A new paradigm in Nevada

Michael Wixom

Sunday, April 3, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.

In his landmark work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolution,” Thomas Kuhn coined the term “paradigm.” Quite literally, it means a way in which we view the world around us.

Kuhn explained that paradigms change over time. The classic case was the view that the world is flat, which changed with a new understanding of the world. However, such changes don’t take place without an upheaval in the establishment that has a vested interest in the old view. In Nevada, we desperately need a paradigm change.

For example, our tax system is anachronistic, based on outdated economic assumptions. Another example is our failure to diversify economically — we talk constantly about diversification, but do relatively little. Of course, education is a prime example as well.

The Board of Regents, which oversees the Nevada System of Higher Education, started a process in 2008 whereby we review and analyze the fundamental structures and administration of a significant part of Nevada’s higher education system. It has faced enormous opposition, internal and external.

That opposition was surprising given that no one ever proposed closing or dismantling an institution. All we wanted was information so that we could make informed decisions pursuant to our fiduciary obligations, which we as regents owe to all of the Nevada institutions of higher education, not just a select few.

I welcome contrary points of view, but I am surprised at how often those points of view are mired in old paradigms based on illogical assumptions.

A case in point: Hundreds of people have contacted me and requested (or demanded) that a certain program not be cut or that a given institution be held harmless. However, when I explain that we have a shrinking budget and that if the program or institution they hold dear is exempted, then we must cut elsewhere, I generally get a hollow stare or the standard retort “cut somewhere else.”

I am bemused when I hear from those who have, just months ago, given me a lecture about not raising taxes. They now desperately plead that we preserve a segment of higher education that they particularly value. Again, cutting is acceptable to them, as long as it is someone or something else.

In light of Kuhn’s analysis of human behavior, we should not be surprised at those who demand critical and rigorous analysis of others, but are dismayed when they are faced with a critical and rigorous analysis of a program or institution that they cherish.

Nevertheless, we should not give up on such critical and rigorous analysis. We have too much at stake to surrender to outdated paradigms. The Board of Regents’ ongoing efficiency and effectiveness review of the entire higher education system requires us to consider each recommendation that follows from that review and adopt those that make sense. Further, we must continue our analysis of each institution and how we administer and deliver higher education in Nevada.

I make no apologies for our higher education budget. The dollars we have spent in the past have appropriately followed student enrollment and demand. With those dollars, we have made great progress in student retention and cooperative efforts among institutions, all of which leads to higher graduation rates.

Although it is clear we must cut spending significantly, I support additional revenue for education (at a minimum, the taxes that are subject to sunset must be retained). I also understand that we must raise tuition.

In addition to addressing revenue, however, Nevada’s political and educational leaders need a new paradigm about delivering and administering higher education, which will require some tough decisions for all of us. I hope we are up to that task.

Michael Wixom is a member of the Board of Regents, which oversees the Nevada System of Higher Education.