Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Grasping the Reins of Reality

August 16, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Look around you. Virtually everyone in the room is engaged in a job different from the one they prepared for in college.

This tells a story of a process that transcends content and curriculum, a process that goes beyond training, to the point where education actually took place. You and your colleagues underwent a transformation in the 1,800 or so hours you spent in the classroom interacting with your peers and with 40 or so faculty members at one level or another. You emerged from college having developed the ability to listen, to assimilate, to learn on your own, to project your own insights, opinions and views.

Some faculty members taught you how to think, how to challenge, to have confidence and to be independent. Most of you acquired the ability to analyze and to synthesize. Many acquired a love of learning for its own sake. You found faculty members with a wide variety of skills and goals; some tried to teach you content, as well as discernment. Others projected a point of view and welcomed a contrary view, if well supported.

In all this time, you also acquired knowledge, most of which is long gone. But you are still a different person from the high school graduate who entered college as a freshman. You learned how to read analytically and critically, you began to appreciate the role of originality and creativity. You know how to formulate and defend a hypothesis. And you learned how to assimilate the ideas of others and to interact, whether to support or to disagree.

There is so much else that you acquired, and when you graduated it was not just because you passed a number of courses. The structure, the faculty, the ever more demanding senior courses, the coherence of your major, and the qualities of mind, marked you as a successful outcome.

You are the reason the colleges are proud of what they do and your accomplishments represent the performance that colleges and universities point to in developing and justifying their reputation. Reputations are not developed in a vacuum. You, your parents, your children, your colleagues and your peers are the living remnants of the college experience. Your success justifies the massive resources poured by private Americans into supporting colleges and universities. And your success validates the vocation that characterizes the role of so many faculty members.

There is something special about American higher education, which continues to produce some of the world's greatest scientists and engineers, thinkers and scholars. There is something unique in the education we offer, which provides a breadth, an intellectual depth to accompany the skills and aptitudes of the specialist. And there are the human successes in sectors whose mission is to produce an involved, thinking citizenry.

Not everyone agrees that American higher education is characterized by success. Numbers are quoted indicating that the quality of graduates is not what it used to be. But they forget that sometimes the numbers go down as the numbers go up. As American higher education welcomes people less prepared, less gifted and often less motivated, as the atmosphere at some colleges becomes less rarified by the proliferation of remedial education, the average accomplishment will go down.

Nonetheless they insist it is time to measure learning outcomes. We are to select slices of the educational experience -- those slices that can be measured -- and somehow draw conclusions about all learning. Unfortunately, that which can be measured usually excludes the most important characteristics of a person's education. Depending on the consequences of these measurements, colleges will teach to the test and so, too, will faculty. Everyone wants to succeed, and if success is going to be defined by those outside academe, it is learning and teaching that will feel the pain first. In the end all of society will suffer.

Tragically, the intellectual immersion, which you yourselves recognized as characteristic of the totality of your undergraduate experience, will be compromised. That will happen precisely at the time when young people from emerging communities arrive at the gates of our colleges and universities, desperately needing this kind of intellectual immersion.

In the end, higher education has responded to the call for broad measures of learning outcomes. Several national organizations have committed to encouraging member institutions to experiment in this direction. But we must remember we are talking about experiments. These efforts must remain pilot projects subject to validation carried out within academe. We must further insist that the use of such measures be based on inherent value, rather than governmental mandate.

Government has heard from all the others; it is time to hear from us. From you.

Bernard Fryshman is executive vice president of the Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools’ Accreditation Commission.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Grasping the Reins of Reality

  • Let the graduates speak
  • Posted by JBM on August 16, 2006 at 7:50am EDT
  • It doesn't matter at all what we say to the public: The demand for reform in higher education has been triggered by the poor performance of college graduates in the workplace. Until they can write their own language correctly and perform simple cognitive tasks with accuracy, no assurances that we repeatedly issue to the public about the value of our teaching will change the reality of illiterate and imcompetent graduates.

    The problem of education reform is vastly more complicated and pressing than issuing another proclamation telling the public to stop questioning college and university faculty.

  • Then please fund yourselves
  • Posted by L.L. on August 16, 2006 at 8:00am EDT
  • A thoughtful piece. One wonders: if one does not want government oversight -- why does one take government money? If one is providing so much value -- should not supporters step forward to fund operations?

    This is about government funding -- nothing else. If one does not take government funding -- one's administrative burden is much less. How much clearer does it have to be?

    The ability to self-fund is a function of lower tax rates. When taxes are lower -- people have more personal control in how their own funds are used. They can donate to their own causes, such as higher-ed. When tax rates are increased -- so is government control.

    As to the quality of today's college students, on average -- read Sperber's "Beer & Circuses" and The NYTimes article about institutional anomie in student life at U of AZ. Hardly endorsements of the status quo in U.S. higher education.

    And these ..

    http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=31273

    http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=31547

  • Wait a minute!
  • Posted by J on August 16, 2006 at 9:30am EDT
  • I certainly respect the pragmatic viewpoint that when an organization takes government money, it becomes accountable to the government and to whatever the government requires to account for how funds are being used. However, as to some of the other comments, it is easy to point to anecdotal evidence or a damning article, but the education we've had should at LEAST have taught us the folly of using these things to catagorize a broad range of experiences and outcomes. It is intellectually lazy and unfair to those who are trying to have a real discussion about improving colleges and students. I have worked in big business, non-profits, and the education community and I have seen many more hard working and bright college graduates than people who can't write their own language or perform simple mathmatics.

  • In A Word: Denial
  • Posted by AC on August 16, 2006 at 10:40am EDT
  • We as educators can pat oursleves on the back all we want for gaining the skills necessary to debate (whether intelligently or not is another matter) the need for higher education reform. But we are not passive products of higher education; we actively engaged it for our own purposes. And sadly, we are not shining exampls of what is right with higher education either, because we learned how to take advantage of our resources in life early on.

    The bottom line is, the rest of the collegiate population--maybe even a vast majority--is interested not in academic discourse nor learning for the sake of learning.

    In a society where higher education has become a rite of passage, both culturally and economically, colleges and universities must step up to the plate more willingly about its value to the public good.

  • OK -- we'll hold paychecks until the job is done
  • Posted by L.L. on August 16, 2006 at 3:15pm EDT
  • " .. It is intellectually lazy and unfair to those who are trying to have a real discussion about improving colleges and students .."

    I thought the "no promises, just give us more money" scenario had been covered.

    Oh -- I guess The NYTimes is onto this now ..

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/business/media/16leonhardt.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin

    "Lazy and unfair" are government-subsidized workers who think they are entitled to never have their work critiqued by independent, objective reviewers.

    They are real good about critiquing others -- just not being critiqued themselves. Would some payless paydays would help motivate the self-critique process?

    This "no promises, more money" farce is over, now. As Michelle Wright would sing, either "take it like (an adult)" or go back elementary school.

  • Are They Learning? Can One "Measure"?
  • Posted by Brian Kevin Beck , Emeritus Prof. Integrative Studies at Univ. of Wis.-Whitewter on August 16, 2006 at 4:25pm EDT
  • Excellent issue. On target (IMHO) in that goal of education is not fact-knowledge, but how to think, and that [half of the] method is active-learner "intellectual immersion" (but it works with motivated students only, as a post noted!) I hypothesize higher ed is largely failing in this, and that we could test it ourselves in each institution. Other half of the method is identifying EXPLICIT HIGHER-LEVEL thinking skills and then EXPLICITLY teaching them (short of simplistic rote-rule formulation!) and then EXPLICTILY measuring.

    How? Institution and individual courses say, "These 1 2 3 4 5 are the large powerful thinking tools we proffer," and a senior capstone seminar practices integrating and applying them. Test: on their own, without being told which and how, students apply skills (functionalism, systems analysis? allocation cost? sampling error identification? cognitive dissonance? dozens others possible) to an assigned big issue in the real world (Abortion, Bureaucracy, Crime, Demographics, Energy/Environment, Finance, Geopolitics, ...). Topic assigned; methods up to them.

    Acid test. Can they Hit The Ground Running (=with ultimate realistic preparation) to think, "confront complexities conceptually," autonomously apply abstractions?

    Sorry for the length of this, but DOES a school teach (active, willing!) students how to THINK? In the ways well mentioned in the article? One COULD... (1) explicitly focus more toward that without reductionism (big common misconception here), and also COULD (2) test, on home grounds, by that "solo-flight" senior capstone project.

    But it still all seems like tabula rasa, er, no, virgin terra incognita, well a challenge anyhow...

    B.K.B.

  • Some of these posts sound more political than educational.
  • Posted by John F. DeFelice , Associate Professor of History at University of Maine at Presque Isle on August 16, 2006 at 6:25pm EDT
  • I heard that a number of individuals from a certain political party have been posting ideological propaganda on blogs and message boards. Is there a way to trace a message to see if they are from the company below, started by the infamous townhall.com? Just curious. They have been very active on another blog/message board I visit frequently and the webmaster was quite surprised how many similar posts originated from this location. O.K. I do sound paranoid. But I was stung once before. After that experience its called wisdom! See link below.

    http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2006/06/netvocates-privatised-propaganda.html

  • So what?
  • Posted by Steve Boilard on August 16, 2006 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Yeah, perhaps some of the people posting here and elsewhere are part of an orchestrated group. I don't know this to be a fact, but I'm willing to admit it could be so. But what difference does it make? Don't arguments speak for themselves, whether or not the person posting the argument is doing so to promote an agenda? Actually, isn't everyone promoting an agenda?

  • Ohmigawd! The children!
  • Posted by L.L. on August 16, 2006 at 9:20pm EDT
  • " .. I heard that a number of individuals from a certain political party .."

    Oh my gawd! Now he's done it -- he's gotten those bloggers together! How will the children survive?

    (Actually, the WSJournal recently had a story about on YouTube.com, a skit mocking Albert Gore, Jr., probably came from an oil company PR consulting firm. How utterly shocking -- as if Howard Dean got his marching orders from "MyDD" and "Daily Kos.")

  • Posted by K.T. at U.Va. on August 17, 2006 at 4:40am EDT
  • If that were the case, why would it matter? Are certain websites restricted to a select few? What happened to the free exchange of ideas?

    Education is inherently political, especially public education where complete legal, fiduciary, and educational policy are the sole purview of political appointees. Again, education [especially public education] IS political. Public institutions are sites of public contest over the direction of cultural and societal change, or lack thereof.

  • Ahhh yes, politics
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on August 19, 2006 at 10:25pm EDT
  • As goes everything touched by politicians, we will no longer measure education by mutually agreed-upon measures.

    Those who have enough money to hire advocates to continue shouting their message more often and more widely shall "win."

    So the Left should stop spending so much on the extreme left fringe and spend more on public relations and countering the Right Wing political campaign. (the campaign to distract voters from Iraq, corporate fraud under the Republicans, growing budget deficits, torture of enemy suspects, etc.)?

    Employers really don't care so much about spelling and mechanical skills, those can be taught in the workplace. Employers just do not want employees who THINK so much about ethics and legal ways of doing business.

    Wake up you darn college professors. Send big business more graduates who can lie, cheat, and steal.