The Character Model for the American University (Part IV)
Besides playing an instrumental role in reforming general education programs, how else would faculty and administrators fit into the character model for American higher education? For faculty, the character model can provide an orientation in their research and service. Faculty can continue in their disciplinary research and service but also could explore the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) which could not only contribute to the mission of colleges and universities in teaching students but also demonstrate to the public the value of higher education. The value of teaching is a value that the public can understand and accept. Faculty therefore should consider undertaking research in SoTL to not only become better teachers but show the value of their research to the public.[i]
While SoTL may be a politically strategic way to communicate the value of colleges and universities, this proposal also has potential problems. First, there is some research that does not fit either in the SoTL or STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) paradigms.[ii] Scholarship in the liberal arts disciplines, like Kantian epistemology or medieval choral music, would particularly be susceptible of not being supported. And although this type of research would continue, the emphasis of SoTL and STEM may devalue this type of scholarship within academia and the public which, in turn, raises questions about the career advancement like tenure, promotion, and grant applications. These and other issues is where administrators, along with faculty, will have to determine what is to be valued at their institution and whether those values align with their understanding of character.
Creating the conditions where excellent teaching, research, and service can occur is the fundamental task of a college or university administrators. They will have to work with faculty, students, and the public to determine what type of character, what kind of human flourishing, their institution should cultivate. This may require some difficult changes, as the selection of one type of character will inevitably be at the expense of others and thereby potentially alienate and anger certain communities. But even with the costs of selecting a type of character to orient the college or university, it is a better option than choosing a character that is broadly-defined, ambiguous, and, in short, means nothing because it could be interpreted as anything (e.g., “the future leaders of tomorrow”). For the character model to be successful, it has to be specific to an institution so students, faculty, administrators, and the public know exactly what that college or university is, even if they have reservations or disagreements about it.
Administrators and faculty therefore may consider changing the work conditions of the academic profession, such as encouraging teaching general education or restructuring departments for interdisciplinary studies.[iii] These and other reforms may return colleges and universities to their primary mission of teaching undergraduates, with faculty paying more attention to teaching than recognition from their peers in specialized publications. Administrators may examine the best practices at other institutions of higher education and society to see how best to create work conditions to promote their mission of cultivating character in their colleges and universities.
The character model consequently is to ask the various communities in higher education–the public, administrators, faculty, and students–what type of human person they want to foster and promote in society. The answer will vary according to institution and community but a serious reflection upon what it means to be human, what type of character one should cultivate, returns American higher education to an activity for which it is uniquely suited rather than imitating the branding of businesses, nonprofits, and governments. American higher education needs to rethink and reclaim what makes it different from other societal institutions, if it wants to show its public value. Again, I do not claim the character model is the answer to this problem–I am open to better and different ideas than the one presented–but it is an answer that draws upon the tradition and resources of higher education. For it may be the case for American higher education to move forward, it has to reflect upon its own past.
[i] For more about this problem and how SoTL might ameliorate it, see Trepanier 2017b and Trepanier 2017c.
[ii] The STEM paradigm is understandable and valued by the public because of the utilitarian benefits it brings to society.
[iii] Taylor 2010; Schaefer 2011.
References
Angulo, A.J. 2016. Diploma Mills: How For-Profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Apple, Michael. 2001. “Comparing Neoliberal Projects and Inequality in Education.” Comparative Education 37, no. 4: 409-23.
Aristotle. 1990. Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barber, Benjamin. 1988. The Conquest of Politics: Liberal Philosophy in Democratic Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beiner, Ronald. 1983. Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ben-Porath, Sigal R. 2017. Free Speech on Campus. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bok, Derek. 2004. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Byrd, Carson. 2017. Poison in the Ivy: Race Relations and the Reproduction of Inequality on Elite College Campuses. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Canaan, Joyce E. and Wesley Shumar. 2015. Structure and Agency in the Neoliberal University. New York: Routledge.
Caplan, Bryan. 2018. The Case Against Education: Why Education is a Waste of Time and Money. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chemerinsky, Eriwin and Howard Gillman. 2017. Free Speech on Campus. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cooper, Peter. 2016. “Master the Skills, Not the Clock.” U.S. News & World Report. (February 17). Available at https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2016/02/17/the-approaching-revolution-of-competency-based-higher-education.
Cottom, Tressie McMillan. 2017. Lower Ed: The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy. New York: The New Press.
Clynes, Tom. 2017. “Peter Thiel Thinks You Should Skip College, And He’ll Even Pay You for Your Troubles.” (February 22). Newsweek. Available at http://www.newsweek.com/2017/03/03/peter-thiel-fellowship-college-higher-education-559261.html.
Daugherty, Lindsay, Van L. Davis, and Trey Miller. 2015. Competency-Based Education Programs in Texas: An Innovative Approach to Higher Education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Fain, Paul. 2016. “American Public U’s New Comptency-Based Degrees Do Not Rely on Credit-Hour Standard.” Inside Higher Ed. (March 16). Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/16/american-public-us-new-competency-based-degrees-do-not-rely-credit-hour-standard.
Finkelstein, Martin J., Valerie Martin Conley, Jack H. Schuster. 2016. The Faculty Factor: Reassessing the American Academy in a Turbulent Era. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
—. 2014. “So Much To Do, So Little Time.” Inside Higher Ed. (April 9). Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/09/research-shows-professors-work-long-hours-and-spend-much-day-meetings.
Flaherty, Colleen. 2016. “Rethinking Gen Ed.” Inside Higher Ed. (March 10). Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/10/undergraduate-curricular-reform-efforts-harvard-and-duke-suggest-theres-no-one-way.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. 2011. The Fall of Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giroux, Henry. 2001. “Introduction: Critical Education or Training: Beyond the Commodification of Higher Education.” In Beyond the Corporate University. Edited by Henry A. Giroux and Kostas Myrsiades. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield: 1-11.
—. 2002. “Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere.” Harvard Educational Review 72, no. 4 (December): 425-464.
Gould, Eric. 2003. The University in a Corporate Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gross, Neil and Solon Simmons. 2014. Professors and Their Politics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Hacker, Andrew and Claudia Dreifu. 2010. Higher Education? How Colleges are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids–And What We Can Do About. New York: Times Book.
Hart Research Associates. 2016. Recent Trends in General Education Design, Learning Outcomes, and Teaching Approaches: Key Findings from a Survey among Administrators at AAC&U Member Institutions. (January 19). Association of American Colleges and Universities. Available at https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/publications/recent-trends-general-education-design-learning-outcomes-and.
Herbst, Jurgen. 2004. “The Yale Report of 1828.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition. 11, no. 2: 213–231.
Hentschke, Guilbert C. and Vicente M. Lechuga. 2012. For-Profit Colleges and Universities: Their Markets, Regulations, Performance, and Place in Higher Education. Herndon, VA: Stylus.
Hill, David and Ravi Kumar. 2009. Global Neoliberalism and Education and Its Consequences. New York: Routledge.
Jones, Robert P. 2016. The End of White Protestant America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kaufman-Osborn, Timothy. 2017. “Disenchanted Professionals: The Politics of Faculty Governance in the Neoliberal Academy.” Perspectives on Politics. 15, no. 1: 100-15.
Kimball, Bruce.2010. The Liberal Arts Tradition, A Documentary History. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
King-White, Ryan. 2018. Sport and the Neoliberal University: Profit, Politics, and Pedagogy. New Buswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kirkpatrick, Kirk. 2013. “The Third Era of Liberal Education.” In Why the Humanities Matter Today: In Defense of Liberal Education. Edited by Lee Trepanier. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books: 1-36.
Middleman, James H. 2017. The Implausible Dream: World-Class Universities and the Repurposing of Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Newfield, Christopher. 2016a. “The Nation’s Electoral Divisions Highlight Questions about the Roel of Public Universities.” Insider Higher Ed. (November 18). Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/11/08/nations-electoral-divisions-highlight-questions-about-role-public-universities.
Newfield, Christopher. 2016b. The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Quintana, Chris. 2017. “A Polarized Campus Struggles to Understand How Racial Tensions Became National News.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 2). Available at https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Polarized-Campus-Struggles/240260.
PEW Research Center. 2011. Is College Worth It? College Presidents, Public Access, Value, Quality and Mission of Higher Education. (May 16). Available at http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/05/higher-ed-report.pdf.
—. 2014. “6 Key Findings About Going to College.” Pew Research Center. (February 11). Available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/11/6-key-findings-about-going-to-college/.
—. 2017a. “Five Facts About Students Loans.” Pew Research Center. (August 24). Available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/24/5-facts-about-student-loans/.
—. 2017b. “Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions.” Pew Research Center. (July 10). Available at http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/.
Powers, J.B. 2003. “Commercializing Academic Research: Resource Effects of Performance of University Technology Transfer.” The Journal of Higher Education 74, no. 1: 26-50.
Rasmussen, Karen, Pamela Northrup, and Robin Colson. 2016. Handbook of Research on Competency-Based Education in University Setting. Hersey, PA: IGI Global.
Rawlings, Hunter. 2015. “College is Not a Commodity. Stop Treating It Like One.” Washington Post. (June 9). Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/09/college-is-not-a-commodity-stop-treating-it-like-one/?utm_term=.0c238b642c2f.
Riley, Naomi Schaefer. 2011. The Faculty Lounges, and Other Reasons, Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Paid for. Lanham, MD: Ivan R. Dee.
Ross, Tom. 2017. Blackballed: The Black and White Politics of Race on America’s Campuses. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Salkever, Stephen G. 1990. Finding the Mean: Theory and Practice in Aristotelian Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Scruton, Roger. 2017. “The Threat of Free Speech in the University.” Modern Age 59, no. 3 (Summer 2017): 7-16.
Selingo, Jeffrey J. 2015. “Higher Ed as a Commodity? Colleges Have Only Themselves to Blame.” Washington Post. (June 16). Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/16/higher-ed-as-a-commodity-colleges-have-only-themselves-to-blame/?utm_term=.9f00a87df402.
Putnam, Robert and David Campbell. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Slater, Tom. 2016. Unsafe Spaces: The Crisis of Free Speech on Campus. London: Palgrave.
Srigley, Ron. 2015. “Dear Parents: Everything You Need to Know About Your Son’s and Daughter’s University but Don’t.” Los Angeles Review of Books. (December 9). Available at https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/dear-parents-everything-you-need-to-know-about-your-son-and-daughters-university-but-dont/#!.
—. 2018. “Whose University Is It Anyway?” Los Angeles Review of Books (February 22). Available at https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/whose-university-is-it-anyway/.
Steinberger, Peter J. 1993. The Concept of Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Steiner, Elizabeth. 1984. “Toward a Conception of the Role of the Arts in Liberal Education.” Studies in Art Education. 26, no. 1: 5-13.
Taylor, Mark. 2010. Crisis on Campus: A Bold Plan for Reforming Our Colleges and Universities. New York: Knopf.
Trepanier, Lee. 2013. “A Philosophy of Prudence and the Purpose of Higher Education Today.” In The Relevance of Higher Education. Edited by Timothy Simpson. Lexington Books: 1-23.
—. 2017a. Why the Humanities Matter Today: In Defense of Liberal Education. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
—. 2017b. “The Relevance of Political Philosophy and Political Science.” In Why the Humanities Matter Today: In Defense of Liberal Education. Edited by Lee Trepanier. Lexington Books: 127-44.
—. 2017c. “SoTL as a Subfield for Political Science Graduate Programs,” Journal of Political Science Education. 13, no.2 (2017): 138-51.
Tuchman, Gaye. 2011. Wannabe U: Inside the Corporate University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Villasenor, John. 2017. “Views Among College Students Regarding the First Amendment: Results from a New Survey.” Brookings. (September 18). Available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/.
Voorhees, Richard. 2001. Measuring What Matters: Competency-Based Learning Models in Higher Education: New Directions for Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Warner, Marina. 2014. “Why I Quit.” London Review of Books. (September 11). Available at https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/marina-warner/diary.
Washburn, Jennifer. 2005. University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. New York: Basic Books.