Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Martin, Michael V.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Journ~~l  of Agriculturul and Applied Economics, 33,2(August 2001):377-380 
0  2001 Southern Agricultural Economics Association 
The Land-Grant University in the 21St 
Century 
Michael V. Martin 
There are many  in  political  and higher edu- 
cation circles who have come to believe that 
land-grant  universities  have  lost  their  rele- 
vance. It is said too frequently that the land- 
grant tradition  no longer fits  21"  century  re- 
alities. The purpose of  this paper is to argue 
energetically that  land-grant  universities, the 
land grant model, and the land-grant tradition 
have never been  more relevant  nor  more im- 
portant. 
My  argument  rests  on  two  observations 
which  may  not be fully appreciated by  those 
who question the future of  land grants. First, 
the changing nature of  socio-economic needs 
and education challenges call for a responsive 
and dynamic university system. Or put another 
way,  we  need  now,  more than  ever, non-tra- 
ditional  approaches to higher education. Sec- 
ond, it is the tradition  of  land-grant universi- 
ties to be non-traditional.  Let me elaborate on 
this first by briefly reviewing the history of the 
land-grant movement. 
Turner to Today 
As far as can be determined, Jonathan Bald- 
win  Turner  planted  the  seed  of  the idea  for 
what would become the land-grant university. 
Sometime in the mid- 1830s, Turner, a profes- 
sor  from  Illinois  College  (Jacksonville,  llli- 
nois),  began  campaigning  for  the  establish- 
ment  of  state-sponsored universities to serve 
the  "industrial  classes."  In  1850 Turner pro- 
posed a formal plan which contained much of 
Michael Martin is professor and vice president for ag- 
riculture  and  natural  resources  at  the  University  of 
Florida, Gainesville, FL. 
the language  that  eventually  appeared in the 
Morrill  Act.  In  1859,  Congressman  Justin 
Morrill and Senator Benjamin Wade co-spon- 
sored a bill in Congress which  provided fed- 
eral assistance to states establishing universi- 
ties  which  fit  the  Turner  model.  President 
Buchanan  vetoed  the  MorrillIWade  bill,  but 
three  years  later,  in  1862,  Congress  again 
passed  the Morrill  Act and President Lincoln 
signed it into law. 
The Morrill Act of  1862 represented a pro- 
found innovation in higher education for sev- 
eral  important  reasons.  First,  it  enabled  the 
creation of  accessible equalitarian  "peoples" 
universities.  Before the Morrill Act American 
higher education was built on the English elit- 
ist model. The Morrill Act reflected the belief 
that  American  social and  economic develop- 
ment could be best served if higher education 
were made broadly available to the citizenry. 
Second, most  colleges and universities of 
the time were private, church-sponsored insti- 
tutions. The Morrill Act established a public, 
federally  assisted  system.  Indeed,  President 
Buchanan justified  his  1859 veto  on  the  ar- 
gument that public  universities, if  they  were 
to be established, should be solely the respon- 
sibility  of  the  states. This  non-sectarian  ap- 
proach to higher education was the exception 
rather than the norm. 
Third,  Congress  chose not  to  use  federal 
funds but  rather  federal  land  as  a  means  to 
encourage states to accept the land-grant char- 
ter. Since cash was in short supply the federal 
government used what it had in relative abun- 
dance.  This  creative  means  of  encouraging 
change was also used to settle new lands (the 378  Jourrtol of Agricultural  and Applied  Economics, August  2001 
Homestead Act) and to draw investment to the 
transcontinental railroad. 
Finally,  the  land  grants  were  charged  by 
law with promoting  "without excluding other 
scientific and classical studies . . . the liberal 
and pmctirnl  ed~rcatiotz  of the industrial clas- 
ses in the  several pursuits and professions in 
life."  While the institution of the time focused 
almost exclusively  on philosophy  and theolo- 
gy  the  land  grants  would  focus  on  broader 
practical education. This was in keeping with 
the view that higher education could be a ma- 
jor engine for socio-economic development. 
So  the  very  essence  of  the  land-grant 
movement was, and is, to break with tradition 
and convention. And  this movement  did  not 
stop with the Act of  1862. 
In  1887, under  the  Hatch  Act,  Congress 
added the charge to conduct research and ex- 
perimentation in the public interest to the land- 
grant mission. The Hatch Act, in effect, gave 
rise  to  the  research  universities  of  today. 
Moreover, the Hatch Act initiated federal sup- 
port  for research and discovery. This further 
established the  role  of  government  in  stimu- 
lating economic growth. 
In  1890,  Congress  used  the  land-grant 
model  to again assert the need  to offer edu- 
cation to those left behind. The Second Morrill 
Act  established  the  system  of  historically 
black universities. 
The Smith-Lever Act of 19  14 directed land 
grants  to  take  the  university  to  all  citizens 
through  the  Cooperative  Extension  Service. 
Not  only  did  Congress mandate a third  mis- 
sion  for land-grant institutions,  it  also estab- 
lished a new funding arrangement. The exten- 
sion  service  is  funded  through  a  three-way 
partnership  between  the  federal.  state,  and 
county governments. 
In  1994 Congress  acted  again  to  provide 
targeted  access to  higher  education  by  char- 
tering and funding 29 tribal land-grant colleg- 
es. The land-grant system was continually en- 
larged to ensure that all qualified students have 
access to a university education. Over the past 
139 years, a number of acts of Congress have 
also  broadened  the  research  and  extension 
mission of land-grant  institutions. 
The central message here is that in so many 
ways the land-grant universities have broken 
with the conventions of the time. The "tradi- 
tions"  of  land-grant universities in  2001  are 
as powerful  and relevant  as they  were when 
originally  conceived.  Throughout  the  evolu- 
tion of  land  grants the hallmark has been  to 
pursue  the  non-traditional.  Accessibility,  re- 
search in  the public  interest, and connected- 
ness to the citizenry  are all vitally  important 
today. Within  this context, land-grant  univer- 
sities  must  strive  to  break  new  ground  and 
seek innovative new  approaches to serve so- 
ciety. 
Challenges of the 21" Century 
While the land grant universities  remain crit- 
ical to 21\' century higher education they  do 
face  several  significant  challenges.  Among 
these are the following: 
It's Not Really a System 
Though I, like others, speak of the "land-grant 
system,"  it really  isn't  a system in the func- 
tional  meaning  of  the term. We have various 
types  of  shared  initiatives,  regional projects, 
and  national  associations, but the institutions 
remain  largely  independent  and  frequently 
more focused on turf protection  than  system- 
oriented program development. 
The 1862 land grants have become strati- 
fied based on size, state funding and program 
bandwidth.  Project  specific  consortia  are 
formed and reformed but no overarching sys- 
tem guides institutional innovation. More sig- 
nificantly,  linkages  between  the  1862,  1890 
and 1994 land grants are minimal at best. This 
is a serious constraint in the pursuit of the let- 
ter  and  the  spirit  of  the  contemporary land 
grant "tradition." 
To build a true system the 1862 institutions 
must  begin  to  willingly  share  programmatic 
resources  and political  influence  to the  1890 
and  1994 institutions.  To  maximize  the  im- 
pacts  of  a  land-grant  system  all  105 institu- 
tions must be fully engaged. The system must 
focus on inter-institution  collaboration rather 
than competitiveness. Martin: Tlze Lnnd-Grurzr  Univcrsi8 in the  21st Century  379 
A Fixation on Inputs-Over  Outputs 
As land grants have evolved and matured they 
have, too often, lost sight of their fundamental 
social responsibilities. In turn, the faculty and 
administrators have  become  increasingly fix- 
ated  on  acquiring  and  controlling inputs too 
often to the exclusion of serious consideration 
of  socially meaningful  outputs. For example, 
we measure the importance and often the pres- 
tige  of  academic departments by  the size of 
their  faculty  or their  budget  and  not  by  the 
impact of their work. National rankings place 
emphasis  on  grants  and  contracts  as  an  im- 
portant  measure of  stature. While not dimin- 
ishing the importance of grants and contracts, 
it's the results forthcoming that ought to be our 
primary focus. 
Many  land  grants, in  an  effort to be rec- 
ognized with the elite private institutions. have 
become  increasingly  inaccessible  to  under- 
graduate students. We tend to base our prestige 
and, by implication our quality, on the records 
of the inbound students we admit (GPAs, ACT 
or  SAT  scores,  honor  society  memberships, 
etc.). One might legitimately ask, which is the 
greater university: one that takes "A"  students 
and turns them into "A+" citizens or the one 
that accepts "C"  students and turns them into 
"B+"  citizens'? This  is  not  to  suggest  that 
land  grants  begin  to  admit  unqualified  stu- 
dents. Still, educational "value  added"  is not 
a  bad  measure  of  true  institutional  impact.' 
The land-grant universities were created as an 
alternative to the elitist educational institutions 
and thus should not singularly seek to mimic 
them. 
In this same vein there are a growing num- 
ber of  time- and/or place-bound citizens who 
can benefit  from a land-grant university  edu- 
cation. Being true to our tradition of accessi- 
bility  means creating special  degree and life- 
long  learning  programs  which reach citizens 
where  and  when  they  can  learn.  To  do so, 
I Some literature exists on measuring value added 
in  education.  For  example,  Tracy,  Joseph  and  Joel 
Wald  Fogel.  "The  Best Business  Schools: A  Market 
Based Approach."  Journcrl  of' Business  70:  l(1997)  1- 
31. 
we'll  need  to  take  programs off  campus and 
adjust when, where,  and how  we teach. Our 
approach  should  focus  on  the  needs  of  the 
learner rather than on the convenience of the 
institution's  bureaucracy or the preferences of 
the instructor. 
Public Distrust of Scirtzce 
The public, once unconditionally confident in 
science, now  is more skeptical and even  dis- 
trustful.  Some argue that science has not ful- 
filled promises made. There is the perception 
that scientists often give vague, contradictory, 
or conflicting answers to important questions. 
Moreover, the community of scientists has too 
often  talked  down  to  the  general  public.  In 
some cases,  the  costs of  conducting  science 
have  risen  to  astronomical  levels  while  the 
payoffs  have been  slow  in  coming. William 
Proxmire, while he served in the United States 
Senate (from Wisconsin), would often use his 
"golden  fleece"  award to belittle research pro- 
jects he viewed as frivolous or misguided. As 
a consequence, there's  been  a growing reluc- 
tance on the part of taxpayers to fund research 
on  an open ended, unrestricted basis.2 
Land grants will  need  to lead  the way  in 
redefining and renegotiating the social contract 
on  science  and  in  reeducating  the  citizenry 
with respect  to the benefits  of public support 
for research and discovery. 
Mission Creep and Portner.~hips 
In recent years, other public agencies and pri- 
vate  firms  have  moved  into  areas  that  were 
once exclusively the providence of land grant 
universities.  Many  state departments of  agri- 
culture now  provide the equivalent of  exten- 
sion programs. Other such agencies have en- 
tered the applied research business. Likewise, 
private sector research and technology transfer 
now occupies some of the territory previously 
controlled by  land-grant universities. 
The standard reaction by land grant leaders, 
This mistrust exists despitt:  research showing phe- 
nomenal rates of  return  on past research, particularly 
in the area of  agricultural research. 380  Journal  ofAgricultura1 and Applied  Economics, August 2001 
individually  and collectively. has been to op- 
pose or resist "mission creep"  by other public 
organizations. The response to the private qec- 
tor  research  has  been  more  ambivalent.  In 
some cases, it has been  denigrated, in others 
embraced, and in still other cases, ignored. 
It's clear that land grants must rediscover 
their  "comparative  advantage"  and use it  as 
the  basis  for  determining  programmatic  and 
partnership  priorities.  The  land  grants  must 
ask and answer the three questions:  (1) what 
can we do best in light  of  2Ist  century reali- 
ties?  (2) how  do we  create partnerships  and 
ing the impacts of public investments in land- 
grant universities. 
Along with renewed attention on multidis- 
ciplinary, multi-institutional research we need 
to forge a similar arrangement for extension. 
Likewise,  shared  teaching  program3  across 
universities will have to become the rule rather 
than  the exception.  For  degree  programs 
which  are  important,  but  do not  draw  large 
numbers  at  any  single  institution.  the  use of 
distance education, tuition reciprocity and 
common  culriculum  can  encourage  shared 
programs and shared students. 
collaborative  arrangements (public-public, 
Conclusion 
public-private)  which  maximize  efficiencies 
while fully protecting our public responsibili- 
ties? and (3) how do we persuade the general 
public  that  investments  in  land-grant  univer- 
sities hold payoffs worth accruing? 
New Fiscal Realities 
Where once taxpayers readily supported edu- 
cation at all levels, it now appears that  there 
is  rising  resistance  to  open-ended.  flexible 
funding. In many states, appropriations to pub- 
lic universities have remained flat or even de- 
clined  in  real  terms.  Where  state  or  federal 
funding  has  increased  it  has  often  been  di- 
rected  towards specific pro-jects (earmarks) or 
provided  in the  form of  "competitive"  grant 
programs. 
Our  ability  to pursue  pure  discovery  ori- 
ented research or political unpopular outreach 
programs  appears  to  be  even  more  limited. 
The literature already indicates that social and 
economic rates of return to land-grant research 
and education  programs  are significant. Thus 
we need to continually  find  new  ways to ac- 
quire, free up or leverage the dollars available. 
As noted above, this situation calls out for new 
partnerships and new approaches to maximiz- 
The land-grant mission  and the land grant tra- 
dition is as relevant in 2001 as it was in  1862. 
However, the mission, intended to be dynamic 
and responsive,  must be  adapted to the chal- 
lenges and realities of  the years and decades 
ahead. The tradition  of  being  non-traditional 
must  be reemphasized  and  inserted  into this 
2 1"  century context. 
The  fundamental land  grant  principles  of 
accessibility, practical as well as classical ed- 
ucation, research  and  discovery in the public 
interest,  and  connectedness to all  the people 
remain powerful  and profound. Everyone as- 
sociated with  land-grant universities  must re- 
embrace these principles  but do so as part of 
a  commitment  to  excellence  and  social  re- 
sponsiveness. 
References 
Alston, J.M., PQ. Pardey and  V.H. Smith, Paying 
,for Agricultural  Productir~iry,  Baltimore, Johns 
Hopkins University  Press,  1999. 
Eddy, Jr.. E.D. College on Our Land and Time: The 
Land  Grant Idea  in American Edltcation, New 
York, Harpers, 1957. 
National Association of State Universities and Land 
Grant  Colleges,  The  Land  Grant  Tradition, 
Washington, D.C. March  1995. 

THE LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY IN THE 21st CENTURY

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics