[Alumni-chat] Antioch presidents

[Sistersara at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/12/2008 12:03:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
aadole at roadrunner.com writes:

The  discussion of Jim Dixon and other Antioch Presidents has not examined
Algo  Henderson and Doug McGregor. As a student and then an assistant
instructor.  I observed both these men from afar. When they were in power
they had to  guide the college through WWII and post war dislocations. The
faculty  improved in quality. Marvelous students were attracted to the
college. The  administrators (Dawson, , Pillard, Alexander,etc.) seemed
resourceful. Many  innovative educational ideas were introduced, including
the  strengthening  of Community Government, drama and music, and the use  of
achievement tests to recognize student mastery of required  subjects.

Others may wish to add to their accomplishments.

Art  Dole '46 



Art, I would add Sam Gould to your list, and group these three Presidents  
together as the Post-Morgans, who retained Morgan's financial model for the  
college, based on using the physical assets for two divisions of income  
generating students, running the college year round, and thus having about  2/5ths 
more students and income than the number of beds and classroom facilities  and 
teaching staff would normally accommodate.  What we have, accordingly,  is an 
economic model for the college that produced sufficient surplus  income, so each 
of these Presidents were able to lead innovations of their  own choosing, but 
at the same time the nearly identical economic structure  served the college 
well in Depression, War, and the post war period of growth  and adjustment.  
Gould's AEA, for instance, beginning in the mid 50's added  another 150-200 
students to the enrolled student body, yet did not need to  provide physical 
facilities for them.  Their needs were met by outsourcing  the teaching and 
serving other needs with a small administrative staff.  
 
I think it important to outline the College History in these sorts  of bare 
economic terms, subtracting from the exposition the values and  educational 
ideals for the moment, so as to actually assess Morgan's economic  structure 
clearly.  What is important in my mind is that no matter what the  economic 
condition of the larger national economy -- Morgan's economic model  both produced a 
constant surplus that could be invested to self-finance  improvements in the 
college -- and it isolated the College from some of the  dislocations of the 
business cycle, war economics, and the like.  
 
Would it be possible to return to something like Morgan's economic model in  
the future?  Don't know, but think it should be discussed in detail.   It may 
well have been the primary reason why all three of these Presidencies  were 
fairly successful though with different content.  
 
In looking at Higher Education generally, I suspect we are at the brink of  
some heavy duty major changes -- current economic structure of Higher Ed.,  has 
just become too expensive for middle income families, and given the  anti-Tax 
mood of so much of the Country, I really don't see Government opening  up a 
new river of subsides.  Quite generally, we need a new economic model  that 
produces the necessary outcomes, but is simply more efficient.  By the  way, 
apparently Ohio ranks 40th in the nation in the percentage of residents who  have 
at least one year of Higher Education.  That surprised me -- I think  back in 
the days I lived in my native Ohio, it was about 10th.  Just an odd  
demographic figure I ran across while thinking about elements of election  strategy.   



**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy 
Awards. Go to AOL Music.      
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)