Historical Student Perspectives on Prestige: (Re)Paving Roads to Institutional Recognition at TAMUCC
By: Lorena Newsome
Student voices in higher education are a vital resource for shaping and strengthening the institutions in their communities. Through campus newspapers, students can empower and engage their campus communities with their unique perspectives on critical issues that may alter the future of their campuses, communities, and regions. During the years leading up to the South Texas Border Initiative (STBI), Corpus Christi State University (CCSU) was experiencing the beginnings of significant transformation because of South Texas' desire for a comprehensive four-year institution to meet the expanding educational needs for all Texans in this region. Much of the current research on STBI has insufficiently included student perspectives on topics related to this pivotal time in South Texas Higher Education history (Carales & Doran, 2022)[1]. Investigating campus published newspapers is a way to include student voices during this time. The University News, a CCSU campus newspaper published during the period (1986-1989) that was researched in the university archives, provides a glimpse into student perspectives on prestige in the years leading up to STBI. Although the University News was published by the Public Information Office and was not a student-run newspaper, it still provides insight into student perspectives on CCSU becoming a four-year university through student surveys, polls, letters to the editor, and articles. Examining archival campus newspapers between 1986 – 1989, the years leading up to the approval of STBI, reveals historical student perspectives as CCSU progressed towards its restructuring and merger into the Texas A&M University System (TAMUS) and provides the opportunity to bridge the past to present-day pursuits for prestige at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi (TAMUCC).
Prestige in Higher Education
As discussed by Labaree (2017), historically, attending a higher education institution was considered a privilege. The system was stratified in such a way that it advanced wealthier students and excluded others. “Over the last two centuries, the American System of higher education has had an extraordinary ride” (Labaree, 2017, p. 179)[2]. Being labeled as a prestigious institution played into how the system ranked universities, which allowed those more established and historically privileged universities to attract a higher percentage of research focused faculty, to receive more funding from various stakeholders, to provide more master’s and doctoral programs, to conduct more research, and as a result, to attract higher performing students for enrollment. In turn, these students and their families financially contributed to these universities through tuition and fees. Money and prestige are inherently linked.
College Rankings
According to Dearden, Grewal, and Lilien (2019; as cited in Stuart, 1995), “university rankings first appeared in the 1870s to inform higher education scholars, professionals, and government officials, but they gained mass appeal in 1983 when USNWR [U.S. News & World Report], using a survey of university presidents, published its first rankings of undergraduate academic quality.[3]” College rankings contribute to the level of prestige higher education institutions are attributed. Competition through rankings is deeply rooted in attaining prestige. As of 2019, the rankings included a variety of categories assessed by institutional administrators at peer universities. Students use these rankings to make decisions for admissions, and the better the ranking, the better chance the institution has for a student to enroll (Dearden, Grewal, & Lilien, 2019)[4]. Though college rankings can be dysfunctional, “students describe the rankings as being very important in their choice of college...and rankings and ratings have been folded into state policies” (Kim, 2017, p.55; as cited in Morphew & Swanson, 2011)[5]. Students and their families are the main targets for college rankings, and the closer to the top a university is ranked on a list, the more prestige they are viewed to hold, which leads to student interest in those institutions with the highest rankings. Kim (2017) concluded that “rankings inspire higher education institutions to improve their rankings because rankings have a significant influence on admissions, financial resources, and reputation” (p. 58)[6]. Additionally, "the conformity to rankings shows that rankings reinforce the resource-centered view of prestige” (Kim, 2017, p. 77; as cited in Brooks, 2005)[7]. It is vital for all stakeholders to understand the functions and dysfunctions of rankings, how they correlate to prestige, and the financial and academic benefits they provide to higher education institutions.
South Texas Border Initiative (STBI)
For Higher Education in South Texas, STBI was at the heart of expanding doctoral degree programs, and the impact on TAMUCC was significant. Receiving approval in 1989, the South Texas Border Initiative “increased funding, merged some institutions into a larger governance system, upgraded other institutions, and authorized new academic programs and courses, including important doctoral and master’s degree programs” (Santiago, 2008)[8]. Furthermore, as argued by Carales and Duran (2022), “STBI demonstrates the importance of community-university engagement” (p. 1182)[9]. The current community engagement TAMUCC has with the Corpus Christi community has been influenced by STBI, and it is important for our institution to evaluate the effectiveness of the community-university partnerships and engagement practices currently in place. Without the endeavors of community and campus advocates for expanding higher education in South Texas in the 1980s, TAMUCC may not have developed some of the current master's and doctoral programs in existence today, nor might it have benefited from the community relationships, government funding, or foundation grants to support continuing expansion.
I chose to examine campus newspapers between the years of 1986 and 1989 to collect data on student perspectives on prestige during the advocacy, planning, and transition phases of CCSU becoming a four-year university. Specifically, I looked for references to “merger,” "transition," “four-year,” "prestige,” and "recognition" mentioned by students. The newspaper published during this time was called the University News, which was run by CCSU’s Public Information Office. Although I was not able to confirm whether any of the articles were written by students at the time, other content, including student surveys, polls, letters to the editor, and articles highlights student voices and perspectives during this timeframe. Here, I have focused on two Campus Voices Surveys to analyze student perspectives on prestige in reference to transitioning to four-year status and merging with the Texas A&M system.
Student Surveys and References to Prestige
The first Campus Voices Survey (1988, November 7) published responses from three CCSU students to the question, “Are you for or against the merging of CCSU into Texas A&M?” Two-thirds of the students supported the merger with TAMUS. The students surveyed included one junior, one senior, and one graduate. The first student, David Bush, mentioned he was for the merger but thought “UT is better because they receive a bigger percentage of PUF (Permanent University Funds) funds.” The second student, Brenda Pettis, stated that she was for the merger “because it will introduce classes that cannot be taught and bring more instructors for classes that are not offered here.” The last student, Belinda Cavazos, said “I am for it because it would be good for the University, and it would help us get four-year status quicker.[10]” By analyzing these student’s statements, where words like “better" and “good" are used, as well as highlighting what CCSU didn't have at the time that it would gain from the merger, and therefore improving the status of the university from students’ perspectives, there is a correlation between merging with a more established institution and prestige.
The second Campus Voices Survey (1989, April 8) published responses from six CCSU students to the question, “How do you feel about changing the name of CCSU to Texas A&M at Corpus Christi?” The students surveyed included two juniors and four seniors. 50% of the students surveyed (all seniors) supported the name change. The first student, Kathryn Belford, commented that she preferred the name change “because it gives a little more prestige to the school.” The second student, John Markus, claimed that “A&M would give prestige to the city which would boost the economy and help increase the growth of the city.” The third student, Steven Guitron, stated that “it would bring a lot of people from other areas to Corpus.[11]” The repeated use of “prestige” for the university and for the city, as well as reference to attracting more people to the area further support how students view the importance of prestige and recognition to improve not only their education but the economy of the region.
However, the other three students surveyed mentioned a desire to keep CCSU’s name with statements including “it gives credibility to Corpus,” “CCSU as the Island University and A&M just doesn’t fit,” and “CCSU sounds more like it belongs in Corpus Christi.[12]” The students’ responses may correlate with maintaining a sense of belonging, and with more research, could correlate with concerns at the time about the university losing sight of its mission and community engagement if it were to be absorbed by such an established institutional system. It also may suggest that these students saw A&M as less impersonal and less likely to care about the relationships CCSU had with its community at that time.
College Rankings and Prestige
College rankings and ratings are so intertwined with student and family choices for college admissions, as well as state policies, which means that TAMUCC is directly affected by highly influential rankings systems and reports, such as Carnegie Classification and USNWR. Maintaining and gaining prestige are expensive. Student admissions and funding from stakeholders can directly affect TAMUCC’s ability to continue to grow, uphold its mission, and engage with its community.
In November 2023, ACE announced a restructuring to the Carnegie Classification system for research ranking status that will take effect in 2025[13]. The goal of these changes is equity so that similar institutions with similar missions will be compared to each other, instead of across institutional categories (Lederman, 2023)[14]. The current issue with this ranking system, and other ranking reports, is inconsistency that has the potential to sway higher education institutions away from their missions as they strive for prestige and recognition. By making changes to the Carnegie Classification system, doors will be opened for new colleges to join R-1 status, allow for a possible new classification, and may cause foundations and government agencies who award institutional funding based on these rankings to reassess how they evaluate an institution’s worth to receive grants (Lederman, 2023)[15].
Although these changes to the Carnegie Classification system are meant to be more equitable, other reporting organizations, such as USNWR, do not currently use the same methodology and lump all institutions into one category. With the upcoming changes to how the Carnegie Classifications will categorize research status, USNWR and other organizations will have to reevaluate their own reporting methods and groupings (Lederman, 2023)[16].
My findings highlight two main implications for stakeholders: tuition costs and serving the local community. Our campus leaders, local officials, and state legislators must examine their strategic planning for research spending, attracting funding from stakeholders, and the ways TAMUCC serves the community through active engagement.
There should be careful consideration of the local, regional, and state populations TAMUCC serves and the community partnerships in place. TAMUCC plays a key role in shaping Corpus Christi’s identity. Considering the goals at the heart of STBI, to bring more master’s and doctoral programs to the South Texas region, and to make higher education accessible to all Texans, university administrators must keep these historical goals and the needs of these student populations in mind as ranking systems are reinvented. The president of ACE, Ted Mitchell, stated, "R-1 has taken on some mythical status in our society, and a lot of people view it as a measure of prestige and quality...There are places doing a tremendous amount of research that will now be in that classification, and it should be about that, not about making it a measure of quality and prestige" (Lederman, 2023)[17].
Spending and receiving funds are inherent in Carnegie Classification status and admissions. As a Hispanic and Minority serving institution, TAMUCC administrators must consider how to best serve its local student populations, many of whom are first-generation and from low-income households. One suggestion is to explore news ways to attract funding to counteract the financial burden to students if tuition and fees increase. Otherwise, higher education access in our region may become impossible for those Texans STBI advocated for in the first place.
Furthermore, how TAMUCC engages with the community to be seen as an active participant in belonging to Corpus Christi and vice versa, university departments, organizations, and administrators must improve the ways in which they engage with the people of Corpus Christi and those in surrounding communities.
One possibility for TAMUCC administrators to balance prestige with its mission is to pursue The Elective Classification for Community Engagement from the Carnegie Classification. This particular recognition is awarded to institutions of higher education who demonstrate collaboration with their local, regional, state, national, and global communities. "The purpose of community engagement is the partnership of college and university knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching, and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good" (Carnegie Classifications, 2023)[18].
By analyzing the Carnegie Classification (2023) data, as of 2020, 357 currently classified institutions in this category were reported; however, only nine of these are public Texas institutions of higher education, and none of them are part of TAMUS[19]. With TAMUCC's (2023) mission to "student success, developing professionals and engaged leaders, closing achievement gaps as a Hispanic and Minority Serving Institution, and providing intellectual capital through research, creative activity, and innovation for South Texas, the Gulf of Mexico, and beyond,[20]" this pursuit seems like a worthy mission-supporting endeavor that would bring prestige, recognition, and pride to South Texas and the local community of Corpus Christi.
Just like the Campus Voices Surveys from the late 1980s where CCSU sought out student voices, TAMUCC should proactively seek out their campus and local communities for input to the following questions:
How can TAMUCC better serve the local community? How can TAMUCC improve its engagement and outreach with local schools and organizations? What types of services and engagement do students and families need from TAMUCC?
The evolution of higher education begins with student voices. Like those from the Campus Voices Surveys from the 1980s, student perpsectives on prestige as TAMUCC transitioned to four-year status allowed a glimpse into the minds of students on campus. The former Corpus Christi Mayor, Luther Jones, understood the impact student voices have on a community when he urged students to write letters during CCSU's transition to four-year status: “You are a younger generation and you are not heard from enough. All too often, the people that come before the City Council are people from an older generation, my generation. And that is not necessarily the best. You have a right to influence what happens in this community, and you have to exercise that right” (Winkler, 1987, February 23)[21]. The examination of archival campus newspapers at TAMUCC has been insightful at highlighting historical student perspectives on prestige at the start of higher education expansion in Corpus Christi and the eventual South Texas Border Initiative (STBI). It is imperative for TAMUCC to thoughtfully consider student perspectives and those of the local community when making decisions that may forever change the populations the university serves and the academic programs it provides. From humbler beginnings as an upper-level institution of higher education serving juniors, seniors, and graduate students to a Hispanic and Minority Serving Doctoral Research Institution with undergraduate, master’s and doctoral granting programs, TAMUCC has come a long way in developing its prestige in South Texas and still has much potential for future growth and expansion.
[13] American Council on Education. (2023, November 1). Carnegie classifications to make major changes in how colleges and universities are grouped and recognized, set clear threshold for highest level of research. ACE. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/news/carnegie-classifications-to-make-major-changes/
[18] [19] Carnegie Classifications. (2023). Elective classification: The elective classification for community engagement. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/elective-classifications/community-engagement/
[1] [9] Carales, V. D., & Doran, E. E. (2022). The pursuit of equal educational opportunity: A historical analysis of the south Texas/Border initiative. Educational Policy (Los Altos, Calif.), 36(5), 1162-1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820951128
[3] [4] Dearden, J. A., Grewal, R., & Lilien, G. L. (2019). Strategic Manipulation of University Rankings, the Prestige Effect, and Student University Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 691-707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719831258
[5] [6] [7] Kim, J. (2018). The functions and dysfunctions of college rankings: An analysis of institutional expenditure. Research in Higher Education, 59(1), 54-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9455-1
[2] Labaree, D. F. (2017). A perfect mess: The unlikely ascendancy of American higher education. The University of Chicago Press.
[14] [15] [16] [17] Lederman, D. (2023, November 1). A new approach to categorizing colleges. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/2023/11/01/major-overhaul-coming-key-framework-organizing-higher-ed.
[11] [12] Perez, C. and Vogler, D. (1989, April 17). Campus voices: How do you feel about changing the name of CCSU to Texas A&M at Corpus Christi? University News, Vol. 16, No. 25.
[8] Santiago, D. A. (2008). Accelerating Latino Student Success at Texas Border Institutions: Possibilities and Challenges. Excelencia in Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506007.pdf
[20] Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi. (2023). Vision and mission. https://www.tamucc.edu/about-us/vision.php
[10] University News. (1988, November 07). Campus voices: Are you for or against the merging of CCSU and Texas A&M? University News, Vol. 16, No. 9.
[21] Winkler, J. (1987, February 23). Jones urges letter-writing campaign for CCSU. University News, Vol. 14, No. 21.