Tomorrow's Professor Blog

Folks:

The posting below looks at Harvard University’s current efforts to revise its undergraduate general education program. It is by Thomas Ehrlich is a senior scholar the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and former president of Indiana University. It is #23 in the monthly series called Carnegie Foundation Perspectives. These short commentaries exploring various educational issues are produced by the CFAT. The Foundation invites your response at: CarnegiePresident@carnegiefoundation.org. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Finding Grants – Where to Start

Tomorrow’s Academia

———————————– 849 words ———————————–

BLUE ABOUT THE CRIMSON PLAN FOR GENERAL EDUCATION

February, 2006

The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences is poised to approve an embarrassing retreat in general education. The committee charged with reforming the current Core Curriculum has instead abandoned the whole idea. In its place, the committee recommends only a minimum distribution requirement for undergraduates-three courses in each of three fields. Since undergraduates will major in one of these fields, this means a distribution requirement of six courses chosen from hundreds offered by faculty in their various disciplines.

The Core Curriculum was adopted by Harvard in the 1970s with a view to ensuring that undergraduates be broadly educated in seven approaches to knowledge: Foreign Cultures, Historical Study, Literature and Arts, Moral Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Science, and Social Analysis. Guidelines and faculty review committees were established to make certain that courses in these areas met the aims of the Core Curriculum. The goal was to ensure that students gained a general education.

Over time, the numbers of courses that qualified kept expanding and the guidelines were increasingly ignored. When Lawrence Summers became president in 2001, he made reform of the undergraduate curriculum a top priority. The committee was appointed the next year and struggled during the course of the next three years before it finally produced the proposed pitiful product. Unfortunately, it appears that the president no longer has the authority to call for more.

No general education program is perfect, and no doubt the one at Harvard had weathered and aged. But it should be replaced with a strong curriculum that is shaped by a vision of the knowledge, the skills, and the habits of mind that students need to go on learning and to be engaged and responsible leaders. Students deserve the guidance of faculty to that end. That is the philosophy of the Core Curriculum, and if its form no longer serves that function, it is the form that should be changed and not the function.

Across the country, faculty and administrators at other research universities have turned to the task of revitalizing general education. A prime example is Curriculum 2000 at Duke, led by Duke’s former president and the new member of the Harvard Corporation, Nan Keohane. It requires, for example, two courses in Ethical Inquiry, while Harvard will drop its requirement in Moral Reasoning.

Some of the strongest general-education programs provide common academic experiences for undergraduates, so that classroom learning can have maximum impact across the student body as a whole. The Harvard committee looked wistfully at Columbia and Chicago as universities where all undergraduates take powerful common courses in the great books. The committee seems to support its failure to follow those institutions by noting that their programs started many decades ago. That excuse is just not good enough.

Among the troubling failures of the committee’s report is that it ignores the need for students to be exposed to different pedagogies, particularly ones involving active learning, such as community service learning, project-based learning, and undergraduate research. Students learn and remember more and are better able to put their learning to use when they participate fully in their learning. Although the “chalk and talk” classroom has its place and some faculty members are superb lecturers, “stand and deliver” should not be the dominant undergraduate teaching practice.

To give the Harvard committee its due, it does encourage students to take optional courses that cross departmental boundaries and even outlines what some new interdisciplinary courses might look like. But students are likely to follow what faculty do, which too often is to focus narrowly on their disciplines, not on what a committee suggests.

Why did the committee sink to the lowest common denominator? The sad reality is that the new plan looks like it was crafted to serve the faculty and not the students. It will ensure that faculty need teach only what they want to teach, leaving it up to the students to make whatever connections they can among their courses.

The committee thoughtfully includes-along with its barren conclusions-a sparkling set of faculty and student essays that envision the possible in general education. The student essays are particularly intriguing because, in striking contrast to the committee’s conclusions, several urge a common academic experience for undergraduates with a set of core requirements that provide some coherence and cohesion.

As a Harvard undergraduate, I learned from general-education courses that were shaped by another Harvard faculty curriculum committee, which crafted “Education in a Free Society” (The Red Book), and I am still learning from those courses as I prepare to return for my 50th Harvard reunion. Harvard was then a leader in undergraduate education for the country. James Conant, then president of Harvard, established that committee and was concerned when it did not call for a separate faculty to teach general education courses because he feared that no one on the faculty would take responsibility for general education. His fears are realized.

Harvard undergraduates will always do well because Harvard takes only the pick of the litter. What a shame that Harvard could not do more for such able students to further their general education. My face is crimson.
………………….

Thomas Ehrlich is a senior scholar at Carnegie where his work focuses on enhancing moral and civic responsibility among undergraduates. From 1987 to 1994, Ehrlich was president of Indiana University. After retiring from Indiana, he joined San Francisco State University as distinguished university scholar, and held that position until 2000. In addition, he was provost at the University of Pennsylvania from 1981 to 1987 and dean of the Stanford University Law School in the 1970s. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and was a law clerk for Judge Learned Hand.

Join the conversation »

© 2005 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
51 Vista Lane, Stanford, CA 94305, 650-566-5100

Folks:

The posting below gives a nice overview of how things really work in most academic departments. It is from Chapter III, Getting the Big Picture of How Things Work in the World of Higher Education, in The Academic Game – Psychological Strategies for Successfully Completing the Doctorate, by Elaine R. Parent (with Leslie R. Lewis). Published by Infinity Publishing.com 1094 New De Haven Street, Suite 100, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2713. [www.buybooksontheweb.com]. Copyright 2005 by Elaine R. Parent All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. ISBN 0-7414-2713-3 [www.theacademicgame.com].

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Blue About the Crimson Plan for General Education

Tomorrow’s Academy

THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS: HOME BASE FOR DOCTORAL STUDENTS AND THE CENTER OF THE
GRADUATE MISSION OF THE INSTITUTION.

In universities, there are two types of departmental administrators. One is called a head, the other a chair. According to Sirchik (2003), the choice of words is probably not accidental. A head is appointed with no fixed term. Its occupant authorizes all departmental educational, budget, hiring, promotion, and salary decisions. It is a very powerful position and much like headships at other universities.

The chair position, in contrast, has fixed term. Its resident is obligated to attend to the advice of the elected “executive committee” of a department. Responsibilities include submitting a budget on behalf of the department, requesting funding for new appointments, salary increments, secretarial support, office and laboratory space, supplies and equipment and funds for graduate fellowships and assistantships.

How Departments are Administered

The department chair also has to evaluate each faculty member, regardless of rank, on the basis of their teaching, research and service, and makes recommendation to administration about merit increases, Departments bargain competitively with other departments for the allocation of limited institutional resources.

Useful in understanding the influence on faculty values and behavior is the description of the four primary cultures (Table III-13, page 81) and how they influence faculty role behavior.

Hinchey (2001) suggests that in order to understand a culture, one must understand the choices and the power, or lack of it, that people experience within it. She suggests that the implications for doctoral students are clear. Since administrators, functionaries and faculty all inhabit several cultures with individual values and rewards, students face the dilemma of sorting out those values which are rhetorical, serving only appearances, and which ones are in force, driving behavior and rewards.

The Role and Distribution of Money

Departments are rarely equal in power. Some command larger shares of resources, have an easier time getting their people hired and promoted, have lighter teaching loads or more teaching assistance distributed to them. Different groups dominate in different universities.

Prestigious private universities are more likely than prestigious public universities to have outstanding law and business schools and prestigious public universities are more likely to have outstanding engineering and agricultural schools. These differences reflect the historical flow of resources into institutions. In a similar way, the distribution of power among and within departments results from the way resources come into them and the roles they play. As Darley (1987, p.64) writes, “power distributes along the lines of critical dependencies.”

Departmental power hinges on the funds from grants. Grants serve two purposes: they benefit research and departments thrive on them. The biggest contribution they make is to institution, in the form of overhead rebates. These funds to departments are discretionary, which means that they can be used for activities that don’t have to fit into other budgetary categories, like teaching innovations, seed money for special projects, summer research, equipment, etc.

According to Salanchik (1987) overhead rebates can vary from 10-50 percent of the grant total. “The one generality is that power plays a role in every university and derives from the critical resources that shape that institution’s success and ultimately its survival. Private universities, lacking the subsidies of a state appropriation process, operate very differently from public universities…they survive by accumulating endowment.” (p.68)

Differences between the Disciplines

“Each discipline has its own sources of funding, its own markets for faculty and students, its own journals, and its own definitions and its own markets for prestige. Although some intellectual strands link them, and although they compete at some level for funds, students and public attention, disciplines for the most part operate independently. The facts form the basis for the distribution of power in universities and departments.”

Departmental Power and Politics

In general, departmental responsibilities include: determining their curricula subject to school approval; making the initial recommendations for promotion and tenure; admitting and awarding financial aid to graduate students, within the rules and resources made available by administration. At the undergraduate level, departments determine the requirements for their majors, subject to school approval.

In the graduate arena, departments exercise almost virtual autonomy in determining all aspects of the doctoral student experience. Included are the curriculum, the distribution of courses, the breadth and depth of knowledge to be examined in the Ph.D. preliminary orals, as well as the nature and quality of the dissertation.

Faculty Service on Departmental Committees

Faculty serve on a number of departmental committees, both standing and ad hoc, that are responsible for making decisions on a wide variety of departmental issues, These can include courses, decisions related to the procurement of library collections, to lab equipment or audio visual materials, on long range planning, on faculty search committees and graduate admissions.

Social Relationships in the Academy

An institution of higher learning is a peculiar creature, a dynamic organism that cannot be defined as the sum of its parts. According to Colton, (1995), people can get balkanized in departments and isolated, even lonely, in their offices just as they can in large cities.

Colton maintains that as in any polite society, that the academy is held together in part by conventions of decency, honor and mutual obligation. If occasionally they are breached, it is important to repair them quickly. This refers not only to the strategic tact of treating one’s elders with deference, but of treating all one’s colleagues with a responsible measure of respect you also expect and deserve from them (p.339).

Power Relationships in the Academy

According to Salancik (1987), power is situational, not personal. It is important to realize that power organizes around those subgroups (departments, disciplinary groups or individuals) in an organization thought to contribute its most critical resources. The distribution of power among and within departments results from the way resources come into them and the roles they play.

Money is key in understanding power and influence. Most academics prefer not to think about money believing if they have a good idea, it should be funded. However, those who run universities are confronted by many good ideas and must choose among them. To choose they must maximize the quality of the entire institution.

Where the Money Comes From

Funding varies across institutions. Traditionally, private institutions have been supported by large endowments along with the higher tuition paid by the majority of students attending. Public universities and colleges have been funded by the state and are thus vulnerable to the fiscal whims of politicians and policymakers. According to recent government reports, during the 1994-95 school year, $509 billion, or 7.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was spent on education in the United States. Forty percent, or roughly $203 billion of this went to colleges and universities. When funding is low, students must shoulder a larger proportion of the cost through (out-of-state) tuition and registration fees.

A relatively recent trend is the growing involvement of large business corporations in the universities’ research funding. This is a welcome new resource but it may also have implications for the direction and ownership of academic research. Often, if the company sees the potential benefit of a particular line of research, it will fund the activities of a particular researcher and his/her team. This may raise ethical questions about the practical researchers can often do apply for grant and foundation funding to support their own research activities. The universities receive a large proportion of this (sometimes as much as forty percent) for administrative overhead costs.

Departmental Structure and Culture

Academic departments, even within the same discipline, vary significantly from one university to the next. This is because the history, reputation, orientation, philosophy, politics, faculty make-up, departmental cohesion, and graduate student expectations of each differ. Every department has a particular body of knowledge, technique and approach they use to orient and train their graduate students. This may mean that a single tradition or paradigm guides the curriculum, or it may be a combination of two or more different traditions that combine to form the philosophy of the department. Individual faculty members may or may not completely tow the departmental party line. That is to say, their theoretical ideas and philosophies may differ from the official one.

Regardless of what particular theoretical or methodological paradigm faculty members espouse, they are interested in establishing or maintaining an intellectual tradition. Graduate students are the vehicles for this. Each faculty members hopes to train up-and-coming experts in such a way that they carry on his or her theoretical approach or line of inquiry. Such collaboration and continuations build legacies and invite additional followings among subsequent graduate students and emerging professionals.

Some departments are conservative; others have reputations for being progressive and even radical. Some departments are cohesive: faculty members constitute a harmonious blend of individual philosophies and personalities. Other departments are characterized by a strong rift along theoretical or personality lines. This kind of tension can be problematic for unsuspecting graduate students. When considering doctoral programs, it’s worth taking a couple of days to visit the campus and talk with graduate students from various years. If you can get a hold of them, they can be rich source of information for what you can expect theoretically, methodologically, and relationally from different faculty members. Once you’re admitted at a school and you’re ensconced in your new surroundings the first term, you’ll want to listen and ask questions to try to get a lay of the land.

Some students have found themselves in the midst of bitter conflict and polarization. Without knowing the major issues and people involved, they unwittingly align themselves with one side or the other. This can unfortunately alienate a pool of otherwise helpful and interesting faculty members. As many have learned, there may be relationships of tension or ease between and among faculty, the administrative staff, and graduate students. Recognizing these early on can help you negotiate potential hurdles.

Folks:

The posting below looks at the impact of applying the industry based Baldrige National Quality Award program to six institutions of higher learning. It is from Chapter 8 Lessons Learned, in Quality and Performance Excellence in Higher Education, Baldrige on Campus by Charles W. Sorenson, Julie A. Furst-Bowe, and Diane M. Moen, University of Wisconsin-Stout, editors. ISBN 1-882982-80-0 Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Bolton, Massachusetts Copyright © 2005 by Anker Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Why Intelligent Design (ID) Is Not Science

Tomorrow’s Academia

—————————————– 1,810 words ————————————

QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION – LESSONS LEARNED

As with any new quality or management system, the path is not always smooth as an organization
assimilates new processes. Especially in higher education, it seems there is a need to discuss,
debate, and deliberate the merits of any proposed change. And it was not different for the six
institutions highlighted in this book. The Baldrige National Quality Award program criteria
were questioned, the performance of award recipients was analyzed, and the rights of faculty were emphasized. Faculty and staff fell into the traditional groups of early adopters, wait-and-see, and over my dead body. As these six organizations persisted and committed to improved performance through the implementation of the Baldrige National Quality Program, eight lessons emerged.

1) Leadership: Can Passion for Quality Substitute for Leadership Commitment?

The experiences of the organizations in this book indicate leadership commitment is absolutely
essential. Numerous higher educational institutions have established offices of quality and continuous improvement. Organizationally, they are located at different levels within institutions, but their purpose is singular-to improve the performance of the organization utilizing recognized tools and systems of continuous improvement. The success of these offices is checkered and is entirely dependent on the buy-in and support of individual departments and frontline leaders.

The evidence from the six institutions reflects the necessity of stable senior leadership coupled with commitment and active involvement from leaders at every level in the organization, including governance. Successful leadership means shared responsibility and accountability. It also requires reflection on
the organization’s leadership system-does the leadership system align with the quality values
of participation, informed decision-making, and communication? The Baldrige model, applied with
commitment over time, results in a leadership environment that fosters empowerment, innovation,
and a shared vision among faculty, staff, and senior leaders.

2) Systems: Can Organizational Silos Be Eliminated?

The Baldrige National Quality Award program is a powerful management system because it challenges
organizations to identify and recognize existing systems within their organization. Systems encompass every aspect of any organization from student recruitment to delivery of instruction, from planning to human resource management. Once systems are documented, work can begin in continuous improvement on an organization-wide scale.

Organizational silos typically prevent collaboration and communication, isolate inhabitants from the larger organization, and produce competitive tendencies. The six institutions all continue to have traditional
organization structures but have found methods encompass overarching leadership teams or councils, formal team building and professional development programs, rewards and recognition aligned with the Baldrige criteria, and a methodical approach for deploying the Baldrige criteria.

3) Clarity: Who Are Our Stakeholders? What Do They Want?

For decades, higher education organizations have been generally nonchalant about addressing the needs of students and stakeholders. Many were unsure what the word contextually meant; others were sure they already knew what was best for their students. Since the 1950s, there has been tremendous growth in college enrollments, faculty, staff, and facilities. Generous funding from public and private sources has allowed for the development of new academic programs while maintaining low tuition levels. The population
growth resulting from the baby boomers and most recently from the echo-boomers continues the belief within the academy that higher education must continue to be a priority for funding. With increasing enrollments and little accountability, there have been few compelling reasons for most colleges and universities to systematically determine and satisfy the needs of their students and stakeholders.

However, for many institutions, both public and private, there is an increased awareness and trepidation regarding the cost of higher education, the permanent decline in tax-dollar support, and expectations from all
sectors for accountability. The six institutions studied utilize the Baldrige criteria to determine requirements, expectations, and preferences of students, stakeholders, and markets. The institutions understand the importance of developing successful relationships with students and stakeholders and continued satisfaction with programs and services in all sectors of the organization that leads to improved retention and graduation. Each of the institutions utilizes market and student data with segmentation to design and improve programs and services. These organizations are able to align programs and services with the organizational vision and mission, demonstrating the ability to avoid waste of resources.

4) Change: Just Do It, But How?

Institutions utilizing the Baldrige criteria are characterized as agile, meeting the emerging needs of stakeholders and students. While this is challenging in higher education, change is possible, and utilizing the Baldrige criteria allows change to occur rapidly. This can happen in two very different ways. First, institutions that apply to a quality award program, either at the state or national level, commit to an
elevated rate of change. The feedback reports provided through these programs present opportunities for improvement, thus encouraging notable progress in each application cycle.

Second, and more important, deploying the Baldrige criteria requires a planning system that aligns actions with the organization’s values, vision, and mission, ensuring responsiveness to stakeholder needs. Using the criteria requires ongoing attention to outcomes through the identification of performance indicators. And, as the six institutions demonstrated, adopting the Baldrige values of organizational learning, focusing on the future, managing for innovation, and valuing faculty, staff, and partners creates an environment of trust and openness to change.

5) Data: Why Accept the Challenge to Look Outside of Your Organization?

All institutions have data and use data-fact books, financial reports, various surveys, and
other reports are common. What makes the institutions using the Baldrige criteria distinctive is their quest to utilize data trends and segments, benchmark against competitors and peers, identify best-in-class organizations, and, importantly, benchmark outside of higher education. Further, these institutions utilize
this data in continuous improvement initiatives, as well as to guide planning and resource allocation decisions. ‘

Similar to business and industry, challenges in expanding data usage exist. Common data definitions, access to data, and appropriate use of data continue to be problematic. The six institutions suggest several benchmarking methods.
* Use of national data sets and reports such as Measuring Up
* Participation in commercial benchmarking studies that provide data beyond average and median
* Partnerships with noneducation sector organizations to share best-in-class systems for leadership, complaint management, and safety
* Utilization of increasingly sophisticated and available web data

This type of data use requires an institutional commitment to research and analysis, but the payoff is significant. Benchmarking is one of the most effective antidotes to complacency-a stigma that higher education currently carries. Business and industry clearly understands the need for reinvention and revitalization. Higher education continues to dismiss the for-profit education companies as a fad, although their growth and profit rates are spiking. Benchmarking provides every institution a tool to remain competitive.

6) Assessment: Will We Ever Be Ready to Apply for a Quality Award?

Perfectionists need not apply! The most common remark heard from organizations that have visited the University of Wisconsin-Stout is that they are reluctant to apply to an award program because too much improvement needs to take place first. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Each of the institutions in this book submitted its self-assessment application for review and scoring through a state quality award program or to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program. As a result, they received high-quality feedback from experience examiners and were able to use the information to move their institution to an even higher level.

The feedback reports are typically in the format of identifying areas of strengths and opportunities for improvement in each of the criteria categories. The identification of strengths validates institutional efforts and motivates organization employees to accelerate implementation efforts. The opportunities for
improvement also provide motivation-to deal with a problem that has existed for years or to develop expertise in an area where a void was identified. Although each institution received some form of recognition for its efforts, the prospect of an award does not drive these institutions; instead, it is the desire for
continuous improvement.

7) Strengths: Do We Need to Start From Scratch?

These stories from six institutions demonstrate six different approaches to utilizing the Baldrige criteria. The criteria are nonprescriptive and easily applied to all types of higher education institutions: public,
private, for-profit, two-year, four-year, highly-selective, and open access. The Baldrige criteria indicate that the same seven-part framework can be used for the education category as is used in the business and health care categories. There is great flexibility and adaptability between types of organizations. This is good news because each institution can determine the extent and depth to initially infuse the Baldrige criteria and can build on the existing inventory of institutional strengths. Participants in the award programs clearly
understand that the journey is not over once an award is received. Rather the award initiates the challenge that the institution has the ability to achieve even greater outcomes.
Organizational Learning: What Is in It for Me?

The six institutions convey that implementation of the Baldrige criteria or any comprehensive
quality program is hard work-it requires commitment and resources. It also provides an unequaled opportunity for organizational and personal learning. Senior leaders are able to model an effective management and continuous improvement system to other employees within their organization, one that is easily emulated
at all levels and applies to almost any operation. The Baldrige approach transfers from sector to sector-education to business-making partnerships and communication more effective and rewarding. Faculty can choose to integrate Baldrige criteria into classroom settings, providing graduates with one more skill set to add to their repertoire. Individuals can participate at the state or national level as examiners, providing easy access to best practices nationwide.

Looking Into the Future

“Business as usual” really means challenge and change. Whether your educational challenges are the diverse needs of your students, the Internet and alternative educational services, accreditation, school transitions, facility management, rapid innovation, performance to budget, or maintaining your competitive advantage within the education community, the Baldrige Education Criteria can help you address them.

This statement from the Baldrige National Quality Program application demonstrates the inclusiveness and effectiveness of the model. The criteria easily accommodate other quality tools already in place at an institution or provide the foundation when an institution makes a commitment to performance excellence. Indeed, a major strength of the Baldrige criteria is its comprehensive approach-something lacking in most quality system. Fully deployed, the criteria cover aspect of an institution.

As indicated by the six institutions, this comprehensive approach is a new direction for higher education and demonstrates that quality management system tools are effective in any size or type of organization. The
institutions demonstrate breakthrough change-significant and steady progress toward performance goals. Further, it is believed that the Baldrige approach will penetrate higher education quickly due to its adoption by higher education boards composed in part of successful business leaders. As accreditation agencies
migrate toward a forward-looking accreditation process that provides the public with credible quality assurance, the Baldrige model will become increasingly important for institutions seeking or maintaining accreditation.

The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award criteria provide simple but effective solution to address the unprecedented challenges faced by all higher education institutions. Are you ready?