Small change and big ideas
I’ve just finished reading Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation, a new study of the state of the university [...]
Posted on May 31st, 2011 by Steven Schwartz
I’ve just finished reading Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation, a new study of the state of the university sector in the United States. With some distinguished exceptions, it suggests, that “state” is a stasis brought about by the endemic resistance to change in universities.
One contributor, Jon Marcus – in an essay titled Old School: Four hundred years of resistance to change writes that history shows …
“[that] without self-interest or external pressures, existing universities have – not just recently, but for centuries – unswervingly exercised a stubborn resistance to systemic change that can hold off the smallest reforms for years, stretching into decades”
He cites how the Spellings Commission discovered in 2005 just how adept organised education had become at –
“the art of stalling, dodging, and misdirecting until your opponent is too exhausted to be an effective threat”.
None of this is particularly new, of course, and it brings to mind the old joke of the education minister, unable to effect significant reforms, who decides to conduct a seance to consult the ghost of the US philosopher of education, John Dewey:
“How do I bring about change in higher education?” asks the minister.
“Do you want the realistic way or the miraculous way?” Dewey replies.
“I prefer the realistic way, of course.”
“Right,” says Dewey, “I will send a million angels down from heaven to visit every university in the land. They will sprinkle angel dust and, lo and behold, they will be reformed.”
“If that is the realistic way, then what, pray tell, is the miraculous way?”
“Oh,” says Dewey, “that’s when the universities reform themselves.”
Ok, it’s a cheap laugh but it contains nuggets of truth. Universities – not just in the US, but also including Australia and the UK among others – remain deeply mired in their ancient roots, resonating to the rhythms and routines of a long gone era.
What sort of change do the critics want?
Writing in Times Higher, Cathy Davidson argues that universities are still very much influenced by Taylorism and continue to prepare students as if their career paths were linear, definite, specialised and predictable:
“We are making them experts in obsolescence. We are doing a good job of training them for the 20th century.
“Our educational systems, so far, look as if the internet hasn’t been invented yet. Scratch most conventional academic departments and you see little hint of restructured courses, let alone restructured thinking.”
Similar sentiments may be found in the pages of The Economist where Australian universities are described as
“decent and dependable, but seldom excellent …”
We tend to be complacent while countries such as China and India are investing apace in higher education.
India is talking about creating 800 to 1000 new universities while China is channeling funds in a big way into new and existing institutions.
So here’s a thought experiment: If you were in charge of the higher education budget of China or India (or Australia) and you had the resources to build a university from scratch, how would it differ from today’s typical Australian university?
Would it have faculties, departments, disciplines, and divisions? Would it run to the traditional academic calendar, or operate without break throughout the year?
How would it integrate digital technologies and the resources of the internet? What would be the length of an undergraduate degree program? How would research fit in to your model, if at all? What would be the place of the humanities?
Let me know your ideas – it’s your chance to build your own (virtual) university.
* Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation, by Ben Wildavsky, Andrew P Kelly and Kevin Care (eds), Harvard Education Press 2011
- Steven Schwartz
Comments
My budget would give funding to Arts and Humanities and tell accounting business schools to go back to TAFE.
alarmed - May 31, 2011
Firstly, @Alarmed, I am quite alarmed by your response (assuming you study Arts or Humanities degree). That would be because being a Humanities student, who studies philosophy, law, history and et cetera which are the fields that give you a knowledge from broader perspective on how economy/society works, has failed to understand the role of different individuals in the society. The present state of the society has evolved over the year, and I personally believe in what once Plato said: "Necessity is the mother of invention". Thus we have accountant, economist, historian, politician, psychologist, physicist and every other individuals in all different types of fields because we need them, they play a vital role, even though some are respected at level above others, but all of them have a vital role. Secondly, let me try to give you a brief outline on what accountants actually do. The role of accountants is to provide information to the society on the activities of the business by taking an independent stand. The auditors to testify that the results shown to the society are true and fair. The accountants are the one who are stressing the point the company should be responsible to the society and they should involve in activities that benefit the society (refer: Triple Bottom Line reporting, Quadruple bottom line reporting, Corporate social responsibility). Once, the company involves in activities that benefit the society, the accountants make sure that what companies convey to the society is true. The accountants have to abide by a professional code of conduct, in brief, service to the public comes first, Independence of mind (i.e. do not let the company influence your opinion that the accountant is going to give on the companies activity), competence and due care, professionalism, objectivity and confidentiality. Thus, it was the accountants with the support from other individuals from the society have stressed for legitimacy of business operations, that is approval of business operation by the society, that is facilitated by providing useful and reliable information to the society by the accountants. Furthermore, I myself as an accounting student at Macquarie University is at least taught ethics at least three times throughout my university degree. Thus, do not be under illusion that accountants are capitalistic or materialistic people. Lastly, on the other hand, even the business play an important role in the society, when taken a broader perspective, in the most simpilisitc way they provide incentive to the people to act in a way for the betterment of the society. A technology business encourages innovation, manufacturing business produces goods for the comfort of the people and et cetera. But, let alone by themselves they would become greedy instead of looking for self-interest. Thus accountants play a vital role by reporting on their activity (please also refer to agency theory). Additonally, "greed is good", an "famous" quote from 1990's movie The Wall Street. We do not believe in that, economist believe that self-interest is good not greed, please refer to the book by Adam Smith - Wealth of the Nation. Adam Smith also proposed the theory on which all the developed economies/society are based on and all the developing economies are striving for - free trade. Going back to the original question by the Vice-Chancellor. Speaking from an accounting/finance and business undergraduate business degree experience. (1) Hermann Ebbinghaus proposed forgetting graph, which states that if humans tend to halve their memory of newly learned knowledge in a matter of days or weeks unless they consciously review the learned material. Secondly, when looked at the retention rate graph, a student retains more when discussed or taught the matter to the other students. If a tutorial is attended by an outsider, he/she will notice no discussion, but rather presentation of the information by the tutor (same as what is done in the lecture). According to an information from one of the source, the tutors are actually just paid for the presentation/explanation of the information (tutorial answers) to the students. When considered this the Peer Assisted Learning Program run by the faculty of business and economics is quite successful at encouraging discussion and taking a critical perspective to the content. My dream university would have no separation between lectures and tutorials but rather one single class of 3-4 hours per week, maybe called "discussion forum", where the lecturer teaches approximately 30-35 students for first 2 hours and then we have a discussion. This course should be very intensive and should strive to produce outstanding students with skills required graduate of 21st century. Those skills being negotiation skills, critical thinking skills and interpersonal skills. I am also aware of your previous post made on how university students attend universities just so as to get job which require skills that most of the graduates do not posses. This suggestion may tackle that. I am also aware of one of your last few post which was on universities as endangered species. Thus universities will not be an endangered species if they provide opportunity to students where they can discuss with other students & lecturer and indulge in deeper debate which otherwise in present university environment is not possible. (2) University should change their structure of bachelors degree. It should not offer honours and bachelors separately. Honours years should be made compulsory where student involves in research and deeper understanding of the concept. This is because, throughout the three years, the student is just intaking all the information and output is produced. A student can only gain when he/she produces output. As well through this, the economy will have individuals with higher and deeper knowledge and any economy will definitely perform better socially and economically where individuals are well educated. It can also be observed from the history, in earlier days individuals completed 10th grade and started work and now in present state individuals complete 12th grade or even university and start work, and look at the difference in standard of living now and back then. Honours program will also encourage innovation, which the developed economies depend on, for their success. (reference: speech by Mr. Obama in The U.K. recently) (3) The university should provide internship opportunities to the students. This would enable students to relate theoretical knowledge to practice (would be very much appreciated in the business faculty). Additionally, the students can also know of the necessary skills required to ace at that particular job/degree he/she is studying. Thus he/she can develop those skills when in the university. (4) Technology: The university is not utilising technology at all when compared to the technology available in the market. As passed on the info from one of the graduates, previously Macquarie University was known for using hi-fi technology. I personally believe university should spend considerable amount of using new technology, this is because, when looked at the problem of generation gap, I assume or believe it arises from cultural change and change in technology. People who do not use new technology, will not be able to use new technology, and will be shocked by the new technology and thus comprehend the society. Thus if the university does not utilise new technology, it will become obsolete in some or the other way. I believe the best way it can utilise technology is by teaching all the relevant softwares available to particular degree. Being an accountant, when graduated, we have to use technology for a larger part of our work, but we have only been taught one software (which was a self-taught software, since it was an assignment, which was to be self-taught and then submitted). (5) To me, current academic calendar appears good. (6) I also appreciate the universities policy on the way in which students are graded for the their studies. I reckon, 40% internals minimum right? But 40% should be based on the research rather than submission of the homework in the tutorials. (7) Students should be encouraged in university sports. When looked at American universities, the students are zealous and passionate about sports. Sports helps to build teams, make networks, brings the university together. I reckon these are the few points at the top of my head. Regards
NauticalWest - June 1, 2011
I think to update my self on higher education I should also read Reinventing Higher Education
faheem - June 1, 2011
I would ensure that every body teaching at university knew the difference between teaching and lecturing. Compulsory two years of teaching on kindergarten, that's where you learn to teach, engage and be flexible NOT talk in jargon from a superior viewpoint. Invited as a student to come onboard with some training for new teaching employees to the uni I am appalled that people in higher education have NEVER set foot in a classroom and know NOTHING about teaching. More co-operation and collaboration share ideas with and encourage student co-operation and collaboration that is what the real world is asking of graduates now. If 20 students in a class gain enough marks for a high distinction give it to them all the bell curve is just wrong. Good teachers inspire good and high quality work of their students let both the teacher's and students be rewarded.
Wallaroo - June 1, 2011
For a start, you can enroll and start at any time of year, consuming online resources. Only physically attending tutorials, practicals and lectures ties you to the chronology of the university calendar. There is less emphasis on final exam marks, more on assignments and research. Research starts in first or second year under the guidance of research mentors. Commonwealth supported places remain regulated, because Plato was onto something in The Republic. Student unions do more stuff online too and membership is compulsory.
Spacebat - June 1, 2011
Dear Vice-Chancellor, From what I see, in the past fifty years universities generally have been beset by a basic inconsistency of spirit. On one side the university spirit has become bound to the sacredness of diversity. On the other it has developed a prejudice called 'the profanity of consistency'. The development of the sacredness of diversity was a response to necessary demographic changes in society. The prejudice however was supported by recounting the worst aspects of European imperialism rather than its humanitarian glories, which non-Western civilisations are longing to adopt and emulate. Sacredness conceptually requires qualitative consistency, and so by rendering consistency profane, universities have gradually set their own spirits against that of the inherent human dignity of the student body, ably abetted by the writers of sleazy frat-house movies, college soapies and such. The production of the idea of the profanity of consistency was thus a sectarian political work which exploited and encouraged the fragmentation of diversity into dogmatic individualism. Universities have by this inconsistency become houses of cards, building to convince themselves that they're increasing in knowledge, yet putting walls and counting machines between students and the breadth of knowledge. A great university will therefore be one which is capable of comprehending the substantial consistency inherent in diversity. A deeply meditative and philosophical work is required to achieve this. Yet observing modern university practice, one is tempted to wonder whether the universities have thrown away that opportunity entirely and become unrepentant prodigals seduced by the flashing lights, booming noises and whizzing gizmos of the cities, and more interested in enforcing unity from outside than fostering freedom in the hearts and minds of their students. One also wonders at times whether students in the humanities achieve despite universities, not because of them. Sincerely.
Peter Anderson - June 1, 2011
This University Emperor has no clothes! All the learning and resources for an undergraduate degree is available online, so the only value provided by the University is the accreditation of its parchment. This in turn is conferred by National Governments. The effect of globalisation in blurring National jurisdictions in turn reduces the value of Nationally conferred status from awarding degrees. Once people realise that they can learn more and do more without attending a University, its nakedness will be revealed for all to see.
Ian Green - June 1, 2011
Although I think NauticalWest could do with a good editor, I do agree with a couple of his ideas. First year studies should not have any specialisation. All UG students should take in their first year a prescribed set of compulsory units (or choose from a limited set of elective units), aimed specifically at enhancing their thinking, researching and communication abilities. There seems to be a very large assumption that these skills are naturally developed by students as they take the specialised units which make up their degree, but I'm not sure that there's much evidence of this. To me it makes more sense to offer first year subjects which specifically deal with issues such as critical and innovative thinking, research skills, group dynamics and making teams work effectively, negotiation skills etc. That way both students and potential employers can be assured that graduates have developed a range of essential skills necessary to be effective in the workforce. Second year studies could then focus specifically on the specialisation chosen by the student. Third year studies could then involve specialised research and/or an internship. Given that no universities in Australia that I'm aware of currently operate this way (probably Melbourne Uni is closest to this model but it's still a lot closer to the traditional model), we have no way of knowing how students and employers would respond to it. Maybe MQ can be the innovator who breaks this new ground!
Joshua Dymock - June 2, 2011
It's completely insane to say that universities are resistant to change. All Steven Schwartz can do to support that claim is to tell a joke about John Dewey sending a million angels from heaven. Not to go too far from home, Macquarie is unrecognisable in almost every way as compared to the (still recent) time when it was built, with classrooms designed for twenty or twenty-five, because it didn't make sense to have classes any larger. Back then, they didn't know we were going to have units with 1,400 students, or 1,800 students, enrolled: if they had, they would have built us some bigger rooms.
Paul McKechnie, NTEU Branch Secretary - June 2, 2011
As sad as it may sound. Tomorrows Universities won't be of bricks and mortar. The last couple of years higher education has been much like a giant Paper Shredder. The majority of higher learning these days is done online. So the next University created by the Australia government will be a virtual campus. Even if the new national broadband network doesn't go through; existing infrastructure is more then capable to support such a program. Already through Open University Australia students from remote locations are able to undertake their studies. Physical campuses run the majority of their learning programs online. Casting doubt on any argument that the bricks and mortar module has anymore efficacy then open universities. Their is no reason the entire higher education network should not move to an online learning delivery system. Australian Universities continue to be state enterprises yet have been commercialised compromising their integrity.
Al - June 3, 2011
I would change the entire production model from a year-semester-subject timetable oriented model to social engagement model built around knowledge and skill hierarchies. We talk a lot about the impact of new technologies and content models on the University in the market - and the OER revolution is real and will continue. We overlook however the possibility new technologies and new teaching models could have on the way we work inside a University. In the workplace it's called ROWE - results oriented work environments. No hours, no attendance requirements, loose reporting structures. Employees know what they need to do, they are given resources and expected to get on with it. We now are in a position to return to the best of the old scholastic traditions, married to the power of new technologies through which we can expose our students to the best materials, the best teachers, and the smartest communities. The best Universities of tomorrow will "social" to their core. Education will not be the 'completion of a course', but membership of a community and the achievement of accreditation will be earned through participation. I don't think is idealism. Knowledge is social. Human culture, and our gift for language in particular, is nature's most sophisticated knowledge-engine. Social interaction is a remarkably efficient (if somewhat low in fidelity) solution to the problem of preserving and disseminating knowledge. Conveyor-belt, batch models of education became necessary to overcome problems of volume, cost and demand. The economics of delivery is being altered so that now. Social computing changes the game entirely and most don't understand why. Social computing isn't using a blog, or twitter, or joining a facebook group. Social computing is the ability to capture, model, analyse, human relationships and to facilitate, and amplify the power of those relationships. Social computing can change the creation and operation of communities as much as transactional computing revolutionised business, or the ability to model weather systems and the physical behaviour of materials changed climatology and industrial engineering. A university built from the ground up as a technology enabled community of knowledge, (rather than as a set of calendarised business processes, of which community is an epiphenomenon), would be adapted to and able to thrive in the new economies of knowledge that are emerging.
Ric - June 6, 2011
I'm with you Paul M. That old chestnut about universities not changing - what a load of rubbish! The university changes constantly, responding to a range of forces acting upon it from within and without. Sure, some of the structures ("Faculties", "Departments", "Council") and officers ("VC", "DVC", "Registrar", "Dean") and even activities ("lecturing", "tutoring", "research") might have the same NAMES as they did in ancient times - but their actual role, purpose, scope and frames of reference have shifted immensely. The whinge about universities' reluctance to change is just another barbarian complaint from those who would bend it to their corporate will. Come up with a good, evidence-based reason for change and there are plenty of people in the university who will get on board. But it's our nature and our TRAINING that leads to our apparent lack of acceptance of the latest greatest idea, and to appropriate skepticism and demands for a rationale for change. That's as it should be: if we jumped on board with every new idea or market demand without examining it, we'd be like the ALP, swept from fad to fad as John Faulkner has just pointed out. And like today's ALP, this would result in the loss of our heart and soul and purpose. We'd be all periphery and no core, a mile wide and an inch deep and with no prospect of maintaining or developing the moral aspect of our existence about which our VC has written. And this would hardly be an inspiring place to work and study.
Cathy Rytmeister - June 10, 2011