what's wrong (and right) with a college education?

[nostatic]

Instead of a cut and paste job, I'd like to actually get a discussion and perspective on what is wrong (and also what is right) with post secondary education in the US today. I'll preface this by saying that I know this arena well: as undergrad, grad student, postdoc, faculty, administrator, and now research fellow (on soft money). I have argued with and to colleagues that the system is pretty broken and we are at a tipping point wrt higher ed: digital technologies and the network have forever changed the way that we consume and produce content (and by extension, knowledge from information). Unfortunately most of education and associated industries (most notably publishing) either are in denial or don't fully comprehend the implications.

What's right? I still believe in a liberal arts education. I think that the most important thing we can teach students is to learn how to learn. With the ferocious rate of change in fields these days, there is no way that a college can teach all of the "facts" and have them be relevant...in other words, a college can't be a trade school. Instead, it needs to teach critical thinking skills and analysis. This is often found *outside* of the major however. I was a chemistry major in undergrad, but found that some of the most important classes were symbolic logic (a philosophy course), catholic theology (religious studies), and intro to anthropology. Each got me to think differently about me and my surroundings, and showed me how to question accepted reality. Had I opted for nothing but "meat", I surely would not have progressed as far and wide as I have.

What's wrong? Glacial reaction time wrt change of curriculum and delivery. Intellectual property concerns in academia are based on very old models, and stymie innovation such as remixing content. Projects like open content are making small dents, but uptake is hampered by academic departments that refuse to change. Digital disseratations still number in the single digits, in part due to the archive repositories that refuse to accept them (due in part to technical and content issues). Tenure has created an atmosphere in some institutions that can best be described as "comfortable" and at worst, lazy. Pay disparities between academia and the "real world" still hamper getting the best and brightest, especially in technical fields where the skill set is much better paid in the private sector.

What to do? Abolish tenure. This has to be done carefully though, as one of the driving forces for tenure in the first place still is an issue: having faculty and their research interests potentially at the whim of senior administration. I would prefer rolling contracts (5 year?) with a modified peer/administrative review process.

Revamp IP. Some university has to take the bull by the horns, and either partner with Hollywood or take them on. Students need to be able to quote in the vernacular (video, image, audio). Fair use needs to extend to rich media, with an accepted "quotation" system in place.

Overthrow traditional publishers. Text books are ridiculously expensive. And it isn't the authors getting rich here. It costs $500K to bring a new book to market. That is insane. Digital publications can be cheaper/faster/better, and more important, remixable and viral. The system used to judge faculty, based almost soley on peer reviewed publications, needs to change to recognize blogging, wiki contributions, and other "new" forms of publication.

Oh, and we need to fire all the liberals. That'll solve all the *real* problems...

[artplumber]

Originally posted by nostatic
...
Oh, and we need to fire all the liberals. That'll solve all the *real* problems...

Can't wait to see where that will go.

IMHO the educational system is broken before the college level. I leave your statement predominantly with the impression that the paradigm of textbooks and professors is what you think is broken. I'd add to that the need for "college" should almost not exist. The British system is a good example of getting the teaching of the basics of language, higher mathematics, several hard sciences, and early level philosophy in their high school equivalent. While this is being done in some institutions in the US, the vast majority of teens still act/think that high school is about varsity sports and who's having the best party. Flame away!

[BlueSkyJaunte]

I like all of nostatic's ideas, plus one:

All teaching assistants, instructors, and professors must pass a SPOKEN English exam before being employed by the college/university.

[Aurel]

I think that one of the broken parts in the whole US higher education system is that when kids and their parents pay such high tuition costs, they expect do get the diploma, whatever the abilities of the kid are. In other words, the faculty lower their expectations to graduate 90% of the candidates, and the whole quality of education suffers. I am in favor of supressing tenure and supressing tuitions costs. One should finance the other, as professors would become more performing to keep their jobs, and more would be expected from the kids because they would not `buy` their degree.

Aurel

[nostatic]

Originally posted by artplumber
Can't wait to see where that will go.

IMHO the educational system is broken before the college level. I leave your statement predominantly with the impression that the paradigm of textbooks and professors is what you think is broken. I'd add to that the need for "college" should almost not exist. The British system is a good example of getting the teaching of the basics of language, higher mathematics, several hard sciences, and early level philosophy in their high school equivalent. While this is being done in some institutions in the US, the vast majority of teens still act/think that high school is about varsity sports and who's having the best party. Flame away!

No flame. I specifically left K-12 out of the discussion, but the two are clearly intermingled. But I wanted to bite off a smaller chunk at first.

I think the real change needs to take place K-6. Kids who were born in '95 and later are what I call "fully digital kids." They grew up (many of them) with the gaming systems and networked content. They seemingly have an ability to multitask and process multiple data streams better than we can (that is still up for debate, but that is my experience). At any rate, they are more facile with digital technology, and expect to be able to find, consume, and create. While the 3 R's are still important, putting them to use in creative ways is even more important. And games cannot be overlooked as perhaps *the* most effective way of education people, especially these kids.

Don't play down social and sports too much though. I think there needs to be a balance, and "play" is critical, as well as the interpersonal skills that come from competition and "parties." All in moderation...

[Aurel]

Originally posted by nostatic
I. The system used to judge faculty, based almost soley on peer reviewed publications, needs to change to recognize blogging, wiki contributions, and other "new" forms of publication.

I see where you are getting at, Todd. Getting promoted by posting on Pelican BBS, and you get to be reviewed by the moderator...nice try

Aurel

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Aurel
I see where you are getting at, Todd. Getting promoted by posting on Pelican BBS, and you get to be reviewed by the moderator...nice try

Aurel

am I that transparent?

Actually, this is a big deal for many of my collaborators. Quite a few blog regularly preferring to get their research out into the wild quickly rather than slog through traditional review processes. The community at large often serves as a "review board" via commenting. Same thing with wikis...my portable video class created a "book" online in a wiki and we're figuring out our options for the content. Another research cohort created a great deal of content but we published digital first, and now are looking at print possibilities...but much of the work cannot live in print format (movies, animation, etc).

[legion]

I wholly agree about publishers and tenure.

How to fix? I think for one thing, colleges should be more selective about admissions. They are trying to be all things to all people. Some people just aren't cut out for it, and a trade school might be a better option. I had to sit through more than one class with whiney kids asking" "Why do we have to learn that?" IN COLLEGE!!! Idiots were asking this IN COLLEGE!

I don't think that anyone should be allowed to take five years outside of extunuating circumstances. I did a double-major in four years while holding down a part-time job (25 hours a week). I managed to cut it.

[Moses]

Originally posted by legion
I had to sit through more than one class with whiney kids asking" "Why do we have to learn that?" IN COLLEGE!!! Idiots were asking this IN COLLEGE!

College students may represent the only consumer group that wants as little for their money as they can get.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Moses
College students may represent the only consumer group that wants as little for their money as they can get.

Frankly, that is part of the problem, and why this issue isn't simple. I'm all for booting people who aren't interested or don't engage the material. But I also lay some of that blame on the faculty and on the administration. While educators can't chase fads and trends, they similarly cannot sit and spin, claiming, "this is the way we've always done it..."

I'm all for a revamp of the community college system as a high quality "trade school" of sorts. Pare down the number of colleges and universities and don't try to send everyone to them. Equal opportunity to enter, but jettison the one's that aren't serious. But how do you separate those from the late bloomers (like myself)? I dropped out twice before I got my stuff together and finally got serious at age 22.

In the words of Judge Schmails, "the world needs ditch diggers too..."

[dd74]

I'll read this thread in its entirety a bit later, mostly because it's Todd's and I know will offer something other than poor notations from a half-baked journalist such as seen in the Coulter thread.

Anyway, off the top - to just weigh in - I'll say what's wrong:

In 20 years, a four-year-degree might cost $250,000. Its cost might then outweigh its benefit.

[M.D. Holloway]

Todd – being involved on more of a tertiary level with future aspirations of going full bore academia, I have gained a new perspective on the problems facing universities and colleges.

One thing that I have a tough time with is subject relevancy. I am not sure that the basics are taught with any thought about real world applications. For instance, you want to teach kid percentages, have him understand batting averages or bets. Of course some kids do not give a hoot about their batting average because they don’t play ball – it is just an example. It is incumbent upon instructors and professors to explain and instruct real world concepts and problems intertwined with the basic knowledge that is required to understand and just maybe master the subject someday.

The second thing that I have a tough time with is the accreditation board. Every course that is taught has to be taught the same way by each professor for that class. There is no room to deviate or apply a different teaching style or example. This may be a State U thing but it comes down to their definition of “consistency of education”. This well meaning approach stifles the creative instructors and boilerplates it for the lazy ones.

As far as text books are concerned, I think the Profs should author their textbooks. When I was in grad school I taught at a community technical college. I couldn’t find the text book that I thought was any good so I wrote my own on my Mac laptop and printed and bound it at Kinko’s. It cost $20 in materials which I charged the students. I did that for 3 different classes. The dean was cool with it. Some subject matter has been explored further so some of the content is out of date but that is what X’th editions are for. In my opinion, Profs should be experts in the field they are going to teach.

Tenure is a tricky thing. I don’t see that going away anytime soon – why? Because in a few short years there is going to be a very large chasm of able bodied professors – a glut so to speak. Universities are going to scramble hard and fast to get capable instructors. The lure of tenure has got me very interested in U gig as does the free time.

The kids for the most part will do most of what you ask of them. They won’t know any different so way not push them and challenge them and make it a quest instead of a task?

[yellowline]

I'm highly interested in this topic, but I have to get back to studying for exams. Be back to really try and contribute "from the front lines" sometime later...

One quick thing I will say: I've had philosophy readings assigned online. Prof posts a file to an online suite, and I download the PDF. It's not easy or natural to edit, highlight, or annotate a PDF, unless I'm missing something. It just doesn't cut the mustard. I find I learn best with a concrete book to read and understand the material. With that in mind, it is very valid to criticize fancy graphics, an overload of material, and inflated prices. The publishing industry needs an overhaul.

[M.D. Holloway]

The course work (50%) we did this semester was done on-line, tested on-line and even submitted on-line. Books are great - don't get me wrong. I am contracted to write one. Be aware that I will have an interactive disc to accompany it.

In today’s work place, except for some trade rags, all work is done on-line. All the research as well as competitive information gathering is sourced on-line.

There is something to be said for the speed at which one writes by hand compared to typing. I can write much faster typing than I can hand writing. Typing mimics the pace of thought where as hand writing slows it down. I wonder how it affects quality. I know how it would affect quantity!

[fintstone]

Tenure should be eliminated...peer review should be from outside the institution.

Unless the class is Philosophy or Government, the government, politics, or political parties should not be discussed by the professor in class. The students should not even know the professor is a democrat or communist....or rare Republican or Libertarian. Any professor that is caught trying to force political views on their students should be dismissed...

Professors should not be allowed to require purchase of books that they have a financial interest in.

Professors should be tested on reading writing and speaking English...and must score at least at the level they teach.

Professors would be required to teach a certain, specific (large) percentage of their classes themselves (no assistant or grad student).

Tuition cost increases for state/public institutions would require some sort of serious outside evaluation.

Entry and financial aid would be irregardless of color, race, sex, ethnicity, etc...as would selection of faculty.

[84porsche]

Well I totally agree about the tenure needing to be kicked. While job security is great, when you have lousy teachers teaching that have guaranteed jobs then you are getting nowhere. My mom has been teaching for over 30 years and just as dedicated but as a product of the public school system and CA state college system, changes need to be made.

As far as textbooks are concerned, I have nearly all of them except the ones I traded with friends so I could take the next class. Everyone of them is technically worthless as far as able to be reused because of edition changes.

BlueSkyJaunte brought up the ENGLISH part. My first accounting class was taught by a professor who could barely speak English, let alone teach in general. He then had the audacity to grade one of my papers on English grammar. When I got the paper back, I found out that one of his assistants had graded my paper and I made him explain to me why I was deducted points as he didn't even look at it. I called him out on this and required that my paper be regraded. This was completely unacceptable in my book especially since I was paying for my education.

I think a college education is important and adds security to ones life. I went for a business degree but the classes I enjoyed the most were the philosophy and political science classes because these classes require thought. The others were repetition, "read this, test tomorrow" stuff and multiple choice exams where even if you picked "c" for all the answers, you had a good chance of passing a class.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by nostatic
No flame. I specifically left K-12 out of the discussion, but the two are clearly intermingled. But I wanted to bite off a smaller chunk at first.

Don't play down social and sports too much though. I think there needs to be a balance, and "play" is critical, as well as the interpersonal skills that come from competition and "parties." All in moderation...

Todd,
Good to hear you'll deal with K-12 later.

As for the sports, I indicated varsity sports as a pointless exercise. I believe that all students should have physical education, but varsity sports serve only to feed the mill of "professional" atheletics - pure entertainment value. Way too much time is spent on popularity (demonstrated by the latest excesses on various television channels).

It looks as if a number of folks want to go to a British style educational system: k-6 (with special attention by the teacher to those wanting to excel); 7-9thgrade basic overview of all fields of study; end of 9th - test if doesn't do well - vocational school; 10-11th grade test, if doesn't do well - higher trades (AS/AA degree); 12th - test to achieve university (PhD level) vs BS/BA/MS

[wludavid]

While I don't regret attending the private liberal arts institution that I did, I'm beginning to question how wise an idea it was to spend 80k on tuition, even if it was a bargain for a private school. If my parents had paid much less or if I had been unable to find a job that pays as much as mine does, I would be having a tough time paying student loans, saving for retirement, and still being able to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. And I have an engineering degree! I sometimes wonder if all my classmates with English and history degrees had rich enough parents that they graduated with zero debt. As others have said, we're at a tipping point -- the monetary costs of a university education in this country may soon outweigh the monetary benefits. I believe that's already true for most students at most private schools.

[nostatic]

Interesting comments. I agree with a lot of this, but I'm not sure I agree that there is a big problem with "politics" being discussed in the classroom. It just didn't happen to me at the undergrad, grad, or faculty level. Maybe there are others out there that had faculty after faculty rail about some political or social issue, but not in my experience. That isn't to say it doesn't happen, but I don't see it as an epidemic.

As far as faculty teaching their own classes, this is a mixed bag. As I noted on another thread, the primary function of faculty at a large university is to run a research program...teaching is an afterthought. Unless you change the criteria for promotion and tenure, you have the problem of selecting for one set of skills (research and getting funded), then requiring them to teach. Some are great at both. But most are not.

So, do you create a caste system? Have researchers and teachers separate but equal (or not)? The argument for having researchers in the classroom is that you want people who are on the cutting edge in the teaching trenches as well. But many buy their teaching time out so they can focus on what they prefer to do (research). Do you eliminate that?

As for teaching assistants, many large schools have huge intro classes (1000 students). Does a full faculty member give every lecture and lead discussion sections? And grade all the exams? Good luck with that.

The english requirement is interesting. I understand what is behind it, but the fact of the matter is in many disciplines there are not enough native english speakers available either as students or faculty (if you want the best and brightest). So do you lower entrance standards to favor native english speakers? Do you hire a lesser qualified faculty candidate because their english is better? I can say that in searches I served on we did take language skills into account, but that was at a liberal arts college. At a reserach institution, it would receive less weight as, again, its about who can get research funded, not who can teach the best.

So if we add the english requirement and require all this teaching, how will basic research get done in this country? Companies don't do it.

ROI is in play here. That's been my argument leading to my prediction that many small colleges will go bankrupt in the next 20 years...they can't justify the cost relative to what they provide, especially with pressure from new models like U. of Phoenix, etc.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by nostatic
As far as faculty teaching their own classes, this is a mixed bag. As I noted on another thread, the primary function of faculty at a large university is to run a research program...teaching is an afterthought. Unless you change the criteria for promotion and tenure, you have the problem of selecting for one set of skills (research and getting funded), then requiring them to teach. Some are great at both. But most are not.

Hiring and paying professors to eschew some research in favor of teaching is not financially viable for most institutions. One of the reasons I paid private tuition rates was for the advantage of learning from people who were on the edge of certain disciplines. Maybe not on the very bleeding edge, since their primary duties were teaching, but how many 21-year-olds get to work one on one with a full prof for 6 hours a week and leave undergrad with a peer-reviewed publication to his name?

Originally posted by nostatic
The english requirement is interesting. I understand what is behind it, but the fact of the matter is in many disciplines there are not enough native english speakers available either as students or faculty (if you want the best and brightest). So do you lower entrance standards to favor native english speakers? Do you hire a lesser qualified faculty candidate because their english is better? I can say that in searches I served on we did take language skills into account, but that was at a liberal arts college. At a reserach institution, it would receive less weight as, again, its about who can get research funded, not who can teach the best.

So if we add the english requirement and require all this teaching, how will basic research get done in this country? Companies don't do it.

I don't know the solution either. However, when you hire a TEACHing assistant, you want to make sure they have some aptitude for TEACHing. For undergrads, college is a place of directed learning. More independant than secondary school, but still a place where an instructor imparts knowledge, helps when necessary, and evaluates the students at the end of the semester. If a student can't understand what the prof or TA are saying, if the TAs aren't available for help or just plain aren't helpful, the college is not living up to its end of the bargain. I think the only reason this is allowed to continue is that, like Moses said, undergrads are the only consumer group that wants the least for its money. If a university isn't teaching the students, they become a diploma generator and that's all.