IN RETROSPECT

Early in December 1948, Miss Mimi Hill, a student at the College, predicted in an interview printed in the Knights’ Quest: “Mimi thinks MJC is the greatest little school in the country and in 25 years she sees a spacious campus with modern buildings. A school with scholastic merit and public service. ‘In 25 years,’ said Mimi, ‘Everyone will know what I am talking about.’”¹ In Maryland and in the Washington-Metropolitan area, almost everyone now does know what Mimi was talking about. What is more, Montgomery College, whose enrollment is next in size to the University of Maryland among the institutions of higher learning in the State, enjoys a national reputation among community colleges. At the first faculty workshop held in the fall of 1946, Dean Price observed: “MJC is a significant page in the educational history of the community of the Nation’s Capital.”² While the observation may have sounded more than a little pretentious at the time, it is in retrospect a fair statement about the College’s founding and the role it has come to play in the community.

Like other educational institutions, Montgomery College has had its limitations and handicaps. In the early days, as one former member of the faculty has expressed it, lack of adequate financial support which would have been necessary to have many desired improvements in the physical plant and services, was the greatest limitation. “Let’s face it: In the early days we were operating on a shoestring most of the time.”³ A former administrative officer believes that the greatest limitation which previously confronted the College “. . . was the close organization tie-in with the Board of Education and the public school system.”⁴ The late Mrs. Edith F. Waterman felt that among the College’s limitations was the tendency for the institution to dabble in “. . . too many facets of education without focus on curricula which have the most demand and the most need in our community. Our community is unique. The attempt to pattern Montgomery College after community colleges in highly industrial areas, or highly rural areas, is a mistake, and a costly one.”⁵ Can a college, any more than an individual, be all things to all people? There are some who feel that this has been Montgomery College’s biggest stumbling block: the temptation in recent years to ride off in several directions. More than a few people associated with the College have come to feel that among the institution’s serious handicaps has recently been the proliferation of administrative positions. Still another weakness or limitation has been “the reluctance of the College to develop meaningful remedial programs for students who are not ready to undertake college level courses.”⁶ In the opinion of many faculty members the College should not have an open door admissions policy unless a strong, remedial program is established to meet the needs of the academically weak or poorly prepared students and is in turn made a condition of their acceptance.

Despite the frustrations, limitations, and handicaps under which Montgomery College has operated, it can justifiably claim instant success because it “. . . had a sense of identity, purpose and dedication from the very start. Being pioneers on the East Coast and being small did help to pull us together, but both faculty and students certainly had esprit de corps, and I am sure Price’s leadership contributed here. That dedication paid off . . ., and when our students transferred to other colleges their performances reflected credit on MJC.”⁷

To Ruth J. Smock, Associate Professor of English at the Takoma Park Campus, “the College’s greatest asset has been . . . its opportunity for close faculty-student relationships.”⁸ Milton F. Clogg, the first president of the Student Council and a member of the first graduating class, believes that “the College’s greatest assets were the members of the faculty and the administrative officials. . . .”⁹ The former Dean of Faculty, Dr. George B. Erbstein, feels that the institution’s outstanding strength “. . . was the uniquely high caliber of the faculty, both full-time and part-time,” and that the established regulations provided “a high academic standard for the College.”¹⁰ Another credit to the College has been its fine reputation among the universities of the area, to which many of its students have transferred, as well as among four-year institutions outside the State and the District of Columbia. The Vice President for Student Life at The American University, Washington, D.C., Dr. Bernard A. Hodinko, has noted that Montgomery College’s “traditionally strong teaching orientation is laudible and has resulted in outstanding service to students.”¹¹ A dynamic faculty, an academically strong program with small classes and a close relationship between faculty and students, a dedicated administration, a low tuition for county residents, and, in time, adequate financial support from the County and the State — these have been the source of this college’s strength.

Years ago Dean Price observed that “the function of a community college . . . is to provide more services and leadership for citizens of this area.”¹² It would appear that Montgomery College is now performing this function well. “We are all of us proud of our short history, proud of our achievements, and particularly proud that quality in academic and extra-curricular activities is our watchword.”¹³ So it was said by Dean Price during the first semester of the College’s history. So, we believe, it may be said of Montgomery College today.

1. Knights’ Quest, 8 Dec. 1948.

2. Hugh G. Price, Faculty Workshop, Fall, 1946. Professor Frank G. Pesci of The Catholic University of America substantiates Montgomery College’s claim to being the first community college in Maryland in a study of junior colleges in Maryland which he prepared several years ago: “Montgomery College was — the first publicly-supported junior college operated by a county school board in Maryland.” Frank Bernard Pesci, The Junior College Movement in Maryland, 1936–1962 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1963), p. 47.

3. George S. Morrison, Flagstaff, Ariz., letter, 31 Jan. 1970, to the author.

4. George B. Erbstein, President, Ulster County Community College, Stone Ridge, New York, letter, 9 Feb. 1970, to the author.

5. Edith F. Waterman, Takoma Park, Md., memorandum, 13 Feb. 1970, to the author.

6. Joseph T. Doyle, Associate Dean of Students, Montgomery College, Takoma Park, Md., memorandum, 4 March 1970, to the author.

7. Jerome W. Kloucek, Toledo, Ohio, letter, 19 May 1970, to the author.

8. Ruth J. Smock, Takoma Park, Md., memorandum, 15 March 1970, to the author.

9. Milton F. Clogg, Rockville, Md., letter, 20 Feb. 1970, to the author.

10. See Footnote 4.

11. Bernard A. Hodinko, Washington, D.C., letter, 13 Jan. 1970, to the author.

12. Hugh G. Price, Accolade, 1949, p. 6.

13. Knights’ Quest, 7 Nov. 1946.