UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTING MANDATED REORGANIZATIONS 125 does not incentivize those colleges to offer the highest quality of learning expe- rience nor does purposefully isolating mature or shrinking programs. Both of these types of savings could readily be made by changing the university’s internal budgeting model instead. Similarly, college mergers have been proposed to save funds by reducing admin- istrative or staff positions. Although this may save funding the first year, often at the college level, additional associate/assistant deans and staff members may need to handle the additional load in the unified office. One dean indicated that by the time his college’s merger with another campus was completed, $1.2M had been spent for new websites, stationary, business cards, campus signage, building signs, and marketing. Does a merger to save administrative cost achieve its goal? Or, do hidden costs and effort cost more than such a reorganization is worth? Although never stated as the primary ratio- nale, defending liberal education has been mentioned as an additional justification for splitting colleges or merging them. From some leaders’ perspective, by making one college accountable for liberal education (merge) will result in a stronger core program. Alternatively it has been argued that by making multiple colleges responsible for it (split) there will be a greater intercollege buy-in to the purpose of general education. This same type of argument is used for the balance of campus power: does one dean representing the campus’s largest college (merge) have more say than multiple deans sitting around the table representing the liberal arts programs (split)? Surely the accountability for liberal education and the power associated with the programs can be resolved through improved campus communication and even budget models. Are there truly instances where reorganization was necessary to enhance liberal education? Or is it the campus leader was avoiding more difficult conversations, and the defense of liberal education is a convenient cover that is diffi- cult to disprove? Interdisciplinarity as an argument for reorganization is intriguing. Individuals pushing for reorganization of any type often see it this argument as a surefire way to increase interdisciplinary instruction and research (i.e., “breaking down the silos”). When splitting colleges, it is thought that when faculty from similar programs (e.g., within the social sciences) spend more time with their peers, and the similarity of the programs naturally helps faculty cross their reduced disciplinary boundaries. When merging colleges, it is thought that by bringing more dissimilar programs into contact, larger boundaries will be crossed and novel approaches to interdisciplinary teaching and research will result. Both could be correct. These are just different scales One dean indicated that by the time his college’s merger with another campus was completed, $1.2M had been spent for new websites, stationary, business cards, campus signage, building signs, and marketing.