BOLTON: Merging programs inevitable in struggling economy

I am wallowing in the thick of the "end semester crunch" – when being asleep at or before 3am is a treat and I experience my bi-annual existential nightmare induced by severe exhaustion, crippling perfectionism and gluttonous consumption of postmodern philosophical literature.

Happens every semester, particularly in the spring, regardless of my prior diligence and dedication to study. 

This spring, however, the ontological meltdown has seen notable rises in anxiousness and a general, overwhelming feeling of meaninglessness. In short, the rumor that my graduate program was, at one point, allegedly on the chopping block due to drastic budget cuts, proved far from motivating. 

Fortunately, once the tantrum has passed, optimism and a sense of hope typically follow.
This is precisely what happened Wednesday when Wayne Drummond, dean of the College of Architecture, announced that the department of Community and Regional Planning would be merging with Landscape Architecture. 

While we still face uncertainty within aspects of the Community and Regional Planning program's direction, as with many programs throughout campus, we ought to look forward to potential partnerships and innovative approaches to education. 

At this point in time, Community and Regional Planning is the unwanted stepchild in the College of Architecture. Acknowledged by the administration or not, the students clearly recognize the wedge separating a strong policy-based commitment in the Planning program and a zealous dedication to design in the Architecture programs. 

I am not implying that, by merging us with Landscape Architecture, the administration is somehow picking on us and the Planning program has been made victim to bureaucratic processes. The opposite is actually true – the faculty is attempting to keep the program afloat. While a strong case could be made against the merger, it truly is the lesser of two evils. Better to merge than to cut altogether. 

Where do we have opportunities? Dean Drummond mentioned the potential for an open panel program, meaning the integration of disciplines closely aligned with planning. Essentially an open panel would allow students to experiment with classes once outside of their curriculum.

For example, more students would take urban design courses, sociology, or perhaps even history. This is huge for a graduate program, typically strict on beating into their students the need to focus and narrow down their role within a given field. 

I welcome the idea to expand and be inspired by the work of other disciplines. In fact, the concept of an open panel program was solidified after Dean Drummond's announcement during final presentations for my GIS class.

Briefly, GIS is a cartography and analysis program that allows the user to spatially code, map and further analyze a given topic. Many people use it without knowing it – Google Maps is a GIS output and that is only one example. 

This is a GIS multidisciplinary class with student backgrounds ranging from Architecture and Planning to Civil Engineering, Natural Resources and Environmental Studies and the scope of presentations reflected that quality. One student mapped and analyzed Lincoln home foreclosures and socioeconomic characteristics, employing statistical formulas that made my head spin. I was humbled and blown away by all that math! 

Another student analyzed environmental justice in Lincoln through mapping techniques and a group not only examined the feasibility of a high speed, mass-transit rail line between Lincoln and Omaha, but also was able to map potential stopping points and ridership demographics and accessibility. 

The class revealed new directions and made me think about my research in new ways and angles of analysis I would otherwise have been oblivious to. I imagine an interdisciplinary, open panel program would be quite similar and although done out of economic necessity, I am confident we will find innovation hidden where a once more robust budget existed. 

I mentioned only a few of the potential opportunities for my program and want to encourage those all over campus to attempt to discover room for creativity and ingenuity in their areas. 

UNL is certainly not the only university seeing drastic cuts and turning to mergers for solace and opportunities for innovation. In Finland, a merger is occurring between the University of Art and Design, Helsinki University of Technology and the Helsinki School of Economics. 

A merger of that magnitude across seemingly unrelated disciplines is shocking, however if we let our minds go for a moment, innovation naturally takes place: Design students not only creatively streamline and act as visual communicators, but also design is make efficiency a reality.

Couple that with technology students who are the builders and innovative engineers behind our culture, always pushing forward and finally with economists, upon which the monetary and market feasibility of proposed projects ultimately rests and you are left with an incredibly powerful source for progress.  

Isn't university, by definition, finding unity in diversity anyhow? Perhaps we're merely faced with an economic time period where the quest to find and incubate unity in diversity is a requirement as well as an opportunity.

Erin Bolton is a graduate student in Community and Regional Planning. Reach her at erinbolton@dailynebraskan.com.