Cosmetic Change at the University of Wyoming

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | July 10, 2025 | Jovan Tripkovic

[karpov]

On May 15, the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees voted to cancel five degree tracks, including a Ph.D. in Botany, an M.A. in Molecular Biology, and a B.A. in Art History. Most notably, they also cut the bachelor’s degrees in African American and Diaspora Studies and in Gender and Women’s Studies.

According to the university’s Standard Administrative Policy and Procedure, a program is considered low-producing if it averages fewer than five graduates per year at the undergraduate level or fewer than three per year at the master’s level over a five-year period.

That was the case for the Gender and Women’s Studies program, which produced 17 graduates over five years, and the African American and Diaspora Studies program, which produced just three.

To an outsider, the move might look like a decisive break from ideological DEI programs and a step toward broader institutional reform. In reality, it’s a symbolic gesture that fails to address the deeper structural issues at the University of Wyoming.

African American Studies and Gender and Women’s Studies emerged as national academic fads in the late 1960s and early 1970s, driven by the civil-rights and feminist movements, which called for the inclusion of African American history and culture, as well as women’s experiences, in the college curriculum.

These and similar programs quickly gained traction in academia, reaching the height of their influence by the early 21st century. Over time, however, they have been criticized for evolving into training grounds for social-justice warriors and DEI stooges. Critics argue that such degrees privilege Critical Race Theory, Marxist frameworks, and political agendas over academic rigor and intellectual inquiry.

In recent years, these concerns have gained national prominence, particularly during and after the first Trump administration, which cast many of these programs as politicized and divisive.

[decal]

Three steps forward, two steps back, okay.

[caddie]

They should keep the PhD in Botany.

Plants are far better than people.

[FreedomPoster]

Late stage Joe Biden would seem to be some level of proof there is Venn diagram overlap between the two.

[Reily]

Do they have a M.S. in Molecular Biology? An MA would be redundant and in theory less rigorous.

[Waverunner]

"Most notably, they also cut the bachelor’s degrees in African American and Diaspora Studies and in Gender and Women’s Studies."
Because the Job market for these degrees is saturated beyond the Max in WYOMING.

[Karliner]

Keep Molecular Bio and Botany. Maybe just for years and transfer? Granted few have the mind for such degrees but neither are DEI.

[1Old Pro]

a program is considered low-producing if it averages fewer than five graduates per year at the undergraduate level or fewer than three per year at the master’s level over a five-year period.

Makes sense.

[Phlyer]

a program is considered low-producing if it averages fewer than five graduates per year . . .

Makes sense.

Actually, I disagree. The key is not how many graduates you have, but how many of your graduates find employment in their degree field. If you are producing graduates with the skills the economy wants, then more will come.

The metric that matters is how many job offers in the field of the degree each graduate gets. I would take a large bet that Gender Studies graduates do not get many job offers (except in the "Do you want fries with that?" category).

Degrees with actual, substantial skill development (e.g. PhD in Botany) may or may not be desired by the economy. If skills in that area are desired in the economy, but no students want to come to your program to learn those skills, then the school should either end that program or figure out what they are doing wrong. But degrees with nothing but indoctrination and validation of grievances should be terminated regardless of how many graduates they generate.

[1Old Pro]

then more will come.

I wouldn't hang my hat on that. This is a simple economics decision when college tuitions are already way way to costly. Can't have a full department and staffing for 2-3 majors. These are the same considerations when offering any other programs like sports. The good news is that there is choice and you have other options when considering colleges.

[frogjerk]

I wouldn’t cut these - Ph.D. in Botany, an M.A. in Molecular Biology, and a B.A. in Art History, but if they are not getting any students or demand then they should go.

[Phlyer]

This is a simple economics decision when college tuitions are already way way to costly.

I agree . . . and disagree. The biggest problem I have with your statement is the implication that all degrees are equal. A degree in Medieval Basket Weaving is too costly at $1.98 for a full four-year program. A degree from a reputable university in something like Mechanical Engineering may actually be worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars in tuition and fees.

Note: It doesn't - even at today's inflated prices - take $200,000 for a useful engineering degree or related fields like mathematics or physics. I think it's interesting that engineering degrees have not seen (quite as much of) the inflation that useless degrees have seen. Apparently it costs $100,000 per year at Columbia for a degree in some soft area that will never provide an equivalent job.

It is also a frightening problem in our society that the jobs that can reasonably be expected to pay back that sort of tuition are law and business management (i.e. "bureaucracy"), neither of which actually add value to society in the same sense that STEM fields do.

Since I've complained about the perspective of the universities, let me offer a potential solution. All student loans should be provided through the university, and if a student does not find employment productive enough to repay their loans, the defaults comes back against the universities. That would fix the hyper-inflated bureaucracies within the universities, the hyper-inflated salaries of "educrats," and the population of programs with no meaningful chance of offering an economic benefit to society.

[1Old Pro]

The biggest problem I have with your statement is the implication that all degrees are equal.

I never really inferred that. To be clear, DEI degrees or basket weaving should not exist imho. But having two botany grads doesn't make sense. Some schools are able to carry degrees other than what they excel in, i.e. some great engineering schools offer biology degrees, even though none of their grads ever go on to become veterinarians.

[EnderWiggin1970]

Given Wyoming’s demographics and culture, degrees in stuff like feminist and black race-mongering and art history are a bad joke and were a waste both of students’ talents and any money poured into something that provides no meaningful returns. Kind of sad it took them decades to figure out the obvious.

[bgill]

Less than 5? Most colleges will cancel a class if it doesn’t get 20 students. OK, that’s how is was before all the I’m confused and still want to live off mom and dad studies.