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.

It Has Always Been About Jobs

Another reflection of the difficult economic times we face is the reinvigorated debate about the fundamental purpose of higher education. The debate, which is both internal and external, frequently takes the following line. On one side are those who argue that higher education’s primary goal is to provide students with the knowledge, critical thinking capabilities, and communication skills to empower them to be informed and engaged citizens. The other side advances the claim that, especially in the current economic climate, the primary goal of higher education should be to prepare people to be productive participants in the economy. Simplistically, do colleges and universities exist to prepare students for jobs, or for some other purpose? That’s a fair enough question, one that is certainly on the minds of many students and parents, and a question that clearly can be framed or recast in many complex and nuanced ways.

For land-grant universities like the University of Rhode Island, the answer is, I believe, that our purpose has always been to prepare our students both to be good citizens and productive economic contributors. The Morrill Act of 1862 states: “…each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance, of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life (emphasis mine).” I think the intent is clear – universities that were to be designated as “land-grant” institutions were to educate in order to produce citizens, drawn from the working and middle classes, to be productively engaged in the nation’s economy. The emphasis on “agriculture and the mechanic arts” is important to note: these were the sectors of the economy where the majority of Americans worked.

The University of Rhode Island is charged, as are all land-grant institutions, with providing both “liberal and practical education” to our students. This clause is a cogent example of the highly innovative vision for public higher education laid out in the Morrill Act. It is every bit as relevant in the 21st century as it was in 1862. But the importance of providing both liberal and practical education has perhaps never been more evident. More so than at any time in our past, the modern university’s role is to prepare students for jobs and entire careers that do not yet exist. To succeed we must continually rethink and redesign our academic programs to insure that the content and techniques we teach are as up to date as possible. We must also insure that every student is provided multiple opportunities to acquire the essential reasoning, communication, quantitative, language, social/cultural, and learning skills that are indispensable for success in the global economy.

America certainly needs more students to major in disciplines associated with science, engineering, and technology. At the same time we need to remember that many of our graduates build very successful careers based on majors in the social sciences, the humanities, and the arts. I am convinced, regardless of their programs of study, that engaging students in research, scholarship, and creative work will simultaneously enhance their undergraduate education and prepare them uniquely well for “the several pursuits and professions in life.” Students need to move outside of standard learning environments, whether it involves physical or virtual classrooms, and into research laboratories, field sites, studios, companies and non-profit organizations, or many other environments where they can be confronted with problems that have not been previously solved, or asked to create something new. In my judgment, the University of Rhode Island and America’s other land-grant research universities should seek to provide such learning opportunities to all of our undergraduates. By doing so we will not only prepare them for jobs, we will prepare them to create new jobs.

We Have Met the Enemy - and It's Not Us

Even casual readers of the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education have likely observed that, accompanying the severe financial constraints faced by many public colleges and universities, serious, and at times acrimonious, debates have arisen over how budgets should be balanced. Often it seems that the most highly charged debates are those internal to a campus.

Discussion and debate about the priorities and direction of an institution has long been characteristic of academic culture. It is a desirable and necessary characteristic, a consequence of academic freedom and shared governance, and one of the important attributes of university leadership. Deliberation, consultation, and participation generally have been, and should continue to be, hallmarks of decision-making in higher education. Colleges and universities can still be accurately characterized as “conservative” in the sense that they respect tradition, believe that much can be learned from history, and are cautious about change. But it must also be acknowledged that the pace and magnitude of the changes currently facing higher education will require many of our institutions, especially public ones, to be more adaptable, flexible, and responsive. In short, to change more rapidly than our current practices and systems of shared governance can easily accommodate. And that can be discomforting, unsettling, and alarming.

Given the very difficult financial climate, the growing pressures related to affordability and access, and the pace of – and demands for – change, perhaps we should not be too surprised that internal discussions and debates occasionally degenerate into affixing blame and identifying enemies. Frequently, the divide that is created separates faculty and administration. The rhetoric used is familiar. “Administrators are only interested in adding lines to their resumes, expanding their domains, and pandering to influential external constituencies.” "Faculty are calcified, reflexively resistant to new ideas, and non-productive.” Admittedly, there may be some truth to both caricatures, but less than many think. The substantial risk associated with indulging debate along such lines is that it distracts everyone involved, and higher education’s many stakeholders, from the real issue.

The real issue is cogently presented in a “Discussion Paper” on the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) website entitled: University Tuition, Consumer Choice, and College Affordability. Although slightly dated (2008) its principal findings are probably still sound. This APLU paper examined the financial climate of public colleges and universities and assessed the principal factors driving tuition increases for public institutions. The two main points I want to emphasize are the following (taken directly from the paper, but reversed in order).

“Public university tuition has increased because real per student appropriations have declined. This finding appears again and again in serious examinations of the causes of public university tuition inflation…Overall cost per student has been constant. Tuition increases have been just sufficient to offset reduced state subsidies, but not to increase public university budgets.”

“One of the most robust findings in the research literature is that the real cost per student in public higher education is not increasing….Cost per student has remained constant because revenue per student was constant; funds were not available to increase expenditures further. Public university managers have been highly effective at controlling costs; indeed they were compelled to be, given the resources available.”

These are obviously general statements, but accurate (at least in 2008) for public higher education as a whole. At the University of Rhode Island our increased revenues from tuition and fees have offset steadily declining state funding over the past decade and permitted us to make increased investments in financial aid as we endeavored to maintain affordability. There have been few, if any, significant increases in revenues to do just about anything else. If my many conversations over the last two years with other university presidents are representative, then this has been the case quite broadly. At many institutions, revenues have not kept pace with enrollment growth. At URI, and all but the most well endowed public colleges and universities, reallocation is the dominant mechanism to provide funding for growth or new initiatives. Continuous reallocation can be healthy, but also can be stressful.

So, what are we to do? The first step is to recognize that neither non-productive, ossified faculty, nor overly ambitious, self-promoting administrators, nor any other part of the academic enterprise is fundamentally responsible for our current difficulties. The “enemy”, as it were, is tangible but diffuse: the lack of understanding among Americans of the critical importance of investing in public higher education. China understands this, as do many other countries that are aggressively seeking to increase higher education opportunities and university-based research. Nearly everything associated with higher education, from state appropriations to Pell grants to federal research support, appears to be increasingly at risk for disinvestment in the U.S. This is not just the “enemy” of higher education, but also the “enemy” of economic recovery, of opportunity, of innovation, of growing the middle class, and of building a more just and equitable democracy. Combating this “enemy” is where all of us who care about and understand the value of higher education should focus our collective efforts.