Chapter 2 – Faculty Attitudes Toward Undergraduate Education
A common complaint towards college faculty is that we are so preoccupied by research and outside consulting that they ignore their students. Where this is the case, Bok places the blame on the greater recognition and reward given for these pursuits when compared to teaching. But he also challenges that on average, teaching takes up the vast majority on a typical faculty members work day. He further evidences that the number of faculty who consider themselves teachers greatly outweigh the number that consider themselves researchers. Bok does recognize the lack of effort to define and encourage better teaching pedagogy on campuses. This is partly due to the difficulty in judging teaching methods both within and among institutions. Research can be judged over time across institutions and lead to reputations, whereas teaching does not provide for such cross institutional competition. In that colleges make decisions based upon factors that affect their reputation it is natural that much effort is not seen in improving faculty teaching. Indeed current incentives seem to divert faculty from continuing to refine and improve teaching methods.
Bok identifies six tendencies in which faculty and student interest diverge in relation to undergraduate education.
Differing Perspectives on the Role of Universities
A particular difficulty in faculty student relations is the differing view of the role of the university among the two groups. Faculty tend to view education as the challege of discovering and transmitting knowledge and ideas, while students view education as a means to a end. Faculty value knowledge for its own sake, students value transferable skills. Even the skills that faculty value, such as good writing, clear thinking and language competency are secondary to the creation and transmission of knowledge that they assist. Faculty believe in a love of learning while students place greater importance in the ability to make money. These difference effect the curriculum in that faculty are not committed to teach the skill sets that students desire to learn. Courses that teach competencies desired by students are often taught by adjunct due to a lack of interest by permanent faculty. While judgment related to which competencies should be required are often argued based upon faculty interest rather that undergraduates needs. This is particularly the case with students desire for values-based courses, which can be subject to opinion, whereas faculty showing a preference for courses with provable knowledge based content.
Barriers to Collaboration
The traditional independence of professors affects the manner in which curriculums are structured. Since professors do not feel that colleagues should be forced to teach subjects not of their interest. Course offerings, including interdisciplinary courses must be designed so as to be staffed voluntarily or with adjuncts.
Neglecting Purpose
Curriculum are reviewed and revised without first identifying the objectives that and undergraduate education should pursue. Ad hoc adjustments of the curriculum often take precedent over a comprehensive review of the full curriculum. While marketing materials sale students on the values the university wishes to promote, the curriculum is centered on the development of knowledge and intellectual ability. There tends to be a willingness to accept goals in the curriculum that seem theoretically important irregardless of the ability to actually achieve them. This leads to the situation of forcing students to complete requirements that presents a false competency.
The Fixation on General Education
Faculties tend to spend the bulk of there curricular review and revision efforts of general education which constitutes about a third of students’ course work and very little effort discussing majors, which amounts to a half to a third of course work, or electives. Revisions in majors are left to departments and most majors amount to little more than a grouping courses lacking interrelated structure or depth. With such a system majors requirements have a tendency to grow in requirements and become narrow in intellectual focus. With electives it is rare that faculties discuss the how the freedom of these courses are actually used and benefit students.
Neglect of Pedagogy
Nearly all faculty discussion on curricular issues relates to subject matter, discussion of pedagogy is almost nonexistent. This lack of faculty debate is likely rooted in self-protection resulting in a stretching of the original intent of academic freedom. With growing faculties and smaller teaching loads this can lead to more course offerings but less individual attention for students.
The Neglect of the Extracurricular
Studies repeated show that undergraduates consider what they learn through interactions outside of the classroom to be just as valuable to their college experience and what they learn in the classroom. It is a failure for faculty to limit their discussion of curricular to classroom content that leave extracurricular concerns to administrators. Indeed there is a great opportunity to relate intertwinable knowledge such as political discourse or cultural issues.
Discussion Questions:
1. Is there a move for us or our professional school colleagues to place a higher value on research and/or consulting over undergraduate education?
2. Is the ability to illustrate and develop a reputation for teaching effectiveness a lost cause or something we should be actively working towards?
3. How does Bok’s perception of the devaluing of skill sets reflect on GenEd’s move towards a companies based curriculum?
4. How does volunteer teaching recruitments affect our ability to offer IDS courses? What are the benefits to faculty for teaching outside of their department?
5. What values, if any, should we be passing on to our students?
6. What are the pros and cons of a comprehensive review of our curriculum vs. making smaller changes?
7. Other than discussions on whether we should allow online courses, should we as a faculty be discussing and making discussions on how, pedagogically, courses should be taught?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Chapter I Summary and Discussion Questions
Chapter 1 – The Evolution of American Colleges-Keith Howard
In the first chapter, Bok offers a historical perspective on the evolving philosophy of education goals. The chapter is divided into two sections starting with a brief history and then putting criticism of the academy in historical perspective. The necessity of such a historical perspective is justified by the notion that those wishing to critique and/or reform the academe need to know what reforms have preceded and understand the failures and successes of those reformation movements.
The Evolution of Undergraduate Education: A brief Summary
During the pre-Civil War period, colleges in the U.S were linked to religious bodies and organized for two particular objectives: training intellect and building character. Formal education consisted of the sterile study of mathematics, logic, English, the clasics, and Latin and Greek. Formal education was supplemented by informal clubs and literary societies that offered robust interactions. To train metal discipline, institutions focused on demanding work translating ancient languages, disputing arcane questions, and solving mathematical questions. Character was build through the study of classical texts, observance of strict rules of behavior, excessive mandatory chapel, and a capstone course in moral philosophy.
After the Civil War, American universities were influenced by their German counterparts. A more practical education system emerged with focus on the sciences, language and literature, vocations subjects such as commerce and engineering. Occupational training was a centerpiece of Public Institutions. Ph.D. programs were introduced along with the notion of the “scholar-teacher”. Further reforms removed the strict classical curriculum and allowed students the freedom to study based upon their interests. As part of this trend at Harvard, in 1890, 80% of the curriculum was required courses, by 1901 it was 70% and only 40% by 1940. Religious Orthodoxy lost its hold as governance became nonsectarian and religious observance became noncompulsory.
In the first decades of the twentieth century the pendulum began to swing back to a more strict curriculum. The “doctrine of total elective choice” had not produced “the vigorous energetic study” promised but rather a glut of graduates possessing an education consisting primarily of introductory courses and a lack of depth in any field of knowledge. The clubs and literary societies had been replaced with social and athletic clubs and fraternities. Requirements of majors emerged as a reform as did a stricter curriculum focused on a combination of breadth and depth of knowledge. Depth being achieved through concentrations and depth via required courses work in the humanities, sciences and social sciences.
By World War II, two models of institutions emerged, Public institutions focusing on vocational concentrations accented by the liberal arts and private institutions with the liberal arts as focus. The breath and depth structure of curriculum was further strengthened by a growth in course offering which resulted from expansions in faculty. This offered students more options with respect to elective courses, distributional courses and majors.
After World War II universities experienced a great increase in students as a result of the GI Bill and the evolving national economy. Universities became less elite and more diverse. The new model student was less interested in a broad liberal arts education than vocational preparation. The availability of federal support resulted in more focus toward research by faculty and institutions. While the structure of the curriculum remained intact the content material became much more focused much sooner. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary fields emerged along with more individualized programs of study. Advances in technology began to impact the breadth and variety of course materials.
Discussion Questions:
1. What basic objectives relative to training intellect and building character are reflected in our GenEd program?
2. How would we rate Mercer’s commitments to Vocational training vs. Liberal education?
3. Where does our GenEd program fit on the strict curriculum vs free curriculum scale?
4. How are the challenges imposed on use by the competitive forces of the Hope Grant in Georgia forcing us to evolve as an institution?
Recent Criticisms in Historical Perspective
Bok acknowledges criticism of the academy such as “lacking a clear vision of undergraduate education, failing to counteract the growing fragmentation of knowledge, sacrificing the liberal arts in favor of vocationalism, and neglecting undergraduates to focus on research.” He further seeks to address these and other common critiques with a bit of historical perspective. Most such critiques argue a decline in the standards, but Bok argues against the notion that there ever existed a golden age of education when these same criticisms were not present. Complaints with respect to instruction are universally present in every age. He particular argues that there has never been a period of consensus on what constitutes a liberal education. Even after World War II when several major universities attempted to build a model program of General education, no consensus of such a model emerged. Historically the only period of consensus was old classical model of the pre-Civil War period to which no one want to return. Indeed uniformity of purpose and curriculum is more of a European Model of higher education than American where variety is highly sought and seen as strength.
The amount of specialization in the academic education has increased due to the fragmenting of knowledge brought on by academic research. Though no one has yet to illustrate the drawback of such fragmentation or present a unification of knowledge to challenge the fragmentation.
With respect to vocational nature of education, Bok argues that the U.S. education has always had its vocational aspects and the desire for vocational education comes external from the academy. It is encouraged by the demand of American employers and the career centered motivation among students. Universities are serving these constituencies rather than imposing a vocational mindset.
Relating to the assertion that the professoriate neglects its students in favor of research ambitions, Bok offers evidence students’ appreciation of the amount and quality of interaction with faculty.
Lastly, Bok agues the major failing in higher education is the inability to illustrate improvements, particularly in the area of teaching. This he argues is mainly due to the nature of the education product which is distinctly different from, say, a consumer product.
Discussion Questions:
1. Does Mercer’s Professional programs interfere with the liberal arts nature of our Gen Ed?
2. Would you characterize our efforts to build and maintain a coherent GenEd as being “hopelessly engaged in the respiration of a lifeless ideal”? Pg 24
3. Is it a lost cause to seek to define the aims of a liberal education?
4. Do you envision the “unity of knowledge” as an “elusive ideal”? Pg 25
5. How do the magnitude of preprofesional students impact the liberal arts nature of our GenEd?
In the first chapter, Bok offers a historical perspective on the evolving philosophy of education goals. The chapter is divided into two sections starting with a brief history and then putting criticism of the academy in historical perspective. The necessity of such a historical perspective is justified by the notion that those wishing to critique and/or reform the academe need to know what reforms have preceded and understand the failures and successes of those reformation movements.
The Evolution of Undergraduate Education: A brief Summary
During the pre-Civil War period, colleges in the U.S were linked to religious bodies and organized for two particular objectives: training intellect and building character. Formal education consisted of the sterile study of mathematics, logic, English, the clasics, and Latin and Greek. Formal education was supplemented by informal clubs and literary societies that offered robust interactions. To train metal discipline, institutions focused on demanding work translating ancient languages, disputing arcane questions, and solving mathematical questions. Character was build through the study of classical texts, observance of strict rules of behavior, excessive mandatory chapel, and a capstone course in moral philosophy.
After the Civil War, American universities were influenced by their German counterparts. A more practical education system emerged with focus on the sciences, language and literature, vocations subjects such as commerce and engineering. Occupational training was a centerpiece of Public Institutions. Ph.D. programs were introduced along with the notion of the “scholar-teacher”. Further reforms removed the strict classical curriculum and allowed students the freedom to study based upon their interests. As part of this trend at Harvard, in 1890, 80% of the curriculum was required courses, by 1901 it was 70% and only 40% by 1940. Religious Orthodoxy lost its hold as governance became nonsectarian and religious observance became noncompulsory.
In the first decades of the twentieth century the pendulum began to swing back to a more strict curriculum. The “doctrine of total elective choice” had not produced “the vigorous energetic study” promised but rather a glut of graduates possessing an education consisting primarily of introductory courses and a lack of depth in any field of knowledge. The clubs and literary societies had been replaced with social and athletic clubs and fraternities. Requirements of majors emerged as a reform as did a stricter curriculum focused on a combination of breadth and depth of knowledge. Depth being achieved through concentrations and depth via required courses work in the humanities, sciences and social sciences.
By World War II, two models of institutions emerged, Public institutions focusing on vocational concentrations accented by the liberal arts and private institutions with the liberal arts as focus. The breath and depth structure of curriculum was further strengthened by a growth in course offering which resulted from expansions in faculty. This offered students more options with respect to elective courses, distributional courses and majors.
After World War II universities experienced a great increase in students as a result of the GI Bill and the evolving national economy. Universities became less elite and more diverse. The new model student was less interested in a broad liberal arts education than vocational preparation. The availability of federal support resulted in more focus toward research by faculty and institutions. While the structure of the curriculum remained intact the content material became much more focused much sooner. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary fields emerged along with more individualized programs of study. Advances in technology began to impact the breadth and variety of course materials.
Discussion Questions:
1. What basic objectives relative to training intellect and building character are reflected in our GenEd program?
2. How would we rate Mercer’s commitments to Vocational training vs. Liberal education?
3. Where does our GenEd program fit on the strict curriculum vs free curriculum scale?
4. How are the challenges imposed on use by the competitive forces of the Hope Grant in Georgia forcing us to evolve as an institution?
Recent Criticisms in Historical Perspective
Bok acknowledges criticism of the academy such as “lacking a clear vision of undergraduate education, failing to counteract the growing fragmentation of knowledge, sacrificing the liberal arts in favor of vocationalism, and neglecting undergraduates to focus on research.” He further seeks to address these and other common critiques with a bit of historical perspective. Most such critiques argue a decline in the standards, but Bok argues against the notion that there ever existed a golden age of education when these same criticisms were not present. Complaints with respect to instruction are universally present in every age. He particular argues that there has never been a period of consensus on what constitutes a liberal education. Even after World War II when several major universities attempted to build a model program of General education, no consensus of such a model emerged. Historically the only period of consensus was old classical model of the pre-Civil War period to which no one want to return. Indeed uniformity of purpose and curriculum is more of a European Model of higher education than American where variety is highly sought and seen as strength.
The amount of specialization in the academic education has increased due to the fragmenting of knowledge brought on by academic research. Though no one has yet to illustrate the drawback of such fragmentation or present a unification of knowledge to challenge the fragmentation.
With respect to vocational nature of education, Bok argues that the U.S. education has always had its vocational aspects and the desire for vocational education comes external from the academy. It is encouraged by the demand of American employers and the career centered motivation among students. Universities are serving these constituencies rather than imposing a vocational mindset.
Relating to the assertion that the professoriate neglects its students in favor of research ambitions, Bok offers evidence students’ appreciation of the amount and quality of interaction with faculty.
Lastly, Bok agues the major failing in higher education is the inability to illustrate improvements, particularly in the area of teaching. This he argues is mainly due to the nature of the education product which is distinctly different from, say, a consumer product.
Discussion Questions:
1. Does Mercer’s Professional programs interfere with the liberal arts nature of our Gen Ed?
2. Would you characterize our efforts to build and maintain a coherent GenEd as being “hopelessly engaged in the respiration of a lifeless ideal”? Pg 24
3. Is it a lost cause to seek to define the aims of a liberal education?
4. Do you envision the “unity of knowledge” as an “elusive ideal”? Pg 25
5. How do the magnitude of preprofesional students impact the liberal arts nature of our GenEd?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Welcome to our blog
This blog has been created to allow the Mercer University General Education committee to discuss Derek Bok's book, Our Underachieving Colleges. Members of the committee will summarize a two-chapter section of the book and provide discussion questions for the rest of the group to consider and debate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
