天美传媒

By President Robert A. Scott

It seems that, whenever the economy sours and college graduates have trouble听finding jobs, and jobs that don鈥檛 really require a college education raise entry standards,听cynics emerge saying that four years in college provide little value-added benefit. Some听even argue that putting the college-bound in a closet instead of a classroom, and听comparing their skills and abilities after four years with the non-college-bound, would听show that the college-bound were still better prepared for work.

These are extreme statements, of course, and even those cynics want their听children to have the benefit of a college education.

But what are the benefits? How do we know they exist? How do we measure the听impact of the university as distinct from four years of reading, watching, and discussing听the news?

These are serious questions, and higher education institutions have not done as听well as they should in answering them in ways that give confidence to others. There are听still too many examples of education that is not grounded in the knowledge, skills,听abilities, and values that twenty-first century students need. Employers and others want听graduates who think both critically and globally, and communicate ideas clearly.

In some cases, new faculty, with freshly earned doctoral degrees, are put in front听of students without being prepared either to teach or to set standards that meet the听institution鈥檚 understanding of excellence. It is an unfortunate truth that university听professors represent the rare profession in which there is no required, supervised听apprenticeship before entering a room to practice one鈥檚 chosen field. All others,听architects, attorneys, clergy, dentists, engineers, physicians, school teachers, etc. are听required to have such an experience before being licensed to practice.

Most colleges and universities take seriously the need to assess a faculty听candidate鈥檚 ability to teach, and orient new faculty, both full-time and part-time, to听standards and expectations. Many institutions require annual reviews of all faculty and听provide extensive services through the centers for professional development.

Nevertheless, colleges are criticized for admitting students who are not prepared听for the rigors of the curriculum. Author Martin Nemko says, 鈥淪tudents鈥� lives are at stake听and colleges, that preach ethics throughout their curriculum, should not be hypocritical听and admit students merely to meet enrollment targets.鈥�

Nemko also criticizes colleges and Congress for boosting college-going rates at a听time when 鈥渆mployers are accelerating their offshoring, part-timing, and temping as many white college jobs as possible, 鈥� resulting in ever more un- and underemployed听B.A.鈥檚鈥� in what he considers soft fields without ready connections to employment.

While these are legitimate concerns, Nemko and others paint with too broad a听brush, and ignore the vigilant work of regional accrediting bodies in insisting on and听assessing how colleges and universities establish key learning outcomes; design courses,听programs, and experiences to provide opportunities for students to study successfully;听assess whether students are learning what is intended; and monitor retention and听graduation rates, thus evaluating the degree of 鈥渇it鈥� between a college鈥檚 mission, the听students admitted, and the learning goals expressed.

For these reasons and more, institutional leaders and faculty know that the starting听point for assessment is the campus mission statement. This sets forth not only lofty aims,听but also specific learning goals. Then, they measure what is done and assess the gap听between expectations and results by a variety of means, including the evaluation of听student work, local and national surveying of students and faculty, and the use of external听evaluators. They view the curriculum and extra-curriculum as a continuum. They听attempt to distinguish between classroom and general learning, and know this is difficult.听They acknowledge that some students come with knowledge and skills that are more听advanced than others and this adds to the complication.

Institutions take seriously the need to assess learning. They are explicit in their听goals and intentional in their behavior, knowing that the institution teaches through its听activities as well as through the faculty it hires and nurtures, and that it is being measured听by the percentage of students who graduate.

We are confident that students benefit from the Adelphi education and experience.听I know because I ask them when they are here and after they graduate. I ask them what听works well and what should be fixed, and know that my colleague presidents do as well.听In these ways, we know what goals we should continue to nurture, and what strategies for听student learning may need enhancement, no matter the condition of the economy.