# A Model for Private Colleges **URL:** **By** Charles Koch **Published:** May 1, 1971 --- “In our opinion, there is no reason why the taxpayer, wealthy or destitute, should be burdened with the financial responsibility of training and educating the future employees of industry.” In our opinion, there is no reason why the taxpayer, wealthy or destitute, should be burdened with the financial responsibility of training and educating the future employees of industry, be it the education industry or the automobile industry. Those who benefit directly from educated employees should be charged with the financing of their education; logically, those who benefit indirectly or not at all should not be held directly responsible. Implying that indirect arrangements do not work, numerous companies, in spite of the costs, are themselves preparing employees and potential employees for positions in their organizations. One such effort is the General Motors Institute (GMI). GMI offers a five-year cooperative program leading to the bachelor degree in engineering and industrial administration. A large percentage of all General Motors executives are GMI graduates and of the 8,000 co-operative graduates GMI counts as alumni, approximately sixty percent are currently employed by General Motors. Many of the remaining forty percent have gone on to positions of key responsibility in other organizations or started their own businesses. There have been three Ford Motor Company vice-presidents who graduated from GMI. While visiting with GMI officials, we inquired about GMI accreditation and the acceptance and recognition of its engineers by professional organizations. During our interview, we also sought information on student unrest, charges of irrelevance by discontented students, operational interference by generous, but interfering patrons, governing board uninvolvement or indecision, squabbles over athletic programs, lack of support for the funding of its operation, difficulty in placing graduates in periods of economic downturn, and other problems that are specifically of major concern to most colleges and universities. We learned that at GMI recognition of excellence by graduate schools and employers preceded accreditation. Before GMI became accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, a Bachelor/Masters Program had been instituted with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the request of MIT. Through this program, qualified GMI students enroll in the MIT graduate engineering curriculum even before receiving a bachelor degree at GMI. Presently, forty-one of the top graduate schools accept GMI students into Bachelor/Masters Plans similar to the original Bachelor/Masters Program at MIT. GMI graduates have also earned the recognition of the National Society of Professional Engineers and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers making them eligible for professional registration in the various states and Canada. Although GMI lacks accreditation by the Engineers Council for Professional Development, a Chapter of the Tau Beta Pi Association, national engineering honor society, is to be established at GMI in May of 1971. Interestingly enough, GMI was recognized by employers and first-rate engineering schools before it was endorsed by professional associations or accredited academically. Its first interest was, and continues to be, the preparation of technically trained and educated people. Successful pursuit of this interest has earned GMI recognition of its graduates and accreditation. One of the most important aspects of GMI is its pursuit of specific goals and objectives. It is not, nor does it attempt to be, “all things to all people.” It is, and it tries to remain, a source of technically trained personnel, competent in dealing with problems of a specific nature. In accomplishing this, it does not cater to the whims of students, faculty, or outsiders; for in adopting popular programs and passing fads, it would fail to achieve its stated goals and objectives and consequently lose the support of GM and the interest of other firms who have recognized GMI’s success in preparing students for responsible positions. Continued support and interest is indicative of GM’s belief that GMI is producing something that is unattainable elsewhere: training and education that is superior to the extent that it provides a satisfactory return on the millions of dollars GM has invested. Obviously, continued existence is subject to GMI’s ability to satisfy GM’s demands; therefore, catering to GM is a natural function. GMI must be sensitive to the needs of GM and thus bears a constant pressure to meet these needs better than anyone else. The eagerness of other companies to employ GMI graduates testifies to its success in providing a unique and functional education. It seems worthwhile to consider what makes GMI education so unique and functional. Certainly, the cooperative segment of the program is of primary importance. As with most cooperative programs, in-plant time on the job is essential; however, as is not always the case with other cooperative programs, the company for which the student works is the same company that subsidizes his education. It is not surprising to find GMI’s educational experience to be truly functional since it is designed to expedite transition from the role of a student to that of a member of a production team. Since most GMI students become GM employees, the value of the training and education to GM (a true measure of its utility) is constantly being weighed against the cost of continuing the program. GM naturally expects the costs to be offset by increased productivity or reduced costs elsewhere. The strikingly unique characteristic of the institution is its ownership. Unlike ninety-nine percent of all other educational institutions, GMI is owned by those who actually expect to receive the direct benefit from the training and education at GMI, General Motors. Since the governing board is comprised of General Motors vice presidents and general managers, it can be held responsible for the performance of GMI. A distinct arrangement at GMI is the contractual relationship between GMI and its faculty. Faculty members do not have tenure. Any faculty member can resign or be discharged with thirty-days notice. Faculty security depends solely on performance, yet the length of teaching careers at GMI is considerably above average. A professor can ill afford to be unresponsive to students in the GMI cooperative program. His job is to present theoretical material and relate it to the students’ work experience. Helping a student gain engineering and management skills that prepare him to later accept a responsible position is a primary function of the teacher and parallels GMI’s own goals. The instructor is hired according to his potential and is secured in his position according to his performance. As should be the case, the instructor is present to answer students’ questions arising from their desire to understand more. The work experience is instrumental in arousing the students’ curiosity. GMI provides not a regimented, artificial program, but a true learning experience where the object is to solve problems that are real in the minds of the students. Still another unique feature of the program is the requirement that the student qualify both for the job and for the classroom. After being accepted on both counts, the student must perform satisfactorily in both places. He is subject to a dual evaluation throughout the five-year program. Failure to perform satisfactorily in either or both of the institutions results in dismissal from the program. Each student represents a capital investment to GM and his potential individual contribution is weighed against the cost. At any point that the potential return is considered to be greater than the outlay, all efforts are made to retain the student Throughout the student’s stay, GMI builds a vested interest in him which it is reluctant to relinquish; dismissal of any student represents a loss that cannot be recovered. The student is, of course, paid while working. With judicious management of his earnings, he can meet the total charge for room, board and tuition at GMI ($2845/year). However, if total self support is not possible, as it may not be during the first year or two when earnings are less than $5,000, the student can apply for part-time work or a loan from the General Motors Institute Loan Fund. To supplement the academic work, an expansive program of extra-curricular activities is offered to encourage the student in social, spiritual, and physical development. Although every student has an opportunity to participate in intramural sports, there are no intercollegiate events on campus. These extra-curricular activities are presided over by a student government. Among other concerns, we have very briefly dealt with questions of financing, operation and curriculum by doing an abbreviated “case study” of an institution that is not entirely conventional. Our premise is that with innovation sadly lacking in education, the examination of a successful unconventional educational institution is in order.