Based on my reading of the commentary, I suspect the book will be controversial: praised by critics of higher education and damned by those devoted to defending American higher education as it stands. I haven't read the book yet (I didn't get an early copy since I'm not pals of the authors and it's not available yet for purchase.) The commentary offers 9 proposals, recommendations for change that the authors believe could begin to "set things right". This blog will include reactions to the first 5 of these.
On the face of it, their ideas make sense. Probably all colleges and universities could benefit from discussions on the pros and cons of each suggestion, and by finding pieces of proposals they'd implement. It would be a huge accomplishment if Hacker and Dreifus accomplish serious discussions and debate on campuses. I bet college and university administrators, weary of attending Planning Retreats, would relish the opportunity to honestly debate Hacker and Dreifus' ideas. They'd need to be challenged to think creatively and free of fear of retaliation if they disagreed with someone higher up the food chain.
On more careful examination, the proposals seem to contradict each other on too many occasions. The authors are no doubt bright and experienced and eager to cause improvement higher education. They describe their experiences with colleges and students while researching their book. Their experiences are somewhat at odds with those of us who work day to day with students and families. The lack of internal consistency in their proposals troubles me.
Proposal #1 - Engage all students.
Who could disagree with that bold statement? They want better teaching. Certainly, it would be wonderful if all college professors(Let's apply this to kindergarten to high school teachers too while we're at it.) were conscientious, caring, and attentive to every corner of their classroom.
But then, they state unequivocally that all Americans can do college work. Debatable, but even if we stipulated to this statement, how does this mesh with the next proposal....
Proposal #2 - Make students use their minds.
Well, yes, of course. Within the rationale for this proposal, Hacker and Dreifus lament that 64% of undergraduate students are enrolled in vocational majors instead of the likes of "philosophy, literature, or the physical sciences". Does it follow then that all Americans are capable of earning undergraduate degrees in philosophy? Really?
Then they claim that "undergraduate years are an interlude...., a time to liberate the imagination... without worrying about a possible payoff". Really? Maybe in some idyllic, imaginary place, but not in the world that I know. Even students, whose parents can pay for their education as a philosophy major at a liberal arts college where teachers engage their students, have worries and peer and societal pressures and normal young adult developmental challenges to work through. Those whose families struggle to help with their costs have to juggle work, study, and a future of loan payments - hardly a worry free 4 years.
Proposal #3 - Replace tenure with multiyear contracts.
The authors were careful to avoid wording this recommendation as - eliminate tenure. They knew that would be a non-starter. The troubling part of their argument here for me is that they imply that our nation's faculty, the best and the brightest folks we have, those who likely did experience their undergraduate years as an interlude and many of whom did study non-vocational topics like philosophy, literature and physical science, can't be internally motivated to continue to do good work throughout their careers.
They claim that these best and brightest need to be motivated to do their best in the classroom by fear of losing their jobs. They claim that tenure eliminates reasons for faculty to improve their teaching. Are we to believe that tenure causes laziness or lazy, bright people chose the life of the mind as a faculty member? The value of tenure has been and will continue to be debated. Their argument seems weak in that it seems to contradict what they say about the value of achieving what's seen as "impractical studies" for all.
Proposal #4 - Allow fewer sabbaticals.
In most colleges and universities, tenured faculty members are eligible for a 'year off' every seven years for the purposes of pursuing their studies or research activities without the interference of teaching responsibilities. This can be a big expense to universities.
In reality, lots of faculty members can't afford to take sabbaticals. Usually, the time away from teaching responsibilities comes at less than full pay, while their mortgage payments remain the same. Then there are the costs of actually pursuing the sabbatical goals. Some faculty secure research stipends to help defray the costs.
The other side of this debate - sabbaticals should be encouraged for faculty to refresh their teaching curriculum and teaching skills. See proposals #2 and #4.
Proposal #5 - End exploitation of adjuncts.
Adjunct faculty are analogous to part time employees at a retail firm who do the same work as the regular, full time employees, but who get less pay and few to no benefits. Just as retail stores can hire part-timers because the job market provides few other options for the part-time employee, the university can hire adjuncts because there are more PhD educated people in some disciplines than there are jobs. Market forces are in effect in both situations.
What seems strange, maybe even ironic, about this situation is that many of the PhD educated people followed the advice Hacker and Dreifus offered in Proposals #1 and #2: provide opportunities for "impractical studies", the wisest of choices to chose "philosophy, literature or physical sciences". Lots of folks did that, and now they're adjuncts. Colleges pay adjuncts less than regular faculty. Most of Hacker and Dreifus' proposals indicate ways colleges should lower costs. This proposal would increase costs.
These responses to the proposals may appear critical. In reality, the work they've done bringing these topics to light provides value and hopefully, an impetus for reflection. What's needed as follow-up is a commitment to civil discourse on these topics inside the halls of colleges and universities. If that doesn't happen, then I suspect that the discussion will take place in the halls of government and in the halls of individual family homes where leaders and parents will still wonder about the cost of college.
No comments:
Post a Comment