"The challenge for policy-makers and the general public is to resist the impulse to force colleges and universities into substituting the kind of rote training that technology can cheaply supply for the more expensive education that teaches thinking and analytic skills, values, and an understanding of complex relationships, which the learned professor in the classroom can facilitate" (Kolodny, 1998, p. 36).
"The administrative bloat build over the last 20 years could be decreased to achieve flatter organizations and less expenditure. This goal could be accompanied with refocused attention on the fundamental priorities of higher education institutions" (Manning, 2013, p. 205). "The competition established between and among higher education institutions has built an arms race where all lose. The race to build the best amenities and facilities has distracted the attention of students, faculty, and administrators alike from the fundamental purposes of higher education: the achievement of a high quality education" (Manning, 2013, p. 205). The themes of increasing costs and the need for higher education finance reform rang throughout both readings this week. We all know financing college is a significant concern right now and something that needs to see some change to increase both access and success. But these quotes alone reveal many of the debates surrounding such a discussion. To begin, there is debate over the purpose of higher education. Is it to learn as much as you can in a classroom? Is it to be trained for a specific job or career? Is it to become a well-rounded individual capable of existing effectively in a diverse, globalized society? (Is it obvious which of these I most support?!) Without agreement on a purpose, administrators may not come together to make decisions about finance reform. Those who believe in a purely academic purpose may argue for the elimination of extracurriculars and athletics, as they are expensive entities that only serve to distract from classroom learning. Those who advocate for a job-training purpose would argue against general education curriculum and would immediately eliminate concepts of the liberal arts. Those who take the liberal arts, holistic perspective would say nothing can be eliminated - but may have few ideas for how to fund all the "extra things" colleges and universities offer. Is the answer to allow for different specializations for colleges? Generally, I see research institutions falling into more of the academic purpose of higher education, vocational and trade schools aligning more with job-training beliefs, and liberal arts schools making up the final category of purposes. However, I believe many schools - regardless of classification - have started to move toward the "do it all" approach, where they have all adopted elements of other types of institutions. Is this done to stay competitive? Is it the wisest choice? Should institutional specialization end? Over the past decade, we have seen a rise in online learning, MOOCs, and other virtual classroom styles. Yet, as Kolodny (1998) wrote, this is not able to achieve the same impact as in-person learning. Manning (2013) discussed removing administrative bloat, which I interpret as meaning student affairs should be reduced/eliminated (I want a job!!). Both seem to be concerned with accountability. But that too raises questions of how to measure performance and how to implement accountability. Overall, this week's readings raised many questions for me, none of which I have the answer to. I agree things must change in terms of financing higher education, but I cannot even fathom what that may look like right now.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kristin KreherMy happiness comes from meaningful interactions, the outdoors, thrift shops, and saying "thank you." Archives
April 2018
Categories
All
|