Today and tomorrow a University group called the Enrollment Management Committee will report to the Board of Regents with a list of ways to improve and capitalize on undergraduate and graduate enrollment.

In the report, the committee prioritizes affordability and student support services for groups like transfer students, as well as incorporating diversity and considering workforce needs.

Focusing on these areas demonstrates a willingness to put students first âÄî exactly where they should be. Affordability is most important, but so is helping students prepare for and find jobs after graduation.

But we all know what that means: more science, technology, engineering and math and more cuts to liberal arts.

According to the report, the committee recommends increasing undergraduate enrollment by 1,000 students while focusing on STEM students.

Of course, the report doesnâÄôt explicitly say that a greater emphasis on STEM means a de-emphasis of liberal arts, but neither does it communicate the importance of classes outside those four letters.

The committee came up with measureable goals but failed to explain why those goals were important and what meeting them would mean. Furthermore, the report fails to lay out a specific plan to achieve these goals.

Regents should think critically about the report, and push the committee to explain the importance of its recommendations. They should keep students the top priority; they should prepare them for post-graduation, but not rob them of a well-rounded education.