ACTA's Must-Reads

« October 2011 | Main | December 2011 »

Great Books, Western Civilization, and the Future

The Sunday NYT Book Review for November 27, 2011 includes a must-read on Western Civilization and the curriculum. Donald Kagan, Yale Historian and ACTA's 2008 Merrill Award recipient, reviews Civilization: The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson, Harvard's Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History. Both Ferguson and Kagan urgently call for the renewed study of history, with Kagan emphasizing the need for the "big story" of cause and consequence. Ferguson seeks a return to traditional education: "at its core, a civilization is the texts that are taught in its schools, learned by its students, and recollected in times of tribulation." Kagan's review ends quoting Ferguson's strong words of warning to us all: "The biggest threat to Western civilization is posed not by other civilizations, but by our own pusillanimity - and by the historical ignorance that feeds it."

ACTA's core curriculum project, www.whatwilltheylearn.com finds - alarmingly - that only 20% of our colleges and universities require a foundational course in U.S. History or Government, let alone a systematic study of Western civilization. Educators and policymakers, please take note.

Michael Poliakoff is ACTA's vice president of policy.

Posted by dburnett on November 29, 2011 at 11:11 AM | TrackBack

Poliakoff on an ultra-political professoriate: 'Here they go again.'

ACTA's own Dr. Michael Poliakoff, vice president of policy, spoke out against more news of faculty reluctance to use financial gifts in the way outlined by the donor.

Here they go again. The faculty at Whitman are up in arms, deeply concerned that people they don't like are giving money to enrich the lives of students at their college. Princeton's Andrew Ross expressed a view all-too-common among faculty when he said that he wanted "direct access to the minds of the children of the ruling class." And, all too often, such mentors don't want viewpoints that might prompt debate or a real exchange of ideas.

Philanthropists like the Kochs refuse to accept such a status quo and offer programs that regularly challenge the orthodoxies of the professoriate -- with topnotch speakers and new perspectives. They address the lack of intellectual diversity that, sadly, some faculty find congenial. Until the faculty put their own prejudices aside and put students first, they have no cause for complaint against philanthropists who give of their own resources to create the academic dialogue that is the birthright of the academy. Should the Koch Foundation ask for student emails as they did? Perhaps not. But that's a problem that Whitman College can readily fix without straight-arming the academic opportunities that the Kochs offer.

Posted by dburnett on November 23, 2011 at 01:41 PM | TrackBack

Quality and Efficiency, Please, Not Tuition Increases

A recent Roper Survey, taken in conjunction with the 2011 update to What Will They Learn? shows that the American public is not interested in hearing more excuses for rising costs tuition costs and lackluster educational outcomes. 46% believe they do not get their money's worth from higher education. At a few colleges and universities at least, trustees and administrators have been listening to the public, to parents, and to students.

After years of runaway tuition increases and the grim calculus of a recession whose effects are now extending into a fourth year, they see the ever-rising cost of going to college as unsustainable. In 2009, ACTA and the Illinois Policy Institute criticized Illinois public universities for a history of massive tuition increases. Then Southern Illinois University Chancellor Sam Goldman, President Glenn Poshard, and the Trustees froze tuition and fees in 2010-2011 and increased the rate only modestly the following year.

Chancellor Goldman stated: "I think this decision, which says zero increase, says we understand the situation everybody is in." Increasingly, schools are freezing tuition rates.

Most recently, several private colleges -- including Sewanee and the University of Charleston -- have lowered their tuition rates, as seen in The New York Times, and the Chronicle of Higher Education (here and here).

These actions represent real leadership in American higher education. America is #1 in higher ed spending per student among the industrialized nations of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, coming in at more than twice the average expenditure for those nations. Yet, our results are far below average in terms of student proficiency and skills. The answer is not more spending and higher tuitions. It's judicious and prudent use of the limited funds available.

Posted by dburnett on November 21, 2011 at 05:41 PM | TrackBack

Vice president of policy brings attention to narrow academic specialties

ACTA's vice president of policy, Dr. Michael Poliakoff, contributed to a discussion raised by Mark Bauerlein on a Chronicle of Higher Education blog.

Poliakoff shed light on so-called "boutique courses" which contribute very little to the educational foundation of students. Despite alarming gaps in the knowledge of college graduates, these niche classes seem to be gaining traction at some institutions.

For the ostensible death agonies of the humanities, Nussbaum would like us to put the gravamen on an external enemy rather than colleges and universities. But Pogo, not Professor Nussbaum has it right. The enemy is us.

Item: Hamilton College, whose annual tuition and fees stand at $41,280, offers, intra alia, "Video Game Nation," a humanities course that, "[i]nvestigates how to critically interpret and analyze video games and the roles they play in visual and popular culture, and how to test the application of these approaches to various issues in gaming and digital media culture more generally. Topics and themes include genre and aesthetics, the game industry, spectatorship, play, narrative, immersion, gender, race, militarism, violence and labor. (Writing-intensive.)"

Item: Vassar College (at $43,190) presents as a First-Year Writing Seminar "Hip Hop and Critical Citizenship."

Item: Furman University (at $38,088) offers "Clothing as Self Expression" and "Beer and Society."

I could go on. You can find courses like these by the dozens in college catalogs, often fulfilling "core" requirements. Did Corporate America, or Capitol Hill foist this nonsense on well-meaning liberal arts colleges? No, these are the self-inflicted wounds of faculty who would rather ride the hobby horses of their narrow specialties than provide the kind of general education that all students need to become independent, analytical thinkers.

Professor Bauerlein properly takes note of the humanities at West Point. Every one of the military service academies requires a survey of literature. The liberal arts, including the humanities, still thrive where faculties are willing to structure the curriculum in answer to the question, "what does it mean to be an educated person," rather than "what’s in it for me or my department." Check out the “A” list on www.whatwilltheylearn.com to see how it is done, often on limited budgets. 36% of the Class of 2009 is back home with their parents and even more are mired in student loan debt that their poorly designed baccalaureate degrees leave
them ill-equipped to repay.

Considering that we outspend per college student every industrialized nation in the world,
we have a right to higher standards and better results, and it is no surprise that a lot of taxpayers, parents, and students are darkly eyeing the Ivory Tower as the next site to occupy.

Often supported by the faculty who enjoy teaching these classes, ACTA worries that these niche classes are elbowing robust, foundational courses in key subjects off of students' class schedules.

Posted by dburnett on November 16, 2011 at 02:00 PM | TrackBack

First Lady reiterates importance of a strong liberal arts education

Just a few days after ACTA's ATHENA Conference - which took place on the campuses of George Washington University and Georgetown University - First Lady Michelle Obama chimed in on her views on liberal arts education.

"I value liberal arts education because you're really getting a broad skill set. And I think one of the things that's important to be able to do in life is learn how to read and write - write really well and articulate your views," Mrs. Obama said on the campus of Georgetown University.

The First Lady's remarks were made during a question and answer session of College Immersion Day at Georgetown by a student from Anacostia High School.

Her statement syncs with ACTA's belief that a strong core curriculum is pivotal for a student's education. In ACTA's What Will They Learn? study, only 19 out of more than 1000 colleges and universities nationwide require at least six of the seven core subjects in the study: literature, composition, math, science, foreign language, economics and American history/government. The First Lady is right that a liberal arts education offers an essential foundation for students' education.

Posted by dburnett on November 14, 2011 at 01:40 PM | TrackBack

What is (Oberlin) College for?

During a dark period of the nation's history, Oberlin College was founded in the cause of abolitionism. Oberlin claims as its birthright being the first institution in the United States to formally admit students of color. It led the nation, too, in the admission of women. Oberlin stood for what was right and true and just. It is a sad sign of the times that neither this proud heritage nor its eminent faculty are the public face of Oberlin.

Oberlin College's latest media exposure centers around a new website designed by two Oberlin employees. The website, whythef---shouldichooseoberlin.com, encourages students and alumni to voice their love of Oberlin through obscenity. Some may find the foul language amusing, to which the best one can say is that there is no accounting for taste. But the website invites a more profound question: exactly what is an Oberlin experience supposed to accomplish after four years and $41,577 per year in tuition and fees?

Some of the blog posts do, in their unique way, extol the benefits of Oberlin's academic climate: "[I chose Oberlin because] of the f-ing legendary Professor Dawson." Most, however, advertise aspects of the college at best tangentially related to learning. For example "Because we have a huge all campus party on the main green with DJs and beer and crazy ass circus people every f-ing Friday afternoon that it is warm enough to be outside." Or: "We have a kick-ass f-ing Quidditch team."

Terrific: Come to a prestigious liberal arts college where, for $41,577 per annum, students simultaneously play fictitious sports based on children's fantasy novels and express themselves with four-letter words that typically don't require an advanced degree.

The college has for all intents and purposes signed on to this - the site's architects and administrators work in Oberlin's social and digital media departments, and Oberlin's vice president for communications told Inside Higher Ed that the school would not officially endorse it because "the site would lose some if its charm if it were." Indeed.

What is Oberlin saying to young men and women about the purpose of college in general or the prestigious Oberlin in particular? This messaging, however attractive to its naive target demographic, creates a perception that college amounts to an extended summer camp. If the goal of liberal arts education is preparation for a productive and intellectually engaging life or for upholding Oberlin's tradition of leadership and service, that message is completely lost in institutionally-endorsed adolescence.

Edward Shils, distinguished service professor at the University of Chicago in the Committee on Social Thought saw the task of the university as the "discovery and teaching of truths about serious and important things." During these challenging times, when many worthy students have to abandon college plans for want of funds, Oberlin - and all schools - need to give up childish things and their elite frivolity. The nation needs leaders, and the duty of colleges is not to amuse but to educate students for the tasks before them.

Posted by Max Brindle on November 11, 2011 at 03:24 PM | TrackBack

ACTA President's Statement on the Penn State Board of Trustees' Handling of the Sex Abuse Scandal

By demanding new leadership of the university and the football team, the Penn State board of trustees set a decisive tone of responsibility and accountability for its top leaders. The trustees made it clear that those who smell smoke in College Station have the responsibility not just to yell "fire," but to ensure help arrives. However, it shouldn't take a scandal for boards to perform their inherent duties and to remain engaged and active on campus.

In too many ways, the world of higher education is solely about reputation - not values or education. And that is why many boards and administrators end up reacting to press headlines, rather than responsibly addressing problems before they make the news. Despite massive public support, the world of universities is remarkably opaque - and that is why public support for them has been increasingly on the decline. The Penn State scandal should be a call to boards everywhere to examine their policies and procedures - from athletic department oversight to whistleblower protocols - to be certain they are fully undertaking their fiduciary responsibilities to their institutions and to the public.

The Penn State trustees have drawn a hard line to ensure that those who share even a whiff of the blame for these alleged atrocities are escorted to the door swiftly. As the smoke clears and new facts emerge about who knew what and when, let us hope that trustees across the country take note that trusteeship is, yes, an honor, but even more so, an obligation and responsibility that requires engagement and courage.

Posted by dburnett on November 10, 2011 at 05:36 PM | TrackBack

The Value of a Liberal Education at Stanford

The editorial board at The Stanford Daily recently offered a promising start to a discourse on the value of a liberal education: "Although the GERS (General Education Requirements) fall under criticism, the theory underlying their existence - that values a liberal education involving the study in all major subfields - is sound."

The Stanford Daily offers two main reasons. First, a robust core curriculum exposes students to new disciplines that encourage previously unexplored intellectual passions. Second, and more practically, a broad core of subjects equips all students, particularly those certain of their career path, with the skills and knowledge necessary to thrive in an increasingly globalized economy. The Stanford editors cite a 2004 report by the National Academy of Engineering, in which the NAE stated that for the "Engineer of 2020...learning disciplinary technical subjects to the exclusion of humanities, economics, political science, language and/or interdisciplinary technical subjects is not in the best interest of producing engineers able to communicate with the public, able to engage in a global engineering marketplace, or trained to be life-long learners."

Yet, as the editorial board admits, there are some "serious flaws" with Stanford's GERs. The school approaches a common curriculum as a distributional cafeteria instead of a disciplined core of fundamental subjects. Gaps in an undergraduate education like intermediate foreign language, American history and government, and economics constitute a disempowerment for participants in a globalized economy.

Stanford's a la carte offerings may make sense as elective courses but do little to ensure a true liberal-arts experience. A common criticism of core requirements is that institutions should not rigidly circumscribe what subject matters students take; they should instead expose students to different ways of thinking. ACTA, in contrast, supports requirements in the areas that are essential for success in career and community. For this reason our WWTL? project calls upon colleges to have the vision and courage to require courses, not just offer them. That is why Stanford receives a "C" in our 2011 WWTL report.

The Stanford Daily recognizes that "We are entering a workforce and society where having knowledge in just one field will not suffice." Now Stanford must answer the question, "What are the essential skills and knowledge that no Stanford graduate can afford to go without?" Answering that question will allow the university to take needed, constructive action to institute a genuine core curriculum; one that builds a common experience among all undergraduates.

Posted by Max Brindle on November 09, 2011 at 10:21 AM | TrackBack

ATHENA Roundtable 2011: Rethinking Old Models

For the final panel of the day, Anne Neal moderates for both Mike Nietzel, Education Advisor to Gov. Jay Nixon; and Teresa S. Lubbers, Indiana Commissioner for Higher Education:

Mike Nietzel recounts his volumious experience in the Missouri higher education system and its four main goals of improvement: increasing college attainment, scaling back mission creep, more academic collaboration within the system, and performance-based funding.

Nietzel discussed the myriad successes Missouri had in all of these key areas, and focused on the importance of performance-based funding in increasing accountability. He emphasizes that institutions must be compared to their individual past rather than to each other so as to account for the different missions that each institution strives to achieve. Neitzel also discussed the fruitful, system-wide program review that discontinued 118 academic programs and modified another similar amount.

Ms. Lubbers also gave her experiences and successes with the Indiana higher education system. She spoke of a "shared responsibility" in that both students and institutions need to expect more from themselves. Indiana also adopted a performance-based funding measure, but she stressed that it was not designed to be punitive, rather we should envision increased productivity as serving more students in a quality way without increasing costs. She praises ACTA for their support in Indiana in seeing difficult reforms through.

Both Ms. Lubbers and Mr. Neitzel spoke at length about the importance of having a governor and state legislature open to reform. True innovation is very difficult without the support of these two key groups. Their role in choosing trustees will largely impact the success of reform efforts. Both said it is imperative that governors and legislatures appoint trustees that are willing to ask tough questions about how to do the job differently and better. And despite all the resistance they face, they both intimated that a major achievement has been that all recognize the old model of higher ed no longer comports with reality, and no matter how one believes higher ed should change, everyone realizes it must.

What a terrific day! A colorful cast of speakers that really shed new light and provoked new questions on the state of higher ed. Don't forget about tomorrow evening, where ACTA will honor historian David McCullough with the Philip Merrill Award for Outstanding Contributions to Liberal Arts Education. Until then...

Posted by Max Brindle on November 04, 2011 at 06:37 PM | TrackBack

ATHENA Roundtable 2011: Setting Priorities in Higher Education with Larry Summers

What a lunch! And to ensure no one nods off, former White House economic advisor Larry Summers kindly undergoes a public interview with Washington Post higher education writer Daniel de Vise.

de Vise starts off with a doozy by asking Mr. Summers what he dislikes most in higher education. Summers offers three things which cause him particular angst: 1) An exceptionally relativistic approach to truth that undercuts the very notion of knowledge and a college education. the formula f=ma and 2+2=4 are not up for debate. 2) Higher education is, unlike almost every other industry, run for the convenience of providers instead of for the consumer. This is wholly untenable and leads to huge ineffeciences in the system. Much more focus needs to be directed at the consumer, whom educating is supposed to be the ultimate objective of higher education. 3) ending mandatory retirement was a disaster. As an example, Summers looks at Harvard where he was previously president. The median age of professors is 58-years-old. Colleges are supposed to be places that identify with 18- and 19-year-olds and places that challenge the status quo. Summers wonders aloud how a median age of 58 years contributes to either of these goals.

Summers then takes on de Vise's questions about tenure and grade inflation. On grade inflation, Summers remarks how "the most unique distinction at Harvard when I arrived was none," to great uproar, to be sure. He then jokes about how we shouldn't be suprised that these same students are charged with inflating quarterly earnings 20 years down the road, also a fan favorite. Summers characterizes grade inflation as a kind of ethical issue, related to faculty misconduct. He believes a great deal can be done in the way that universities incentivize ethical behavior.

On tenure, Summers muses on the problems of identifying and rewarding the best professors and placing too large an emphasis on teaching at the expense of research. For instance, a narrow focus on teacher evaluations causes professors to start pandering to students and academic rigor inevitably suffers. Summers also made the compelling point that truly exceptional scholars might better serve the community by engaging in research more so than teaching, as in the case of Neils Bohr writing a textbook for tens of thousands of students versus teaching another seminar course.

Summers and de Vise ended the interview discussing the importance of a core. Summers intones that "canon" should not be a dirty word because he believes that a core of knowledge contextual with our place and moment does exist and should be familiar to everyone. He believes that a right aspiration is for more courses that provide an option to be broadly equipped for a life of enlightened participation in society, and that there is less supplied than is demanded by students. He did warn against the problematic aspects of compulsion, and that market processess, with a better focus on consumers, would create a demand to spur a better supply of these courses.

An honor and a pleasure to have Mr. Summers join us and offer his luminating thoughts.

Posted by Max Brindle on November 04, 2011 at 06:03 PM | TrackBack

ATHENA Roundtable 2011: Demanding Accountability and Innovation

This second panel includes James Van Houten of the Minnesota State Colleges and University System; Peter McPherson, President, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities; and Michael Crow, President, Arizona State University:

After a few brief introductory remarks by moderator James Van Houten, Peter Mcpherson takes the podium to discuss accountability in higher education. Mcpherson divides higher education accountability into two parts: 1) the accountability that institutions have to the public, and 2) the accountability an institution has to itself.

McPherson notes that there is a lot of data already out there, most of it provided by the government. Government, however, generally has a difficult time identifying and obtaining the most pertinent data. A lot of it is superfluous and not all that useful. He highlights three key areas:

- Post-graduation employment data
- graduation rates
- student loan default rates

McPherson argues that government needs to especially get a better handle on the amount of loans being issued. It is a system that is clearly not working. This is where the second kind of accountability comes to the fore, that of an institution to itself and its professed mission. Because governments have a hard time collecting the right kind of data, institutions need to provide more voluntarily.

Every institution should struggle and deliberate about what they really want to be or do and then measure themselves against this, but they are also ill-equipped because they don't have a cost accounting system in place. Too often the culture is against it. If one can't decide what it costs, how can one make a determination whether to do it, change it, or understand how to make it work? McPherson summarizes by saying we need to get government to ask the right things and also get institutions to voluntarily drive accountability and stop holding government data as the set standard of proficiency.

Michael Crowe follows up Peter Mcpherson by first describing the great social complexities of the nation and his institution, characterized as more diverse, faster, globalized, and confused about how to move forward. Crowe argues you can only move forward by embracing innovation. Of course, it is one thing to say that, it is an entirely different matter to actually do it.

Crowe recounts how he took the Arizona State presidency because he understood that most American universities cannot replicate the elites, and the country will not be successful with the base institutions that exist. He believes that "eliteness" is predicated on exclusion, not success, and that will frankly not work. Institutions must be dedicated to the community, and to do so it must embrace innovation.

Crowe states that you cannot operate an institution effectively until you own its outcomes. Furthermore, every institution needs to become much more innovative and encourage values like entrepreneurship that have become almost a dirty word among academia. Institutions need a new focus - one that is not faculty-centric, but rather public or community-centric. This will drive innovation and everything else is derivative of that focus. A crucial point that Crowe ends with is that innovation must happen at the institutional level, only at that level will innovation be genuine and substantive, not compulsory and shallow.

James Van Houten rounds out the second panel with his experiences in the Minnesota state system, which he describes as an example of a cutting-edge institution. Van Houten highlights the numerous successes of the system and how it inscribed in him the notion that though regents and trustees have a lot of relationships with many individuals and groups, their fiduciary duty is only to those outside the system: students, taxpayers, and every member of the state of Minnesota. Wise words, indeed.

Posted by Max Brindle on November 04, 2011 at 05:35 PM | TrackBack

ATHENA Roundtable 2011: Promoting Educational Excellence and the Core Curriculum

This first panel consisted of Dr. Michael Poliakoff, Gov. John Engler, and Judge Richard Bray:

Dr. Michael Poliakoff, ACTA's vice president of policy, offers some opening remarks on the harrowing state of education, including the findings of ACTA's WWTL? project and the Arum and Roska study, as well as highlights four questions to guide the discussion: 1) How does an institution encourage academic success (or not)?, 2) What is a meaningful college degree?, 3) What are the wisdom, knowledge, and skills students should seek?, and 4) Why is the liberal arts important?

former governor of Michigan John Engler, now President of the Business Roundtable, takes over for Dr. Poliakoff and offers his thoughts on higher education as it pertains to American businesses. Gov. Engler correctly states that a lack of academic rigor equates to economic waste, and in a world of 7 billion people, of which Americans represent only 300 million, it is imperative that students gain the knowledge and skills to succeed in the global economy.

Gov. Engler remarks how his friend from India told him that he didn't realize he was smart until he got to the United States. Engler asks the audience whether we are comfortable with the fact that the next Steve Jobs is more likely to come from Bangladesh than from Silicon Valley.

Engler laments that many businesses complain about the lack of qualified candidates they find. He stresses the need to increase retention and graduation rates. More importantly, Engler believes that we need to embrace the educational quality that ACTA champions and setting academic standards will have numerous public benefits, including a reduction in the unemployment rate.

Engler finishes by saying that the world will not sit idly by while we twiddle our thumbs, or do nothing because it is an American election year. Every day we stall leaves us a day farther behind.

Judge Bray finishes up the first panel. Bray first recounts a story when he was first introduced to ACTA and how it opened his eyes to the problems of higher education. Bray's main argument is that we as a country have preached college to such a degree that we have committed "fraud" by convincing students that all they need to do to be successful is graduate with a diploma. Bray argues that educational quality needs to improve dramatically, and we shouldn't malign career-training or associate degrees as alternatives to a four-year college degree.

We will come a long way if we stop misleading our young people. We need better-educated people, better-educated graduates. That is not equivalent to simply more graduates.

Thus ends the first panel.

Posted by Max Brindle on November 04, 2011 at 05:01 PM | TrackBack

ATHENA Roundtable 2011: Keynote Address by Historian Gordon Wood

At 9 AM sharp the 2011 ATHENA Roundtable on higher education began and, boy, what a way to start! ACTA Chairman of the Board Robert Lewit, M.D., kindly introduced keynote speaker and eminent American historian Dr. Gordon Wood. Dr. Wood gave us a rousing presentation on the Revolutionary Origins of the Civil War:

As we all know, 2011 marks the sesquicentennial of the Civil War and it is right that we reflect on it. Yet, Dr. Wood notes, our commemoration of the Civil War should in no way diminish the Revolutionary War, which Wood believes is still undoubtedly the single most important event in our national history. And, in many ways, the Civil War can be interpreted as the culmination of the Revolutionary War, where the ideals and ideas of the revolution were finally realized with the abolition of slavery.

Wood highlights Abraham Lincoln as an historical figure who, more than most, understood that the Civil War was a continuation of what our forefathers originally fought and died for. And Lincoln expertly used the memory of the revolution to justify the Civil War.

For it is not hard to understand why the South seceded, but it is more difficult to ascertain why the Northern States cared so much. To shed light on this, Dr. Wood has us go back to the revolution, namely the Declaration of Independence and the ideals of a republican society that it articulated.

Liberty and Equality. The bedrocks of American republicanism and the two themes most at odds with the institution of slavery. Only in the birth of the American nation did these two ideas come to the forefront of the American mind and only then did slavery suddenly seem totally incompatible with the society in which we live. The founders recognized this, but did little to set slavery on the path to extinction.

Lincoln, Wood tells us, harkened back to liberty and equality as a way to motivate Northerners to fight for countless black slaves that they had never met. Lincoln and others also looked around at the foreign nations of the world in 1850. All foreign attempts to replicate the American experiment in self-government had failed. America stood as the lone bastion of freedom in a tyrannical world. Lincoln and Northerners believed that America was the last, best hope of that men could indeed rule themselves without meeting their ruin. Lincoln was thus able to capture this national sentiment and motivate the North for war in order to keep the dream of successful self-government alive for America and the world.

A truly tremendous start to what is sure to be a provocative day of discussion and deliberation.

Posted by Max Brindle on November 04, 2011 at 04:25 PM | TrackBack