By's Musings

Higher Education

By Leave a Comment

After hundreds of years of debate, we finally have a defintion of a religious institution of higher education

What is a religious institution of higher education? After centuries of arguments and debates, finally, we have a definition. It comes to us from an impeccable source. An Acting Regional DIrector, of Region 2, (NYC, NY) of the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB was forced to define a religious institution because of a suit brought against Manhattan College by it Adjunct Faculty Union, supported by the New York State United Teachers, AFT?NEA/AFL-CIO.

The core of the matter was that the adjunct faculty of Manhattan College sought to unionize, but Manhattan College argued that because they were a  Catholic institution, they did not have to recognize an employee union.

After listening to the arguments from both sides and reading hundreds of pages of material published by Manhattan College, the NLRB ruled that Manhattan College was really not a Catholic institution. Manhattan for its entire existence has claimed to be a Catholic institution in the Lasalian order.

However, the NLRB based its ruling on evidence provided by Manhattan that attempted to described it religious ties in wording so vague that most secular institutions could use to describe their missions. Manhattan described the Lasalian philosophy as a belief in “excellence in teaching, respect for individual dignity, and commitment to social justice.”

The Regional NLRB continued by stating that  the primary hallmarks of an authentic Catholic college or university are exclusionary hiring, a proselytizing atmosphere, and dogmatic inflexibility in the curriculum. If this ruling stands, these could become the guidelines for judging whether an institution is a religious institution or not.

Why do I believe that this is not the final word on this issue?

By Leave a Comment

Surprise, Surprise: Given the Information, Parents Prefer College with Better Graduation Rate

A new report issued by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy entitled “Filling in the Blanks: How Information Can Affect Choice in Higher Education written by Andrew P. Kelly and Mark Schneider strongly suggests that if parents had accurate information about the graduation of two  public institutions being consider by their child, they would very heavily prefer the institution with the higher graduation rate.

The report also suggests that providing this information widely will have several positive results. The first is that if consumers are provided information on costs and graduation rates will they use it in decision-making.  (Oops sorry we are not supposed to consider students and their parents as consumers, even though they do.) The second positive result is that as institutions with the poorer graduation rates lose students to the institutions with the good rates. The suggested result of this is that the institutions with the poorer rates will take steps to improve their educational outcomes. If students consistently select an institution with a better graduation, more of them will graduate. Thus, the third positive result for the country would be an improvement in the overall graduation of students in American higher education

An executive summary of the report may be found at  http://www.aei.org/print?pub=paper&pubId=100186&authors=<a href=scholar/100064>Andrew P. Kelly</a>, <a href=scholar/100006>Mark Schneider</a>

A PDF of the entire report may be found at

http://www.aei.org/docLib/fillingintheblanks.pdf

Isn’t it surprising, how many times common sense can be a fairly accurate description of reality and a decent policy guide to follow? Even if the results may not be good for our institution in the short run.

By Leave a Comment

What Can Faculty Learn From A Broadway Musical?

An article that first appeared in the July 4, 2010 e-edition of the Technology Section of The Chronicle of Higher Education was repeated in the July 9, 2010 e-edition of Academe Today. The article was entitled “Linked In With: A Writer Who Questions the Wisdom of Teaching with Technology.”  Because I was familiar with Carr’s writings, this article caught my attention and I had to read it, even though I was confident of what I was going to find. The author of the article, Marc Parry, was talking about and interviewing Nicholas Carr, the author of a book entitled, “The Shallows,” and many articles, including “IT Doesn’t Matter” and “Is Google Making Us Stupid?“As usual, Carr was questioning the efficacy of technology in assisting in the teaching and learning process. This article was vintage Carr.

I believe education is meeting students where they are and helping them to get to where they want and ought to be. If where they want to be is not where they ought to be, then our first job in education is to help them see where they ought to be. I believe every prospective teacher should watch the musical, “My Fair Lady.” Can teachers learn anything from a Broadway musical? I think they can if they are paying attention, especially if they are asked to reflect on one particular scene. The scene takes place in the Professor’s study, when he and the Colonel are celebrating Eliza’s triumphant debut at the gala. Colonel Pickering keeps saying, “You said that you could do it, and you did it.” Professor Higgins replies:”Yes I did it.” But did you see Eliza in the corner of the room crying and sobbing, “What have you done? “ They replied:”We made you a lady.” Eliza responded, “I never asked to be a lady. All I wanted was to be able to speak well enough to sell flowers at the corner shop. Now that I am a lady, there is nothing left for me to do, but to sell myself and marry a gentleman.” The Professor and the Colonel used good pedagogy and “taught her well”, but they didn’t listen to what she wanted, and they definitely didn’t help her understand what it was to be a lady and why that was important.

The following exchange between Perry and  Carr reminded me of that scene from “My Fair Lady:”Perry asked Carr: “If the Internet is making us so distracted, how did you manage to write a 224-page book and read all the dense academic studies that much of it is based on?” Carr responded, “It was hard. The reason I started writing it was because I noticed in myself this increasing inability to pay attention to stuff, whether it was reading or anything else. When I started to write the book, I found it very difficult to sit and write for a couple of hours on end or to sit down with a dense academic paper.” I have found that most of our students today don’t know how to sit down for a couple of hours to read or write. They mentally and physically can’t sit for a couple of hours to read or write. They definitely don’t know how to sit down and read a dense paper. They also don’t know why that should be important. It is not enough for us to tell them just to do it, because it is important and it is good for them. How often to our question of why, do we accept the answer, “Because I told you so; besides it is good for you; or you ought to do it.” At one point in the article after renouncing the use of the internet, Carr says, “my abilities to concentrate did seem to strengthen again. I felt in a weird way intellectually or mentally calmer. And I could sit down and write or read with a great deal of attentiveness for quite a long time.” Our students don’t know why that is important for them unless we help them learn that. Just telling that it is good and that it works for us is not enough. If we want to reach these students, we need to meet them where they are and help them see the benefits of the reflective pursuit of knowledge and truth for them. If we don’t do that, these students might well be like Eliza, sitting in the corner crying that we didn’t listen to them, and we haven’t. The other more likely possibility is they will give up, walk away and never engage in the reflective pursuit of knowledge.

My next question may sound like heresy coming from someone within the academy, “Is the reflective pursuit of knowledge the only way to obtain knowledge? The ancient Greeks allowed and even encouraged at least three different ways of knowing, theoria, poiesis and praxis. Theoria is the word from which we get our words theory and theoretical. In ancient Greece, it meant contemplation or seeing by observation. It developed into the idea of the theoretical pursuit of knowledge and truth through contemplation or reflection. Poiesis is the word from which we get our word poetry. It meant to make or produce. It developed into the idea of creating something of value. Praxis is the word from which we get our words practice or practical. It meant action. It developed into the idea of knowledge applied to one’s actions. The goal of theoria  was truth. The goal of poiesis was a product. The goal of praxis was action.

I challenge those of us in the academy, are we open to different ways of knowing and learning? Are we willing to meet our students where they are, listen to where they want to be, and help them see where they could and ought to be? Are we willing to help them get there, even if it means using multiple ways of knowing and learning that may not at first seem comfortable to us?

By Leave a Comment

According to the Duck Test, Higher Education is a Business

According to the DUCK TEST,

Higher Education is a Business

By Baylis

I grew up next to a farm where I would play with the farmer’s two kids several times a week in their barn, the farm-yard or their pastures. One day while we were playing in the farm yard, the farmer came trudging in from his corn fields muttering to himself. When he saw us playing he growled, “According to the Duck Test, that tractor of mine is a piece of junk.” We all knew what had happened. The tractor had broken down out in the field like it usually did every other week. However, I guess I had a puzzled look on my face and I muttered, “Oh.”

The farmer looked at me and said, “Son, do you know the Duck Test?” I hesitated a little and finally said sheepishly, “No Sir, I don’t.” The farmer, with a condescending glance said, “Well you really should, so let me tell you. When I see an animal in the farm-yard that looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and flies like a duck, I am very confident that animal is a duck.” I have never forgotten that explanation. It has come in handy a number of times since that day in the farm-yard.

The mantra within higher education for many years has been that education is not a business. For a well-reasoned argument showing how businesses must be businesses, I would refer you to the article by Milton Greenberg in the March/April 2004 issue of the EDUCASUSE Review, entitled “A University is not a Business (and Other Fantasies).” You may find it using the following link:
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume39/
AUniversityIsNotaBusinessandOt/157887.

Relying on the duck test, my argument is the following: Institutions of higher education must be incorporated by the state. They own property, pay taxes or users fees, have employees, who many times will form or threaten to form a union for bargaining power against an entrenched management known as the administration. These employees expect fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement plans. Institutions of higher education are required to pay FICA for all employees, including faculty. If the institutions didn’t pay FICA for faculty, the faculty would be required to pay FICA as self-employed individuals, making them businesses. Universities sell or collect money for products or services, called credit hours,  rendered to individuals, compete for students (just like businesses compete for customers) and are definitely susceptible to market forces in recruiting faculty and students, . Just like a business, the expenses of a given institution of higher education can only exceed its revenue for a limited period of time. It doesn’t matter if the colleges are not-for-profit or for-profit, if their expenses exceed their revenue for too long, they can be forced to declare bankruptcy and close down. Institutions of higher education are required to undergo annual audits of finances including balance sheets and cash flow sheets. Institutions of higher education look, act and speak like businesses, so according to the duck test, I am very confident institutions of higher education are businesses.

By Leave a Comment

Can Faculty Learn from a Broadway Musical

An article that first appeared in the July 4, 2010 e-edition of the Technology Section of The Chronicle of Higher Education was repeated in the July 9, 2010 e-edition of Academe Today. The article was entitled “Linked In With: A Writer Who Questions the Wisdom of Teaching with Technology.”  Because I was familiar with Carr’s writings, this article caught my attention and I had to read it, even though I was confident of what I was going to find. The author of the article, Marc Parry, was talking about and interviewing Nicholas Carr, the author of a book entitled, “The Shallows,” and many articles, including “IT Doesn’t Matter” and “Is Google Making Us Stupid?“As usual, Carr was questioning the efficacy of technology in assisting in the teaching and learning process. This article was vintage Carr.

I believe education is meeting students where they are and helping them to get to where they want and ought to be. If where they want to be is not where they ought to be, then our first job in education is to help them see where they ought to be. I believe every prospective teacher should watch the musical, “My Fair Lady.” Can teachers learn anything from a Broadway musical? I think they can if they are paying attention, especially if they are asked to reflect on one particular scene. The scene takes place in the Professor’s study, when he and the Colonel are celebrating Eliza’s triumphant debut at the gala. Colonel Pickering keeps saying, “You said that you could do it, and you did it.” Professor Higgins replies:”Yes I did it.” But did you see Eliza in the corner of the room crying and sobbing, “What have you done? “ They replied:”We made you a lady.” Eliza responded, “I never asked to be a lady. All I wanted was to be able to speak well enough to sell flowers at the corner shop. Now that I am a lady, there is nothing left for me to do, but to sell myself and marry a gentleman.” The Professor and the Colonel used good pedagogy and “taught her well”, but they didn’t listen to what she wanted, and they definitely didn’t help her understand what it was to be a lady and why that was important.

The following exchange between Perry and  Carr reminded me of that scene from “My Fair Lady:”Perry asked Carr: “If the Internet is making us so distracted, how did you manage to write a 224-page book and read all the dense academic studies that much of it is based on?” Carr responded, “It was hard. The reason I started writing it was because I noticed in myself this increasing inability to pay attention to stuff, whether it was reading or anything else. When I started to write the book, I found it very difficult to sit and write for a couple of hours on end or to sit down with a dense academic paper.” I have found that most of our students today don’t know how to sit down for a couple of hours to read or write. They mentally and physically can’t sit for a couple of hours to read or write. They definitely don’t know how to sit down and read a dense paper. They also don’t know why that should be important. It is not enough for us to tell them just to do it, because it is important and it is good for them. How often to our question of why, do we accept the answer, “Because I told you so; besides it is good for you; or you ought to do it.” At one point in the article after renouncing the use of the internet, Carr says, “my abilities to concentrate did seem to strengthen again. I felt in a weird way intellectually or mentally calmer. And I could sit down and write or read with a great deal of attentiveness for quite a long time.” Our students don’t know why that is important for them unless we help them learn that. Just telling that it is good and that it works for us is not enough. If we want to reach these students, we need to meet them where they are and help them see the benefits of the reflective pursuit of knowledge and truth for them. If we don’t do that, these students might well be like Eliza, sitting in the corner crying that we didn’t listen to them, and we haven’t. The other more likely possibility is they will give up, walk away and never engage in the reflective pursuit of knowledge.

My next question may sound like heresy coming from someone within the academy, “Is the reflective pursuit of knowledge the only way to obtain knowledge? The ancient Greeks allowed and even encouraged at least three different ways of knowing, theoria, poiesis and praxis. Theoria is the word from which we get our words theory and theoretical. In ancient Greece, it meant contemplation or seeing by observation. It developed into the idea of the theoretical pursuit of knowledge and truth through contemplation or reflection. Poiesis is the word from which we get our word poetry. It meant to make or produce. It developed into the idea of creating something of value. Praxis is the word from which we get our words practice or practical. It meant action. It developed into the idea of knowledge applied to one’s actions. The goal of theoria  was truth. The goal of poiesis was a product. The goal of praxis was action.

I challenge those of us in the academy, are we open to different ways of knowing and learning? Are we willing to meet our students where they are, listen to where they want to be, and help them see where they could and ought to be? Are we willing to help them get there, even if it means using multiple ways of knowing and learning that may not at first seem comfortable to us?

is the word from which we get our word poetry. It meant to make or produce. It developed into the idea of creating something of value. Praxis is the word from which we get our words practice or practical. It meant action. It developed into the idea of knowledge applied to one’s actions. The goal of theoria was truth. The goal of poiesis was a product. The goal of praxis was action.
I challenge those of us in the academy, are we open to different ways of knowing and learning? Are we willing to meet our students where they are, listen to where they want to be, and help them see where they could and ought to be? Are we willing to help them get there, even if it means using multiple ways of knowing and learning that may at first not seem comfortable to us?

By Leave a Comment

Centralized or Decentralized Online Learning Offices

In a June 30, 2010 news item in the Wired Campus Section of Chronicle of Higher Education, Marc Parry wrote: “One university’s decision to close its central distance Education office has stirred a national debate over the best way to operate online programs.”

Continuing he remarked, “Under a restructuring of Texas A&M University at College Station, individual colleges will now manage online learning. And tuition paid for those programs will flow directly through those colleges.”

That last phrase captures at least half if not most of the debate. The various colleges want their piece of the revenue pie, if not the whole pie; however, they still expect the university to pick up all the infrastructure costs. The other major portion of the debate is control of the courses offered.

I have seen this debate played out at two different universities. The primary arguments for centralization that I have seen are: 1) A centralized office is more likely to be more economical for the university in terms of equipment and software costs. Bundling the hardware and software needs, the university is more likely to get better pricing and usage discounts from its vendors. Working with fewer vendors usually provides quicker and better service. 2) A centralized platform and centralized course management system is more student friendly. In situations where students may have to or want to take courses from different colleges (e.g. general education requirements), it is much easier for the students to have to learn only one platform. 3) A centralized office is more likely to avoid scheduling conflicts and more widely publicize the whole range of offerings. 4) Expenses are paid from one checkbook. A particular college can’t decide to skip payment of a particular bill (e.g. extra storage or bandwidth to cover usage, upgraded software and new or upgraded servers to handle the new software, or extra personnel to cover programming needs, course design assistance, and help desk features) and thereby curtail or eliminate online learning for that college. 5) It is easier to plan and provide for redundancy requirements, e.g.,( if one college is not using enough bandwidth all the time to warrant the expense of that extra bandwidth, there is the possibility of time-sharing among the colleges). If one server goes down, it is easier and quicker to off-load the work to other servers. Just ask students what they think of your program if they experience a week, a day, or even an hour of down time waiting for you to restore service.

In addition to the revenue argument, other major arguments for a decentralized approach are control of course content and faculty assignments. The various colleges want to make sure the assigned faculties are qualified to teach a given course and that the assigned faculties include all the “appropriate content” and none of the “inappropriate content.”

These are good arguments both for and against a centralized approach. With as much intellectual genius that exists in our institutions, it seems as if we should be able to design a workable hybrid approach. Such an approach would allow the separate colleges to participate in some of the revenue intake, still have some control over individual courses and faculty, and yet makes the whole process economically feasible for the university and accessible to both internal and external audiences of students.

Along with the revenue and expense questions, “To whom are the online courses targeted?” If the target of the online courses is only currently enrolled campus-based students, a decentralized approach may work. If the targeted audience includes a wider audience focusing on part or primarily on external students, a centralized or partially centralized approach makes more sense. External students not familiar with the university structure will be put off with what they view as a runaround, going from college to college to get what they need or want, and they will go to another university they view as more convenient. Internal students may complain about the “runaround” but they will negotiate the winding path to reach their desired goals. To make the online programs economically feasible, it makes more sense to make the intended audience as wide as possible. As in any compromise, both sides will not get everything they want and will have to give up something. That is the nature of compromise. Each university will have to decide what its negotiable items are.