More Thoughts Provoked in “A Free and Ordered Space”

Overview:
I am following my last post in which I introduced my intent to use A Free and Ordered Space, by A. Bartlett Giamatti as a vehicle to explore some current issues in higher education. In this posting I explain why I have choses A Free and Order Space as a resource.

I am following my last post, Thoughts Provoked in “A Free and Ordered Space,” in which I introduced a project. During the coming year I intend to review and engage in the book A Free and Ordered Space by A. Bartlett Giamatti. In the first post I provide some background and the reasoning behind why I have decided to work on the project. Today I will indicate why I have chosen Giamatti as my guide. In short, it is a combination of the contexts under which the addresses were made, the topics addressed, and some of the characteristics of Giamatti himself.



WHY A "FREE AND ORDERED SPACE?"

There are all sorts of ways of engaging in personal and professional development and all sorts of resources from which to choose. So why choose a Free and Order Space? Perhaps it was my state of mind that magnified the relevance of the book, but when I started reading it, I recognized the importance of the topics being discussed and the authenticity in which they were being treated. The topics, even those treated in passing, have proven to be enduring. They are easily identified in conferences, professional discussions, appearance in policy, and their treatment in the public media during the past years and months. That is, they are important and persistent. They are themselves the types of problems that universities are designed to pursue.

I believe that the principal reason why the issues discussed by Giamatti and treated in a Free and Ordered Space have continuing relevance is his insistence on applying a value-ladened lens, which framed each topic in terms of enduring principles supporting the purpose of the university. Giamatti's continuous refocusing on principles serves as a reminder that each problem ultimately needs to be addressed in terms of the university, not the corporation, not the swirl recorded and projected in popular media, not the mishigas of political urgency, not the mishmash of popular opinion, not the logic of popular managerial cults, and not the fear and uncertainty these things bring. Given my reaction to Giamatti's writing, it struck me that there would be merit in reviewing each address (chapter), teasing out the themes, relating those themes across addresses, and contextualizing them in terms of what we are facing, in many cases, more than 30 years later.

This is all fine, but why choose a Free and Orders Space? Giamatti approached relevant questions in a principled way; but haven't other authors done so as well? Of course they have, but this book has some qualities that are ideally suited for my purposes. Giamatti was performing in an act of service, as a teacher, from the unique perspective of the President of what many perceive as a truly great university. The topics covered in his addresses and the context in which they were delivered provides a unique an useful platform for review and extension. In each address the combination of chosen topic, audience, context, and the characteristics of the author presents an opportunity for those of us writing at a different time with different experiences to apply enduring principles to challenges that have spanned decades in different forms.



TOPICS AND CONTEXT

I found that a book published more then 20 years ago that features writing more than 30 years old provided a sense of safety and distance. Giammati was writing with the intent of addressing contemporary issues to students and other stakeholders of the early 1980s. In most of his addresses he was identifying critical issues and was trying purposefully to demystify them. The nature of the topics and the circumstances under which the addresses were made provide us a unique opportunity to reflect on the qualities of the topics under discussion and the degree to which the university and its environment has changed in recent decades. It provides touchstones from which to interpret current events. Some of the topics included in his addresses were,

• the nature and value of liberal education,
• the push to utilitarian education,
• the pressure of federal regulation,
• the appropriate role of college athletics,
• the role of transparency, openness, and freedom in the properly functioning university, and
• the relationships between academic and administrative staff in the university.

MORE ON THE SETTING

As mentioned above, A Free and Ordered Space is a collection of addresses that Giamatti delivered to key constituents including students. Through each presentation he was addressing a set of issues that he felt were timely and relevant, which provides the reader with insights into what the president of Yale felt was of critical importance at the time. That is, each of the book's chapters is somewhat self-contained and manageable, but the collection reflects a set of relationships that together form rich patterns. The organization of a Free and Ordered Space and the purpose of the writings is ideal for a reader interested in topics germane to the nature of the University. The following list of audiences that were addressed in Giamatti's speeches provides some insights into what Giamatti felt were important messages for a range of stakeholders, but perhaps most interestingly, for students entering and leaving Yale College.

The Nature and Purpose of the University

• 1987 Association of School Administrators
• 1987 Commencement at Franklin and Marshall College
• 1978 Inaugural Address, Yale
• 1981 Conference on Excellence in Education
• 1883 Senior Class as Baccalaureate Address, Yale
• 1984 Freshman Address, Yale
• 1986 Senior Class as Baccalaureate Address, Yale
• 1981 Senior Class as Baccalaureate Address, Yale

The Earthly Use of a Liberal Education

• 1981 Freshman Address, Yale
• 1983 Freshman Address, Yale
• 1985 Freshman Address, Yale
• 1983 Association of Yale Alumni “Humanities at Yale”
• 1977 Conference on the Humanities at Yale
• 1978 Convention of the Modern Language Association
• 1979 Freshman Address, Yale
• 1980 Association of Yale Alumni (April)
• 1987 Williams College
• 1980 Phi Beta Kappa Lecture at Yale
• 1980 Annual Report of the President, Yale

The Private University and the Public Interest

• 1979 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
• 1979 Senior Class as Baccalaureate Address, Yale
• 1980 Senior Class as Baccalaureate Address, Yale
• 1982 Convention of American College of Surgeons
• 1980 Association of Yale Alumni (October)
• 1982 Graduate and Professional Convocation, Yale
• 1982 Partners in the Research Enterprise: A National Conference, University of Pennsylvania
• 1982 Senior Class as Baccalaureate Address, Yale
• 1985 Senior Class as Baccalaureate Address, Yale
• 1980 Freshman Address, Yale
• 1984 Senior Class as Baccalaureate Address, Yale

THE AUTHOR

Dr. Giamatti served as a career academic, as scholar as well as administrator with his last appointment in the academy as president of Yale. It is my feeling that his writing reflects the wisdom and experience of a professional balancing the purpose of the University as a common good with the management of the University as an organization. In doing so, Giamatti frames and harmonizes some of the tensions modern universities are facing. His treatment of these tensions shows an understanding and respect for the those contributing to the purpose of the University with special attention given to the undergraduate student. In short, I believe that Dr. Giamatti was in a privileged position to write holistically about the University, chose to write about authentic challenges to the University, and wrote with principle. As has already been pointed out in a comment by Eric Feinblatt to the last post, Giamatti, like all presidents, made controversial decisions, some of which seem inconstant with fundamental espoused beliefs. These apparent inconsistencies and the contexts in which they grew and exist merit as much consideration as what was included in Giamatti's writings.


DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS INFORMING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

Of course anybody reading the book now has a different perspective than did the author who was writing 25 to 35 years ago. In addition, there are differences in the type of formal education we received (liberal/utilitarian), the types of universities that we have served (public/private; elite/non-elite), the principal roles we have served (academic/administrative), and other contexts (US/Overseas). My perspective on the University comes from a vastly different set of experiences than does Dr. Giamatti's. This is likely to be true of many who read his book and it is my feeling that our differences, when well recognized, will add something beneficial to the discussion.


GETTING ON WITH IT

Enough explanations. As mentioned, I plan to move forward through the addresses in the book in the order they are presented. I will not really be working to any schedule. I may take a week or two to post the first one to give a little time to anybody interested enough in reading along to pick up a copy of the book.  Once again, and as always, I welcome involvement.

---

Giamatti, A. B. (1988). A free and ordered space: The real world of the university. New York: W.W. Norton.
http://openlibrary.org/works/OL13362587W/A_free_and_ordered_space

Thoughts Provoked in “A Free and Ordered Space”

Overview:

I intend to use A Free and Ordered Space, by A. Bartlett Giamatti as a vehicle to explore some current issues in higher education.  In this posting I explain why I am doing this and I briefly introduce a Free and Ordered Space. In my next post, I will continue the introduction.

This graphic is not open content.  I am using it under terms of fair use.

In the coming months I plan to use “A Free and Ordered Space: The Real World of the University” by A. Bartlett Giamatti as a source and sounding-board for my thinking about higher education. In the spirit of Mortimer Adler, I hope to engage with Giamatti through his writings and perhaps through this public forum engage with others as well. I intend to methodically embrace the text; teasing out its explicit messages, its latent meanings, the patterns that are formed within, and their relevance to what we presently see about ourselves in higher education. I also hope to extend in some way Giamatti's thoughts and observations by simply building on them and applying his logic to what is currently happening within and without the university. At the very least, the ensuing posts will anchor and catalog my thoughts, but potentially others will join privately or publicly in an effort to make sense of some enduring issues.

Although I am happy to simply step through the book and share my thoughts, I also want to extend an invitation. While at one level I of course invite comment and conversation, I also invite other forms of participation. If anybody reading this blog has special insights or interests in the topics treated and would like to share their perspectives, I would be happy to expand the discussion with guest postings.

A Free and Ordered Space is a collection of presentations, which are organized into three thematic areas. Giamatti groups his presentations into the following formal sections:

• The Nature and Purpose of the University
• The Earthly Use of a Liberal Education
• The Private University and the Public Interest

In addition to the 23 addresses in the book, Giamatti includes some introductory materials. I will try to treat an address/presentation (chapter) each week or so, but anticipate that some will require more time to appropriately prepare. Most of the addresses include multiple themes, each of which may merit separate posts. I will almost certainly find the need to pause occasionally to summarize and reflect a bit, share additional thoughts, and make modifications to prior posts. In addition, I fully anticipate some interruptions as professional workload ebbs and floods (right now it is mostly flooding) and personal commitments demand, so this project could extend throughout the coming year.

WHAT MOTIVATES ME TO DO THIS?

As indicated above, methodically treating A Free and Ordered Space may be a nontrivial activity. I'm a pretty busy guy. Like most folks, I have professional responsibilities and personal commitments, which leave me with little extra time. So, why should I spend it this way, and why would anybody decide to spend their time engaged with this project, even to passively follow along? For me, the answer is sort of simple. I am troubled. I am troubled by the way many colleges and universities are reacting to a variety of changes within the University and without. I am seeking a way to to better understand what is happening, a better foundation from which to interpret what others are writing, a more grounded perspective to interpret regulations and policies, and a principled footing to better contribute to my chosen profession and avocations. Frankly, I have found that reading current events in publications that treat higher education is not doing the trick.

A number of months ago I reached out to Dr. Marcelette Williams to exchange a few words about what I was reading and thinking about on the topic of liberal education and the university. At the time I had recently read The University: An Owner's Manual by Henry Rosovsky, and was working through Newman's Nine Discourses in The Idea of a University. Marcie recommended that I read a Free and Ordered Space as Giamatti was one of her favorite published voices on the topic. I had reported to Marcie for 3 years while serving the University of Massachusetts. Dr. Williams serves as the Senior Vice president for Academic, Student, and International Affairs at the University of Massachusetts, and stands as one of the most thoughtful and humane figures I have work with in higher education. Given my relationship and respect for Marcie, I was thankfully predisposed to take her advice.

I know that I was reaching out to Marcie to fill a gap. I had recently left UMass to join a start-up company and found myself among a small group of intensely smart managers planning to sell services to universities. Even though I had served as a university administrator for nearly to 2 decades, surrounded by managerial types (and functioning as one), things felt fundamentally different at the start-up in ways that I had not fully appreciated or anticipated when I first joined the organization. The nature of the conversations took the colour of efficiency and scale. Student services were framed as ends in themselves, while student development, discovery, civil advancement, and service of the common good were largely absent in our dialogue. It was, perhaps rightfully, assumed within the company that not only were these concerns those of the university, but their clear articulation could be principally absent in an education service provider. I am of course not being critical of the organisation. After all, a college or university outsources services when an external organisation possesses characteristics or capacities that do not or ought not exist within the college or university. I should have known that this was going to be the case, as this company was designed to “take care of business,” and that its value is located in its ability to do things that the universities themselves could not. Yet I was taken unawares by just how differently my working colleagues viewed the purpose and nature of the university than had I.

It was these experiences that punctuated the feeling that I had personally strayed from the reasons that I had first decided to pursue a career in higher education. I believe that there is a gap, which I had allowed to grow, that I am starting to explore with this project. Although I have since move back into the University, am serving the University of Southern Queensland, and feel very much as if I am in my professional home, the gap still has meaning.

A LITTLE ABOUT THIS BOOK

A Free and Ordered Space was published posthumously in 1990, and is a collection of addresses that Dr. Giamatti had made to a variety of groups while he served as president of Yale. Most of the addresses were given between 1980 and 1985 and many were presented to undergraduate audiences of incoming and graduating students. I will provide more detail in the following post. For those colleagues who may be interested in reading along, you can access the book through many libraries or purchase the book through the usual channels. Unfortunately, I have not been able to track down open versions of many of the addresses, but I will continue to look. If they exist, I welcome any suggestions about sources for open and other types of relevant resources. I will maintain a page dedicated to resources, and perhaps, time permitting, will keep a annotated reference list. I will for the benefit of casual readers start each post with a summary of the address, but I am sure that my efforts in this regard will fall short.

As this post was going to get a bit too long, so I have decided to split it in half and will post the reminder during the next day or two. In the following post I will outline why I think that Giamatti, through a Free and Ordered Space, will serve as an excellent guide who provides touchstones to interpret some activities and events in higher education.

---

Giamatti, A. B. (1988). A free and ordered space: The real world of the university. New York: W.W. Norton.
http://openlibrary.org/works/OL13362587W/A_free_and_ordered_space

Adler, M. J., & Van Doren, C. L. (1972). How to read a book (Rev. and updated ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.
http://archive.org/details/howtoreadbookartadlerich

Newman, J. H. (1959). The Idea of a university. Garden City, N. Y.: Image Books.
http://archive.org/details/ideaauniversity03newmgoog

Rosovsky, H (1990). The University: An Owner's Manual. N.Y.: W. W. Norton.
http://archive.org/details/universityowners00roso

The University of Southern Queensland

http://www.usq.edu.au/

How can the Course Catalogue Save Education?

Overview
In a recent article, James Lang introduces the notion of “Far Transfer” to help address questions about student learning and critical thinking.  As treated here, far transfer is the ability for a learner to apply concepts across classes and circumstances, and represents one of the most desired outcomes of a college or university education. When achieving far transfer learners are exercising critical thinking. Transdicipinary and liberal education are important considerations to help ensure that the university course catalogue is a vehicle for learners to achieve far transfer and critical thinking.

 

More than a week or so ago James Lang wrote the first part of a series published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, titled Why Don't They Apply What They've Learned, Part I. In the article Lang questions why many students do not seem to be able to apply previously learned knowledge over time and across courses (and more generally across circumstances). In his article, Lang refers to a recent book, How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, in which Susan Ambrose and her co-authors use the term “Far Transfer” to describe the ability of a learner to apply knowledge across courses. That is, far transfer is the ability of learners to apply conceptual knowledge learned in a class to learning situations and practice in other classes and to circumstances outside of the classroom (perhaps on the job). Intuitively we must recognise that far transfer is a pretty important aspiration of higher education. After all, the ability for our students to apply knowledge outside of a specific classroom situation is a reasonable expectation that reflects not only on the ability of the learner, but also on the relevance of the university itself.

Lang makes it clear that Far Transfer is not easily accomplished, pointing to Ambrose and then James Zull, the author of The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning, Lang highlights that:

• Transfer is difficult, and it becomes increasingly difficult as the application context becomes increasingly dissimilar or novel to the learner. The failure of the learner to successfully transfer their learning to an unfamiliar or novel context can be attributed to tying their knowledge too closely to a specific situation, or it could be associated with their learning being overly formulaic or shallow. This reveals in the learner an understanding of the mechanics of problem solving, while lacking the understanding of the underlying principles being used.

• Although conceptually it may appear that applying learned rules across situations should not be too terribly difficult, there are physiological changes in the brain that allow for transfer. Cognitive development depends on the growth of neuronal networks in the brain, with transfer of knowledge across situations being made possible when these networks connect.

After Lang takes us through some examples of how he creates expectations of far transfer in his writing classes, he makes what I think is a critical point.

If you have ever thought or told your students that you are teaching them "critical thinking," for example, you are banking on the prospect that students will abstract some general cognitive skill from your course and apply it to future courses or even life situations.

This notion stuck with me for a number of reasons. First, it seems that teaching critical thinking skills is frequently cast as the University’s holy grail. That is, critical thinking is often identified as one of the less tangible, highly valuable, and infrequently achieved outcomes sought from graduates of colleges and universities. Second, for me, it points to two critical topics that extend far beyond skill development or skill delivery – the transdisciplinary curriculum and liberal education.

Transdisciplinary Education

Lang chose the following quote from Zull to connect conceptual notions of what critical thinking is with the physiological response in a learner's brain to learning a disciplinary subject (forming a neuronal network element) and connecting these networks in ways that allow for far transfer.

"Neuronal networks grow by building on existing networks," Zull writes, "so our entree to reasoning in one subject comes through the neuronal networks for the information in that subject. Often we don't have the networks that connect one subject with another. They have been built up separately, especially if we have studied in the standard curriculum that breaks knowledge into parts like math, language, science, and social science."

For me, Lang seems to be setting the ground for the need to really think about the function of courses and the functions of curriculum in different but complementary ways. Disciplinary and technical skills, that are frequently very sophisticated, are developed in particular classes. While, courses represent the vehicles in which disciplinary conceptual networks are created, it is the constellation of courses that compose a well-developed curriculum that provides the platform through which disciplinary neuronal networks can connect allowing for far transfer of knowledge.

Liberal Education

So, if a transdisciplinary curriculum can serve as the framework for an educational experience that lends itself to far transfer and critical thinking, how do students take advantage of the opportunities being offered and actually make the connections among disciplinary networks? It seems to me that simply creating the opportunity for far transfer and critical thinking is not enough. Evidence of critical thinking will require some capacity on the part of the learner to connect the networks with some discipline and creativity. For example, when applying far-transfer, how does the learner decide which concepts from which networks best apply to a problem situation under a variety of circumstances? To what degree can a particular conceptual model be applied, how much of the model needs to be modified, or integrated with other models? What sort of intellectual disposition and what sort of behaviours do learners and practitioners need to successfully engage in critical thinking?

It seems to me that the arts and habits that are the hallmarks of a liberal education are germane to disciplined and creative far transfer. To illustrate, I refer to an earlier posting titled Is a liberal technical education something more or something else? in which a short listing of the arts and habits that are assumed by a liberally educated person. One of the lists started with

habits of an educated person

• the habit of attention
• the habit of submitting to censure and refutation
• the habit of regarding minute points of accuracy

Taken together these habits (along with others) will help learners make thoughtful attempts at far transfer and improve their ability to critically apply their thinking in the future under other circumstances.

Just a Little More

So, for me, the punchline from Lang's article is that for learners to achieve Far Transfer and Critical Thinking they must have

• opportunities to create disciplinary neural networks (acquired on the course level), 
• opportunities to connect disciplinary networks (acquired through a trans-disciplinary curriculum), and
• the behaviours and capacity to actually make those connections (acquired through a liberal education).

Because it is obvious that far transfer and critical thinking are particularly valued outcomes when they are extend beyond classroom application, it makes sense to think about the transdisciplinary curriculum more broadly. We might think in terms of moving from a transdisciplinary curriculum to a transdisciplinary education that includes “off-campus” experiences such as experiential and service learning, citizen science, and citizen civics. In addition, we might more consciously construct the notion of a transdisciplinary education as continuing throughout a lifetime.

Maybe I am predisposed to rationalise my way to this conclusion, but it does leave me in a happy place. By my thinking, the elements of an education designed to achieve Far Transfer and Critical Thinking are for the most part inherent in the University mission – teaching, discovery, and service. It is a matter of rethinking the nature of traditional curriculum, to support a transdisciplinary education and recognising the value of a liberal education along side professional (and vocational) education to support the development of technically competent professionals who are able to apply critical thinking. Add a little life-long learning, and some universities may have made themselves relevant in a more broad and recognised way, without fundamentally changing their values, staying true to their learners and the common good.

Continuing that thought...

During the last few days, while I was constructing these few paragraphs, my attention has been drawn to a (wonderful) posting by Christine Geith titled How the Course Catalog Killed Education at the WCET Frontiers site. Its influence on the title of this posting is obvious. Now it seems to me that Christine has hit on an important insight about the poverty of the college and university catalogue as an expression of value. She asserts that the value of the University does not rest in its catalogue of courses or programs, but instead is embedded in its “Brand.” It is the brand that serves as an expression of the university's capacity to distinguish its catalogue with something far more then the simple collection might imply. I think that Christine and I are barking up the same tree from different sides. Christine did a very tidy job at pointing to what the research university brings to the table beyond its catalogue, while I am pointing to the role of the catalogue in creating that "something more, "which transforms taking courses into an education and transforms course takers into critical thinkers.  

It is my feeling that thinking beyond the course catalogue will help us better frame the ongoing trend toward fragmentation in higher education and the “unbundling” of traditional college and university services. Although thinking beyond the catalogue is critical, we may also ask what type of course catalogue will best support a university education? One that delivers on helping learners achieve far transfer becoming critical thinkers and practitioners. I believe too that this type of thinking and these types of questions can provide a way to frame the ways we engage with things like MOOCs, education service providers, open educational resources (there will always be more things), and more generally understand the economics, identity, nature, and value of the University and higher education (themes that seem more timeless).

---

Why Don't They Apply What They've Learned, Part I 
http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Dont-They-Apply-What/136753/?cid=ja&utm_source=ja&utm_medium=en

Is a liberal technical education something more or something else?  
http://www.kenudas.com/2012/11/is-liberal-technical-education.html

How the Course Catalog Killed Education

http://wcetblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/course-catalog-killed-education/

The Fall of the Faculty: impressions and extensions

Overview:

Ginsberg’s The fall of the faculty: The rise of the all-administrative university and why it matters, serves as a sounding board for a larger discussion about the roles of academic and administrative parts of the university community and ultimately the value of a university education. We have a good idea of what the all-administrative university might look like, but what would the “all-faculty” university look like and how would it function as we pass further into the 21st century?

This graphic is not open
content.  I am using it
under terms of fair use.

I am going to start with a little warning. This is a long posting and is perhaps a little self indulgent and rambling. During the past few days I read The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why it Matters by Benjamin Ginsberg, and although I recognized during my reading that it has merit, I did not care much for its presentation. I am not reviewing the book. Although I read the book completely, I did not read it thoroughly enough to write a review or with the intent of doing so. I am just providing some of my impressions about its execution and its principal messages, while also recognizing the importance of the topics Ginsberg addresses in general. I would like to acknowledge that, to a lagre extent, I have glossed over the root causes and attitudes that have created conditions fertile for the corporate-university, which I find intriguing.

A Matter of Style

First here is the frustrating part. While reading the book, I definitely got the impression that virtually all maladies at the University can be traced directly to administrators. Although lip-service was paid to the occasional good administrator, and Ginsburg acknowledged that all members of the faculty are not equal contributors to the academic community, and some (the worst of the faculty lot) are even administrative collaborators, for the most part all of us were thoroughly archetyped. Following from the American Western, in this book everybody wears black or white hats or might as well. University administrators are bad guys or buffoons and are grouped together as deanlets and deanlings. The administrators have “staffers” who are not all bad, but probably have no place at the University while serving the ambitions, waste, and bloat of administrators. Full-time faculty are clearly good, while adjuncts could be better, and most students are good as well... even if the students are athletes... unless they play basketball or football on Saturdays, in which case they are "big dummies."


That is the part of the book that drove me absolutely crazy - the presentation. These very simple messages were repeated and repeated almost to the point of being useful triggers for a college drinking game. As in, Ahhh, he wrote “administrative bloat,” again - take a drink. There were times while reading the book it felt as if I were having a picnic near a construction site. It would be great without the background noise. So, why did I start and finish the book? Like the construction site picnic, you do it because your sister's homemade potato salad is so good that you endure the incessant and predictable jackhammer in the background, sometimes the overall story in a book is good enough to suffer the presentation style. (By the way, I like spending time with my sister absent her potato salad, but that does not complete the analogy.)

Word Cloud from 

OCL4Ed12-12

Picking up the book was kind of convenient. Although I have owned the book for some time without reading it, I was inspired to do so because of a reference to the book in the OER Foundation’s Open content licensing for educators seminar (#OCL4Ed). During the first session, the facilitators asked a question about whether teaching is a “profession” or a “vocation,” which generated a lot of interesting discussion. Early in the discussion, a thread titled “Fall of the Faculty / The All Administrative University” was started by a colleague from Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Vancouver, BC. I made a few comments in the thread and decided to pick up the book and read it.

Before going on, a sense of fair play and respect for whoever might read this demands full disclosure. Although I have never boasted a deanlet or deanling title, I have served a number of universities in administrative and “staffer” capacities. My last few titles have included director, executive director, CEO, and now DVC and CIO. I have also taught in the classroom and online for nearly 20 years, but always as a contingent member of the faculty - sometimes full-time and sometimes part-time, but in any event, I have never faced the rigours of the tenure track.

Some Good Points, But...

Now, back to the book. Yes, I thought that it was overly cynical and overly relied on stereotype and hyperbole, yet I absolutely sympathise with Ginsberg’s substantive messages. As an administrator I have seen, participated in, recognized, and actively resisted many of the managerial pathologies associated with the all-administrative university; excessive meetings, a preoccupation with strategic planning, retreating, empire building, and a host of other activities that are not “teaching” or “research.” In addition, the author’s principal points about

• the value of a liberal education,
• the erosion of academic freedom,
• the importance of tenure, and 
• the politics of manipulation used to gain “university” ends,

resonate well with me, even if in the book the causes all lead predictably to the same place - the administration, and the implication that there is some sort of conspiracy at hand. That as a group, administrators are systemically plotting together, perhaps across institutions a quiet coop. What did not resonate with me was the oversimplification of an exceptionally important topic.

Unlike A. Bartlett Giamatti in A Free and Order Space, who very eloquently frames the interplay of academic and administrative functions at the University in terms of “the academic mission,” Ginsberg seems to be more interested in setting the stage for a confrontation in which academics and administrators are pitted against one another. Even if the intent was good and the art was bad, Ginsberg should have had the sense to not over-generalize. Once again, unlike Giamatti, who spoke specifically of Yale, Ginsberg is all over place, applying his standards from elite private universities, to liberal arts colleges, regional public universities, and community colleges. In my opinion, the net was cast far too widely and it weakened his overall argument. It is not fair or I think intellectually honest to use examples of administrative activity and organizational structure from a community or regional public college to make a point about the “all-administrative university” from his personal exposure to some pretty elite private traditional research universities.

Once again, I am frustrated because the topics of university cost structures and relationships between full- and part-time faculty and administrators with each other and with students in relation to the institution’s mission are of critical importance. And they represent issues and challenges that need to be addressed with mutual respect, putting our key stakeholders first.

Accuracy and Clarity Would be Nice

One of the main arguments in The Fall of the Faculty is that administrative staffing has grown more rapidly than faculty staffing, resulting in misdirection of limited funds. There is no question that administration (management, staff, and clerical support) at Universities has grown. And there is no question that managerial and administrative staff have grown at a higher rate than have faculty. And there is no question that popular reporting of this has been... unkind and sometimes confusing. For example, in a recent article in the Economist titled Not what it used to be: American universities represent declining value for money to their students, Roger Geiger and Donald Heller (who are not the authors of the article) of Pennsylvania State University are quoted to say,

...that since 1990, in both public and private colleges, expenditures on instruction have risen more slowly than in any other category of spending, even as student numbers have risen. Universities are, however, spending plenty more on administration and support services (see chart 2).

Please note that this graphic is not open content.
I am using it under terms of "fair use."

Chart 2 is titled Plenty of Padding and it refers to numbers of employees not spending as is stated in the quote. The units of measurement do not match reducing the value of the chart. In addition, it provides a vague (not specific enough) reference to “The Department of Education; National Center for Educational Statistics.” Furthermore, I am not sure if the terms “college” and “university” are being used interchangeably in this article. I simply have no way of knowing. This seems like just plain sloppy work on the part of the Economist. Back in the classroom this type of reference, absent a citation, would have earned the author a lecture on the importance of helping your reader know what you are talking about, allowing the reader to fact find, and the ethical nature of applying appropriate attribution standards. That said, I would have given the author a “do over” with the opportunity to clear up some of the inconsistencies.

Regarding Chart 2 above, I have no idea where the data is coming from (a link to the source would have been helpful). According to the US Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics, Advanced Release of Selected 2012 Digest Tables, in 2009 the number of non-faculty professional employees per 100 faculty members was 69.5 rather than the 98 (or so) represented in the Chart. No, I am not arguing that nearly 70 non-faculty professionals per 100 faculty is a good number. I am just suggesting that the coverage of higher education in popular mass media sources is not well done and perhaps can be a bit misleading. Besides the numbers themselves are pretty slippery. The majority of non-faculty professionals are characterized as “other professionals,” the numbers represent all types of post-secondary schools, and there is some dynamic that needs to be recognized between the growth in professional employees and decline in non-professional employees. In addition, many colleges and universities are outsourcing some of their administrative functions, so the effort and cost is not reflected in the employment figures. If one just considered executive, managerial, and administrative professionals, which seems to be where Ginsberg concentrates, the number drops to 16 administrators per 100 faculty, which may still be excessive. But just for clarity, I would like to point out that according to data provided in the Advanced Release of Selected 2012 Digest Tables in the US between 2001 - 2011,

• there was a 24.57% increase in all university employees,
• executive, managerial, and administrative staff increased by 86,608 employees, representing 57% growth,
• faculty staffing grew by 410,432, representing 36.9% growth, and
• the number of student enrollments increased by 31.81% during the same period of time, so
• faculty ranks more than kept pace with student enrollments from 2001-2011.

Once again, I am in no way suggesting that these numbers are good or appropriate. In fact, I am not even sure what the numbers mean relative to the purposes and missions of the sector and individual colleges and universities. For example, what would these numbers look like if we started including the faculty and enrollment numbers that are common in MOOCs; that is, when some universities start using MOOCs as part of their regular curriculum and offerings?

Obviously Ginsberg has no control over the way popular media reports on higher education. I do not mean to infer a connection between the Fall of the Faculty and articles like those in the Economist. I wanted though to point to the fact that the issues being discussed are politically charged, the data require subtle treatment, and popular media is frequently not the best place to turn for accuracy and clarity.

Are Some of the Things we are Doing Valuable?

I think though that the numbers as they stand can be put into some perspective. Although I have no data to support this, I do believe that we have seen a reshaping of staffing at many post-secondary institutions not just more of the same-old. Once again, this is just common sense, but when you consider the changing demographic that we are serving across the sector, the push to increase access, and the growth of distance education, we can see increased needs for student and faculty support in at least the following areas.

• information technology
• learning design
• student counseling and advising

Remember, in 2001 a small number of institutions had institutional learning management systems, never mind electronic library and research resources, ePortfolios, social media, and other digital assets that are now considered just part of functioning in the 21st century. The number of non-traditional and adult learners and those studying at a distance was much smaller and was concentrated at relatively few colleges and universities. Most institutions have built infrastructure and resources to accommodate the growing populations of returning and remote learners. Is this right, are these good investments? It depends on the type of school you are considering, the institution's commitment to access, and its self-identity. Perhaps, as Ginsberg clearly states, it is not right for Johns Hopkins University. Regardless though, reliable technology-based systems are now an expectation. As an undergraduate I remember spending more than 2-days leading into each semester standing in lines to register for courses. We would line-up hours before the faculty member would show up at their designated classroom, so we could sign-up and get into their course. I can't imagine that many of the faculty felt this was good use of their time either. Now registration takes seconds to execute. Faculty time is spent advising the student and supporting academic development, not managing a queue. It takes a team of technologists to support these very helpful administrative systems, and they were, for the most part, absent before the 90s.

How about the All-Faculty University?

I would like to acknowledge though that I think the real points of Ginsberg’s book are most weakly made in terms of finance and staffing. I think that that they are most strongly made in terms of control and governance of the academic enterprise and the assumptions that we make about the purposes of the University. Ginsberg’s point that academic freedom is critical to the purpose of the University and that without tenure, there is no academic freedom is powerfully made. I do see that tenure is under siege both within and outside of the University. I see few university administrators clearly articulating the value of tenure and academic freedom, while articulating the practical importance of a liberal education as the University pursues its mission.


At the end of the day though, even though I was frustrated, the Fall of the Faculty struck a chord. Kudos to Ginsberg for providing solutions. In many ways, he is suggesting that we return to the old ways. Rebalance the roles of administrators and faculty. I think that this is an excellent suggestion. It is perhaps a recommendation that is not practical for every post-secondary school to follow, but it clearly has a place in the incredibly diverse landscape of higher education. In reality we have seen the manifestation of the “all administrative university” with the rise of the for-profit chain university. I don’t think that many of us liked what we got, but like Ebenezer Scrooge we did get a glimpse at a potential future. In response, why not build the “all-faculty university,” and see how that goes in our current environment and as we prepare for the mounting challenges and opportunities of the 21st century? It would be better to not have to build one from scratch, but by the sounds of it, there are not many universities available that have not been infected by the administrative virus. Perhaps though some universities will give a fair hearing to the idea and come back home. Perhaps some exist and we need to learn from them. I am sincere about this. I would like to see a college or university that followed in earnest the values and priorities that Ginsberg has promoted in his book and I hope that there is still a place for it in the spectrum of post-secondary education. It would even be better if it were affordable, appealed to students, contributed to the common good, and we knew if it was delivering on its promise.

Legitimate Concerns and Questions

Finally, I am going to return for a minute to my last posting, Why have we failed ourselves as we have failed our student-athletes? I wonder if the behavior described in the Western Oklahoma story is a bellwether for more traditional research universities. Ones whose missions play more to seeking truth, engaging in discovery, and effecting the common good than career and workforce development and meeting remedial student needs. In the Need 3 Quick Credits to Play Ball? Call Western Oklahoma article Lisa Greenlee, Western Oklahoma's vice president for academic and student-support services made an effort to provide assurances of continued curricular integrity at her college, insisting that she

"...will not oversee something that isn't of high quality. ... It won't happen under my watch," she says. "If you knew me and our administrative team, we go to great lengths to ensure that what we're doing has rigor and quality. 

"If that means hiring someone full-time whose job is to make sure that every class is not substandard, or to make sure we integrate technology to watch students as they take exams, that's what we will do."

Would we not legitimately expect, as Ginsberg clearly would, that the person ensuring that a class is not substandard be the faculty member? Would we not expect this as a student or a parent? I am guessing that different people would respond to this question differently, but I think that it strikes at the larger question raised in the Fall of the Faculty. It is the type of question that ought to be discussed openly and civilly. It is the type of question that needs to be framed in terms of institutional mission, alongside the expectations that are being placed on the sector and the expectations we have for different types of colleges and universities in different parts of the sector.

---

OER foundation
http://wikieducator.org/OERF:Home

Open content licensing for educators #OCL4Ed (2012.12)
http://wikieducator.org/Open_content_licensing_for_educators/Home

Digest of Educational Statistics 2011
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/index.asp

Chapter 3: Postsecondary Education
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/ch_3.asp

Advanced Release of Selected 2012 Digest Tables
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2012menu_tables.asp

Table 257. Employees in degree-granting institutions, by sex, employment status, control and level of institution, and primary occupation: Selected years, fall 1991 through fall 2011
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_257.asp 

Table 198. Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control of institution: Selected years, 1947 through 2011
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_198.asp

Not what it used to be: American universities represent declining value for money to their students
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567373-american-universities-represent-declining-value-money-their-students-not-what-it?

Chart 2: Plenty of Padding
http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/2012/11/articles/body/20121201_USC537.png

Why have we failed ourselves as we have failed our student-athletes?
http://www.kenudas.com/2012/12/why-have-we-failed-ourselves-as-we-have.html

Need 3 Quick Credits to Play Ball? Call Western Oklahoma
http://chronicle.com/article/Need-3-Quick-Credits-to-Play/135690/

Why have we failed ourselves as we have failed our student-athletes?

Overview: 
The recent attention that Western Oklahoma State College has received for its 2-week online accelerated intersession courses provides an opportunity for universities to reflect on their purposes and the obligations they have to their students and faculty.


When I started writing I felt that this posting would be a bit of a diversion, but now I am not so sure. I think that we could extend the relevant points about our treatment of student athletes to any student. David Wicks’ (@dwicksspu) recent tweet drew my attention to an article in the New York Times by Kevin Carey titled Who Will Hold Colleges Accountable? that I found very interesting. Carey’s article was based on one by Brad Wolverton appearing in the Chronicle of Higher Education a while ago, which was titled Need 3 Quick Credits to Play Ball? Call Western Oklahoma. Unfortunately there was no opportunity to share thoughts in the NY Times and the Chronicle article was 3 weeks old so the discussion has obviously gone stale. Now, I am left with this short posting.

The story covered in these articles resonated with me because it points to what seems to be a lack of accountability, sense of purpose, and reflection at some institutions that really should know better - our traditional research universities. The background of the articles is pretty simple. There has been a bunch of student athletes attending reputable national research universities who have been taking 2-week online courses from Western Oklahoma State College and are earning 3 “easy” and cheap credits. The articles focus on how such courses can keep a prized player on the “field” and away from academic ineligibility. Kevin Carey smartly outlines the problems with accreditation and the credit hour, which are topics that deserve and have gotten plenty of attention. Wolverton poked a bit at the major groups involved in the story including accreditors, athletes, the NCAA, Western Oklahoma State College, and the schools accepting credit.

I am taking the time to write this because this story strikes at what I think is a very serious integrity issue and a missing element in the dialogue. I reviewed the 60+ comments following the original Chronicle article and a few dozen others following related articles and although a lot of interesting comments were made about the integrity of college athletics, Western Oklahoma State College, and regional accreditation agencies, there was no real dialogue about the responsibilities that we have as academic communities to our students. When I refer to our students, I am thinking about those whom we have admitted into our academic programs, invited to participate in our community, and have pledged to serve as if the university will function as their alma mater. These students represent one of the principal purposes of our universities. The fact that some students are gifted athletes and have been awarded athletic scholarships, does not make them second-class students.

Just because a credit bearing course issues forth from an accredited school, and is ready for transfer, does not mean that the University is obligated to accept it. I would argue that it is the responsibility of everybody at the University from the registrar, to the student’s academic advisor, to the athlete's coach to review the credits and to ensure that the credits equate to those offered at the home campus and that the institution offering the credits has a pattern of doing so with integrity.

Judging by the following quote from Wolverton’s article, there is not only a pattern at Western Oklahoma, but the pattern is well understood and apparently accepted by university professionals charged with caring for the student’s development.

It's not just the speedy credit that appeals to many players. According to dozens of academic advisers, athletes, and coaches, Western Oklahoma offers some of the easiest classes around. One Division I football player who reads at a fifth-grade level completed a three-credit health class in three sittings, his academic counselor says. Other students struggling to stay above a 2.0 on their own campus have landed A's and B's from Western Oklahoma—all in the academic blink of an eye.

Although perhaps I should not be, I was astonished by what I read as it represents a profound lack of integrity at the universities accepting credits, a disservice to the public, and a truly horrible lack of respect for the students involved. It is my belief and sincere hope that this is not “best practice” or acceptable practice at our universities, yet I am left wondering why there was not much evidence of outrage directed at the universities accepting the transfer credit. Although I have read that as a result of Wolverton’s article the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges has committed to investigate western Oklahoma State College, I have not read anything from the universities that have accepted credit or who have actively referred their students to Western Oklahoma 10-day intersession courses.

I am not defending Western Oklahoma. I am not sure that there is anything to defend. After visiting their web site, I cannot discern any Western Oklahoman secrets that were unveiled by the stories in The Chronicle. Descriptions of their programs are open and easy to find, they describe their accreditation and governance, their faculty are listed, their purpose and mission are clearly stated, and so forth. I do not see any evidence of deception or misrepresentation on the part of Western Oklahoma State College. If there is any misdirection, it has to be happening at the students’ home institutions where apparently, at least for these students, the fact that the credits are from an accredited college is good enough for transfer. There was no felt need to review the courses for quality or for curricular coherence, even though everybody understands the pressure these young adults feel to remain eligible to perform in their school colours. Even though we know what these same pressures have done to mature professionals and we know the consequences. No flags were raised, no special attention was paid. Now if these credits were awarded for courses offered by their research intensive destination university would the courses be better, have more academic rigour, or be taught by more qualified faculty? I am guessing that they might be, but for one reason or the next that has not seemed to matter.

As mentioned above, these reports strike a chord. In my past few posts I have outlined which characteristics separate the “University” from other higher education institutions. The characteristics are complex and point to rather lofty purposes, but little of it matters if the universities themselves do not practice with integrity and care for their principal charges; students and faculty. Unlike suspending a professional athlete who breaks team rules or commits a crime, keeping a college player off the field due to academic disqualification is not a punishment, it is an obligation that an academic institution assumes when it admit the student. It is an opportunity to care for the academic needs of a student. The obligation is about setting priorities and about making good on our commitment to care for our students. It is also about respecting the integrity of an institution meant to seek truth above and beyond all else, and to which thousands of faculty have dedicated their scholarly lives. After all, without the students and without the faculty, we are left with athletes, coaches, and administrators. In this way we could shed some of our obligations.

A University is, according to the usual designation, an Alma Mater, knowing her children one by one, not a foundry, or a mint, or a treadmill.

-Newman, John Henry

---

Who Will Hold Colleges Accountable?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/opinion/who-will-hold-colleges-accountable.html

Need 3 Quick Credits to Play Ball? Call Western Oklahoma
http://chronicle.com/article/Need-3-Quick-Credits-to-Play/135690/

Western Oklahoma State College
http://www.wosc.edu/

Higher Learning Commission to Investigate Western Oklahoma State College
http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/higher-learning-commission-to-investigate-western-oklahoma-state-college/31862

A New Low For NCAA Diploma Mills
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/11/13/1180751/a-new-low-for-ncaa-diploma-mills/

How do we know if we have a University or not?

Overview:
Universities are unique organizations whose purpose is to pursue truth. As such they have characteristics that distinguish them from other types of institutions of higher education. Understanding the purpose, nature, and characteristics of universities will help students select among different types of schools and will help policy makers and legislators understand the implications of their actions.

After asserting in my last post that we should impose some rules about what types of education organizations can include “University” in their names, I built a little rationale for why we should protect the use of the term “university," and I asked how we should proceed. I was really trying to operationalize a way to address the more general question of, What is a university and what should we expect from one? I think that if we are going to build some discipline around what we call a university, we should at least think about the basic characteristics.

I will admit too that I have been a little motivated by the $10,000 Platform article that appeared in Inside Higher last week. It outlined some of the similarities among the higher education reform efforts in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin. I have included below links to short articles treating higher education reform in Ohio and Colorado as well. All of the efforts seem to revolved around cost cutting measures and performance-based funding. My growing concern is whether some of the Universities in these states will remain so after they receive the benefit of reform. It struck me that articulating what a university is, might help folks understand if they really want a university or not.

Before writing any more though, I do want to say that I am not presuming to define what a university is in any general way. I am just trying to make the point that the University is something and that it is different than other things like trade schools, career colleges, high schools, seminaries, medressas, polytechnics, military academies, science academies, institutes, liberal arts colleges, and such. If you disagree with the characteristics I list below, please chime in, make recommendations, improve my thinking - no worries. In addition, I am not trying to define any of the characteristics that I have listed below. I am just trying to provide descriptive illustrations that might be useful for our purposes.

I think that for an institution of higher education to include the word “University” in its name, it should have the following characteristics. It will certainly have many other characteristics, but there should at least be evidence of the following:

Universal Knowledge
The University ought to be a place in which it is possible to explore universal knowledge, in which intellectual resources are available across disciplines to address systemic discovery, teaching, and learning. That is, a University is a place in which scholarship contributes to and benefits from the constellation of disciplines that constitute the collective of human knowledge at that point in time.

Academic Freedom
The American Association of University Professors has a great resource on Academic Freedom that covers a range of topics, case law, and provides some detail on the evolving interpretations of academic freedom. At the very least we can use the following as a touchstone.

"institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition"

Practically, academic freedom needs to be supported through and reflected in shared governance, research, the “classroom,” and in public life. Academic freedom is complemented by a system of responsibilities that are exhibited through the behavior of faculty. Assuming the responsibility is not a punishment or a trade-off, it is a condition of being part of a community of scholars whose principal objective is to seek the truth - the purpose of the university.

Community of Scholars
Being part of a community and being a scholar has meaning. Scholars, of course practice scholarship, using scholarly methods in pursuit of truth. I am going to cheap-out a little here. I love Wikipedia, and I am going to quote directly from it on the topic of Scholarship because it is pretty accessible.

Scholarly method or scholarship is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. It is the methods that systemically advance the teaching, research, and practice of a given scholarly or academic field of study through rigorous inquiry. Scholarship is noted by its significance to its particular profession, is creative, can be documented, can be replicated or elaborated, and can be and is peer-reviewed through various methods.

As a member of a community, the scholar has a responsibility to maintain integrity in the community, become expert in its methods, and uphold standards of scholarship. And, as a member of the University serving on a faculty there is also a responsibility to prepare others for and welcome others into the community.

Teaching, Discovery, and Service
I am going to suggest that teaching, discovery, and service or practice are essential activities within the University. They do not need to be equally balanced, but none can be trivial either. Each should be represented in the institution's mission, coherent with its values, evident in its practice, its hiring policies, and evaluation systems. There ought to be evidence that teaching, discovery, and service are actively and meaningfully supported by the institution, and expected of every scholar.

Truth
I think that the purpose of the University is so important that it should have its own category. I think too that it is worth mentioning that although no systems or practices should impede the search for truth, and many should be designed to facilitate the search, the University does do things additionally. For example, Universities may in addition to searching for truth, simply teach some skills.

I think that this is enough for now. Institutions that do not possess the characteristics listed above, may be very good examples of what they are, but they are not Universities, and probably should not be representing themselves as such. I am not yarning-on about this to be a jerk, so much as to create a point of reference. If in the name of efficiency, policies are passed that change the characteristics of a university, they may become a good college, but may no longer be a university. If a prospective student sees “University” in the name of an institution, that learner has a legitimate expectation that the school will at least possess the characteristics listed above. The same holds true for the tax payer who is investing in their public "University." It is my feeling that it is all that goes into the pursuit of truth coupled with dissemination and teaching that separates Universities from other types of education providers and many other types of organizations more generally.

---

$10,000 Platform, Inside HigherEd 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/11/30/texas-florida-and-wisconsin-governors-see-large-overlap-higher-education-platforms

AAUP Academic Freedom 

http://www.aaup.org/aaup/issues/af/

Wikipedia: Scholar 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar 

Colorado creates master plan for improving higher education
http://www.denverpost.com/dontmiss/ci_22107490

John Kasich’s New Higher Education Funding Formula: Results Equal Funding
http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/11/30/what-ohios-new-higher-education-funding-formula-could-look-like/

Would a universty by any other name smell as sweet?

Overview:

I am suggesting that we impose some rigour about what types of education organizations that include “University” in their names. I believe that there is a valid argument for creating some clarity around what is and what is not a University and a University Education. The argument might be stilted, but I think that where it leads us is worth pursing.

I mentioned in my first post about this “project” that I wanted to use Latent Pattern Transmission as a way to write down and expose some of thinking on a variety of topics and hopefully generate some feedback. The topics would principally be about higher education and the nature of the University. I also mentioned that some topics would likely “fall flat,” and I think this might be one of those. That said, I want to get it out there, even if it lacks coherence and produces the affect of pettiness, which I began to feel as I started writing. I am happy to be school on the topic.

In short, I am suggesting that we impose some discipline (rules) about what types of education organizations can include “University” in their names.

Yeah, I know that on the surface this is not the biggest problem we are confronting, but I believe that it would be helpful if we could all be much more clear about what is and what is not a University and a University Education. It is hard to do in part because so many different types of higher education providers call themselves “Universities.” I have been thinking about this a lot lately. It has always gotten a bit under my skin that the University of Phoenix and American Public University share names with the University of Massachusetts and Penn State University. I do not mean to be calling out these 4 institutions and have no intention to offend. In fact I named these four institutions because I feel that they are among the very best of their kind that have also exhibited a commitment to serving adult learners studying at a distance. That said, I have always felt that the grouping does not convey the general differences and similarities among the institutions. The source of my agitation is not because I honestly believe one group is better than another, but because I believe they are fundamentally different.

My smoldering feelings were re-stirred a few weeks ago when I read Alison Byerly’s Formerly Known as Students in Inside Higher Ed. Byerly provides what I think is an eloquent treatment of some of the qualities, relationships, and dynamics that make for being a teacher and a student, which are terms that Byerly thinks are important and should not be misused. She makes her point by examining how these terms are used in MOOCs and provides a call for clarity and rigour in the use of terms.

Finally, it is important to recognize that what distinguishes a "course" from a set of lectures -- regardless of which is face-to-face and which is online -- is the difference between a mere broadcast of information, and a mutual commitment by teacher and student to a pedagogical relationship that is supported by a larger curricular structure and institutional mission.

It seems clear that the spaces, formats, and media in which higher education is offered may change radically in the coming years. We will certainly need to adjust our terminology to keep pace with these changes. We must not lose sight, however, of the central axis around which all education revolves. Classroom walls may disappear as predicted, lectures may go the way of the dodo bird, but what will still define education is the presence of (a) a teacher, (b) students, and (c) a set of agreed-upon goals that they work toward together.

As stated above, I am sympathetic with the sentiments Byerly is expressing. I do think that we need to maintain some clarity and some rigour in how we refer to important parts of the educational and academic enterprise. Along the lines of Byerly’s quote above, terms like teacher and students are important. Are the roles that participants referred to as students and teachers similar enough in MOOCs and traditional courses to share the same name without qualification? For example, should we adopt a parallel nomenclature that refers to MOOC Students and MOOC Teachers? Perhaps they are called something else entirely, like Student = Participant and Teacher = Facilitator. Perhaps changing the language we use to describe the teaching and learning roles will get us to a more focused and productive discussion. Also along the lines of Byerly, clear use of important terms does not imply that the terms are static, it just implies that they are consistent and accurate.

I offer the same question about about the nature of the large bucket of organizations that we call “University.” I recognize that the sector is quite broad, and that organizational diversity is a strength, but it feels as if the term has become so vague that it is meaningless. In fact, I think that it has become worse than meaningless and has created the possibility of misrepresentation.

I am going to offer up a few thoughts about why we might want to be more rigorous with how we apply the term University and name education institutions.

What’s in a Name

Unless the point is to be deceptive, the name of a thing should accurately communicate what it is. It should serve to clarify meaning rather than create ambiguity. As different types of educational organizations are designed to meet different needs and have different capacities, it is important to communicate something meaningful in the name.

Education is a Complex Topic

Learning is an intensely personal and value laden pursuit. It is important that learners have every opportunity to identify and select education organizations that best fit their needs. Different types of organizations will meet those needs differently. Many prospective learners are unclear about the nature of different types of education organizations and what they have to offer. This may be particularly true as the education access agenda grows and millions of under-served and first-generation learners are gaining access to higher education. This coupled with the fact that educational options have grown dramatically during the past few years provides too many opportunities for confusion without calling different options by the same name.

Clarity for Prospective Students

Identifying and selecting a way to achieve educational and learning goals can be really hard. In addition to the thousands of accredited colleges, institutes, academies, centers, and universities in the US, there are international options, non-accredited providers, alternatives that guide self-study like MOOCs, and unsupported learning projects. In addition, prospective learners have an array of needs and desires that different institutions have different capacities to meet. To the extent to which it is helpful to know the difference between what a University will offer and a career college will offer it is a good idea to name them accurately. For example, if a learner is interested in the straightest path from registration to employment, they may be disappointed with the typical university curriculum and may not take advantage of undergraduate research options and the like - while a career college is likely to do the trick. That said, if the student is looking for a more broadly conceived education that perhaps has less emphasis on learning purely for utility, than an institution that is a university, in more than just name, may be a better choice.

Clarity for Policy Makers

It is equally important for policy makers to understand the differences between what different types of education providers produce. The more clarity, the more likely that smart policy will be developed, funding will get where it needs to go, with the outcomes most desired. Based on my discussions with various policy makers and policy influencers, I would suggest that there is a lot of confusion caused by grouping traditional universities like UMass, with other types of universities like the University of Phoenix. With this pairing, the unique purposes and strengths of each tend to be lost. UMass becomes a bloated academic bureaucracy that has more interest in responding to “academic questions” than producing graduates that contribute to the work force, while the University of Phoenix becomes a diploma mill that harvests unsuspecting students and cheats the government out of financial aid dollars. Neither of which are entirely accurate or fair characterizations. Appropriately framed, named, and understood, they are institutions pursuing their missions supported and regulated within a realistic policy regime.

Clarity for News Providers

News providers, particularly from traditional establishments, have influence over public perception and opinion. A more defined use of the term “university” would create less confusion about the subjects that are being treated. Many reporters, writers, and editors, who have not covered higher education for an extended period of time or been an active part of the sector as a practitioner are not fully acquainted with the difference between institutional types and do not spell out their assumptions or definitions in the stories that they write and news that they report. I think that a good starting point is to ensure that when we refer to something in the formal media, there is some clarity about what is being referenced.

Once again, as I was writing this I started to reflect on what I was saying and thinking and felt that perhaps it sounded like I was being overly protectionist and resistant to change. After all, what does it hurt if we don’t worry too much about the distinctions between liberal arts schools and trade schools, or Cousera and universities, or universities and seminaries, after all they all provide education, right? I started questioning my motives and started wondering if this topic deserves any attention (or the time that it takes to read this). Was this just a personal peeve? After some thought, I am still a little undecided, but I think that if the discussion helps create some definition of what we expect of institutions that call themselves universities (and by extension education organizations that call themselves other things) we may be able to provide clarity in ways that rankings, catalogues, and lead aggregators do not - even if we all still share the same name.

Will changing names really address the issues we face? Probably not, but if we decided to pursue this we are forced to ask ourselves, What is a university and what should we expect from one? In doing so, I think that we will start addressing some of our most challenging issues.

So how might we proceed?

---

Formally Known as Students
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/10/29/essay-how-moocs-raise-questions-about-definition-student