Records of the Graduate School Oral History Project A.R. Chamberlain, Interviewee Becky Haglund, Interviewer March 11, 1980 Becky Haglund: It is March 11, 1980. My name is Becky Haglund. I'm interviewing President A.R. Chamberlain, in his office in the administration building. Okay. To start off with, why don't you give me a little bit about your background before you came to CSU? A.R Chamberlain: I came to CSU from a year’s Fulbright assignment in France, which itself followed a few months assignment with Phillips Petroleum Company as a fundamental research engineer on petroleum reservoirs. And ahead of that was simply, a student and employee at Colorado State University, Washington State University and Michigan State University. And, I've been at Colorado State University, in at least most of the time, other than for professional assignments, since 1956. Becky Haglund: Okay. Could you give me a little bit of idea, what the graduate program specifically in engineering was like when you first came on? I'm trying to get some idea of the evolution of the graduate program at CSU and maybe how it changed. A.R Chamberlain: Well, the first doctoral program approved by the graduate school as CSU was in irrigation engineering, under the supervision of the Department of Civil Irrigation Engineering. That program was authorized around 1951, at the insistence and encouragement of two CSU people. Specifically, Dr. Maurice Albertson, who still resides in the community. And, Dr. Dean F. Peterson, who now lives in New Delhi as an employee of the Ford Foundation. Close collaborators in putting the program together and, at that point in time, were people such as Jack Cermak, who is also still with Colorado State University. And I was one of the very first students to comes to Colorado State University to participate in that first doctoral offering by the institution and, of course, this devolvement was a part of the preparatory work of the institution in changing its name from Colorado A&M to Colorado State University in 1957. So, there were, I suppose, half a dozen of us that had graduated with a doctoral degree by the time the university actually became the university in name. And then, a number of us have spent the subsequent 20 years trying to help the institution go from a university in name to university in fact. And, to some degree, that was achieved in 1974 when the accrediting associations accepted Colorado State University as a mature university, as in so far its graduate activities as concerned. Everybody meaning that we could initiate new programs
without external supervision. And, of course, in 1980, why we're among the top 50 major research universities in the country. Becky Haglund: As far as the program expansion is concerned, do you see any particular point in time when there was a great increase? Was it a gradual change over the years or was there a specific period of time when things seemed to grow much faster than usual? A.R Chamberlain: Well, sure, there're all those kinds of things are cyclical based upon whether you're not sure adding enrollment, whether or not you have adequacy of resources, human, physical, library. And, so, the game plan that we utilized, first of all, in my role in engineering, was to build on strengths, and never attempt to play catch up with the Jones’, so, since we had strengths in water resources that dated back to the beginning of the century, even before this century, why our first game plan was to expand that strength to encompass the full gambit, from underground water to surfaces waters, which had been the initial specialty, and to atmospheric resources. Then, as several of us, now involving other colleges as well, agriculture and forestry, began to see what could be done in the natural resources, as to state just from water resources. What programs were pushed to, again, build on the strengths of the institution, in relation to, the semi‐arid agricultural resource opportunities of the western states, and similar areas around the world. So, we got involved in international programs, in Pakistan, in 1954, because of similarity of its natural resource environment. And, in the very early 1950s, we were involved in some of the major reclamation projects like Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River, Bhakra Dam in India, a little later, the Bocono Dam in South America. All of which were building on strengths and so, as we, at that time, were dealing with no enrollment restrictions, and the crunch of post‐ Vietnam, post‐Korean GIs, as well as the tail end of the World War 2 GI group. Why in the absence of any large community college program in the state, we were planning massive expansion in enrollment. At all levels, as rapidly we could put it together. So, around 1964, we had the perception that we would need to plan for the order of 30,000 students, maybe even a little more. And, that by 1975, we would have doctoral offerings in every academic department of the institution. By around, 1965‐67, it became clear that the state was going to make a massive investment in community colleges and was going to legislate a significant development in the metropolitan area of Denver. Not just an opportunity but a very significant development. So, in 1964‐66, we started the restrictive admissions to the institution and set a freshman class size of 32 to 3500, and we've never changed that since 1964‐65. The graduate program became an increasingly planned situation. And, by 1972 or ‘73, well maybe ‘74 but in that period, it became clear that the state which had never expressed any interest in the graduate program and negligible
interest in the research program, which we had funded clear from 1952 with outside monies, that it would not be possible to maintain the quality of goals that we were pursuing, while simultaneously offering the doctoral degree in all the disciplines in the institution. And, in addition, to the resource limitation issues, the state was increasingly asserting that the state would not permit duplication of programs from one institution to another. So, clearly, the University of Colorado, School of Mines, University of Denver and CSU had to get closer together and do some joint planning. To some degree, involving the other colleges, such as USC, as well because of the teacher education activity which was small here but major there, so in that early ‘70s period we tied down in about 1972 when we did the two year intensive planning cycle with much of it being published in ‘73‐‘74. We set our master plan, which was the leading master plan in the state, clear up to probably 1978, when a new master plan for the state was put together. A set of programmatic objectives that lowered the enrollment levels to 20,000 ultimate size, indicated areas where we would not expect to have the doctoral degree because it was offered at Boulder or, even maybe, at the University of Denver, but Boulder was the primary planning and relationship. And further delineated the areas of emphasis where national stature could be achieved without competing against the Stanfords, the Harvards and the Michigans. And that, for example, lead to staying out of high energy physics. Because there wasn't any way we could catch up with Stanfords and Chicagos 20 years of work ahead of us. So, as we went though most of the decade of the ‘70s, why the concentration then was placed on continuing the development of Masters degree offerings in areas where they had not been developed, so that all of the faculty could have opportunities to participate with graduate students, in some areas, such as your department, of arranging joint doctoral opportunities with the University of Colorado, and in areas where we were essentially unique in the state, and frequently unique in the region, concentrating our graduate efforts heavily towards national stature, those sectors, recognizing all the way that we would probably never be successful at getting the state of Colorado to give us any support. And that's basically what has happened. Becky Haglund: From the reading I've been doing, it seems to be that the creation of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education was just, kind of, a culmination of the interest that had been drawn in inner‐institutional cooperation throughout the state, is that? A.R Chamberlain: No, I think it's a little more than that. I was clearly involved, long before that, in the state level coordination. But, the higher education community itself recommended the creation of the commission through certain statutory responsibilities, and the reason why it was recommended by the higher education community was that with the increasing stringent availability of resources, it became clear around 1963, that voluntary cooperation was not
adequate to the task of delineation of institutional mission, compounded by legislative interest in creating a system of community colleges on a, somewhat, Chamber Of Commerce basis, so we felt that the partial failure, not complete but, partial failure of voluntary cooperation, plus the Chamber Of Commerce interest of the legislature, plus the lack of availability of resources to do it all. That it was essentially essential to introduce a new mechanism that could have an oversight rule over all post‐secondary public education. And, in such a manner, hopefully, to lend credibility to enroll and function and resource needs, as viewed by the campuses, as viewed by the governor and his staff, as it was viewed by the legislature, and only to a limited degree as that effort of the commission been successful from our point of view. Becky Haglund: Okay. Another thing I was interested in was what you felt the relationship was between graduate education and undergraduate education, specifically here at CSU, maybe even in general? A.R Chamberlain: Well, our premise has always been that we would have a higher quality undergraduate education, if we had a faculty that we involved in graduate education and research, simultaneously. So, the objective has been worked on by a process that never yielded as Cornell or MIT or Caltech and so on, to the employment of faculty that didn't have any teaching duties. We have always expected practically every one of our people, however world renowned they were, to teach at the undergraduate level, as well as the graduate research level. While simultaneously providing an opportunity for some, who had no interest in graduate education research to be full time teachers, as long as they could document, in quantifiable terms, that they were keeping up with their field by reading and participation in the teaching sector, even if they weren't involved in the discovery of knowledge sector. But the general expectation for any full professor here is has been that they'd teach both graduate and undergraduate and that they publish, to some degree, in areas of their interest, whether it be teaching techniques, whether it be competitive participation in art show or the competition of peer review for physics journals, as an example. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: Obviously, it's a very imperfect system. I think it's much better than it was ten years ago, but it's still an imperfect system of which those that do not wish to do research or scholarly activities are still frequently somewhat maligned. But, in many areas, such as art and music, I think we have, we've come a long ways in getting acceptance that scholarly activity in those creative areas is equivalent to publication in peer reviewed journals. But it will always be a somewhat imperfect system.
When I first got involved in graduate education research, the quote "teaching faculty" considered those of us interested in research and graduate education as not credible to being admitted to being members in the faculty. We were not a part of faculty government, we were not permitted to participate in the academic curricular matters and so on. We were truly second‐class citizens. Well, now, the pathology is just the reverse. And the pendulum swings on these kind of things. My guess is that another ten years out and there will be very little that you could discern of special bias of teaching versus research. But my perspective is that, in a major university distinct from a teaching college, to meet your objectives for both the students and faculty, you have to have both research and teaching, because they're a part of the same single environment. That is a learning environment for students and learning environment for faculty, faculty themselves are nothing more than mature students. Becky Haglund: So, the undergraduate and the graduate levels, kind of, benefit each other and reinforce each other‐ A.R Chamberlain: Sure they do. Sure they do. To get a good measure of that kind of thing, you might talk to Professor Cermak sometime, who occasionally teaches an undergraduate course in his specialty, and part of the reason he does is it is to force himself to be reminded of the relatively elementary principles from which it all evolves. And it gives him new insights, as to, means of communication. Also permits him to incorporate, back at the most elementary levels, the latest state of the art. To the benefit of the undergraduate students. Simultaneously when he shifts back to graduate course, having reviewed basic principles, gives him some new insights to deal with problems that have been troubling you for a year or two, perhaps, and making a dent on those. So, overall, then the student gets the benefit, not just of this depth in which the faculty is put to the members participating but also, most of those involved in research are doing so on real‐world problems. Real‐world problems, such as, practically every very tall building being built in this country as gone through the CSU research program. And so, when a professor can take into the classroom the real‐life experiences and problems of practically every major building that's been built in this country, in recent years, that gives to the student a quality of instruction that will never come out of the textbooks, not that they're ten years out of date, and then secondhand. And that's repeated time and time and time again. It's true in practically every discipline we are involved in. It's true in your own department. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative).
A.R Chamberlain: Some of Leyendecker's work, as an example, that deals not just with materials that are in the library but where he goes and talks with older citizens in their own community. Of 40 to 50 years of their life. I think this gives a professor an opportunity to convey into the classroom a sense of the meaning of history, that cannot happen if all the professor's ever done was to read books from the library. Becky Haglund: That's true. The students appreciate it too. A.R Chamberlain: Why, sure they do. It's also a part of the reason why, in areas like business, we have an executive for a day or an executive for a week program, where we ask active corporate executives, far up in large corporations, to come and spend from one day to a week with us, and interact with the students. Because, again, it gives the student the exposure and the faculty members the exposure to an operating executive, coming from him particular or her particular environment. And, so, I think part of the strength of our program is based upon the fact that we are not conducting a program that perceives itself as simply an ivory tower cloistered halls, kind of, abstract learning situation. We have a faculty and, we believe, a student body interested in the real world which we are a part, but wanting to deal with the problems and opportunities of that world, right at the forefront of knowledge. And, we think, we're doing a pretty good job of it. Now, granted, like any large group, we have faculty who don't like students, we have students that don't like faculty, we have both of those sets of people, who if they had an alternatives, probably ought to be someplace else. But, I would assert, at least at the 90% level or, at least, probably closer to the 98% level, we have a student body and faculty who enjoy what being human is all about. That is, the opportunity to explore, in abstract and concrete term, the world and the universe and the microclimate which we're a part, just for the pure sake of learning. And with spinoffs then, we can apply to many of the problems that confront us every day. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: So, it's a fun place to be. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). I was interested in your view of the graduate students’ involvement in the specific research institutions, like the Experiment Station and CSURF, in particular. I'd like to get a more specific idea, I guess, of what their involvement entails, maybe some examples‐ A.R Chamberlain: The CSURF may not be too good an example, in the current context, because CSURF is now used largely as a vehicle for property management and, for example, arranging for the borrowing of nine million dollars to buy a computer‐
Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: A computer which is physically located in Boulder, at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Or to operate the 10‐12 thousand acre ranch, which was the Maxwell Ranch, but CSURF doesn't generally, anymore, it did at one time, serve as a vehicle for the large numbers of specific research projects to flow through. So, there isn't much student graduate involvement there. And, in the corporation known as CSURF, we'll even be moving its offices off campus. Becky Haglund: Oh, I see. A.R Chamberlain: However, the Experiment Station may come closer to illustrating what you are probably interested in. The Experiment Station has mission‐oriented research in it, where the mission of that research is heavily controlled by state of Colorado interest and, to some degree, federal interest, as to what the project shall be. Illustration, if you have a wheat rust problem, in Colorado wheat industry, or a drought problem in the Colorado wheat industry, we are expected to be conducting research that would come up with new variable strains or species that are more drought resistant or rust resistant. So the graduate students who are employed on those kinds of projects have a couple problems, but also a couple opportunities. The problem is that they are, in effect, employed not for research that they're necessarily interested in, but research which the state says it is willing to commit money to. Becky Haglund: I see. A.R Chamberlain: And the problem too, is that they then have to figure out a way to take that project, usually, and transform it into what would be a meaningful thesis or dissertation. And, sometimes, then they get stuck with, under their assistantship, having to the truly abstract and theoretical part, in effect, on their own time. And while being support for the practical data gathering elements under their Experiment Station assignment. But the opportunity, from the students point of view, is that it frequently brings them into acquaintance with various sectors of the industry that, may well, be involved in giving them jobs when they graduate. So some compromises are usually called for in that particular program, but it's a large enough program and there's enough contract research that's generally related that a student doesn't have to make very many compromises in order to get the benefits of the assistantships and participation. Becky Haglund: Nice.
Okay, is there anything else that you wanted to say? A.R Chamberlain: No, I think not. Becky Haglund: Okay. Well, you were involved, as far as I can see, in before becoming president, in the financial end of funding for graduate research, working with the administrative end of financing, where there any particular things that come to mind as far as funding and graduate research is involved? Any particular problems, as far as maybe federal support and state support? A.R Chamberlain: There's lots of problems and there still are, and I guess, there always will be. In that the state, generally, has, as we have commented earlier, never provided financial support for either graduate education or research. It has provided some support for the graduate education but, other than Experiment Station kind of work, it just has not provide support for graduate education. As a matter of fact, the state has introduced many negative incentives. Such as the state confiscating all of the indirect cost receipts of contracting grant research. Resources sorely needed by the faculty and administration to sustain the program. And then too, it's also discouraging to have to write from one to four proposals, in order to get one funded. And, usually, most of that work of proposal writing has to be on a faculty member's overtime, whatever overtime means. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: So, it is a highly competitive, nationally competitive arena with, essentially, negative incentives provided the state government. From which we are not independent. Becky Haglund: Was that generally because they felt the federal government was willing to support research or wouldn't they had been willing to support it even if the federal government hadn't? A.R Chamberlain: I don't think they would've been willing in any case. Because most of the power structure of the state seems strongly, in kind, to believe that the only function of the faculty member is to stand in the classroom or work on those tasks that the power structure of the state have said it is important to the state. And other than that, they're suppose to supposedly above and beyond a full teaching load. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: In other words, it simply says the state does not perceive that research and graduate education is a state function. They're not interested. Don't see any reason why they should be interested. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative).
A.R Chamberlain: While, from our university point of view, we argue that we do believe in our own self‐articulated mission as a major university. Not just college, university. And that the discovery of knowledge is fundamental part of our mission. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: But that discovery of knowledge part of our mission is not given much credence by anybody outside of the academic community itself. So, we haven't done a good enough job of convincing the society of which we're a part that this kind of discovery of knowledge function is very important in, so far as part of, it being part of our mission. It's a fascinating situation, in which so many people take great pride of the results of research, nationally, while simultaneously seeming to apparently believe that that just comes out of the woodwork and doesn't cost anything. And doesn't, necessarily, take place or need to take place at our universities. Don't know where they think it's suppose to take place, or how it's suppose to be done but, so there is a fascinating dichotomy there. The nation that takes great pride in it, but at the local level of state, county, so on, it's as if it's suppose to take place in the dark of the moon. Becky Haglund: Are there any particular people, either faculty members or administrators who come to mind, when you think about people who have influenced graduate education situation at CSU? A.R Chamberlain: Sure, Dean Andrew Clark, who retired just a few months ago. Himself, not the holder of a PhD degree, but who served as Dean of Faculty here and a member of the faculty itself, a Dean of Faculty for probably more than a decade, and a member of the faculty for more than 40 years or so. Along with, a man named Dean Durrell, D‐U‐R‐R‐E‐L‐L, who retired quite some years ago. Maybe more than a decade. Under the general support of President Morgan, and the intensive prodding of people like Maury Albertson, and Dean Peterson. I think were probably the key leaders, but there were tens and tens of other people. Clint Wasser, Sherman Wheeler, and the list just goes on and on. Of faculty and department head and dean types that encouraged and made it happen. In the current environment, why, probably the key people, in most recent years, have been the deans and department heads because, some few years ago as our program was beginning to mature, we shifted overall program and budget pathology to the college level rather than the earlier, more centralized situation.
So, in recent years, each dean and set of department heads has had the dominant leadership role. Becky Haglund: They've been many, many graduate students who have attended here and left, I wanted to get some idea of, maybe, a few particular ones who come to mind, who have left CSU's graduate program and been particularly successful in their field, national prominence, that type of a thing? A.R Chamberlain: Well, gee, that's pretty hard to deal with. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: Because we've got people now, who are in major leadership roles around the world and in their particular governments who are now at the level of ministers and assistant ministers. One of our alums is the president of one of the international development banks. I think if you wanted to tie down a case example or two, the best thing would be to get a hold of Maury Albertson, who's graduate students were among the first to come through this system and are truly now all over the world‐ Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: And he keeps pretty close contact with many of them, who have emerged to very senior levels. But the payoff of the quality of our program does clearly show up. 20 to 25 years after they've left the institution. We've got people in, at the minster or cabinet level of many of the governments around the world. Graduates of our programs here. Maury Albertson would be your best source to pick two or three or five that you might want to know more about. Becky Haglund: Okay, thank you. I was wondering how you perceive the future of CSU, probably in the next five to ten years? Specifically in the graduate program? A.R Chamberlain: Well, I think the next two or three or even four years will be quite difficult for higher education in Colorado at any level. Because we're caught on the end of that pendulum that wants to believe that enrollment is going to disappear, and higher education will just take care of itself. Especially the major universities. But, as we get into the mid ‘80s and early ‘90s, well, I think we'll see a substantial resurgence of interest in the totality of higher education in the state. Now, so far as specific, with the graduate education program, are concerned, I believe that as we get into the latter part of the ‘80s, the state will finally acknowledge and find ways to utilize, to a higher level, the intellectualism that Boulder, Mines and Fort Collins represents, in dealing with environmental and energy problems of the state. It's still, as a state, will be very slow in wanting to
provide additional resources, to provide release time for faculty to participate to the level that the state would like. But it will happen. The dominate force will continue to be, as it is now, in graduate education of the activities of the National Science Foundation, the national institutions have helped, and increasingly numerous international programmatic activities. So, the real, fun growth activity for the graduate program, maybe the most exciting to many, I think will be in the international sphere. But that will be on top of, what will continue to be, a growing complex of industrial and federal support for research here. So, I think it's promising situation because, in part of, our geography and part of the quality of our programs and people. And, in part, just because of timing. That energy, environment and food will all be at sufficiently high visibility, nationally and internationally. That, when combined with, the quality and history of our people, CSU will be able to have its graduate and research programs grow or whatever rate we can get the state to permit us to pursue, and limited primarily by physical facilities. Rather than by capability to raise money externally. I think it's very promising as you get out toward the end of the decade and, with your special interest, I'd say to you, with each passing three year period, there will be more opportunities for people and anthropology, archeology, cultural history, to participate in those research programs, because more and more there will be no significant project pursued that doesn't have an assessment made of cultural backdrop, environmental backdrop, and future impact of major changes. Whether it's opening up a new coal mine or creating a new gasification plant or whatever the issue may be. So, you'll have more opportunities than you now have. Where, so frequently, to be a practicing historian, you have to get a PhD and you have to go into teaching. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: Or you have to, in effect, use your general education and go into being a real estate salesman or insurance salesman or something of that nature. But I think that you'll see a broadening out of the opportunities, just as you'll find that many of our art graduates, getting very remunerative employment with major corporations. And I think you'll see more of that for people coming through areas like history too. Becky Haglund: Mm‐hmm (affirmative). A.R Chamberlain: Where you can be, in fact, a practicing historian. Now, for those who are only interested in, say, German history for the period 1876 to 1890, why, for those, still the academic community is about the only place they can be happy. But for
those with somewhat broader interests, why, I think there's lots of opportunity coming. Becky Haglund: Well, good. Well, I think we've covered about all the subjects I had down, is there anything you'd like to say that I haven't asked? A.R Chamberlain: No, not that I know of, Becky. Why, my objective is to try and help you get your degree, and share with you whatever I can that helps you fulfill that objective. Becky Haglund: Well, it's been very helpful.