Search News


Browse Archives

News

A New Carnegie Classification

December 7, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

While the periodic reviews of the Carnegie Classifications always contain surprises, as some institutions end up in a different category from the one they expected, there is also plenty of predictability. In grouping institutions based on the programs they offered, there was no chance a community college could end up with a liberal arts college or a university. That changed Wednesday with the release of the first "elective" classification system by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

The foundation designated 76 colleges as qualifying for its new "community engagement" classification, which they will hold on top of their other participation in the classification system. To be designated, colleges had to apply and provide evidence of community engagement. Twelve colleges applied and didn't get selected.

True to the aim of the new system, it included community colleges, liberal arts institutions, regional universities and flagship doctoral institutions. The institutions that went through the review process said that they hoped it would help them consider the role of community engagement on their campuses and spur pride in these efforts. And several said that they were also happy to receive some outside validation for efforts that don't necessarily result in higher U.S. News rankings or federal grants.

Michael Moore, provost of Morehead State University, said he saw the designation as "a way to energize even more of the faculty and staff to become engaged with the community," something he said has long been central to the institution's role as the main provider of higher education in the Appalachian region of eastern Kentucky.

In many local school districts, he noted, 90 percent of school teachers are Morehead State graduates, and the same is true for nurses and social workers. A board member a few years ago said that the university "created the middle class that exists" in the region. That creates a responsibility for the university, Moore said, to be sure its programs are closely connected to the region and its needs.

During students' first year at Atlanta's Spelman College, they are required to go through "service plunges" in which they are given assignments with various groups, in the hope that students will find a meaningful way to give back, said Felecia Tearson Smith, director of community service and student development. One valuable part of the Carnegie process, Smith said, was that it encourages colleges to take stock of the impact of these experiences, and not to just assume they are going well. Spelman, for example, surveys both students and the groups they help on the value of the experience.

For community colleges, many of which have felt historically that Carnegie Classifications haven't offered them much, the new system creates an opportunity to be judged "by the company we keep" across higher education, said John J. Sbrega, president of Bristol Community College, in Massachusetts. He said one of the things he is most proud of in terms of his college's community engagement is that job notices for faculty and administrative positions make reference to working with the region. He said that he hopes that the new Carnegie classification becomes "engrained in the national psyche" much the way institutions previously wanted to be "Research I" institutions, in a previous classification system.

The issue of recruiting that Sbrega cited is actually one that Carnegie officials said they would like to see at more institutions. Too few are making community engagement an explicit part of job duties.

For some institutions, the new designation is also a chance to draw attention to new efforts at engagement. Larry A. Nielsen, provost of North Carolina State University, said that a major emphasis at his institution over the last decade -- the Centennial Campus -- has drawn attention for its links between the university and businesses, but also features a new middle school and a new center on educational innovation. "This is about building the university" with engagement in mind, he said.

The University of Baltimore, a public urban institution, is expanding from offering only upper division and professional school courses to providing four years of undergraduate education. Wim Wiewel, the provost, said that as the institution designs courses for its first freshmen and sophomores, the emphasis will be on "learning communities" -- in which students take several related courses together -- built around the local area. Themes may be the world of work, urban life, or changes in Baltimore.

"Our slogan is 'knowledge that works,' " he said, but  that really means "knowledge that works for Baltimore."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A New Carnegie Classification

  • Community engagement? Ha!
  • Posted by Cynic on December 7, 2006 at 9:30am EST
  • You gotta be kidding!
    As a cynic, this is just another attempt to leverage legitimacy, both for the institutions and for the Carnegie people doing the classifications. Their idea of community engagement is to force everyone in the community to go to their institutions for certification and approval. What is the diffference between community engagement and community co-option?

    Talk about "mission drift"!

    Maybe it's the cynic in me, but this kind of thing just encourages the expansion of community college bureaucracies into things they have no real interest in. Expansion that increases prestige and status. That's all this is.

  • Posted by Observer , A Different Opinion on December 7, 2006 at 10:35am EST
  • Mission Drift? There has been a long-held belief of education in the idea of outreach and engagement of community. What about land-grant institutions, public institutions, individuals like Dewey and Boyer and their perspectives? This is an idea which benefits higher education, the community, and students. Why does focusing on both have to impact negatively on one or the other?

  • Posted by Franc on December 7, 2006 at 11:00am EST
  • Mr./Mrs. Cynic,
    Have you ever asked yourself why the word “community” is included in “Community College”? Perhaps your cynical side prevents you from remembering that community colleges were created to serve the community in which they are located. Community colleges support the educational aspirations of local students and help those in search of better jobs through affordable education.

    When you say that this classification only “encourages the expansion of community college bureaucracies into things they have no real interest in,” you are overlooking community colleges’ missions. What this classification does is provide a way schools can be recognized for something other than wealth, prestige, and exclusivity. These schools do not get the recognition they deserve, and now that there is a classification that may call attention to the great things community colleges do, you say that these schools only engage with local communities for the same reasons everyone wants to be at, or near, the top of the US New rankings.

    Any college, whether Harvard or “Any Town USA” Community College, deserves respect and recognition for this valuable work. Just think of why there are over 4300 classified in Carnegie’s basic classifications and only 76 in the community engagement classification. Perhaps those other 4200 plus schools are the ones striving for what you call “expansion that increases prestige and status.”

  • Posted by Carolyn Lawrence on December 7, 2006 at 5:10pm EST
  • I applaud any attempt to move beyond the limited world view of college "rankings" such as the U.S. News & World Report's Best Colleges Rankings. The more variables and characteristics available to those trying to sort through college options, the better. While not every student will care about community involvement, some will find it a useful measure in prioritizing their choices. I, for one, hope that we will see further sub-divisions in Carnegie information in the future.

  • US Junior Colleges
  • Posted by The Cynic on December 7, 2006 at 5:30pm EST
  • Franc doesn’t know the history of junior colleges very well, and also don’t know about the original intent behind the community college, its so-called mission.

    What we now call a “community college” began late nineteenth century, early 1900’s as a way of screening out candidates for 4 year colleges. This was the idea of William Rainey Harper, the University of Chicago president. One of the earliest junior colleges began at his prompting in Illinois, Joulette. Another of his students began junior colleges in California. The plan was to divert unsuitable candidates into appropriate vocational training, thereby freeing up professors and upper-classmen for genuine scholarship and research at the colleges, modeled on the German research university. Hence, graduate education as we now know it. This was Harper's plan.

    Once the culture of aspiration and professionalism (i.e., American credentialism) took root, the American dream became identified with having a college education, and the explosive growth of the colleges created make-shift “13th” grade classes scattered at high schools all over the nation. Typical of the time, these were modeled on the classical curriculum, which was still required for admission to America’s colleges in the 1900s. These informal classes of wanna-be college-men eventually were absorbed into the higher education system, newly christened as “junior colleges,” and associated with public 4 year schools as feeders. Everyone was happy.

    But the original diversionary intent of the junior colleges is fundamentally at war with the prevailing ideas of American meritocracy. For example, junior and community colleges still aren’t sure if their mission is vocational or academic, or both. This inner contradiction plagues community colleges in interesting ways.

    When people complain about the poor rates of student transfer to the 4 year colleges, they forget that this was the original intent – to divert unsuitable candidates into appropriate vocational training. Community colleges, to this day, continue to do what they are supposed to.

    Go read the history yourself.

    Simply put, the culture of aspiration has overtaken the original progressive goals that gave rise to the community colleges. This cross-cutting tension, this inner contradiction, continues to tear apart the soul of the community college, that is, if you are sentimental enough to think that they have a soul to begin with. I no longer do. That’s why they call me ….