天美传媒

By Robert A. Scott, President, 天美传媒

Is higher education in turmoil? We read about athletes at Division I听universities whose status as privileged residents has lead more than once to听irresponsible behavior and arrests. We read about SAT results that have been听scored incorrectly.

We read that Members of Congress want to make substantial changes to the听Higher Education Authorization Act, making for-profit career schools eligible for听federal financial aid on the same basis as campuses like Amherst and without听meeting the standards previously set in response to scandals. And we read that the听Secretary of Education鈥檚 Commission on Higher Education wants to create new听accountability standards and even do away with the historic regional accrediting听system that has served the nation and higher education so well.

We read about faculty focused on themselves, with students disregarded as听members of a learning community. Faculty scholarship is described as arcane and听self-serving, with 鈥渕obbing鈥� among faculty and beer kegs and orgies the norm听among students. We have heard people talk about higher education as that place听where the 鈥渋nmates run the asylum,鈥� and where undermining presidential authority听is commonplace. There now is a demand for 鈥渂alance鈥� in faculty political views and听a test for political correctness in classrooms.

Such reports can cause people to think that these statements characterize听American higher education at large. But they don鈥檛. Only 10% of institutions in听American higher education play athletics at the Division I level, and only a small听percentage of them host sports programs in which athletes are treated as celebrities,听live by themselves as a group, and are excused from rules that apply to others.听When the news media comment on faculty who don鈥檛 teach, they are writing about a听few research universities and their institutes, not higher education across the nation.听When the news media talk about tuition pricing as out of control, they cite costs at a听narrow band of institutions, not higher education in general. When the media听report on colleges not providing sufficient courses for students to complete their听degree work in four years, they talk mostly about institutions whose budgets have听been cut by their state and ignore the costs of Information Technology (IT)听equipment, software, staff, site licenses, and compliance required to meet today鈥檚听expectations for instruction.

This is not to say that everything is fine. We always can do better. With over听80% of students in public institutions of higher education, the potential for political听interference in trustee appointments, in staffing, and in policy is ever present. Just听think, the top two higher education leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives听received almost $1 million in political action committee (PAC) contributions from听private career schools at a time when their Congressional committee was debating听whether to reduce requirements instituted earlier to protect the public from听fraudulent practices by such organizations With higher education seen more as a听private benefit than as a public good, we see reductions in state support and greater听reliance on tuition and fees – – and then political complaints about tuition increases听and reductions in quality follow.

We can do more to assure that students are advancing in knowledge, skills,听abilities, and values, and that faculty seek continuously to improve the effectiveness听of their teaching. After all, college faculty are the only professionals whose training听does not include a supervised clinical experience as part of their preparation. Of听course, the popular media guides don鈥檛 focus on teaching effectiveness. They are听more interested in 鈥渋nput鈥� measures like student SAT鈥檚 and faculty PhD鈥檚 than on听teaching, advising, and student progress. As a result, colleges often place emphasis听on what is rewarded, just as individuals do.

Universities and colleges are not immune from societal forces and values, and听some ignore their role in teaching moral reasoning and in preparing citizens because听of criticism from parents, peers, and patrons. 鈥淎nimal House鈥� behavior does not听usually start in college.

Media coverage is another influence that fosters poor decisions. Scores of听institutions are leaving NCAA Division II for Division I in part because of media听coverage and in part due to the mistaken belief that they will make money.听Consider our local scene. The six colleges in Queens, Nassau and Suffolk which听participate in Division II sports represent over 300,000 students, faculty, staff,听alumni, and parents who are disappointed each week by Newsday because student-athletes听whose high school teams were covered extensively are now ignored. This is听not true of the Division I teams in the same region. Very few universities make听money on athletics, but the pursuit of media attention and money still often prevails听over reason.

Is there grade inflation? Yes. Is it a serious problem? Not as much as our听lack of ability to assure student learning through objective means. We need to find听ways to separate assessment from teaching, as it is done in some institutions and in听some countries.

Higher education is not in turmoil. If anything is, it is federal and national听policy towards higher education that has lost its way. How else can we explain the听eagerness of Congress to equate a program offered over the Internet by a for-profit听school as equal to those offered by collegiate institutions that face critical peer听scrutiny and are held accountable to their stakeholders in face-to-face encounters听with students, alumni, and the local community? Could it be the PAC money cited听earlier?

This is not to say that on-line education is bad. The concern is about听proportion, mission, and support. Many colleges use on-line technologies in courses听taught on campus for use in exchanging information routinely and on those special听occasions when the professor is at a conference or ill, or when students are away听from campus at a theatre festival or athletic conference tournament. Still more听colleges use the Internet for communicating with alumni and friends of the听university. Information technology provides a means for instruction, but the听transformation of students through interaction with faculty is the goal, and that is听not the result simply of a transaction – – an exchange of money for degree credit.

There is much to applaud about U.S. higher education, especially when听compared to the past and to institutions around the world. We have a greater听diversity of institutions and a wider variety of degree levels and programs to pursue.听From two-year associate degree granting community colleges to prestigious research听universities offering post-doctoral work, we provide opportunity for nearly every听student to find a good 鈥渇it鈥� between preparation and aspiration.

The diversity of institutions fosters access for individuals; the wide array of听federal, state, private, and institutional grant, loan, and work-study programs听fosters affordability; and regional accrediting bodies, professional associations, and听state and federal agencies all foster accountability for quality. However, efficiencies听can be found in the federal student loan programs and accountability measures can听be made more effective.

Institutions still serve as curators of the past, critics of the status quo, and听creators of the new. They are leading institutions in the socialization of generations,听both directly and indirectly, through the parents, teachers, and other professionals听they prepare. There are critics of universities鈥� efforts to celebrate diversity and add听to curricula, but they usually cannot cite 鈥渄ead white males鈥� whose works deserve听to remain required or new authors whose works should be excluded. And the听evidence is that goals for diversity in student enrollment and faculty hiring are听important contributors to the preparation of citizens.

While some complain about soaring college costs, they tend to focus on the听most prestigious institutions. In fact, average private college tuition and fees in the听United States is $21,235, about one-half that charged at the most expensive. Average听public college tuition and fees total $5,491. Colleges and universities set tuition听levels after considering other sources of revenue, including state assistance to public听institutions, and philosophical, political, and market forces. In an effort to be听affordable and competitive, almost all institutions discount tuition to some extent,听ranging from just over 10% to nearly 60%.

Why do tuition and fees rise faster than inflation? The answer is that the听鈥渕arket basket鈥� of items purchased by a college differs substantially from the听market basket for the home. Chemicals, glassware, technology, software,听governance and compliance requirements, and competitive forces add to the cost of听operations. Nevertheless, as indicated earlier, the average private university tuition听is only one-half the amount cited in headlines.

Increasingly, colleges and universities have developed partnerships with听business and other employers, which have resulted not only in research听opportunities for faculty, but also in internships and work opportunities for听students. Likewise, many colleges have active partnerships with school systems and听school leaders, lending their expertise and helping prepare the next generation of听teachers, students, and leaders. But this is not enough.

I have been 鈥淧rincipal for a Day鈥� in New York City three times, and several听times in Newark before joining Adelphi, and frequently visit schools and听superintendents on Long Island. I know first-hand that there is more we educators听can and should do to work with schools on professional development, leadership听development, and curriculum development, especially with regard to math, science,听foreign languages, and technology. We can do more to help support teaching the听scientific method and help students distinguish between and among the various听ways of knowing – – fact, faith, and fear – – and discern truth from fiction in sources听such as the Internet and self-published books.

We also can do more to work with business, industry, and the non-profit听sector to create internships and alliances, without abandoning our independence听and integrity. The concern about 鈥渃ommercialization鈥� in higher education-industry听partnerships is real, but not impossible to manage.

It has long been known that those who earn a college education are more听likely to enjoy good health, civic involvement, higher income, career flexibility, and听other benefits when compared to those who do not go to college. Colleges emphasize听the advancement of students鈥� knowledge, skills, and abilities, and foster values such听as team work, putting others above self, setting goals and facing challenges,听reflecting on results, and respecting a diversity of opinion and backgrounds. Higher听education is the agency to prepare students for the global world we face, including听opportunities to study language and culture, both here and in other countries.听College is where many find their best friends, spouses or partners, and lifelong听networks.

Can President鈥檚 do more to lead and manage? Of course. I recoil when I听hear campus presidents complain that they are limited in action by tenure, union听agreements, and lack of resources. University leaders have numerous points of听leverage to employ in achieving agreed-upon goals. Yes, campus governance can be听complicated, what with numerous constituents with varying agendas, but the听processes for 鈥渟hared governance鈥� are known. Most often, the problems are a lack听of clarity about goals, an absence of communication about process, a sense of听injustice in the distribution of resources, and a misunderstanding about the relative听roles of trustees, faculty, administration, and students.

At times, these 鈥減roblems鈥� are exacerbated by the president鈥檚 absence from听campus due to the demands of fundraising and other forms of resource听development. Such presidents seem to have forgotten that fundraising is to enhance听the environment for teaching and learning, in which faculty and students are听central. Fundraising is not, at its core, about the entertainment of potential donors听in posh settings. Fundraising is most successful when the academic enterprise is听central to the effort. In such cases, presidents and board members bring potential听donors to meet the faculty and students whose lives will be enhanced by new gifts.听And, in the process, goals, communications, fairness, and an understanding of roles听is enhanced.

Is this a time of turmoil? No. A time of change? Yes. A time of increasing听opportunities and challenges? Absolutely!

Invited Address, Long Island University Club, New Hyde Park Inn, New York, May 8,听2006, based on an essay prepared for The Boulevard, May, 2006.

For further information, please contact:

Todd Wilson
Strategic Communications Director听
p 鈥� 516.237.8634
e 鈥� twilson@adelphi.edu