8 6
| S C T E CHN I CA L CO L L E G E S Y S T EM ’ S
F I R S T 5 0 Y EAR S
in 2008. Looking through the lenses with 20/20 presidential
hindsight, Merrell reflects. “From my perspective, the decade
of the 90s and through the turn of the century was a period of
great challenge for the system and the colleges. During this long
period of declining state support, the colleges found themselves
competing, on the basis of enrollment numbers, for an ever-de-
creasing amount of state funding. Meanwhile, something of an
identity crisis was bubbling within. All the colleges by this time
were approved to offer college transfer options, so the institu-
tions had become truly comprehensive in program offerings.
Several were convinced it was time for a name change.”
Merrell continues, “They wanted to be recognized as ‘com-
munity colleges,’ which is the recognized vernacular around the
country. They argued that the ‘technical’ in our name suggested
we were something less than the comprehensive community col-
lege. Others believed this was a waste of time and energy, and that
we had proven ourselves within the communities we served. The
smallest of our colleges suffered greatly during this period. They
didn’t have strong foundations able to generate large amounts
of private money, and they didn’t have a large, diverse business
and industry base to go to for support. There was discussion
about some reorganization and consolidation, which could have
strengthened programming in the areas served by the smallest
colleges, but influential legislators who wanted to protect ‘their’
colleges squashed this idea. The old ‘status quo’ pretty much won
out in the end.”
The name game has been around a long time. Just nine years
into the system’s existence “Technical” versus “Community Col-
lege” was alive and kicking. There was that March 1970
Anderson
Independent
editorial urging technical colleges not to compete
with universities. Then in September 1979, brushing off the
In-
dependent
, Greenville Technical College made known its desire
to become a community college. W. Louis Williams, chairman
of Greenville’s Area Commission for Technical Education, said
the direction of the board for the next two years would be to-
ward the concept emerging in education, the community college.
Greenville Tech’s president Dr. Tom Barton’s editorial, “Why A
Community College,” promoted the community college’s poten-
tial to “give the hundreds of young people in Greenville County
who have the God-given talent, intelligence, and ability but lack
the financial resources the opportunity to go to college at a very
nominal cost.”
Barton, remember, grew up without a father. He knew there
were young people who needed the break that only an affordable
education offers. Dr. Jim Morris, however, recalls how Barton’s
vision caused him angst as system leader. “You know, Tom Bar-
ton was a real builder and what he didn’t know about the two-
year college, he learned quickly. Tom came in with a proposal to
create a four-year degree in two programs, and I was the person
who had to present the opposition to that to the state board.”
The 1990s
A H I G H E R R O L E I N E D U C A T I O N
1990 1992
1990:
The
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act of 1990
established guidelines for grants to
postsecondary educational institutions.
1992:
Tech Prep (with high schools, technical colleges,
four-year institutions, private institutions, and business/industry
leaders) was implemented statewide.
“We admitted 48 students in that first
year and from that day forward we
have had over 300 students in the
program on an annual basis and at
least 1,000 students waiting to get in.”
—Dr. Marilyn “Murph” Fore
