 |
 |
Thanks, Laura for the short lesson on demographics. by your count, and I've heard many different takes, I'm a late boomer (also, perhaps a late bloomer but, ...) even though I went to a high school that was decidedly underenrolled (losing teachers each year etc.). Anyway, I was wondering about this comment: > I wonder how many of the new universities that came into being in the latesixties and early seventies in response to the leading edge of the boom, > will survive the coming slump. I wonder how the big older schools will cope with the decline? For example, U of T has much less flexibility than say Trent or Waterloo. And U of T's English program sure felt the decline in the early 90's--I hear the last couple of years have stabilized at about 25% less than 1992. Whereas if I have my figures right (and Cathy correct me if I'm wrong) Waterloo's English enrolment grew during the same period. If my numbers are right, the reason for Waterloo's growth is its innovative program (rhetoric [in Ontario], co-op, etc.). Yet, Toronto has a huge overhead of senior faculty whose salaries need to be paid despite the decline. I'd guess that other big ol' schools have similar problems. So the question might be asked more widely: how will all schools survive the slump? From our standpoint, I think the fields of writing and rhetoric can only stand to gain (when you're at the bottom the only way is up) from universities seeking ways to invigorate, and make relevant their curricula. Rob Irish