The Commission for the Future of Higher Education has just released a draft report, which was apparently prepared by staff, not the Commission members. Thus we can expect that the Commission will wade in and carry our a significant rewriting. So, rather than respond to the draft (other than to say that I find some of the things in it to be right on target, and others to be just silly), I will describe a few things I would like to see in the final report.
First, a discussion of the changes they see in the world, and why those changes put our higher education system at risk. There are surely many things wrong with our system of higher education (and those of all of our competitors, for that matter), and we are unlikely to have the enthusiasm or resources to fix them all. What threats do they believe their solutions are protecting us against? At present, we cannot judge the utility of their solutions, since we do not know the problems for which they are solutions
Second, what should we be teaching students in today’s world? If we want to do outcomes testing of learning, we had better be real sure we are testing for the desired outcomes, because the test will become the driver. Reports show that offshoring is creeping up the educational-attainment ladder. The key issue seems to me to be, what do today’s students need to learn so that they have a good chance of being successful in the increasingly globalized competition for jobs?
I certainly don’t know the complete answer to the question of the needed skills, but a partial list might include:
1. Critical thinking. Derek Bok in Our Underachieving Colleges, describes research that shows that we actually do an awful job of teaching critical thinking, but surely this will be key to succeeding in a rapidly changing world.
2. Ability to work in a team. Very few real problems in the world are solved by a person sitting alone thinking. Increasingly, it takes a team, usually composed of people bringing different perspectives and skills.
3. Entrepreneurial thinking. Ability to find opportunities and exploit them will be of increasing importance.
4. Better understanding the world and its peoples. Our students will be working in a world that is much better connected than ours is, and they will need to understand other peoples and their histories and cultures to maneuver successfully in that world.
5. Subject matter knowledge that is the deepest, and at the same time least dogmatic and confining intellectually, in the world. Again, Bok shows that we are not super in teaching this, either.
Third, States everywhere around the world are moving from being policy driven to being market driven (see How would a market-state change higher education, March 11, 2006). Almost every system of higher education globally is seeing decreasing State support, and an increasing dependence on the market. The Commission should address the critical question “What about higher education is of sufficient importance to the nation that there should be a policy response, and what should be left to market forces?” Then we can talk about costs and prices.
Finally, American higher education is an incredibly diverse lot. There are universities and colleges, profit and non-profit. The student base is also very diverse in terms of age, background, aspirations, etc. The interplay of these different components has helped to make our system so strong. After my third point is answered, one could begin to look at ways in which market forces could be used in conjunction with this diversity to accomplish the access and the cost containment desired by the Commission, and the lifelong learning that will surely be required for us to compete successfully.
Comments