You can't grow branch campuses by starving them

Let's review some of the bidding in the controversy over building a new University of Washington branch campus at Everett. I and a colleague in the UW Geography Department, William Beyers, performed original analyses for possible branch campuses for the University of Washington. The preferred solution was for three campuses: one in Tacoma (the greatest unmet need); one in South Everett (Snohomish County had the second-greatest unmet need); and one in Eastgate, to serve eastern King County. As the cost of three campuses was deemed as unaffordable, a Bothell area site was obviously the optimum (minimum travel) compromise between the Everett and Eastgate sites. Further, it was deemed economically indefensible to have two branch campuses in one county. If an Everett campus were built, the UW Bothell campus could not survive as a branch campus. The Tacoma and Bothell campuses have had relatively low enrollments, compared to projections. That's not surprising. These campuses are not very attractive because they are not really "branch campuses" in any comprehensive and competitive sense. Of course, they needed to be four-year institutions rather than upper-two-years-only, as they started out. Their budgets and faculties are far too small, and the course offerings far too limited. If they were truly "branches" of the University of Washington, they should mirror some significant part of at least the university's undergraduate offerings, including a wide range of traditional disciplines. No matter how dedicated the faculty and administrations, you don't grow in starvation mode.