BlogU

  • Project-Based Education? A Response to Mark Taylor

    By Dean Dad April 27, 2009 10:21 pm

    Several alert readers sent me links to this column in the New York Times by Mark Taylor, a professor of religion at Columbia. Professor Taylor makes a series of claims about how to improve higher education in America, most of which revolve around getting rid of the traditional department/tenure structure in favor of project-based constellations of scholars that come together for finite periods.

    It's a frustrating piece, since it moves quickly from 'insightful' to 'crackpot' and back again.

    I'll start with some glaring blind spots that made it hard for me to take the piece seriously. As is often true of faculty who have never worked in administration, Prof. Taylor takes existing institutions for granted, even as he claims to move past them. For example, if colleges redid their curricula every seven years or so – his suggested lifetime for the project-based constellations he favors – that would involve every seventh year putting entire new programs through the shared governance process, coming up with entirely new job descriptions, hiring committees, student learning outcomes, assessment mechanisms, articulation agreements, catalog copy, advisor training, and the rest. Who, exactly, would do all this in the absence of departments or permanent faculty goes unmentioned. Lest this seem like an unfair summary:

    Abolish permanent departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused programs. These constantly evolving programs would have sunset clauses, and every seven years each one should be evaluated and either abolished, continued or significantly changed. It is possible to imagine a broad range of topics around which such zones of inquiry could be organized: Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water.

    Alrighty then. Who would evaluate them? Who would define them? (And don't tell me 'the faculty in the program.' They would be hired based on the answers to those questions, not the other way around.) Who would make the decisions to 'abolish, continue, or significantly change' them? Who gets to stay after the sun sets? In the absence of continuity, how would standards develop? Who would define them? What happens to a student who enrolls during, say, the fifth year of a seven year program? Would credits from other programs articulate? If not, would students be unable to transfer from one college to another?

    These may sound picky, but they're fundamental.

    Yes, the common currency of 'credit hours' is reductive, and I've gone on record saying that until we move away from seat-time-based measures, the upward cost spiral won't go away. But you don't replace something with nothing. If we do away with recognizably transferable credits, what do we replace them with? You might be able to get away from it at the toniest of SLAC's, but the residential-students-with-no-attrition model describes only a very narrow niche of higher education in America.

    Then, obviously, there's the matter of graduate training. I agree with Taylor that grad school in the humanities and most of the social sciences is a pyramid scheme. I also agree that mandatory retirement ages and a renewable-contract system for faculty would be vast improvements over the landed aristocracy we currently support at the adjuncts' expense. But I'm at a loss to explain where all these interdisciplinary experts will get their disciplinary expertise. Yes, a significant part of grad school involves exploring new questions. But another significant part – the part he skips – involves getting grounding in the history of a given line of inquiry. Call it a canon or a discipline or a tradition, but it's part of the toolkit scholars bring to bear on new questions. Abandoning the toolkit in favor of, well, ad hoc autodidacticism doesn't really solve the problem. If anything, it makes existing grads even less employable than they already are. I need to hire someone to teach Intro to Sociology. Is a graduate of a program in “Body” or “Water” capable? How the hell do I know? (And even if I think I do, can I convince an accrediting agency?) Am I taking the chance? In this market? Uh, that would be 'no.'

    (His proposed solution of extending the change to undergraduate programs actually makes it worse. “Sorry, 'water' grad, that expired last year. We're into 'money' now. Your graduate work is so last year.” In the absence of disciplines, we'd have nothing but fads.)

    So we'd have faculty hired by nobody in particular, based on ever-shifting job descriptions written by nobody in particular. They would teach, uh, whatever, to students who happen to start at the right time, and who never drop out or transfer. (“Sorry, kid, we aren't accepting new students this year. Try again next year, when the theme will be cyborgs and we'll have all new faculty to teach it.”) And the graduate students would have to hope that whatever theme they studied in grad school would happen to roll around at the teaching colleges to which they'd apply for work. Unless they didn't. Which is fine, since there's no hotter ticket on the job market than an unemployed, esoteric Ph.D.

    Sigh.

    Yes, the existing structures are clunky and overtaxed and frequently asinine. They survive because they address certain problems. The way around them is not to wish those problems away or to postulate a world in which every college is modeled on a graduate seminar at Columbia. It's to come up with alternatives that solve those problems better. Prof. Taylor's model could be a lot of fun on a very small scale, like a think tank. But as a blueprint for higher ed across America, it's a farce.

    The reality of higher ed in America is mobility. People move from one institution to another all the time. We've developed an admittedly frustrating common language to make that kind of movement possible. Replacing that common language with a babel of tongues is not a serious answer, and replacing what little common knowledge that clusters of scholars share – canons or classics or traditions – with whatever seems convenient at the time would only make matters worse. Disciplines are arbitrary and flawed, but random fads are even worse. And incompatible random fads at different institutions would be disastrous.

    I have a recurring dream that someday, somehow, the New York Times will hire a columnist on higher education who actually understands what s/he is talking about. Maybe we could start a graduate program on 'dreams'! Let's see, upon graduation, students will be able to...

Go to comments (11) »
Advertisement
On the Job Market Together?

Comments on Project-Based Education? A Response to Mark Taylor

  • Posted by Bobba Lynx on April 28, 2009 at 5:00am EDT

  • Thank you for taking him on point by point. I went more for the philosophical underpinnings (or big unwieldy questions) in my post. I'm still not sure it's not satire. Children of Ireland, anyone ? Please stop by: http://crankyinacademe.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-dont-know-which-is-making-me-crankier.html

  • Posted by Amanda French on April 28, 2009 at 6:30am EDT

  • Definitely, thanks for this. I chortled particularly at your description of what a graduate in "Water" might face. That said, I do like the interdisciplinary, themed approach to a problem -- just not for a whole curriculum. I still remember being impressed by and envious of the day at Carleton when the whole college "taught Hurricane Katrina." Inside Higher Ed article here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/03/31/carleton

  • Posted by Robert Talbert , Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computing Science at Franklin College on April 28, 2009 at 9:15am EDT

  • Excellent analysis of Prof. Taylor's article, Dean Dad. Thank you. I too found Taylor's article to have some isolated kernels of insight, but these are lost in the muddle. He seems to want to take the worst elements of Big University politics and project this onto the entire higher education superstructure. However, I'm happy to report that many graduate programs are doing a very good job of providing exactly the kind of supportive, forward-looking education that Taylor describes right now, within the existing model.

    I do think, though -- and the article points this out -- that the problem-based programs that Taylor proposes would be very interesting to try on a small scale, for example in an honors program or as part of an interdisciplinary minor that is attended by students majoring in regular academic disciplines. But as a model for graduate work, this would lead to the Vonnegut-like situation where everyone has a PhD but no skill to back it up.

  • I liked it!
  • Posted by Michael Porter , Associate Professor/Communication at University of Missouri on April 28, 2009 at 10:45am EDT

  • Sorry, folks, but I think you're all missing the point. I found it refreshing and exciting. If you are stuck thinking like an administrator, nothing will change. OK, so some ideas were off base, but when I think of the number of obscure dissertations being written by our students that no one will read, it makes me cry! There is a great need for more interdisciplinary interactions -- and there are so many social, cultural, political humanitarian issues that we could help to solve, but we're not, because we're engaged in our own silos and many of us live with blinders on, seeing only the small narrow world we have created. I found the essay most interesting, and certainly provides a jumping off point for more discussion.
    Why are we always so damn critical of every new idea that comes out of the chute!

  • Is there a baby in that bath water?
  • Posted by A Little Crazy on April 28, 2009 at 11:00am EDT

  • I agree that the ideas that Taylor puts forward aren’t practical for a number of reasons, but I find it interesting that there is such fear at the thought of “replacing what little common knowledge that clusters of scholars share – canons or classics or traditions – with whatever seems convenient at the time.” Perhaps Dean Dad is forgetting that many of our current disciplines (“canons, or classics or traditions”) weren’t even considered “academic” until the late 19th century when they came into the university ambit because they were “convenient at the time.” Do we still think that our colleges and universities should be structured around the needs of the 19th century? This seems a hard thing to defend.

     

    If students apply their knowledge and work across disciplines it improves their skills in critical thinking, in analyzing information, and in integrating knowledge. It also improves their retention of information and their ability to learn new things (more than can be said for the Neolithic lecture which is still the bedrock of university teaching). It might lessen their specific bits of disciplinary information, but in the sciences the specific bits that students learn as freshmen are out of date before they graduate. In most other disciplines we don’t even teach specific bits – history and literature surveys don’t delve very deeply into actual scholarship and debates, intro psych and sociology courses only provide students with overviews of disciplinary knowledge, etc.

     

    Dean Dad seems to think that the purpose of higher education is to train people to teach in traditional disciplines in traditional ways. If, say, a grad in “Water” studied the economics of water, its historical and geopolitical contexts (past, present and future), hydrology, oceanography, water’s role in the rise of civilization, etc., does he really think this graduate would have no valuable skills or knowledge? This graduate might not be able to teach “Intro to Sociology,” but maybe by the time she or he graduates, there won’t be a need for anyone to teach “Intro to Sociology.”

     

    Maybe the question isn’t whether or not Taylor’s specific ideas are practical or desirable. Maybe even he didn’t think his suggestions could be implemented. But if no one is willing to move a little toward the “crackpot” the majority of people won’t be willing to do anything to adjust to the needs (not “conveniences”) of the current era.

  • avoid the New York Times
  • Posted by Steve Muhlberger , History at Nipissing University on April 28, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT

  • The real mystery is why, after years of lying and obfuscation, anyone pays any attention to the New York Times at all. If you want thoughtful analysis you will have to look elsewhere.

  • Reforming higher education
  • Posted by Bob on April 28, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT

  • There are some good points in Taylor's piece, but none of them is new. Most of his proposal is pure demogoguery, not worth a serious, point-by-point response.

    What is particularly frustrating is that his ideas are based on a failed model of corporate governance. Nearly every system based on that model is in crisis today: healthcare, banking, retailing, insurance, manufacturing, etc. If such a model is to be imported into higher education, today we would be in Washington, D. C., asking for a bailout or declaring bankruptcy.

    Just like physicians, lawyers, and CPA's, professors are professionals, not employees who do piece work or who are paid a commission for a sale. They have earned the autonomy they get and need that autonomy for their teaching and research. In return, they have given up the chance to earn high wages and bonuses.

    Keep in mind that the US higher education is the envy of the world. This is the system that attracts the best and the brightest from every corner of the world and this is the system the rest of the world is currently copying. This is also the system that has produced more nobel prize winners than any other system and one that is known for its research productivity in every area of study.

    True, issues such as cost containment, innovation, and more timely introduction of new programs, etc., require attention, but the call for ending the system as we know it lacks seriousness.

    Bob

  • Posted by Cyd Jenefsky on April 28, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT

  • This editorial is a perfect illustration of how higher education in the U.S. fails/fears to think outside the box that Taylor, most of the public, as well as our students, know is sorely outdated. Our fierce resistance to reinvention creates the perfect vacuum for outside regulators (and other non-educators) to dictate our fate. Most important, however, this attachment to the past (which is the status quo) is precisely what's smothering our creativity and our collective capacity to reinvigorate higher education in the U.S.

  • Why is rejecting the crazy seen as unwillingness to change?
  • Posted by Julie Hofmann , Associate Professor of History at Shenandoah University on April 28, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT

  • I'm confused. How is Dean Dad's critique at all a sign of unwillingness to change? Anyone who reads Dean Dad on a regular basis knows that he's often an advocate for change, for faculty governance, and for making better students, better teachers, and better education in general. The questions he raises are all sound ones. Moreover, I don't know many faculty who wouldn't like to teach more interdisciplinary or linked courses. But honestly, at many small campuses, we just don't have the resources to do as much as we like. For example, if I want to create a new interdisciplinary course with a colleague, I'd have to either drop one of the courses in my regular rotation -- courses that are in the catalogue and which students expect to be taught -- or teach an overload. Teaching an overload costs money, and teaching a new prep on overload cuts into my very limited research time.

    That aside, I can't see any reason why we would need to give up the advantages of traditional disciplines in order to teach courses that focus on, say, "water". Lots of campuses offer particular emphases within programs, after all (although the changing every 7 years seems unfeasible). What Taylor's suggested plan ignores is the fact that one of the strengths of a college education is that students learn to learn and think in at least one discipline. Content knowledge is obviously important, but the History Channel and any number of other fora demonstrate that expertise in content does not always equate with expertise in a discipline. I've worked successfully in several industries outside of academia, e.g., dotcoms, telecom, and medical manufacturing, and my content knowledge wasn't much use. The critical thinking, research, and teaching skills I acquired as a history student were things I used daily, though. I'm not sure how my ability to earn more in industry 8-14 years ago than I do now as an associate professor could have been improved by Taylor's plan. In fact, I think that the people who hired me probably have a better idea of what a solid degree in history offers, and are now more willing to think outside the box themselves!

  • NY Times
  • Posted by Mikki , prof at R1 univ. on April 28, 2009 at 10:15pm EDT

  • Dean Dad is spot on. Sure, a student might learn some interesting things from the imaginary water curriculum, but who is going to teach him these things except EXPERTS in the various fields? That expertise can only come from a very narrowly focused graduate education. The fact that people's dissertations tend to be very narrow is not bad - it creates a world of experts which are necessary. Our Water grad might have interesting things to say at cocktail parties, but I would not want him teaching the next generation. Maybe he would be the water guy, but then he would have to teach an interdisciplinary course with the ice guy and the vapor guy to make sure that a student had a very basic understanding of water.

    In my experience a LOT of interdisciplinary teaching and research is happening out there. I have done it myself and a lot of colleagues do it. But you can't have interdisciplinary without disciplinary. Otherwise a lot of people are just blowing stuff out their asses and nothing comes of it.

  • Taylor has at least one good idea
  • Posted by Clint , Prospective Graduate Student at UNC-Chapel Hill on June 25, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT

  • I also wrote an essay in response to Taylor’s piece (linked below). His idea of networking departments is definitely an interesting one worthy of exploration, but his treatment of the university as a factory is perverse. Abolishing tenure, mandating retirement, making departments meet goals -- those are all business methods. If we want to avoid universities becoming corporate auxiliaries, we should reject them.

    I do think, however, that a networked departmental system could be useful in a complementary role.

    http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2009/06/25/restructuring-humanities/

Print
© Copyright 2010 Inside Higher Ed