On Feb. 22, the Brandeis 2020 Committee released its long-awaited report, which proposes significant restructuring of many academic departments in order to achieve long-term annual savings of approximately $3.8 million. The committee was created to combat our growing budget shortfall and the unlikelihood that donations to the University will pick up in the near future. The proposals are bold and certainly controversial. Yet a serious consideration of their particulars shows that they are rather wise proposals, and that compared to what could have happened, undergraduate students got off pretty well. The bulk of the proposals that will affect undergraduates involve the consolidation of various tracks of study, administrative changes within certain departments like science, and certain heavy budget cuts to theater programs.As an undergrad, I believe these cuts need to be addressed on three separate levels. First, are the University's reasons for wanting this academic restructuring valid? Second, how will this restructuring affect the ability of undergraduates to pursue higher degrees and careers after graduation? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, how will this restructuring affect the quality of our education?

The first question is certainly the simplest to answer. As I stated, the University is in real financial trouble. In the words of Chair of the Board of Trustees Budget and Finance Committee Meyer Koplow '72, "Budget issues at Brandeis have been a never-ending saga."

If the University is to ever pull itself out of financial trouble, it needs to look toward long-term budget cuts to achieve a balanced budget and financial stability, which is exactly what the 2020 Committee has done. If the University were simply to continue looking for short-term solutions at this juncture, then the University and the student body would most certainly suffer down the road. Should the University successfully act now and implement the committee's recommendations, future generations of students and faculty will most certainly look back on this time in the Brandeis history with pride, knowing that we didn't push our financial problems on the shoulders of the next generation as the University may have done in the past.

A more salient question is how these particular cuts will affect undergraduates in the long term, especially regarding prospects for graduate school admissions and career options. And truth be told, the committee's proposals will have little to no effect in this area. Perhaps I am being a smidge ignorant and presumptuous, but I highly doubt that any graduate school or employer will cease to look favorably on a Brandeis alumnus because his degree is in the Hebrew Language track of a Judaic studies program rather than Hebrew language specifically. In fact, most of the reforms are simply a matter of departmental reorganization and won't affect the fields in which Brandeis offers bachelor's degrees.

One concern that may exist is that the University's cuts to its graduate programs may result in fewer TAs for many classes. However, this isn't a great loss, since many departments function adequately without TAs even now.

The chief objection that undergraduates may raise against the committee's proposals is that they will adversely affect the quality of the student body's education. As far as the most recent proposals are concerned, I think that argument holds little water. Most of the proposed restructuring would affect a very small portion of the student body. Yet the issue of an adverse affect on the University's quality of education isn't simply about the numbers. One of the factors that the Committee considered when evaluating what programs to cut or consolidate was "the symbolic and substantive significance of a given scholarly and teaching area." No programs that would harm the University's ability to provide a broad liberal arts education were cut.

Some may view the cuts to the Brandeis theater company as the University sacrificing its commitment to the arts. However, in response to such an argument, I will simply reiterate that the University is facing long-term financial instability, and this problem can't be solved without making some substantive sacrifices. The University has not eliminated its undergraduate theater program, nor has it eliminated the theater company altogether. This is something to be thankful for, and if the University manages to pull itself out of its dire financial straits in the long-term, cuts like this are not likely to be permanent.

In other words, although certain departments, like Classical Studies, may not be popular among students, the University was unwilling to cut any program deemed essential to the mission of the University. Furthermore, having more academic departments and faculty does not guarantee a better quality of education. The key components to a quality education are teachers who love their fields and love to teach and students who want to learn. The department through which a class is offered is immaterial to the quality and level of the class.

The University has come a long way since its founding some 60 years ago. We are now a major research university with relatively prestigious undergraduate and graduate programs. But we do not have the large endowments of the Ivy League schools, and we have been plagued with financial troubles for many years. The University has finally taken steps to get us out of our dire financial straits, and it has done so in a way that does little to no harm to its undergraduate programs. Hopefully, should the 2020 Committee's recommendations be implemented, the University can save itself from having to make substantive sacrifices in the future. The committee's proposals were bold and relatively wise, and this is occasion to be proud of our University.