This is the initial post in my Point versus Counterpoint thread. The proposal that I wish to address is the following: “When faced with the profound challenge of making significant changes to an existing program, facility or policy, what is the best approach for an institution to take?” Should the organization remodel the existing structure, or tear it down and completely rebuild a new structure from the ground up?
I have seen battles over this question severely divide more than one campus. Many times within education, these battles degenerate into classic clashes between traditionalists and disrupters, between evolutionists and innovators, or between the old guard and the young Turks.
In the quintessential debate approach of Point versus Counterpoint, it would be incumbent upon me to select a side on the “Repurpose or Build Anew” question. During my 50 years in the academy, I have been known as a traditionalist who studied and revered the best aspects of education’s rich history.
During 35+ years as a college administrator, I also had a reputation as being an approachable leader who listened carefully and made thoughtful decisions based upon all the evidence. These two characteristics might suggest that I should assume a role as a supporter of the “repurpose” side.
However, throughout my career, I have been acknowledged as an educational entrepreneur. I have been recognized for my ability to think outside the box while still accommodating those inside the box. Often I championed new and different approaches to problem-solving when the old methods were not working. I have been known for pushing for innovation and change when change is needed.
On the Rogers Adoption/Innovation Curve most of my former colleagues would place me in the Innovator or Early Adopter segments. I have always been known as someone who was eager to find new solutions to long-standing problems and pushed the limits on how the technology could help. These characteristics would suggest that I should assume the role of a supporter of the “build anew” side.
Even though I have had a 60+ year love affair with education, I am deeply concerned about its future. Given my recent work on the financial models of education and my research into the demise of more than 1600 American colleges or campuses since 1950, I see so much that is broken in American higher education that I often wondered where it is heading.
Since this is my blog, I will take an owner’s prerogative and assume the compromise position of favoring “Building Anew, Except in Very Limited Cases, When Repurposing Is Appropriate and the Most Feasible Approach.”
Why do I believe that “building anew” is the best choice for American higher education? Let me count the ways that I believe American higher education is in trouble.
-
American higher education has lost its lodestar. Where is the inspirational, values-based, principled leadership that developed the most advanced, highest quality system of higher education in the world?
-
The three segments of American higher education (public, non-profit private, and proprietary) treat each other as enemies and competitors rather than allies.
-
The basic financial model of American higher education is broken. How can a system survive that relies on billions of dollars annually from endowment and donors, and complains when those donors ask for something in return? How can a system take billions of dollars from public coffers and then balk at questions of accountability? How can a principled-system saddle its consumers (students) with more than $1.3 Trillion in debt load?
-
The internal structure of most institutions of higher education in American consists of isolated silos which have little to no communication with each other. Within most colleges, the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing.
-
American higher education has seemingly pushed the individuals who should be the most important persons in the system, the students, to the periphery. Investors are only interested in their Return on Investment (ROI). Administrators and faculty bicker constantly, bitterly accusing each other of sabotaging the enterprise and only looking out for their own self-interests. Students and parents complain incessantly that no one is listening to them.
-
Many students, parents, and politicians act as if education is an entitlement rather than a labor-intensive, responsibility. Debates on whether students should be given the rewards of education without the expending the hard work to earn them are waged privately across campuses and publicly in the media.
-
American education has fallen into the trap of the “Procrustean Bed” thinking one form of education fits all students and one measuring stick is sufficient for all institutions.
-
Society rallies around the banner of American higher education raised as the clarion call for social mobility. Community leaders then throw their hands up in despair when the data show it is not working. They conveniently forget that history suggests and the data show that education institutions tend to be excellent reflections of our society and not particularly effective change agents. Yes, there are individual victories. However, there have been too few to change our society as a whole.
Readers, it is now your turn to engage in this conversation. Are there problem areas that I have missed? Please let me know now. In future posts, I intend to individually address each of the above areas. Readers, if you have a different take on those areas, you will an opportunity to weigh in on those areas at that time.
My next post, scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, will begin to address the issue of the lost lodestar of American higher education. Thank you for joining this journey. Enjoy your coffee and the conversation.
By:
Thanks for a very informative, thought-provoking piece. (That is hardly unexpected!) I think it contains a lot of points that are sobering but ring true. For example, there is a need to recognize that the system is deeply flawed and thus is sitting on a bubble. This requires some careful thought and action by those who are invested deeply in it.
There are some points that would be interesting to discuss further (“You got a few minutes?”), but I’ll limit myself to responding to the big question of whether to re-purpose or start over; my thought is: it depends. Some programs may need to be razed to the ground and started anew; others, however, may have a number of strengths, or a good foundation, and just need to address a specific issue to become properly functional. Simply “blowing them up” wouldn’t be the optimal approach for a number of reasons. The key is discerning what is needed for a given case–which is easier said than done–and thus why conversations such as these are so needed.
Obviously, this is hardly a definitive answer–but I hope it contributes to an ongoing conversation. Thanks for stating it!
Erik, Thank you for getting the conversation started. I readily admit that you “caught me.” For years, I would answer “Yes-No” questions with the evasive “It depends.” I would also answer “Either-or” questions with the equally evasive “Yes.” I was very much tempted to do so in this post. However, I chose the classical debate tack of picking the most explosive side of the argument. Sitting on the sidelines of the educational frays and studying 1600 closed colleges or campuses the past nine years has had a negative effect on my outlook toward the future of American higher education. For individual institutions, evolutionary approaches to improvement may well be the most appropriate solutions. For the enterprise as a whole, my experiences are directing me toward a more tumultuous approach. As the months and years pass, I have regressed from providing commentary on higher education to becoming a critic, and perhaps, too often a harsh and impatient one. I realize that “being out of the office” means that I may have to relearn the skill of walking through the minefield between the anguish of David (Psalm 13) and Habakkuk (Habakkuk 1) who cried out “How long must we wait!” and the reflective acceptance of God’s redemption and timing by Peter (II Peter 3) and Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2).