merit commentary and reflection.

A motivating theme in the book is the authors' view that the major threat to the quality of university education in Canada is not financial but lies in other factors. The book, beyond the initial chapter, details these other threats. The logical corollary to this opinion is the authors' argument that the erosion of quality in the post-secondary sector will not be solved simply by increased funding. This admonition notwithstanding, the authors agree that universities are underfunded (remember, the authors come from the two provinces, Ontario and Alberta, that delivered the largest one-time cuts to universities in recent times) and an early chapter reviews the history of the underfunding problem and its current consequences.

Some elements of this review should be familiar - the investment in universities in the 1960's and 1970's motivated by the perception of the importance of a university education in the economic well-being of the individual and the country (for a particularly good review of this issue in the Ontario context, see Paul Axelrod, Scholars and Dollars: Politics, Economics, and the Universities of Ontario 1945-1980. University of Toronto Press, 1982), through the impact of the 1980's recession, to the bundling together of federal transfers into the Canada Health and Social Transfer (the absence of education in the title says it all!) to the current continuing under-support of post-secondary education. The authors argue, appropriately in my view, that the steadily decreasing share of public funds directed to universities relative to other publicly-funded sectors results from our inability to present a common, strong political lobby. Within universities, faculty, students and administrators quarrel among themselves. Between universities, "teaching" universities battle with "research" universities. Some argue that the increased attention to university issues, as reflected in creation of the Ontario Challenge Fund and the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support research and the Millenium Fund to support student scholarships, results from a more focused advocacy agenda by university lobby groups. In general though, the authors' point is well taken -- the fractionalization of the university lobby has not served us well and we will need to repair it if we are to compete successfully for increasingly scarce public dollars.

One of the consequences of the serious underfunding of universities, according to the authors, is a shift of power to administrators and the loss of "collegiality" in university governance. Their rationale is simple -- diminished funds call for the removal of resources from some areas and its selective application to others. And, as Bercuson et al note: "Universities are theoretically collegial bodies, but colleagues are not very good at administering pain, and the burden of reductions tends to be borne by the administrators". There is another reason, I argue, for an increase in the influence of academic administrators in decisions within the academy. Traditionally, the work of the mature professor is in three areas: teaching, scholarship and administration. Because of underfunding, the work of the professoriate has increased (remember that, in the last five years, the Ontario university system has seen the loss of over 1,000 full-time faculty and an increase in enrollment of over 8,000 students). In the reallocation of their time, it seems reasonable to me that the typical professor should place less emphasis on their administrative contribution. Since the work of university must go on, and there is at least as much to do but with less, more of the administration must be shouldered by a corps of academic administrators who devote an increasing percentage of their attention strictly to administrative matters. These trends do not require a loss of collegiality. But, they do emphasize the increasing importance for academic administrators to attend to their processes and to behave and govern in a way that fosters confidence and trust among the ranks.

No bull session is complete without a diatribe on the loss of standards (you know, it usually starts with: "In the good old days..."). This is provided in the chapter entitled, aptly, "The Collapse of Standards". The chapter title captures the authors' point of view -- political pressure for accessibility and the need for tuition revenue have led to decreased admission standards, poorer students have led to decreased rigour and quality of courses, faculty associations resist attempts to measure the quality of education -- all of which conspire to drive Canadian universities into a downward spiral of decreased quality. I suspect many faculty will share some, perhaps not all, of these sentiments even though, as the authors note, there is "admittedly...almost no hard data" to support these conclusions. The authors' conclusion from these observations may receive greater consensus and acceptance. Specifically, they suggest that the concern over standards will lead to an increased differentiation among Canadian universities and the identification of a small set of post-secondary institutions as serious, rigorous, high-quality, full-service universities who will attract the best students. The question for us at McMaster is whether we wish our institution to be in that top tier. If we do, we are well advised to attend to two admonitions identified by the authors. First, the need to make choices and to allocate resources selectively, with quality being a major variable in these decisions. Second, the need to attract the highest-quality students to the institution. This latter goal is particularly difficult given the extraordinary competition for the best students among Ontario universities in particular.

The need for universities to allocate resources selectively and to become increasingly differentiated underscores the importance of planning -- the subject of chapter four. There are many cynical comments that could be made about strategic planning, and this chapter contains many of them (for a more complete set see Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle. Harper Business, 1996.) The authors suggest that planning must address three essential challenges for universities: the need to reach more "customers" (their word, not mine), the need to ensure that the university experience adds value, and the need to keep costs as low as possible. An inevitable outcome of these pressures, they argue, is the increased use of learning technologies to promote distance and off-campus learning to cohorts of students beyond the traditional 19-25 year old, full-time student taking all of his or her courses on campus. As they rightfully note, though, the challenge will be to maintain quality while bringing in these innovations. I do not dispute the variables they identify as central to planning nor their cautionary note regarding quality. What must be equally emphasized, I suggest, is the effect of these changes on the definition of the role of the professor in a university education. There is increased emphasis on self-directed, problem-based and inquiry modes of learning (the student as "active" learner). There is a corresponding de-emphasis of the lecture format. There is increased demand for access to digital information sources and data bases. There are strong indications that the provincial and federal governments will support the creation of an Ontario or national Digital Library system. These trends will diminish the need for professors to "profess" and will accelerate the move to learning models where students play a more active role. These developments, though, do not decrease the need for a large cohort of outstanding faculty. In fact, quite to the contrary. When faced with mountains of unprocessed data, as available on the Internet or as a result of a Medline search, the capacity of students to understand the context of this information, its relationship to other areas of inquiry, to sift through this information and to think critically about it are more important than ever. The role of the faculty member (most of whom are living "expert systems") in university education should shift to accommodate these realities. Faculty members can cultivate the role of mentor rather than oral presenter of information. Administrative structures may have to change to accommodate this shift.

And then a chapter on "Politically Incorrect Thoughts". "Infamous" cases are reviewed from the authors' particular perspective. These include Phillipe Rushton at University of Western Ontario, Matin Yaqzan at University of New Brunswick and Political Science Departments at the Universities of British Columbia and Victoria. Suffice it to say that I doubt these authors will be receiving an award from the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) or their Status of Women Committee.

Would a book about universities be complete without a discussion of tenure? Of course not, and Bercuson et al. do not disappoint. Again, the arguments should be familiar to even a casual observer of the university scene -- tenure shouldn't be, but is, job protection; faculty may not need tenure to protect academic freedom; tenure preserves jobs for unaccomplished, unproductive, deadwood older, faculty and prevents the renewal of the professoriate by accomplished, productive, vibrant, junior faculty. The authors do not appear to be as negative on the concept of tenure as they are on what they perceive to be the major unfortunate consequence of the practice -- specifically, the absence of periodic evaluations of faculty. As they state: "If CAUT, faculty associations and university administrators treated tenure as it was intended, and if they actually rooted out the incompetent, there would be no difficulty. But they will not act."

It is hard to argue with a position that faculty should be evaluated regularly and that incompetence should be considered a condition for removal. But, certainly this is the essence of the matter and not whether tenure is retained or eliminated. It is amusing to me that the authors do not consider the logical possibility that, even with the removal of tenure, universities would still be unwilling to weed out the unaccomplished and incompetent. In this context, it is instructive to note that when tenure was technically eliminated from the Alberta university system, and when it faced a substantial reduction of funding and the consequent need to cut faculty complement, not one tenured faculty member was dismissed from the university -- all tenured faculty who left did so voluntarily. When I read this chapter, it rekindled a feeling I experience often in meetings with my counterparts across the country -- pride in the fact that at McMaster we conduct an annual review of faculty performance and that we base salary increases on the outcome of this review. Our system may not be perfect, but it differentiates us from many other Canadian universities and it is an example they might well be advised to follow. I suspect Bercuson et al. are not optimistic that this will happen.

The tenure debate may mask a more fundamental problem regarding faculty productivity, particularly as some become less invested in research. The great majority of professors are bright, highly motivated, inquisitive, accomplished individuals who have demonstrated the capacity to stay focused on a problem in spite of adverse conditions (remember your PhD years?) and a willingness to have their ideas and solutions scrutinized by others (remember peer-review?). The difficulty, it seems to me, is that there are so few acceptable and satisfying outlets for faculty as their careers progress. Some faculty remain as involved in their research area at retirement as they were upon completion of their PhD. But, many do not. For these individuals, where can their creative energies be redirected? Some find this outlet in administration. But, there are very few such opportunities. Channelling of energy into teaching should be considered natural, but some argue (as do Bercuson et al.) that the value and reward system at universities undermine this route. I have no solution, but I suspect that attention to this matter would benefit the university and increase job satisfaction among some colleagues.

And the book continues with a rush that begins to resemble a stream of consciousness -- the problem of university libraries, publish or perish, the quantity of publications as a valid index of quality, the increased specialization and compartmentalization of the disciplines, the notorious role of Maclean's as the ranking tool of Canadian universities, what students should look for as they select a university. The tone of the discussion becomes increasingly familiar, themes repeat, as the authors rush to deal with the full panoply of issues in a mere 208 pages. The book ends with a "cri de coeur", a cry from the heart. Whose heart is crying? For many readers, I suspect, the book is mercifully over.

What are the appropriate summary statements? First, it is a book that every academic administrator, or student of the university scene, should read as it manages to cover much of the waterfront of issues and concerns in the contemporary Canadian university. Second, the book, largely because of its tone and superficial treatment, may fail to influence in any significant way the opinions or actions of university folk. The authors note that their 1984 book was meant "to stimulate debate on the nature, quality and direction of higher education in Canada". It is questionable whether it did so and there is little reason to predict that this book will be any more successful. The book is more likely to be used by politicians and policy makers, particularly those who were receptive to the authors' arguments in the first place.

A final note. Readers interested in a more scholarly, balanced and riveting discussion of many of the same issues discussed in the Petrified Campus should read a recent book by Donald Kennedy, former president of Stanford University, entitled Academic Duty (Harvard University Press, 1997).

Harvey P. Weingarten
Provost and VP (Academic)

David Bercuson, Robert Bothwell and J.L. Granatstein, Petrified Campus: The Crisis in Canadian Universities, Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1997; 216 pp.