Complexity – By's Musings

I have heard this question raised many times in higher education circles. Having run around in higher education circles for more than 50 years, I have heard many questions over and over again! If I am asking you, my reader, to be honest about yourself, shouldn’t I be willing, to be honest? Am I a complexifier or a simplifier? The simplest and perhaps the most truthful answer to this question is “Yes!” The more complex answer is “It depends!” It depends upon a number of things. Am I climbing a physical or metaphoric hill attempting to find a solution to a problem?

Trying to climb a rock wall or solve a problem can be difficult, complicated and very taxing. Many times, there are no straightforward, paved paths to the summit. You must search not only for the next hand or foot hold but the next two or three after that first one.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and Noonshin Beik. It portrays the sport of “bouldering” by rock climber Dennis George. This process is a difficult, complicated and taxing effort. The photo was taken by Noonshin Beik, who owns the copyright and has published and licensed the photo under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

It may be a different tale if I am coasting down the other side of the hill trying to use that solution or to explain that solution to someone else. One does not need to know college physics and mechanics to have a working knowledge of and enjoy the entertainment of a zip line. However, before you trust your health and life to that zip line, you had better check it out to make sure that someone who knows mechanics and safety matters set up the zip line correctly.

The scientific principles under which zip lines operate are simple physics but must be followed for safety’s sake. If someone has not correctly accounted for the height differences between the origin and terminus of the line, the tension of the cable, the weight of the load carried, and the coefficient of friction on the cable, a ride could end catastrophically.

In terms of explaining something, one of my favorite quotes is commonly attributed to Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein, in his later years (probably 1950s). Photograph from the Library of Congress Photographs and Prints Division: “Copyright John D . Schiff, New York” but “Copyright not renewed, 4/2000” according to LOC. Image courtesy of John D. Schiff and Wikimedia Commons.

Einstein was undoubtedly a genius. But he supposedly said,

If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.

Christ spoke several times about receiving the Gospel as a child.

Christ receiving the young children and lecturing his disciples on the faith of a child. This image was originally posted to Flickr by Internet Archive Book Images at https://flickr.com/photos/126377022@N07/14577860217. It was reviewed on 23 September 2015 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the No known copyright restrictions.

Mark 10:13 – 16 is one passage talking about receiving the Gospel as a young child:

¹³And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. ¹⁴But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. ¹⁵Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. ¹⁶And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. (KJV)

Climbing a solution’s hill, I find myself in agreement with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Albert Einstein. Holmes reportedly said, “I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

Einstein is usually credited with formulating the principle: “A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” The search for simplicity has sometimes been likened to the Quest for the Holy Grail. It is extremely hard work and can be a fruitless search.

The inspiration of Britten’s illustration comes from the following sections of Tennyson’s poem:

I find a magic bark;
I leap on board: no helmsman steers:
I float till all is dark.
A gentle sound, an awful light!
Three angels bear the holy Grail:
With fold feet in stole of white,
On sleeping wings they sail.
Ah, blessed vision! blood of God!
My spirit beats her mortal bars,
As down dark tides the glory slides,
And star-like mingles with the stars.When on my goodly charger borne
Thro’ dreaming towns I go, (Lines 38 – 49)

“O just and faithful knight of God!
Ride on! the prize is near.”
So pass I hostel, hall, and grange;
By bridge and ford, by park and pale,
All-arm’d I ride, whate’er betide,
Until I find the holy Grail. (Lines 78 – 83)

Jumping to simple conclusions before one does the hard work of diligently searching for the truth or a workable solution can be very dangerous. It is also usually ineffective. I am reminded of the fabled silver bullet, that miraculous entity that very quickly and easily solves a serious, long-standing problem. I am reminded of three different versions of the uses of silver bullets. I will come back to look at silver bullets in a future post.

Returning to the question at hand in this post: “Am I a complexifier or a simplifier?” The simplest answer is “Yes.” The next simplest answer is “It depends.” I trust this post has shared some of my complex struggles in attempting to come to a simple response.

In Part I of this series on the business model for higher education, we postulated that higher education must be operated as a business. I begin this post by reinforcing that assumption by referring to two articles. The first one is the blog posting According to the Duck Test, Higher Education is a Business that I wrote and published here in By’s Musings in August 2010. I began that post by relating an incident that occurred on the farm next door to our home as I was growing up. I remember vividly one instance when the farmer, completely frustrated with his broken down tractor, was yelling and screaming, and calling the tractor a “piece of junk,.” and threatening to send it to the “tractor graveyard.” From my experiences of watching and working with my father as he fixed broken machines, I learned that nothing was irreparably damaged. He operated under the principle that anything could be fixed. Our heavenly Father operates under this same principle. From scripture we know that if we confess our sins, truly repent of them, then God the Father will forgive us, cleanse us, repair us and not condemn us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (I John 1:9, KJV) and There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1, KJV) When my facial and body expressions questioned the farmer’s judgment, he proceeded to teach me a lesson that I never forgot, and one that I have used many times since then.

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.”

In my 2010 post, I went on to delineate many of the ways that Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) resemble businesses. Relying on the duck test, my argument that institutions of higher education (IHEs) are businesses consisted of the following premises:

IHEs must be incorporated or chartered by the state.
IHEs own or rent property.
IHEs pay taxes or users’ fees.
IHEs have employees, who form or threaten to form unions to gain bargaining power against an entrenched management known as the administration.
IHEs must pay their employees wages at or above the federal or local minimum wage.
IHEs must pay FICA for all employees, except those excluded legally. If the institution doesn’t pay FICA, the employees are required to pay FICA as self-employed individuals, making those individuals businesses.
IHEs must provide medical insurance consistent with federal or local laws.
IHEs must meet all federal and local compliance regulations placed upon businesses.
IHEs offer products or services to individuals. Whether, you label those products or services courses, credit hours, instruction or an education, the institutions collect money in exchange for those products or services.
IHEs compete for students (just like businesses compete for customers).
Just like a business, the expenses of a given IHE can only exceed its revenue for a limited period of time. It doesn’t matter whether the IHE is classified as a not-for-profit or for-profit organization. If its expenses exceed its revenue for too long, the IHE can be forced to declare bankruptcy and close down.
IHEs are required to undergo annual audits of finances including balance sheets and cash flow sheets, and submit them to the appropriate federal departments, including the Department of Education. In some states, these audits must be submitted to the Department of Commerce.

Since institutions of higher education look, act and speak like businesses, I am very confident that according to the duck test, IHEs are businesses.

The second article I mentioned in my introduction, A University Is Not a Business (and Other Fantasies) is probably the more powerful of the two articles. It was written by Milton Greenberg and appeared in EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 39, no. 2 (March/April 2004): 10–16. Professor Greenberg was professor emeritus of government at American University until his death in 2015. He previously served as provost and interim president at American University, and as such devoted much of his work to developing and rewarding high-quality faculty. Greenberg once said, “College and university teaching represents more than expertise in a scholarly discipline. It means that you are privileged to be part of an extended community that constitutes one of the most important professions in the world.” Provost Greenberg was also known as the most eloquent expert on and spokesperson for the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, also known as the “G.I. Bill,” which gave veterans across the country access to federal money to pay for higher education after it was passed in 1944.

In Greenberg’s article, he wastes little time in laying out the opposing positions in this war. His opening paragraph sets the stage for the epic battle that was to ensue. The battle lines are clearly drawn.

Academe emerges from—and largely remains within—a culture that sees only a remote and sometimes hostile relationship between its activities and the economic system. This view takes the form of an often-heard campus expression: “A university is not a business.”

Greenberg begins his attack with the two Washington Post December 2003 articles, “The Lesson Colleges Need to Learn,” and “An Educating Use of Business Practices.” These articles were written by one of their leading business columnists, Steve Pearlstein. Pearlstein committed the “ultimate sin” in the eyes of the academy by questioning the efficiency of teaching the “same course” on many different campuses using many different faculty of varying calibre. Pearlstein suggested the unthinkable: greater efficiency and perhaps better learning could occur by using a simple technology like CDs to provide the same superior lectures by superior lecturers to all students across the many different campuses. Pearlstein came under general hostility and heavy fire from the higher education establishment, which considered learning “too special to be run like a crass business enterprise.” You can’t use the word efficiency in the same sentence with learning.

Greenberg continued by noting that although the usual readers of the EDUCAUSE Review had probably heard, and possibly even uttered, that same thought many times, this was most likely the first time it appeared on the front page of the business section of a leading U.S. newspaper. Pearlstein had done the unthinkable. He challenged one of the basic tenets of the academy right in front of the general public. How dare he do this? Higher education was one of the untouchable foundational columns of our society. It was beyond the pale of criticism or suspicion. It held such a position of high esteem that people didn’t dare question the academy or what it did. They trusted the academy. However, here was one of the leading newspapers in the country, raising doubt. This was treason! This was war! Faculty took to the streets, and joined the barricades. They raised their torches of the “true light” and shook their fists at this interloper who had the courage to question their legitimacy. How could higher education be a business? The guiding principle of the business world was antithetical to everything for which academy stood. What standard was this pariah attempting to foist on the academy? Simply stated the principle was “the hierarchical and orderly management of people, property, productivity, and finance for profit.” Greenberg didn’t let up his attack. He continued by noting that in his observation, the ” ‘not a business’ mantra arises on a campus whenever an administrator expresses concern over a program that is losing money or whenever a governing board suggests that the faculty be better managed or supervised in their work. Any mention of such matters will call forth the faculty judgment that the administration has a corporate mentality and is treating the university like a business, the ultimate sin.” The implication was clear. Faculty had the truth. Everyone else, especially those outside the academy, had to have faith in them and trust them. Here we had the first chink in the armour, the first admission from someone of stature, that essentially all IHEs were essentially faith-based institutions.

To be fair, Greenberg attempts to present another side to this argument by appealing again to the Washington Post for his ammunition. This time he turns to an October 2003 op-ed piece, “When States Pay Less, Guess Who Pays More?” by two economists, Robert Archibald and David Feldman. In their article they claim, “Our universities are not inefficient institutions on a bad business plan. Their administrators understand that a college degree is the ticket to the 21st-century economy. There is a crisis in higher education today, but it’s not well-publicized tuition spikes. It’s the long-term decline in political and financial support for the idea that all students should have access to higher education, regardless of ability to pay.” At this point Greenberg leaves the revenue side of the equation and focuses his attention on the expenditure side. Since we’re not looking at the expenditure side in this blog post, we’ll leave Greenberg’s arguments for later posts, However, to whet your appetite for a good debate, at this point I include his closing statements: “…how the academy perceives itself matters. If higher education is to lead its own renewal, it must think about its people, its property, and its productivity in business terms.”

I am sorry Professors Archibald and Feldman, but our universities are grossly inefficient and operate on a very bad business plan. If you consistently have more expenditures than revenues, and you know your projections for increases in expenditures far outstrip projections for increases in revenues, then you have a bad business plan. We can (and probably will) debate why your education model is the very best model available. Before we proceed to the expenditure side of the equation, we will still have much to discuss concerning the revenue side. I am sure that we will end up debating many questions about the sources and potential magnitude of revenue sources. The debates will continue to expenditures as we argue about the manner in which we are using our given resources and, possibly of greater importance, how we should use them. To my readers, I apologize for adding argument after argument, seemingly complexifying this issue unnessarily. However, I am very interested in this topic and feel very strongly about it. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. reportedly said, “I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.” Friends I am seeking simplicity, but I am afraid we will have to battle through complexity to get there.

Are you a complexifier or a simplifier?

The Business Model for Higher Education is Broken, Part II