How about an ongoing faculty/student seminar reading latest books on "new economy." Meets every two weeks for 2-3 hours. Discussion. Main thing is to get folks reading/talking about same topic and one that generates, over time, a shared set of references that can become a scaffold for ongoing conversations both in and outside of classes.
Could even offer books at half-price or ten dollars to faculty (which ever is more), ten dollars to students, subsidized by a grant. If we assume 20 (5 faculty, 15 students) total participants and seven books at average cost of $25, we'd need about 5x7x12.5 + 15x7x15 = $2000. Easily doable.
Stay tuned for a suggested reading list.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Majors and Departments
Why are something like 90% or more of our majors bound to departments and disciplines?
Answer: lots of reasons, some of them good ones. But the biggest one is probably the simplest one: because that's the way it's been for a long time.
But is this list of concentrations built around disciplines really the optimal menu for the students we are training for the coming century? Should I, as a professor at a liberal arts college, design my undergraduate curriculum around the question of how I best train a sociologist? Only a tiny percentage of the students who major in sociology will become sociologists. And few who do will be trained in rigorous graduate programs in which they'll more or less repeat every discipline based course they'll take while studying with me.
Of course, a student can always put together a "custom major" of her own design. But are we really producing the best product we can if we leave it up to the least experienced members of our community to come up with new ideas about majors? Shouldn't I be thinking about that? All the time?
Answer: lots of reasons, some of them good ones. But the biggest one is probably the simplest one: because that's the way it's been for a long time.
But is this list of concentrations built around disciplines really the optimal menu for the students we are training for the coming century? Should I, as a professor at a liberal arts college, design my undergraduate curriculum around the question of how I best train a sociologist? Only a tiny percentage of the students who major in sociology will become sociologists. And few who do will be trained in rigorous graduate programs in which they'll more or less repeat every discipline based course they'll take while studying with me.
Of course, a student can always put together a "custom major" of her own design. But are we really producing the best product we can if we leave it up to the least experienced members of our community to come up with new ideas about majors? Shouldn't I be thinking about that? All the time?
Where's the R&D in Higher Education?
A February 26 NY Times article that carried the title "Now Is No Time to Cut Research" starts out thus:
The current economic crisis is, I believe, sending us a message about fundamental changes in the way the world works. Yes, a lot of the crisis is due to faulty regulation and ill advised behavior on the part of players with very large footprints, but we need to be sure not to miss the signals that are buried in this thunderous noise. Those signals are about structural re-adjustments. We've been fond, for the past decade or two, of saying we are living in a new world. What we haven't done, though, is a whole lot of rethinking of the institutions (higher ed, for example) that world depends on. The signals are there, but how will higher education listen?
Will higher education make the mistake of cutting back on R&D at just this critical moment when real innovation is called for?
The answer is easy: NO. Higher education can't cut back on its R&D because it doesn't have any.
Now, if you google "higher education and R&D" and variations thereon you will stumble across a few programs at schools of education (mostly focused on K12 pedagogy) and a number of references to research and development for industry that happens within universities. Of $324million in department of education budget under the heading "R&D," 231 is for education sciences, 86 for special education, and 7 for post-secondary education. And the latter is down 12.5% from the year before (AAAS).
Nobody, I suspect, would argue with the claim that the new century demands new ideas and practices in higher education. But where in our system would you find the higher education innovators? Ours is a system pretty much designed to prevent any innovation at all from disturbing the status quo. What experimentation and invention does occur is, for the most part, the work of individual faculty members tweaking their courses or taking the initiative to invent new ones. Added to this are initiatives here and there to change the way a whole department offers its courses (see, for example, "At MIT, Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard"). But at the end of the day, ours is not an industry known for wowing the world with any "next big things."
Even when we do get it in our minds to make changes, often as not it comes in the form of "curriculum reform" and the first thing we do is form a faculty committee. Just for a minute, imagine GM having a conversation with the White House:
It wouldn't take a whole lot, I don't think. Mostly, the faculty and administration need to build a procedural infrastructure that gives the faculty room to try new things and to set a tone that welcomes out of the box thinking. The latter is not simple – lots of administrators say "we want your ideas and input" and never get any. I'll put forth some concrete suggestions in future posts.
Steve A. Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive, says hard times are no time to cut back spending on research and development.The article goes off in other directions, eventually, but does make an important point: during economic slowdowns, some companies lose their taste for speculative projects, but they do so at their peril.
The current economic crisis is, I believe, sending us a message about fundamental changes in the way the world works. Yes, a lot of the crisis is due to faulty regulation and ill advised behavior on the part of players with very large footprints, but we need to be sure not to miss the signals that are buried in this thunderous noise. Those signals are about structural re-adjustments. We've been fond, for the past decade or two, of saying we are living in a new world. What we haven't done, though, is a whole lot of rethinking of the institutions (higher ed, for example) that world depends on. The signals are there, but how will higher education listen?
Will higher education make the mistake of cutting back on R&D at just this critical moment when real innovation is called for?
The answer is easy: NO. Higher education can't cut back on its R&D because it doesn't have any.
Now, if you google "higher education and R&D" and variations thereon you will stumble across a few programs at schools of education (mostly focused on K12 pedagogy) and a number of references to research and development for industry that happens within universities. Of $324million in department of education budget under the heading "R&D," 231 is for education sciences, 86 for special education, and 7 for post-secondary education. And the latter is down 12.5% from the year before (AAAS).
Nobody, I suspect, would argue with the claim that the new century demands new ideas and practices in higher education. But where in our system would you find the higher education innovators? Ours is a system pretty much designed to prevent any innovation at all from disturbing the status quo. What experimentation and invention does occur is, for the most part, the work of individual faculty members tweaking their courses or taking the initiative to invent new ones. Added to this are initiatives here and there to change the way a whole department offers its courses (see, for example, "At MIT, Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard"). But at the end of the day, ours is not an industry known for wowing the world with any "next big things."
Even when we do get it in our minds to make changes, often as not it comes in the form of "curriculum reform" and the first thing we do is form a faculty committee. Just for a minute, imagine GM having a conversation with the White House:
WH: So, we expect you to be innovative, to adapt what you are doing to new realities…At my own school, Mills College our mission statement says that the school "encourages openness to experimentation in the context of established academic disciplines." But what does that mean? Is there any structural support for innovation? What's the closest we have to an analog of the department at, say, GM that's developing electric cars or the one at Google that's working on new products? And if we don't have a separate department, where's the material or structural expression of that "encouragement" that would have faculty all over the college trying out new ideas?
GM: Righto. We have formed a faculty committee. Can we have the bailout money now?
WH: Fuhgettaboutit!! (to assistant offstage) Larry, get out the nationalization protocol!
It wouldn't take a whole lot, I don't think. Mostly, the faculty and administration need to build a procedural infrastructure that gives the faculty room to try new things and to set a tone that welcomes out of the box thinking. The latter is not simple – lots of administrators say "we want your ideas and input" and never get any. I'll put forth some concrete suggestions in future posts.
An Information System We Could Use
Like most colleges, ours invests on an ongoing basis in administrative software for tracking students from admissions, academics and finances. New tools are invented to help administrators track course enrollments or for the registrar to get students registered for classes. Only exceptionally are innovations driven by our core business: teaching and advising undergraduates.
What if we had a system that students and their advisors could use to sketch out long term curricular possibilities. A sociology adviser, for example, might sit with a student and talk about how she could do a sociology major with a focus on things urban along with doing the pre-requisites for admission to the MBA program after graduation. The system would actually have built in a number of faculty-thought-through templates that would describe coherent constellations of courses built around different themes or emphases, but she'd be free to mix and match according to her interests.
The system would then query the database as to when various courses were currently expected to be offered over the semesters the student has left at the college and suggests her scheduling options.
Either based on the initial expression of interest or in response to a tentative checking off in the scheduling options, the system records the interest so that instructors and department heads have a prospective pre-pre-enrollment count. This information can be used to project staffing and/or to develop PR strategies (e.g., no one seems to be thinking about taking economics next year -- maybe we should talk it up, advertise, put our best teacher in the intro class).
Additional features would be links from course listings to commentary from past/present students, curricular maps of alums along with descriptions of what they are doing now and perhaps commentary from them about how they wish they'd structured things, commentary from advisers as to WHY various constellations of courses make sense, and so on.
The specs for a system like this grow out of the real experience of teachers and advisers rather than the needs of administrators so it will probably never be built. Like most systems, though, just thinking through how it might work is a useful organizational exercise.
What if we had a system that students and their advisors could use to sketch out long term curricular possibilities. A sociology adviser, for example, might sit with a student and talk about how she could do a sociology major with a focus on things urban along with doing the pre-requisites for admission to the MBA program after graduation. The system would actually have built in a number of faculty-thought-through templates that would describe coherent constellations of courses built around different themes or emphases, but she'd be free to mix and match according to her interests.
The system would then query the database as to when various courses were currently expected to be offered over the semesters the student has left at the college and suggests her scheduling options.
Either based on the initial expression of interest or in response to a tentative checking off in the scheduling options, the system records the interest so that instructors and department heads have a prospective pre-pre-enrollment count. This information can be used to project staffing and/or to develop PR strategies (e.g., no one seems to be thinking about taking economics next year -- maybe we should talk it up, advertise, put our best teacher in the intro class).
Additional features would be links from course listings to commentary from past/present students, curricular maps of alums along with descriptions of what they are doing now and perhaps commentary from them about how they wish they'd structured things, commentary from advisers as to WHY various constellations of courses make sense, and so on.
The specs for a system like this grow out of the real experience of teachers and advisers rather than the needs of administrators so it will probably never be built. Like most systems, though, just thinking through how it might work is a useful organizational exercise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)