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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I've tried to address each of Keith's questions for chapter 1 (9 total in two sets).
1. Our Gen Ed program has components geared toward training intellect and building character--in particular the FYS and SCP programs. Optional service-learning opportunities as those in FYX also serve as character-building courses. Our core is fairly solid and most likely superior to some of our competitors.
2. Mercer's committment to vocational training is high in that we have an Engineering, Education, and Business school. CLA curriculum is much more focussed on a Liberal education versus Vocational training. We do have some exceptions i.e our IST program. After reading Bok's work, I wonder if we are hurting our students by purposely avoiding vocational training.
3. Our Gen Ed Curriculum fits on the very "strict curriculum" side. The Great Books Track offers a unique option, but the program itself is limiting. For the distribution track our students take a fairly lock-step path.
4.We value our faculty-taught signature courses that graduate students teach at larger institutions. Our devotion to service could help us rise above our competitors, but I am not sure we should invest in this component--still thinking about this one.
Second set of questions
1. Professional programs tap our Gen Ed,and thus cost us in that we have to service them. Our students do benefit from having a mixture of students in their classes though. I think the benefit of diversity in the classroom outweighs any interference that arises from the professional programs. The professional students benefit from the exposure too.
2. If we separate GBK from the distribution track, each program is coherant within itself. Even so, last year the University Gen Ed Committee produced the Gen Ed Outcomes that are common to all of Mercer's Undergraduate Schools. So, the perception of a college-wide coherent Gen Ed exists at our institution. The statement on page 24 refers to the variety of Gen Ed programs in all Universities. We are trying to stay in the forefront.
3. Again, the Univ. Gen Ed Comm defined the aims of a liberal education. Whether or not our students successfully reach those outcomes remains to be seen. The tools that Mercer's assessment office is using "may" provide us with some useful information.
4. The "unity of knowledge" is not an "elusive ideal." Our attempt at using FYS to expose students to the humanities and fine arts, as well as our attempt to use SCI to expose students to the social and natural sciences is a beginning. Our students begin their education by synthesizing information from different disciplines. We should work on ways to maintain or revisit this notion other than waiting until SCP brings them back together in their senior year. I'm not sure how to do this--perhaps the "themes" idea could help here too.
5. We have so many pre-professional students that are vocation focussed. We do not focus on their needs, but instead immerse them in the values of a liberal education. Again, I believe we affect them much more than they affect us. They provide challenges for us. : )
As I think about Bok and his take on undergraduate education, I find that we are at a juncture of sorts in thinking about higher education altogether and general education more specifically.
A. We are at a time when students have access to more information and technology than ever before--I truly believe that they are "smarter" than students in the past.
B. Increasingly students have been exposed to a much more wide ranging high school curriculum than I was and they seem to have been mostly bored by it.
C. They want "action" in learning and/or direct application to what they see as immediate vocational goals--no more of the broad overviews they got in high school.
While I think each of these are true, students that I have taught at Mercer generally do not come to college with strong communication skills (written or verbal), they are not on-target for Mathematics (given their chosen fields), and--based on my observations in POL 101--they do not have a basic understanding of government and its organization.
This to me leads us to a difficult quagmire. How do we challenge students to rethink the nature of a general education that is character-building, rigorous, and oriented to critical thinking that prepares students for life in addition to vocation.
To me, we really have not done this well.
Why are our FYS classes 18-20 when 10-12 would net much better discussions (according to the education literature)?
Why do we force students to choose "intro" classes when they are bored with them--and will forget much of what they did in them shortly thereafter (my own spellbinding lectures included)?
What can we do to make General Education decidedly different from anything they have ever done before?
As for HOPE--little can be done to counter what the state system offers as a financial incentive--I doubt we can ever afford to give free tuition to all with a B average--BUT we could be doing things differently from the state system--unique educational opportunities, a different calendar, a different sort of structure.
Just remember we are not the only ones reading Bok...UGa has as broad a service-learning emphasis as we do. They teach their ENG 101/102 cycle--that includes full professors as well as graduate students teaching--with limited enrollment about 18 per section. And let us not demean graduate student teachers since most of us were once among their ranks. They have made a major effort to connect senior faculty to first-year student over the last 5 years.
We have to offer something different and I think value-oriented education, meaningful and ongoing relationships, and emphasis on comprehensive skills is probably where it is at.
Response to first set of questions:
1) Our General Education program tends to be responsive to the objectives of building intellect and building character. As the Gen Ed committee moved to revise the catalog description in the previous two years, reflected heavily upon the capacities provided by the general education program. These capacities (as breadth) along with the additional depth requirement provide a statement to our commitment to building intellect. The notion of building character is more implicit with in the Gen Ed. For example the requirement of New or Old Testament instead of a general religions course implies a great deal about what we consider relating to character. Mercer’s commitment to service learning and Mercer on Missions is meant to have an impact on more than just the students and faculty who participate in those programs. The manner in which Mercer markets and encourages faculty student interactions beyond academic subject matters and the institution of a student lead honor council all speak to the notion of character building.
2) Much of Mercer’s marketing is related to providing a well-rounded liberal education to students as it prepares them for professions. Thus in CLA we have a large number of pre-professional undergraduates in addition to those students enrolled in the professional schools. I sense that Mercer does a good job of allowing the CLA faculty to focus on providing a liberal education with the minimal restriction that provide the specific preparatory material required for the various needs of students. As example the math department often negotiates with engineering, business, and education so as to ensure that we teach specific topic within prerequisite courses, yet we teach these topics from a broader perspective that illuminates ideas rather than the utility.
3) I would have to rate our program as somewhat strict in its requirements. The Core is necessarily so, but the distribution track is very limiting. We could meet the same goals with a freer platform.
4) The Hope Grant is forcing us to better define who we are and what we can provide students as we seek to compete in a less favorable market. I am not certain that we would have the university goals of becoming a national university or of reducing faculty teaching load were it not for the competition provided by Hope.
Response to second set of questions:
1) Our service to the other schools via the Gen Ed program forces us to better at what we do. We face the challenge of reaching those students who are in our classes by requirement rather than by choice. This challenge seems to work to strengthen our commitments to the liberal arts. The one downside is that there should be more recognition of the service CLA provides to the other schools and the university as a whole.
2) While most things in life, the ideal tends to be unattainable at best and indefinable at worst. We should not measure our Gen Ed against some fictitious ideal, but rather continue to review, revise, and revamp the Gen Ed program in a manner that is reflective of the educational goals CLA and the period in which we live.
3) It is not a lost cause. While it is the charge of the University committee to set the aims of a liberal education at Mercer, we can and should determine if and how we are attempting to meet these aims. We must assure that we are giving our students a general education that is both reflective of the timeless knowledge necessary for a well-lived life and the competencies necessary for the age in which we live.
4) The “unity of knowledge” is not an “elusive ideal”. One of our greatest challenges, if our goal is for our courses to provide for life-long learning of our students, is to connect the “small” content and pedagogy of our courses to the larger world. Within all bodies of knowledge there must be relevance and perspective that connects us to the whole of knowledge.
5) I believe that we provide a great service to our pre-professional students giving them much more perspective that they can carry into their careers. But I also believe these students affect us in a positive manner, forcing us to work harder and seek an understanding of different perspectives as we seek to reach them.
This is Jonathan posting, on behalf of Tom Glennon, his questions:
Discussion Questions:
1. What basic objectives relative to training intellect and building character are reflected in our Gen Ed program? I imagine that every department head in the university would suggest that their departments contribute to the training of the intellect and to the building of character. However, there is very little data to substantiate these claims. The popularity of programs does not constitute evidence. I have not seen any data that indicates to me the superiority of a particular pedagogy over another. I would go one step further and suggest that we have few objective or operational standards to judge character development or intellectual development. GPA is not a very informative gage.
Bok suggested this. I assume that the lack of objective standards is why our assessment plans must now include “outside criteria” for every one of our departmental objectives. Allow me to suggest that until we have better definitions of “intellectual and character development” we will continue to have incoherent education programs.
2. How would we rate Mercer’s commitments to Vocational training vs. Liberal education?
About 25 years ago, Mercer was at a crossroad. Students and the market place were demanding “vocational” programs while the LA College was demanding adherence to
the liberal arts. President Godsey and the Trustees decided that Mercer must respond
to the market place and become a multi-dimensional, comprehensive university. Thus, vocational schools and programs were developed and made centerpieces of a Mercer education. At the time, there was an outcry from members of the LA faculty that these changes would weaken the character of the Liberal Arts College. Some would now argue, however, that the professional schools actually saved the LA College.
I want to argue that students do indeed want careers (i.e. vocational training) because they do not understand the difference between careers and vocations. Neither does Mercer. Vocation, according to Beickner, is a “calling”. He defines vocation as a special “place” where the joy and talent of the individual intersects with the world’s great hunger. Vocation compels and draws one out into the world. Careers turn one inward. Vocations serve the common good. Careers reinforce individualism.
It is my view that our collective educational efforts are unintentionally reinforcing “careerism”. General Ed. is only part of the problem. It currently has no “civic engagement” or “global perspective” components. Collaboration between professions and divisions is not a priority. General interests and co-curricular life is not articulated with gen. ed. or the professional schools. I think we do well to help students to find careers in Sociology, or History, or Biology, but we do not intentionally or collaboratively motivate students to use their talents to serve a common good or to strengthen the democratic process. There is a conflict between careers and the liberal arts but none between the liberal and civic arts and the concept of vocation.
3. Where does our Gen Ed program fit on the strict curriculum vs free curriculum scale?
In my tenure here, Mercer has never had a free curriculum. We have always had majors and minors and a general education program. The arguments about curriculum have generally focused on the legitimacy and importance of “interdisciplinary” courses and concentrations. We did get rid of the F at one time and we did have a “free” university
on what was called “Wonderful Wednesdays” but Mercer has never really been free.
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?
In my view, the Hope Grant has had little impact on Mercer to date. Globalization and
the loss of support from the Georgia Baptist Convention may have greater impacts and may help us to redefine what we offer.
5. Does Mercer’s Professional programs interfere with the liberal arts nature of our Gen Ed?
The development of professional programs has strained resources and thus the ability of the LA College to dominate the Gen. Education Program.
6. 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
7. Is it a lost cause to seek to define the aims of a liberal education?
8. Do you envision the “unity of knowledge” as an “elusive ideal”? Pg 25
9. How do the magnitude of preprofesional students impact the liberal arts nature of our GenEd?
My observations are based on the CLA Gen Ed curriculum; despite having a University Gen Ed committee, a quick look at our catalog would indicate that the different undergraduate colleges and schools have distinct Gen Ed programs and requirements.
1. What basic objectives relative to training intellect and building character are reflected in our GenEd program?
Our Gen Ed program seems to prize exposure to a diverse range of subjects and disciplines (math, natural and social science, foreign language, history, literature, Christianity, philosophy, etc.). The purpose of this exposure seems to be to train the intellect. Perhaps one could argue that taking required courses not desired by the student builds character(certainly that was the tradition in 19th century British education). I am optimistic that closer examination of what we require, and why, will increase our chance of meeting those two objectives for our students.
2. How would we rate Mercer’s commitments to Vocational training vs. Liberal education?
Mercer is trying to achieve a balance between the two, which I think is necessary in a culture that does not necessarily prize or understand the value of liberal education. The economic collapse will probably make students (and parents) even more interested in vocational training for their tuition dollars.
3. Where does our GenEd program fit on the strict curriculum vs free curriculum scale?
Tends toward the strict, with choices available within defined categories for the Distribution track; the Core and Great Books track have very little resemblance to a free curriculum.
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?
I wish I knew more about the operations of the Admissions office, and how they are reacting to the Hope Grant. I can't say I am aware of curricular or policy changes in CLA.
1. Does Mercer’s Professional programs interfere with the liberal arts nature of our Gen Ed?
It can, but I think many CLA faculty try to introduce liberal arts perspectives even in the preprofessional courses. I have taught a special topics English course on web design, and the Computer Science and TCO students I get in the course report that my approach is very different from the more goal-oriented, less philosophical or questioning pedagogy in TCO courses.
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
No.
3. Is it a lost cause to seek to define the aims of a liberal education?
Well, I have served on this committee for four years, and we haven't defined it yet.
4. Do you envision the “unity of knowledge” as an “elusive ideal”? Pg 25
Yes. I don't think knowledge is unified, and I tend to be skeptical of ideals about grand, unifying principles.
5. How do the magnitude of preprofesional students impact the liberal arts nature of our GenEd?
A mixed result, but there are enough preprofessional students who jump off that path when they see the alternate opportunities of liberal arts (I have two former engineering students in my ENG 264 course this semester) that I think we can coexist.
Post a Comment