Our contributor Kevin Carey has written an important and eye-opening piece on this subject, and I encourage you to read it.
Source: How Colleges Are Weak – The New York Times
But as I state in my comment, Mr. Carey can use help with views from the inside. I wrote,
Kevin Carey’s insights into, and knowledge of, higher ed is impressive. But since he hasn’t spent decades within a university, he misses some extremely important points.
Here are a few.
First,
“…[They] are not coherent academic enterprises with consistent standards of classroom excellence…”
Most actually do have consistent standards; just not of excellence. Here is David Riesman (from 1980) observations of those “standards”,
“…advantage can…be taken of [students] by unscrupulous instructors and institutions…[since] the “wants” of students to which competing institutions, departments, and individual faculty members cater are quite different from the “needs” of students…” (from “On Higher Education: The Academic Enterprise in an Era of Rising Student Consumerism”)
Second,
“…When it comes to exerting influence over teaching and learning, they’re Easter eggs…”
This is not correct. They exert much NEGATIVE influence. They pressure faculty to deliver “wants”, not “needs”. For an example, see my comment on Mr. Carey’s piece. (It’s about 20 down under “readers picks”.)
Third,
Kevin talks about “… the disunified university…”
Though it is true that they are disunifed when it comes to research, they are unified in the way they take advantage of student naiveté, something Clark Kerr understood.
Now I’m out of characters, but more explanations, along with documented stories, and suggestions for change, can be found on my blog inside-higher-ed .
Recent Comments