Frivolous (or at least misguided) Suggestions to “Improve” Higher Education

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.

Let's Be Serious

A memorable line from the movie The American President is: “We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.” It is a line for our time in higher education. Each day seems to bring a new problem to the fore. The list of problems appears endless: student loan debt, institutional debt, rapidly increasing tuition, achievement gaps, corporatization, the erosion of tenure, the future of the humanities, athletics scandals and spending, deferred maintenance, growing restrictions on student access, escalating demand to attend college, reductions in research funding, international competition, too few opportunities for new (or not so new) PhDs, the “graying” of the faculty, the lack of diversity among senior leaders – and we can add a lot more to that list. It can be depressing if one dwells on it.

There also appears to be no shortage of proposed solutions to at least some of these problems: let’s privatize, abolish tenure, foster “destructive” innovation, outsource, consolidate, partner, grow, shrink, provide credentials not degrees, increase oversight – and we can add a lot more to that list, too. Some of the proposals that have been made are worthwhile, some are misguided, some are frivolous, and some are really threats.

In order to solve a problem you must be able to identify it – but in the current context for higher education that is less obvious that you might first think. If you set out to design the next generation airliner, say the Boeing 787, everyone understands that if you elegantly solve all the design problems, but leave off the engines, you are unlikely to sell many aircraft, and even less likely to get passengers from Boston to Shanghai. Yet many of the solutions to the multiple problems facing higher education are just like that – useful, even necessary (like landing gear), but ultimately irrelevant without the engines. Unless we address the fundamental problems of funding, for both public institutions and for students, the rest of our efforts will not matter very much.

A recent report, a new addition to a substantial group that reach the same conclusion, cogently documents the engine problem for public higher education. The paper is aptly titled, “The Great Cost Shift. How Higher Education Cuts Undermine the Middle Class.” The author is John Quinterno, writing for Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization in NY, www.demos.org. The numbers for Rhode Island are especially sobering. In 1990-91 Rhode Island provided $205 per capita or $6.71 per $1000 of personal income to public higher education. By 2010-2011 those values had declined to $150 per capita and $3.55 per $1000 of personal income. Now that is a serious problem.

Moreover, it is a fundamental problem, and until this problem is solved we will have a difficult time really solving any of our myriad other problems. For example, the tension between maintaining and improving quality on one hand (which requires us to develop, recruit, and retain the best faculty and staff we can), and minimizing tuition increases on the other, is increasingly problematic in the context of systematic declines in state support.

The public disinvestment in higher education is a national problem, which makes it even more difficult to solve. But solve it we must, for the benefit of our state and our nation. Finding a solution requires a serious examination of the problem by serious people committed to the search. Currently, here in Rhode Island, the Board of Governors for Higher Education, the General Assembly, and the Governor’s Office have all engaged the issue of access and affordability, which is encouraging. But we must directly face the reality that the “cost” crisis is in fact a funding crisis. We have a long way to go to solve that problem, and no time to waste.

Learning by Doing

This past Thursday, the University of Rhode Island celebrated the creation of the Office of Experiential Learning and Community Engagement. It was a special moment for URI because it highlighted the vision, dedication, and work of many talented individuals among the faculty, staff, and administration of the university. Further, the day represented the interests and accomplishments of generations of URI students, who have consistently understood the enormous value of participating in research, scholarship, internships, and community service. An admirable cross-section of the URI community turned out, and we were joined by Governor Lincoln Chafee and Senator Dawson Tucker Hodgson.

Each of our speakers – Governor Chafee, Dean Jayne Richmond, Provost Don DeHayes, Jay Petrella (Vice President for Human Resources, Citizens Bank), Dr. Roger LeBrun (Professor, College of the Environment and Life Sciences), Jason Allard (a URI student majoring in psychology) and Kim Washor (Director of the Office of Experiential Learning and Community Engagement) – addressed the substantial advantages of “hands-on” learning.

Importantly, these advantages do not accrue solely to the students, but also to the companies, non-profit organizations, or communities that provides the opportunities for students to be engaged. Indeed, one of the most important contributions provided by research universities to the well being and economic development of the nation is the talent and energy of our students. Students from the University of Rhode Island long have been, and continue to be, involved throughout the state. Our faculty are frequently involved as well.

The Office of Experiential Learning and Community Engagement will serve as the central portal for students, faculty, businesses, and community organizations. The Office will help catalyze the continued growth of experiential learning at the University of Rhode Island. It will facilitate the increasing engagement of the university with the people, businesses, and communities of the state, and even beyond Rhode Island’s borders.

The engagement of undergraduates in research, scholarship, creative work, experiential learning and service learning are integral parts of the University of Rhode Island’s Academic Strategic Plan. And that is as it should be. Why? Because the learning opportunities created by such engagement cannot be replicated in our classrooms and web-based learning environments. Our role is to prepare students to help solve the global challenges of the 21^st century and to prepare them for jobs and careers that do not even yet exist. The skills, expertise, and adaptability required for success can best be gained by confronting problems that have not been solved, by attempting to do, or create, things that are new, and by pursuing fresh solutions to society’s problems. Together with the faculty and our partners, this is what the Office of Experiential Learning and Community Engagement seeks to accomplish.

Loss and Community

Recently our URI community suffered two devastating losses: the deaths of Erica Knowles, a senior studying journalism and women’s studies, and Professor Peng Wang, a young faculty member in Chemical Engineering and Pharmaceutical Science. Each loss leaves a gaping hole in our community - voids that only they could fill. This past Saturday we gathered to mourn their loss and to celebrate their lives. Such events, although desperately necessary, are difficult for all concerned, especially for the families and those who love them. I very much appreciate their generosity in allowing the larger URI community to join with them to say good bye, and to share in both the grief of loss and the warmth of remembering.

Erica had long been a part of Rhode Island and South County, whereas Dr. Wang had only recently joined the University of Rhode Island faculty, and was born and grew up in China. On the surface the memorial services were very different, shaped by the distinct cultures, histories, and relationships of those whose lives we celebrated. But at the end of a long Saturday, I was left with the abiding conviction that our common humanity, intensely shared among a community at such moments, transcends all the differences of religion, language, culture, and history.

It is good to be reminded of that. Many people struggle with the questions of whether our lives have real meaning, or whether our decisions and choices ultimately really matter. The questions are ancient ones, and posed in many ways and venues. We seem to be living in a time where those questions are becoming more pointed and more urgent, in part the consequence of modern science and its increasingly mechanistic understanding of humanity. Alfred North Whitehead pointed this out in his 1925 Lowell Lectures at Harvard University, published as Science and the Modern World. He quotes Tennyson’s famous poem, In Memoriam: “The stars, she whispers, blindly run.” Whitehead argues that this line reflects the appalling possibility (to Tennyson and many others) that, since the laws of physics “blindly run”, that our lives, consequently and inescapably, blindly run.

It is not easy to conclusively refute that possibility. But the two funeral services reminded me that love matters, that friendship matters, and that therefore our lives matter. Our choices, our actions, the relationships we build, and the connections we make can bring us together in a community where what we share is far greater than our individual contributions. Last Saturday, we came together in grief, but in sharing that grief, expressing it alongside our love and appreciation for those we lost, we came away with shared memories, closer ties, and renewed hope. Remarkably, I think, community such as that evident on Saturday can provide powerful testimony to the possibility that our lives are not governed solely by the laws of physics and chemistry, that our lives together do not “blindly run”, and that we can create a future that is better for all.

The State of College Affordability

In his State of the Union address, President Obama elevated the issue of the rising costs of higher education to a new level – a step that, in my view, was long overdue. America can certainly benefit from comprehensive and inclusive discussions of the critical social, economic, and public policy issues surrounding access to, and affordability of, higher education. Students, their families, colleges and universities, the federal and state governments, communities, businesses – all should be involved because everyone has a stake in the outcome. Indeed, one can argue that the President was responding to the growing popular demand, exemplified by elements of the Occupy Movement, for urgent attention to the questions of access and affordability.

The problem has been widely recognized: for well over a decade. The costs of higher education have been steadily rising, and at a rate that exceeds the consumer price index as a measure of inflation. For public colleges and universities, the underlying reason (as I have pointed out previously) is the systematic disinvestment in higher education by state governments. The behavior of state governments in this regard is not fundamentally irrational: in the face of ever increasing costs for such things as mandated entitlements, health care, public safety, corrections, and pensions, funding for higher education was increasingly viewed as discretionary. After all, if colleges and universities needed funds beyond those provided by the state, they could always raise tuition. And they did.

For some time this strategy worked acceptably well because in many states public higher education was inexpensive. But after several years of budget reductions and concomitant tuition increases, this is no longer the case for many students and families. Here at the University of Rhode Island two recent events powerfully highlighted the situation. The first was the testimony presented by students, alumni, and faculty at a hearing on campus by the Special House Commission to Study Public Higher Education Affordability and Accessibility in Rhode Island (see www.uri.edu/news/releases/index.php?id=6102), followed by the Occupy URI forum (see our current home page).

It is encouraging for us in Rhode Island that the multiple issues associated with the cost of public higher education are gaining increased attention. Crafting solutions will not be easy or simple. There are several other, well recognized, problems facing our state that also require urgent attention. However, most of the problems we face, including access and affordability of higher education, could be addressed far more readily if additional resources were available. I believe that the best and most sustainable path to increasing our resources is to grow the economy. This growth must happen sooner than later, it must be substantial, and it must be based on innovation. Discovery, technology transfer, entrepreneurship, and a highly prepared workforce are all essential to building a competitive 21st century economy. These are all things at which URI can excel. Consequently, access to affordable, excellent public higher education is a critical component of constructing solutions to the many challenges facing our state, and our nation.

The Value of Higher Education

As the University of Rhode Island prepares to begin its spring semester, we continue to carefully evaluate the value and costs of education at URI. Nationally, the question of the value of higher education has become more prominent and persistent. It is understandable, given the substantial increases in the costs for both private and public higher education that have occurred over the past several years and the bleak economic conditions that still exist for many students and families across America. For public universities and colleges, the reason for the increase in the cost to students and their families is clear: for the past several years nearly every state in the nation has systematically reduced state support for public higher education. Given the slow pace of the economic recovery and, especially, job creation, questions about the value of higher education have become acute. The current recession is hitting recent college graduates very hard, exacerbating concerns about the value of a college education.

How should we respond? First, we must candidly acknowledge that the old truism “college is not for everyone” is accurate, and further acknowledge that pursuing “any degree at any price” is simply unwise. But we also need to remind people that, even now, college graduates fare much better in the labor markets than those without a degree and that the average income advantage enjoyed by those with a bachelor’s degree, compared to those who graduate from high school, is still very substantial. One recent (August 2011) and specific measure of this for URI graduates was provided by SmartMoney magazine (published by the Wall Street Journal), which ranked the University of Rhode Island 1^st in New England and 13^th nationally for value.

I believe that such statistical comparisons, as favorable as they may be, substantially underestimate the value of higher education in the rapidly changing, global economy. In many respects, our primary educational mission at the University of Rhode Island is to prepare students for careers that are only being invented now, or that do not yet exist. Research universities like URI are uniquely positioned to provide such an education because research, discovery, and experiential learning are intrinsically a part of what we do. The learning that occurs when students are asked to work on problems that have not been solved, or to analyze data or information that has not previously been examined, or to create something that hasn’t been made before, is not only essential but unique. And it is that kind of learning that not only will prepare them to thrive in an environment of innovation and rapid change, but to become innovators themselves.

At the University of Rhode Island, we are working every day to transform undergraduate and graduate education to prepare our students to thrive, and to lead, in the global economy. Judged by the success of its alumni, URI has long been a university that prepares its students to be competitive, to be innovative, and to lead. That is more important than ever. New approaches, innovative methodologies, stronger partnerships, and consistent commitment to excellence in both teaching and research are required. The faculty and staff of the University of Rhode Island are deeply engaged in all of these areas.

It Has Always Been About Jobs - Continued

In the 21st century, how should the University of Rhode Island, and other land-grant universities, prepare their students for “the several pursuits and professions in life”? In many respects, this question is a more difficult one now than at the beginning of the land grant era. For one thing, the majority of our students will no longer make their living, or build their career, in endeavors associated with agriculture. Our economy is far more diversified, far more global, and changing far more rapidly than at any previous time in history. Additionally, the specific knowledge and particular skills our students gain during their undergraduate education have much shorter useful lifetimes. There are also rapidly increasing expectations for people to work in collaborative, diversified teams, and to analyze and integrate information and data from multiple disciplines. Innovation and adaptation are critical to competitiveness. Our graduates have to be ready for such an environment.

At the University of Rhode Island, our Academic Strategic Plan provides the framework for undergraduate and graduate education in this context. In addition, URI is working hard to develop new partnerships with businesses, non-profit organizations, and communities to bring their perspectives into our classrooms and to provide opportunities for our students to gain “hands-on” experience prior to graduation while contributing directly to solving real problems.

Some key elements of these efforts are as follows:

• Emphasizing experiential learning – engaging students in research, scholarship, and creative work. For many of our students, this will mean internships outside of URI where they can be challenged to work on problems that have not been solved, or tasked to create something new. For others it will mean working in research labs or at field sites with faculty, frequently in collaboration with companies or other organizations, to investigate issues and solve “real world” problems. We expect to announce soon a new Office of Experiential Learning and Community Engagement, envisioned and developed by a group of URI faculty and deans last year, which will provide support for students, faculty, and community partners who provide such learning opportunities.
• Developing partnerships and collaborative agreements with companies, organizations, and communities that will benefit our partners and enhance the education of our students. We want to know precisely what our students need to know, and what skills they need to possess, in order pursue their careers. Moreover, an important part of URI’s mission is assist both the private and public sectors to be more successful; doing so will help our graduates to succeed.
• Increasing the participation of business, social service providers, professional organizations, government agencies, and others in URI’s instructional programs.
• Insuring that our students are prepared for the global economy: increasing their language skills, cultural/social competencies, and capabilities to function effectively in an international context.
• Providing multiple opportunities for students to develop their communication, critical reading, analytical reasoning, and quantitative thinking skills. Our graduates need to be smart consumers of information as well as effective communicators of that information and its implications.
• Making the most of modern technology to provide rich 24/7 learning opportunities for students and to continue to substantially increase the number of courses and programs available on-line and in blended formats. The new Office of Online Teaching and Learning has been established to assist faculty in implementing using contemporary technology to effectively engage students.
• Increasing our programs and other opportunities for our students abroad, and significantly increasing the number of international students on our campuses.

All of these initiatives are well underway. I believe that the University of Rhode Island is receiving growing recognition for preparing its students very well for “the several pursuits and professions in life”. To be sure, we have much more to do and, given the rapid pace of change, continued success will require continuous effort. The successful 21st-century land-grant university must itself be adaptable, flexible, and responsive. I am confident that our faculty and students are fully prepared to meet that challenge.