You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
If you are going to read one thing about higher ed this week, then make it Steven Mintz’s piece 11 Lessons From the History of Higher Ed.
Mintz is both an historian and the Executive Director of the The Institute for Transformational Learning within the University of Texas System. (As well as a colleague at IHE). He is therefore particular well-suited for drawing conclusions on the future of postsecondary education that are rooted in historical trends.
The 11 lessons that Mintz highlights from the history of higher ed are each informative and enlightening - both for illuminating how we got to where we are not and for shining a light down a future path.
(My favorite lesson that Mintz offers is #8: "The history of new educational technologies is largely a history of unrealized promise.”).
Where I disagree with Mintz are in the conclusions that he draws from his lessons. It is not that I think that Mintz is wrong. His take-aways are perfectly reasonable and defensible. It is just that I find them less compelling, and maybe less insightful, than his 11 lessons.
Mintz’s take-aways are these:
"The first is that for far too long, American higher education has been institution-centered rather than learner-centric.”
and
“...full-time tenured faculty and administrators have tended to emphasize their own convenience at the expense of students’ educational needs.”
Again, not wrong - but also not right for every institution, every school, every program, every department, or every professor.
I know of many many very fine institutions of postsecondary education that are built and designed around learning and the learner. Perhaps you can make a case for your college.
Moreover, most professors that I know take the job of teaching and mentoring very very seriously. They became professors, at least in part, out of a desire to share a passion for their discipline with their students. This is not to say that many educators must navigate a challenging system of mixed incentives (for those on the tenure track), or insecurity (for contingent faculty). The overwhelming reality is that navigate the system they do - mostly out of a love of teaching and their field - and a desire to provide opportunities for the students that they serve.
My take-aways from Mintz’s 11 lessons would be two:
1 - The real story of higher education is not only increased costs (and student debt), but also increased quality.
and
2 - Higher education, as a system, is more robust and resilient than given credit - and the future of the postsecondary sector is strong.
The idea that the real story of the history of higher education is that things are getting (and have gotten) better might be controversial. Higher ed people love to do nothing more than worry, complain, kvetch, and criticize. Critical thinking is the only sort of thinking that is taken seriously. And how do we get around the fact that colleges and universities have gotten so damn expensive? (Cost disease).
I ask you to step back and to take a good look around. Almost everything about higher education is better in 2017 as when I was a college freshman in 1987. Mostly, the higher ed improvement story is one of the changing composition of students, faculty, and staff. The people on our campuses are more diverse (in every sense) and more interesting then at any time in our history. Our campuses are full of voices and ideas and identities that have in the past been marginalized.
Beyond the fact that higher education is more diverse, accepting, and tolerant than at any time in the past - there is also the reality that elements of our core missions have also improved. Teaching - and hence learning - are way better than in the past. Every school that I know has started to take seriously the advances in learning science to upgrade and improve instructional practices. The growth of online learning gets too little credit for the overall improvement in residential instruction. Increased competition for students may have made life difficult for many individual colleges and universities, but the result has been an overall increase in both options and quality for every student.
Perhaps it is because that I believe that the history of higher ed is one of progress that I also believe in a better future.
Will our postsecondary system look like it does now 30 years hence? No. And that is a good thing. Not every college or university will thrive in years ahead. But the system as a whole will prove more resilient than many give it credit.
Some schools will figure out how to evolve in the face of economic, demographic, technological, and competitive trends that will challenge the current postsecondary status quo. The need for highly educated citizens, and discovery based innovation, will only accelerate in the years to come. The value of education and research will only increase. Our colleges and universities are well positioned to benefit from an economy (and a labor market) built around cognition and creativity.
Distinguishing between a strong postsecondary industry and the inevitable retrenchments (and closures) can be difficult. We all know of schools that are grappling with increasing costs, declining enrollments, high levels of tuition discounting, and disappearing public dollars. From the perspective of the higher ed incumbents, realignment will be painful. From the perspective of tomorrow’s students - higher education will adapt and evolve - and will (I argue) better serve their needs in the future.
What would be your take-aways from Mintz’s 11 lessons?
What is the best thing that you read this week on higher ed?
