Changing Higher Education

Better rankings - but do we need them?

Kevin Carey, author of the very nice Washington Monthly article Is our students learning?  that I discussed in Educational value added, Sept.1, 2006, has sent me a copy of his new report College Rankings Reformed: The Case for a New Order in Higher Education.  This report nicely fleshes out a number of arguments made in his shorter article, and adds some new recommendations on how to improve rankings.

Carey understandably focuses his discussion on the US News and World Report (USNWR) rankings of colleges.  He argues that one can catagorize what is actually being measured by the various components of these rankings.  When he does this categorization, he find that the USNWR rankings are based 25% on fame, 30% on institutional wealth, 40% on exclusivity, and only 5% on quality! That, indeed, does not seem to be the best way to measure the effectiveness of the colleges or the quality of their programs.

Spellings and transparency

Now that the Spellings Report is out, and the Secretary has announced a plan of action, the pundits and bloggers have made their opinions known (see, e.g. Lombardi’s column in Inside Higher Education and the subsequent comments, or Seery’s column in the Huffington Post and subsequent comments). The comments generally range from slightly neutral to quite negative. They run from discussions regarding the difficulty of measuring the important outputs of higher education, to claims that this report is simply part of a larger Bushian conspiracy against progressive thought.  Along the way are numerous statements that only academics have a right to judge the academy, and that government should stay out of it.

My take is a bit different from those of many commentators, as readers of this blog will recognize.  I believe that the concerns raised by the Report regarding the future global dominance of American higher education are very real, and supported by considerable data (see e.g.Measuring Up 2006:The national report card on higher education , or Education at a Glance 2006).   I believe that comments by various faculty (see blogs mentioned above) that learning in college is the responsibility of the student, not the faculty, are simply wrong, and that there is real joint responsibility for good outcomes. In general, we in the academy have not kept up our end of that joint responsibility because we have ignored research that shows how we could change our teaching to improve learning outcomes significantly. As a result, many of our students are not learning what they need for success in a knowledge economy. (see previous related posts How people learn May 1, 2006, A D- in science education April 14, 2006, How are we doing teaching cognitive skills? July 4, 2006)

Whither English?

These are great times for native English speakers and the universities of the English speaking world, right?  The rising tide of globalization has made English the new must-have skill, giving us native English speakers a major advantage, and assuring the Anglo-American universities of a never ending supply of students from around the world who want an English language college degree.  But before you relax and break out the Champagne, you may want to read a new book by David Graddol,  published by the British Council, called English Next.  He suggests that things are not completely as they seem.

Graddol begins with a very interesting analysis of the transition from modernity, in which language played a key role in defining the nation and its identity, to postmodernity, in which the forces of globalization are leading to more complex concepts of individual and national identity, and to new forms of multilingualism. Because so many of the drivers and enablers of globalization have a major “English factor”, English is playing a central role in this transition.  As Graddol notes, “On the one hand, the availability of English as a global language is accelerating globalisation.  On the other, the globalisation is accelerating the use of English.” (p.22).  English has become a key component of the took kit of skills that the postmodern worker must have, and English is being introduced as a required second language in grade schools in many countries of the world, including China.  Since older workers are also upgrading their English skills, Graddol reports that computer models show that within a few years “Nearly a third of the world population will be trying to learn English at the same time.” (!) (p.101)

Harvard forms a task force - improved teaching is in.

The news out of Harvard is that they are setting up a task force to study ways to improve teaching.  And, surprise, it is possible that the timing of the announcement has something to do with the fact that  Derek Bok is back as president. As reported in the Boston Globe, “The task force's chairwoman, Theda Skocpol, dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, said she was inspired to propose the idea by the book that Bok published just months before taking over after Lawrence H. Summers's resignation. The book is called Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should be Learning More.”

I have mentioned Derek Bok’s excellent new book in previous posts (e.g. How are we doing teaching cognitive skills?, July 4, 2006).  It describes a lot of  very humbling data on the effectiveness of teaching in colleges and universities of all sizes and shapes around the country. It also points out that research has shown us ways to make student learning much more effective, but that that research is quite generally ignored by faculty in their teaching.  Would he have written this provocative book had he known he was to resume the presidency of Harvard?  Who knows - but at least it is leading to some introspection at one of our great institutions.

Educational value added

Kevin Carey has written a very provocative piece for the Washington Monthly called Is our students learning?: The measurements elite colleges don’t want you to see.  In it, he addresses the issue of measuring the educational value added by an institution.  Although the article is addressed to the “elite” institutions, it is clear that his points apply to all of higher education.

Carey asks us to imagine reading a “best mutual fund” guide that does not include the bottom line of rate of return.  Most of us would find that an unacceptable guide for investing our retirement funds, but, Carey argues, that is pretty much the kind of guide we use when choosing a college. While acknowledging that finding the bottom line for education is more complex and difficult than finding the bottom line for a mutual fund, Carey makes a number of interesting proposals.

Report from the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education

The third draft of the report from the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education is out now, and news reports indicate that it is acceptable to most members of the Commission.  Thus it is probably pretty close to the final report, and as such interesting to look at in some detail. 

One of the more confusing aspects of the report is that it is really about just one part of higher education - undergraduate studies.  There is nothing wrong with that focus, but it should have been made clear in the report.  In addition, by leaving out graduate and professional training, and research, many of the discussions about cost containment miss the boat.  More on that below.

At the outset let me say that I think the report hits most of the proper points about the current situation in higher education, and makes a number of suggestions that are in the right directions.  One (especially a professor) can always argue about emphasis and detail, which is mostly what I shall do.

An underlying discomfort I have with the report is that it is only minimally focused on global changes and competition.  There are numerous comparisons of how we compare today with other countries, but no analysis of where the competition is moving tomorrow.  Similarly, there is no mention of the movement up the educational ladder of the offshoring of jobs (see Offshoring moves up the education ladder, March 7, 2006 ), and what that might mean for our educational system.   The report is also focused on domestic students (understandably), and gives rather short shrift to the importance international students play in higher education and our economy generally.  Other countries have recognized importance of international students to their global prestige and general welfare, and have created national strategies to attract the best and brightest (e.g Australia and Great Britain).  No such overall strategy is called for here, although the relatively few recommendations made by the committee in this area have great merit.

Modularity in university higher education: Education

(Continuing the discussion begun in Modularity in university higher education, June 16, 2006)

Education, as a module or modules, is a lot more complicated than research.  Choosing the appropriate definition for a module is not a sure thing since globalization may cause us to rethink our organization of education, and therefore of the appropriate definition of modules.

One example of the way in which educational modules are being redefined by the forces of globalization is given by the Bologna Process.  The Bologna Process describes a truly immense and courageous educational reform movement encompassing most of Europe.   In the past, most European countries had a first higher education degree that took of the order of six years to obtain, and was at a level roughly equal to that of an American Master’s degree. That, therefore, probably would have been a reasonable module for European education.  However, characteristics of these degrees varied significantly from country to country, thereby making student movement between countries difficult, and the long time to degree kept students out of the workplace for a long period.  Lack of uniformity in degree definitions, and the long time to degree significantly decreased the desirability of these programs to non-European students.  Increasing global competition made those undesirable consequences.  In order to get around these difficulties, the Bologna Process set out to have in place by 2010 a European Higher Education Area.  Within this area, the old six year programs will be divided into a 3-4 year Bachelor’s program, and a 1-2 year Master’s program, thus moving into closer alignment with the typical Anglo-American approach.  The resulting bachelors will in many cases be less “professional”and broader and more general than was the original longer degree, with professionalization coming through the Master’s.  The stated goals of this process are twofold: 1) to create an intellectual community that will help to define the identity of the new Europe; and 2) to attract the best students from around the world to the new European education.  Thus, at least in this instance, forces of  globalization have pushed one important region into a set of educational modules similar to those that would be most reasonable to define for the United States, but it need not always be this way.

How are we doing teaching cognitive skills?

“With all the controversy over the college curriculum, it is impressive to find faculty members agreeing almost unanimously that teaching students to think critically is the principal aim of undergraduate education......Ironically, the fact that college faculties rarely stop to consider what a full-blown commitment to critical thinking would entail may help to explain why they have been so quick to agree on its importance to the undergraduate program.”
Derek Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges (p.109).

We hope that undergraduates will learn many things during their years at the college or university. Some of this new knowledge is related to subject matter, some to moral development, some to psychosocial change.  All of this is important, to be sure, but I must admit that near the top of my priority list come cognitive skills such as critical thinking and postformal reasoning.  Without those skills, I am not sure exactly what students carry away with them. In that light, it is pretty depressing to look at the data on how well we in higher education do in helping our students develop those skills.

A preliminary report from the Commission on the Future of Higher Education

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?

Are we losing the competition for international students?

The National Association of International Educators (NAFSA) has just released a new report Restoring U.S. Competitiveness for International Students and Scholars.  It is an excellent hard-hitting report that deserves wide attention.  It does, however, miss a couple of important issues that I discuss below.

The report notes that the era of robust growth in international student enrollments ended three years age, and that “there are now fewer international students enrolled in U.S. higher education  institutions than there were in the fall of 2001." In addition, senior international scholars are encountering continuing difficulties in coming to the United States, and there is a growing negativity on their part towards this county.  As the report emphasizes, this “intellectual anti-global” stand on the part of the United States has a number of extremely negative implications for our future competitiveness and well-being.

Where is the engine of the world economy?

In a Feb.17, 2006 post, the World in 2020, I described how the National Intelligence Council imagined the world might look only 14 years from now.  One of the most powerful suggestions of the NIC report was that the engine of the world’s economy in 2020 would no longer be the United States, but rather that role will have shifted to China and other Asian countries. 

In this light, an article in the May 14 Los Angeles Times entitled Emerging Nations Power World Economic Boom leapt right out at me. In that article, Tom Petruno writes, “Yet this is a different kind of boom from any other in the post-World War II era, analysts say. The soaring economies of China, India, Russia, Brazil and other emerging nations increasingly are setting the pace, overshadowing the slower growth of the United States, Europe and Japan, where the benefits of the expansion have eluded many workers.”   Numerous statements in the article indicate that the underpinning of the boom in the emerging nations is the buying power of the United States, so one cannot yet take the US out of the driver’s seat.  However, it is obvious that the global economic situation today could be interpreted as a step on the way to the condition predicted for 2020 by the NIC.

How People Learn

 “A remarkable feature of American colleges is the lack of attention that most faculties pay to the  growing body of research about how much students are learning and how they could be taught to learn more.”
                Derek Bok

The Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council put out a very useful book in 2000 called How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, that describes the conclusions of a lot of that learning research in a very concise and readable way. As indicated in A D- in science education, this is information that many faculty need to have.

The report begins by emphasizing - as Bok might - that “the world is in the midst of an extraordinary outpouring of scientific work on the mind and brain, on the processes of thinking and learning, on the neural processes that occur during thought and learning, and on the development of competence. The revolution in the study of the mind that has occurred in the last three or four decades has important implications for education.” (p.3)

A D- in science education

It is not unusual for a Nobel laureate to change institutions. It is, however, for such a change to occur because the new institution agrees to set up a $12M initiative in science education. That is just what happened recently when Carl Wieman announced that he was moving from the University of Colorado to the University of British Columbia. Wieman was the correcipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize for creating the first Bose-Einstein condensate, and was named the Carnegie-CASE US University Professor of the Year in 2004.

Weiman believes that most science education today is generally not effective- often counterproductive, in fact. At the same time, the world is facing many critical problems that have a huge technical/scientific component, and the economic health of an industrialized nation is dependent on a workforce with high-level technological skills. Thus significantly improving science education has becomes a high-priority imperative for Carl.

How about distance learning?

Distance learning (DL) took on new importance with the rise of the internet. It was suddenly possible to reach students 24/7 at any location in the world. Would DL be a disruptive innovation (in the Christensen sense, see Disruptive Technologies: When Great Universities Fail?, March 3, 2006 ) in higher education? What use might traditional universities and colleges make of DL? How would for-profit higher education utilize this new tool and how might universities respond?

In early 2000, I wrote a piece Distance Learning: Challenges and Questions to inform our trustees of some issues and opportunities in this area. This later developed into an article published in Change 32, 20 (2000), and one should read the Change article as it went somewhat beyond my piece for the trustees. Although the internet world has changed a lot since 2000, most of the questions and issues I discussed in these articles are still pertinent.

What business are we in?

A key question for every corporation over the recent decades of turbulence in the national and international marketplace has been "What business are we in?" As conditions changed, those corporations that really understood their business were best able to emerge in a strengthened situation. Often, companies decided that their existing understanding of their businesses were too restrictive. An oft-cited example of such a case is UPS, which realized its business was not simply delivering packages in its familiar brown trucks, but rather provision of logistics processes to a diverse spectrum of customers.  They are supply chain managers for companies of all sizes worldwide, working intimately with companies to design every aspect of their supply-chain.  In doing so, UPS moved from being a simple shipper of goods on request for corporations, to being a partner with corporations in the production and sales (and repairs) of their products. This partnership enables the corporations to better focus on their core businesses, and has enabled UPS to flourish. (A nice description of the UPS role in the changing world is given by Thomas Friedman in The World is Flat, p 141-150.)

Universities have tended not to ask what business we are in. Or perhaps the answer seemed to be too obvious - " what we are doing now is our business." As we look to the future of universities, however, this obvious answer simply will not enable us to imagine a broad enough spectrum of possible futures. As conditions change, what opportunities should we embrace, which should we ignore? What components of what we do today are to be strengthened, and which might be phased out?

This will be my first take this important question, and is intended to begin exploration of various models rather than provide a proposal for action. The model that I discuss here might be called the “UPS model”, or, more specifically, the Knowledge Chain Manager model.

Metrics of Academic Excellence for the 21st Century

What metrics of excellence will society use in determining the quality of research universities in the 21st century?  Will they be the same as those used to define the great universities of the 20th century? That is the question I addressed in a piece I wrote as input for our 2004 strategic planning process. It is  called Change and the Research University.