Chapter 2 Summary and Discussion Questions-Keith Howard

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?