OK,
in my most recent post I argued that it is time to be really serious about the
problems confronting American higher education, especially public colleges and
universities. I implied that some of the
“problems” and some “solutions” were, well, less than serious. That raises the
obvious question: So what specifically do you regard as less than serious or
even frivolous contributions to the discussion?
Here’s my answer. I apologize in
advance for its length, but, even so, there is a lot more that could be said on
these complex issues.
First,
let’s end the foolishness of talking endlessly about access and affordability
while saying nothing about quality. Yes,
the student loan situation is a looming crisis that we absolutely must address.
But there is one thing worse than graduating from college with a lot of
debt. That is graduating from college
unprepared to succeed in the intensely competitive global economy. In fact, that’s much, much worse.
Second,
let’s acknowledge that not everyone needs a college education. There are good jobs out there that do not yet
require one. But a lot of the best jobs
and careers do, and will continue to, require some amount of post-secondary
education, if not a college degree or even a graduate degree. And the percentage of the jobs that do will
likely increase. A college degree is
still the greatest driver of upward mobility in America. That said, we should
pay no attention to those who argue that a
college education is no longer needed based on the success of a Steve Jobs or a
Bill Gates. That is just silly. These
individuals are extremely rare. Moreover, this
argument completely ignores the fundamental fact that the success of Apple and Microsoft
is built on the innumerable, essential contributions of thousands of engineers,
programmers, designers, managers, business professionals, and more – the vast
majority of whom have college degrees. While
the odds of any particular 20-year-old being the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs
are very low, the opportunities to build a successful, productive, rewarding
career – or a new company – in the
technology sectors of the global economy are still high, but only if you go to
college.
Next,
let’s dispense with the tripe that distance education is some kind of panacea
for the issues surrounding access, quality, and affordability. That’s not to
say that distance education and web-based learning are unimportant. To the
contrary, they are essential tools to improving learning and access. We in
higher education should be “all in” with regard to adopting, implementing, and
developing technologies to improve access and student success. The lecture is far past its expiration date
for many of our classes. However,
teaching in laboratories, in the field, seminars, supervised internships,
studios, and tutorials is more important than ever, and cannot be
satisfactorily replicated on line, if at all.
Nor should we underestimate the value of students and faculty interacting
face to face in a learning and social community, developing relationships and interpersonal
skills not readily created through distance learning. One of the most important
advantages of teaching-learning technology is to free up faculty time for engaging
students directly in hands-on learning, research, and creative work. Especially in science and engineering (which
continue to be among our nation’s critical needs) laboratory or fieldwork, or
both, is simply a necessity. A virtual
laboratory does not adequately replicate being in a laboratory, actually
conducting experiments, and making your own mistakes. A video of a stream is
not the same as standing in it, sampling the water or the organisms, or just
closely observing an ever-changing microenvironment. Designing and building a
robot is completely different than watching one. There’s a lot more that could be said in this
context, but I hope you get the idea.
While
we’re at it, let’s develop a realistic attitude towards “for-profit” education.
It certainly has its place among America’s higher education options. It serves
a lot of students very well. It has, and
can continue to, teach public and private colleges and universities a lot,
particularly with regard to high-quality distance and web-based teaching
strategies. But it must also be
remembered that the primary constituency of a for-profit institution is its
owners or shareholders. The primary motivation is, well, profit. It seems to me that students tend to be
regarded as customers. I think that
attitude is fundamentally flawed.
Students are not our customers, they are, or should be, our
partners. A college education is not a
commodity to be selected from a display like cornflakes or oatmeal. I believe that a college education is a creative
endeavor involving close collaboration between the student and the
faculty. Each must contribute to the
creative process; without that partnership some type of credential may be
awarded, but the kind of education that would most benefit the student has not
been created. Also, we should not lose
sight of the fact that net revenue is a leading driver of academic offerings at
for-profit institutions. It is one reason, I suspect, that programs in science,
engineering, clinical practice, and anywhere where small student/faculty ratios
are required, tend to be underrepresented in that sector.
Of
course, net revenue considerations are also a part of the planning and resource
allocation strategies of public colleges and universities. In the current fiscal climate the need for
such considerations is frequently acute. A net revenue approach can be valuable
in multiple contexts, such as setting priorities and insuring that resources
follow students. It can also all to
easily get out of hand. Expensive
programs in the sciences, engineering, nursing, pharmacy, and allied health,
are unarguably critical to our future. So are philosophy, literature, foreign
languages, history, the social sciences, the arts, and yes, even,
anthropology. Even in the midst of
financial affliction, we must constantly keep the fundamental purposes of
higher education foremost in our planning and decisions – one of those purposes
is to prepare our students for success as thoughtful, knowledgeable, informed,
and engaged citizens.
Finally,
can we dispense with the specious argument that faculty productivity and
salaries are a major cause of rising costs? Faculty salaries, even for those on
the tenure-track, have been nearly stagnant for several years, especially at
public colleges and universities.
Moreover, practically everyone knows that adjunct faculty are
increasingly teaching our students and that the percentage of tenure track
faculty has been declining. Why? Because adjuncts are substantially cheaper,
particularly if part-time. The trend towards more adjuncts and part-time
faculty needs to be reversed, not exacerbated. Are there slackers out there? Of
course. Would increased accountability
be useful? You bet. Those are problems we have the tools to fix. In fixing those problems let’s not lose sight
of the fact that our faculty generally work hard, accomplish a lot, care about
students, and are passionate about teaching, scholarship, and service. For many colleges and universities I think
the data indicate that our faculty deserve more, not less, in terms of salary.
Whew!
I’m glad to get all that off my chest. I feel better, although you probably
don’t. Thanks for reading anyway.
