Monday, May 21, 2018
In 2009, Columbia professor Mark Taylor proposed in the New York Times doing away with existing college and university departments and majors in favor of an ever-shifting set of constellations organized around themes of current interest, such as “Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life, and Water.” I objected that redoing the entire curriculum every seven years, as he proposed, wouldn’t make any practical sense. Among the reasons:
[I]f colleges redid their curricula every seven years or so – his suggested lifetime for the project-based constellations he favors – that would involve every seventh year putting entire new programs through the shared governance process, coming up with entirely new job descriptions, hiring committees, student learning outcomes, assessment mechanisms, articulation agreements, catalog copy, advisor training, and the rest. Who, exactly, would do all this in the absence of departments or permanent faculty goes unmentioned.
The thematic approach would also make inter-institutional movement much harder. “I need to hire someone to teach Intro to Sociology. Is a graduate of a program in “Body” or “Water” capable? How the hell do I know?” And the impact on graduate students hitting the market would be catastrophic. “Sorry, ‘water’ grad. We’re into ‘money’ now. Your graduate work is so last year.” The entire edifice takes for granted the support structures it proposed to supplant.
Now, Jeff Selingo has come along with an argument similar to Taylor’s, though he has shortened the programmatic window to five years. The titles are parallel: Taylor’s “End the University as We Know It” resembles Selingo’s “It’s Time to End College Majors As We Know Them.” His list of preferred themes even looks similar: “supplies of food, water, and energy; climate change; digital literacy; the future of work itself.” Selingo frames his argument more around employability than inquiry, but the outlines are broadly similar. He clarified in a subsequent exchange on Twitter that where Taylor argued for the liquidation of academic departments, Selingo merely advocates for the decoupling of departments from academic majors. That wasn’t obvious from his approving quotation of Michael Crow asking why every university needs a political science department or a chemistry department, but so be it.
Does Selingo’s variation on the theme fix it?
I’ll describe his version as “less bad.” It leaves some basic administrative structures intact, such as departments, that get key work done. It’s downhill from there, though. It largely punts on questions of shared governance and who would decree the themes. It doesn’t address the practical question of what to do with students admitted in the final years of a sunsetting theme. It elides questions of graduate hiring entirely. Questions about the definition of a major go unresolved, which is striking for someone as attuned to financial aid as Selingo usually is. (Financial aid won’t cover courses outside of a major.) Faculty churn would have to be substantial, given that nobody is an expert in everything, but it’s entirely unclear who would make those decisions, or on what basis.
In a Twitter exchange, Selingo asked for student-centered objections, rather than faculty-centered ones. Fair enough. It would make transfer of credits from one college to another virtually impossible. Advising would be a nightmare. Simply tracking the catalog changes would be a herculean task, given makeovers every five years. And students who show up in the waning years of a theme would be in a sort of limbo. If they change every five years, and you show up at the beginning of year five, what do you do?
The model could work tolerably well in a self-contained, well-funded, elite setting. I’m picturing a tony SLAC, or maybe a well-endowed honors college of a large university. But as a general model, it’s a non-starter. It assumes static full-time cohorts -- already otherworldly in a community college setting -- and constant full-time faculty turnover. It assumes a central figure -- I’m picturing Rousseau’s “lawgiver,” but ymmv -- who decrees themes from one period to the next. It ignores transfer entirely, as well as the employment prospects of its own graduate students. It doesn’t even offer an organizing principle for the departments that it retains.
Yes, the existing structures are flawed in many, many ways. But they exist because they address some key problems. If you want to get beyond the existing structures -- a conversation I’m happy to have -- you need to find better ways to address those problems. Yes, the credit hour is a flawed measure; regular readers may have seen me reference Baumol’s Cost Disease once or twice. But the credit hour is a kind of currency, a medium of intercollegiate exchange. If you want to replace it, you need to replace it _with_ something. If my community college decides to focus on “work” for this five years, but the local university decides instead to focus on “water,” what happens to our grads who try to transfer? How would their work even be counted?
In trying to improve student success, community colleges have focused on ‘guided pathways’ to simplify students’ planning. Upending curricula every five years would go in the opposite direction, leading to no end of confusion and frustration. And that’s without even counting the effects of cleaning house on full-time faculty every five (or seven) years.
Project-based learning has a lot to be said for it. But it has to scale, and it has to work for students who move from place to place. Otherwise, it will quickly become yet another boutique program for students at well-funded places who can afford to be full-time. That’s a problem we solved a long time ago.
Sunday, May 20, 2018
A piece in the Chronicle a couple of weeks ago asked whether faculty offices have a future.
It isn’t a terribly thoughtful piece, which is a missed opportunity.
I’ve seen full-time faculty offices handled differently in different places. At CCM and Brookdale, they’re typically fairly large, and usually shared. At Holyoke, they’re typically very small, but private. I can see arguments for each. Given faculty schedules, a “shared” office often only has one person in it at any particular time, so the imposition of sharing is less than it might seem. Private offices allow for a bit more idiosyncrasy, which can be very good or very bad. (I’ll just note that faculty status does not give automatic immunity to “hoarding,” and leave it at that.) Whichever way they work, though, they provide a working space, a meeting space, and a place to hang out on campus.
I’ll admit, too, to enjoying reading the cartoons on faculty office doors. Maybe that’s just me.
Apparently, there’s a move afoot in some places to replace individual (or pair) offices with “open” workspaces, like cube farms. The argument is that it’s more efficient on a square footage basis. Adjunct work areas are often like that now; the “bullpen” model is quite common. It’s the same idea, but applied to full-time faculty.
The argument for the “cube farm” model is based on several factors, but I don’t personally find any of them persuasive. There’s an argument from the cost of construction, but if you already have existing buildings, that argument is moot. Online courses can be taught from anywhere, and it’s true that faculty who teach online a lot can be tougher to find in their offices. And heating and cooling offices isn’t free, but again, that assumes that you can detach existing offices from the HVAC system. You can’t.
Where you stand depends in part on where you sit, and I sit at a college with declining enrollment. One of the few compensations of declining enrollment is that space crunches tend to evaporate. I’m told that at the enrollment peak, circa 2010, there was talk of building a parking garage on campus to handle all the cars. Years of declining enrollments have cured the parking crunch; nobody talks about building a garage anymore.
I feel similarly about faculty offices. If we were hiring vast numbers of full-time faculty, and we couldn’t build fast enough to keep up, then yes, I could see the argument for cube farms as ways to maximize space. But we have space, and we’re losing many more full-time faculty than we’re hiring.
Declining enrollments bring declining revenue, which puts pressure on class sizes, health benefits, salaries, travel funding, and all sorts of other benefits. That’s frustrating, conflictual, and sometimes self-defeating, but at least there’s a discernible connection between the (very real) problem and the proposed solutions. Crunching remaining faculty into smaller, “open” spaces, while leaving other areas entirely vacant, would simply add insult to injury. It wouldn’t gain the college anything, and it would generate all sorts of irritation. It would solve the wrong problem. As parsimonious as we have to be with everything else, we should at least be able to enjoy having more room. That’s particularly true given that the buildings already exist, so the cost of construction has already been paid. Leaving built offices empty wouldn’t save anything.
And that’s before getting into the merits of “open” floor plans, of which I am not a fan. Corporate America is starting to move away from those, because it has discovered that ambient noise and constant interruption reduce productivity. It’s hard to focus on your own stuff when someone a few cubes away is having a conversation. Given that some student conversations can be sensitive -- disclosures of family issues, say, or tearful admissions of hunger -- putting them on display for the world to see would fall somewhere between “tone-deaf” and “cruel.”
One upside of the relative availability of space is that we’ve become able to move a partnership with our flagship state university onto our main campus without displacing anybody. Honestly, I’d be thrilled to see the enrollment gains from that partnership generate a new space crunch. That’s a problem I’d like to have. We’ll see.
In the meantime, though, let’s leave the full-time faculty offices alone. They serve multiple purposes, and getting rid of them wouldn’t save anything. There’s enough conflict over shrinking resources; space has become an expanding resource. Let’s be generous where we have the option.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
As a writer, I hope to be read and understood. This week, I was thrilled to see that someone went from understanding to acting.
As IHE detailed Thursday, Marion Technical College in Ohio has taken the “buy one year, get one free” idea that I wrote about last year and turned it into an actual program. Students who complete at least 30 credits with a GPA of 2.5 or higher will be eligible for free tuition for the rest of the degree. The idea is to reward completion, and to turn what some see as a handout into an earned benefit.
MTC improved on the idea by adding a textbook stipend and mandatory advising to it. I can’t wait to see the results for the first cohort this fall.
I’d love to see a variation on this program enacted at a state level. It would free up philanthropic giving to focus on the freshman year, dual enrollment, and/or textbook or food scholarships. It could also wind up costing a lot less than it looks at first blush, because it would create a disincentive for pre-graduation transfer; from a state’s perspective, a sophomore year at a community college is much cheaper than a sophomore year at a four-year public. And it sends a positive message about tenacity to students; get over the initial hump, and we’ll meet you halfway.
Merits aside, though, I have to admit being tickled that someone took an idea and ran with it. I wondered aloud on Twitter whether this is how Sara Goldrick-Rab feels every day. She responded “A little,” with a smiley face. Exactly.
From a very different political angle, I was sad to hear about Tom Wolfe. I never met him, but I devoured much of his work in my teens.
His fiction didn’t really appeal to me, but his reportage could be breathtaking. I read “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test” in high school, and remember being absolutely floored by the prose. I didn’t know that writing like that was even an option. He could, and did, veer between perfect precision and a sort of free verse as the situation warranted, daring the reader to follow.
He was ideal for a teenage reader, because he was so observant of surfaces. He captured the details of fashion or manner that teenagers obsess over. (Decades later, I still remember his mention of the bureaucrat’s Hush Puppies in “Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.”) I consider it an achievement when I write a piece that sounds like I talk. He routinely wrote like other people talk, including the pauses and slips. He used the structures of fiction to get at the larger truths that nonfiction rarely includes, because according to its usual rules, it can’t. In his early work, the humor relied on heavily on implication, rather than punchlines. His best stuff felt like master classes in expository prose.
In 1989 he did a piece in Harper’s that amounted to throwing down a gauntlet to American fiction writers. I remember where I was sitting when I read it, and how cloudy it was that day. In retrospect, it was the last great piece he wrote, but he made it count. His point was that the overly careful, minimalist stuff favored by creative writing programs relied on missing the amazing stories unfolding in the great big world, and that writers need to stop navel-gazing and get out there. They need to try to come to grips with the glorious complexity of American life. For a twenty-one-year-old on the cusp of a major life change, it was bracing. And brilliant, funny, and beautifully written.
Unfortunately, if inevitably, he tried to take his own advice and become a great American novelist. It was like Michael Jordan turning to baseball. Yes, it could be done, but why? Over time, Wolfe’s politics filled in for the observation he used to do so well. But the early stuff? As he might have written, heeeeeeewack...
Forget the novels. Look at the essays. The closest parallel I could come up with for him was an American P.G. Wodehouse. Like Wodehouse, his prose could be simultaneously precise and wild, meeting perfectly the needs of its story. Like Wodehouse, he could be laugh-out-loud funny. And, like Wodehouse, his political sense could be described as “crimped,” if not “obtuse.”
But some get closer than others.
Wendy Brown is a prominent political theorist at UC Berkeley. But many, many years ago, she was a rising star at Williams College. That was where I met her. I was a student in a “Gay and Lesbian Politics” January course she team taught with Tim Cook (not the one from Apple) in 1988. She was conspicuously brilliant, with a verbal style that somehow managed to balance accessibility with conceptual depth. And she was patient with students whose skills came nowhere near her own.
I remember a panel on campus on which she served as the discussant. A prominent older man from somewhere else had given a solid, if somewhat self-impressed, talk on gun control. She must have been in her thirties at the time, and was probably the only woman on the program. She improvised a response so thoughtful, deep, incisive, and funny that the man visibly lost his bearings. I remember smirking as I watched him first sit bolt upright, then start shuffling his papers and muttering “that was...excellent…” in a tone that combined fear and awe. She got that a lot.
I mention her because her graduation speech to the poli sci students at Berkeley this month went viral, and reading it, it all came rushing back. Thirty years later, it’s recognizably Wendy Brown. As with her teaching, I really can’t recommend it highly enough.
It’s called “What Kind of World Do You Want to Live In?,” and it’s about the ethical obligation to reframe your frustrations while you’re having them. She addresses a hypothetical well-meaning person annoyed by a momentary inconvenience or setback that’s meant to help someone much worse off:
It’s not fair but fairness isn’t quite the issue. If you stay with the question of fairness, you will stay with a child’s view of what can be asked of you or what you can ask of yourself--the view from powerlessness and where the only expectation is that you play by common rules, set by others. The question of what kind of world you want to live in is an adult question: it has bearing when your life is in your own hands, when you have a little or a lot of power or latitude, when you decide every day what to support or decry, nourish or fight. The question of what kind of world you want to live in asks you to become responsible to and for a world that you didn’t build, where the terms of entry are not fair and can be hard.
“It’s not fair but fairness isn’t quite the issue.”
Political theory is hard, because it deals with complicated and often conflictual questions. It pulls back from context in order to make the context clearer, or to make it legible at all, or to put it in perspective and expose the important issue. At its best, it offers the possibility of empowerment simply by helping us come to grips with what really matters. A paragraph like the one above makes it look easy.
Thank you, Prof. Brown, for making wisdom seem easy and accessible. It isn’t, and that’s not fair. But fairness isn’t quite the issue.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
One of the shocks of moving into community college administration is discovering how many “academic” decisions are made based on financial aid rules.
Some folks on campus are floating an idea that I have to admit makes a certain kind of bureaucratic sense. It involves restricting the windows during which students can change their majors to the periods between semesters. A student who decides in, say, October that she picked the wrong major would have to wait until January to switch.
It’s driven by financial aid.
Federal financial aid only covers courses in (or, sometimes, prerequisite to) a student’s major. The idea is that aid is for “degree-seeking students,” so it should cover only degree-seeking behavior. In the minds of the Feds, courses outside of one’s major are clearly larks, and the taxpayers shouldn’t be on the the hook for larks.
It’s a position that makes sense in the abstract, but that falls apart when you meet actual students.
Actual students don’t always know from the first day of classes what they want to study. Or, they may think they do, but discover upon exposure that it wasn’t what they had in mind. The idea behind “meta-majors” and “guided pathways” is to help students choose, without leaving credits behind if it takes them a little while. A first semester comprised of a meta-major exploring a wide field, combined with some gen eds, will transfer nicely from one major to another. That’s a point that many critics of pathways miss.
But pathways or no, a student who decides to change her major mid-semester can create an awkward financial aid situation. Courses that had been eligible for coverage under the initial major may not be under the new one; all of a sudden, a student can be on the hook to pay back aid that she already received. For instance, “Business” is not a general education category. So a student who enrolls in a business class with the idea of majoring in business, but who changes her mind mid-semester and wants instead to major in humanities, may find that her business class doesn’t carry over. And now she’s on the hook for it financially.
But if she waits until January, then what’s done is done. She can change majors without imperiling financial aid. (She’ll still lose credits.)
Civilians might be surprised at how often, and how many, students change majors. It’s not a trivial number. Pushing all of them into January or the summer -- but especially January -- would create a hellacious crunch time for advising, registration, and financial aid. It would also most likely lead to some students missing appointments, whether because they lose track of time, get crowded out by others doing the same thing, or just decide it isn’t worth it.
In this case, improved technology has actually made the situation worse. It’s easier now to track when students’ courses don’t match their majors, and to get that information quickly. Once a college knows, it has to act; the technology now is too good to hide behind “we didn’t know in time.” The interstices of manual systems, I’m told, created room for human judgment. But the tech has become good enough to squeeze out those spaces. We can now apply blunt instruments much more efficiently.
In my more-perfect world, financial aid would be flexible enough that students could explore a bit without penalty. Lifetime Pell limits would be restored to pre-2012 levels (or eliminated altogether), to allow students with developmental and/or ESL coursework realistic timeframes to complete programs. We would make aid decisions based on academic needs, rather than the other way around.
But this is where we are. Between narrow rules and advancing technology, we’re getting to the point at which telling a student who wants to switch majors “come back in three months” actually makes a kind of sense. Not academically, of course, but there’s no rule for that.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
We recently had an internal search for an interim administrative position. Four people initially applied, each with an individual letter.
It’s the little things. The salutations of the four letters were as follows:
“Dear Members of the Committee,”
“To Whom It May Concern,”
“Dear Dr. Reed,”
I’m not sure of the etiquette, but I had to smile at the range.
Wise and wordly readers, what’s your preferred salutation in a cover letter?
Monday, May 14, 2018
If you saw the title to this piece and kept reading anyway, bless you.
Like most of the rest of us who follow these things, I was surprised when NEASC, the regional accreditor for the New England states, shot down Connecticut’s proposal to consolidate its twelve community colleges into a single entity. The apparent goal behind the plan was to reduce administrative and back-office costs, though I’ll admit never being convinced that the math added up. NEASC wasn’t convinced that the plan made sense, either, and sent it back. Mark Ojakian, the system president, vows to take another crack at it, but with Governor Malloy in his final year in office, it’s not clear that even a revised plan would have state backing long enough to happen.
At almost the same time, the Higher Learning Commission -- the single largest regional accreditor, covering most of the middle of the country -- approved Purdue’s takeover of Kaplan. Purdue already has a partnership with Indiana University with a name so clunky -- Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis -- that it goes by IUPUI, pronounced “Ooey Pooey.” Consistent with that precedent, I refer to Kaplan/Purdue as “Kooey Pooey.”
In some basic ways, the Kooey Pooey proposal is much more radical than the Connecticut one. Connecticut proposed to merge likes with likes, combining twelve public, nonprofit community colleges into a single statewide one. That’s not without precedent in New England; both Vermont and Rhode Island have statewide community colleges already. All twelve colleges are unionized, so that presumably wouldn’t change. All are public and nonprofit, so that wouldn’t change. The core of the change was cost-cutting through eliminating perceived redundancies across campuses that do essentially the same things. I wasn’t convinced by the proposal in concrete terms, but conceptually, it made sense. There’s no particular reason the colleges couldn’t form purchasing consortia for payroll services, office supplies, or ERP’s, for instance. They may already have, for all I know.
Kooey Pooey, on the other hand, is a merger of nonprofit public university with a privately-held for-profit one. The former has tenure; the latter doesn’t. The former has a research mission; the latter doesn’t. The former has a version of shared governance; the latter doesn’t. The former has an eleemosynary mission; the latter doesn’t. The latter was formed with the narrow and specific goal of making money.
Which is fine, as far as it goes. Colleges and universities routinely partner with for-profit vendors for ancillary functions like food service and bookstores. But in those partnerships, the internal logics of each partner can be opaque to the other without harm. That the business models are different doesn’t matter, because they’re in fundamentally different businesses.
In the case of Kooey Pooey, though, the merger cuts to the heart of the mission. It goes to shared governance, academic standards, and the sorts of things that should give accreditors pause, but apparently didn’t.
Accreditors have come under fire over the last few years, in the wake of so many for-profits’ failures, for being the dogs that didn’t bark. I was glad to see NEASC step up and do what a regional accreditor should do when presented with a half-baked plan. As for the HLC, well, I hope they know something I don’t know. Because from here, the “dog that didn’t bark” seems pretty accurate.
Sunday, May 13, 2018
A tweet last week caught a bit of fire, so I thought it might be worth revisiting. Last week we had graduation, and we gave a Distinguished Alumnus award to a graduate who has gone on to achieve great things. A professor introduced me to her the day before; she mentioned that when she started in 1978, tuition was $6 per credit. (To be fair, someone on campus suggested that she might have been rounding down…) I found an inflation calculator online, which converted six dollars in 1978 money to twenty-three dollars now. Our current tuition is $135 per credit.
The national minimum wage in 1978 was $2.35 per hour. At six dollars per credit, and 15 credits per term, you could cover full-time tuition in just over 38 hours of work. Over 15 weeks, that’s about 2 ½ hours per week. Pretty doable, I think. That leaves out fees, books, and living expenses, but it’s a good baseline.
The minimum wage in New Jersey in 2018 is $8.60 per hour. At 135 dollars per credit, and 15 credits per term, you could cover full-time tuition in just over 235 hours of work. That’s almost 16 hours per week.
It doesn’t just _seem_ harder than it used to be. It actually is. Looking only at tuition and minimum wage, it’s over six times harder.
And that’s before accounting for faster-than-inflation increases in the cost of textbooks and rental housing.
Robert Kelchen did a quick analysis showing that one of the usual villains in the narrative about tuition -- so-called “administrative bloat” -- is badly overstated, to the extent that it exists at all. The community college sector in particular has been parsimonious, often to a counterproductive level, in parceling out administrative positions. Spending in that area has been flat for years, despite increases in the need for staffing in IT, financial aid, and disability services, among others. That means that the remaining staff is doing more with less.
(A few years ago, I saw a piece that narrowed down so-called “administrative bloat” to the research university sector, and specifically to universities with teaching hospitals attached. That was because every single hospital employee was counted as “administrative.” It’s measurement error.)
We know it’s not primarily a function of inflated faculty salaries, either. A quick comparison of adjunct percentages over the years puts that one to rest quickly.
As longtime readers know, I believe that Baumol’s Cost Disease is an inexorable factor. That’s true directly, through the educational enterprise measured in seat time, and indirectly, through the cost of health insurance for employees and the institution.
Health insurance is clearly a driver. But tuition increases don’t only reflect cost increases. They also reflect subsidy decreases, after inflation.
Locally, for example, state aid has been flat - in nominal terms - for twenty years. County aid is actually lower now than it was ten years ago, even before adjusting for inflation. Cost-shifting from the polity to the students has had a tremendous impact. If you prefer to think in generational terms, you could say that the Boomers who benefitted from heavy tuition subsidies have chosen not to pay it forward to the generations that followed. If you prefer to think in class terms, the downward distribution of the tax burden has lightened the load remarkably on people who least need the load lightened...
I mention all of this in defense of current students. Millennial-bashing is great sport in some circles, but I can’t help but notice how much harder they’re working than either the Boomers or the X’ers had to. Most of our students work at least 30 hours per week for pay outside of class, often skimming off some of their pay to support their families, rather than the other way around. Our systems and expectations weren’t built for that, but there it is. As a society, we’re eating our young. That is not a sign of health, and it is not sustainable.
In this context, the call for “free community college” can be read as calling for restoring intergenerational justice. It’s an attempt to give current students something approaching the deal that their forerunners got. It’s both a moral cause -- fair is fair -- and a pragmatic one; we will not be able to sustain the productivity increases needed to support all those retirees if we don’t educate the young. It simply will not happen.
Free tuition, OER, and basic needs support are ways to take some of the economic pressure off, to allow students to be students. I’d love to see more students be able to reduce the hours they have to work for pay and still be able to take care of themselves. The move away from a humane model has been gradual enough to seem inevitable or natural, but it isn’t; it’s a choice. It’s a choice we can make differently.
When the alumna told me what she paid, I laughed and said “wow!” I’d love to get to a point at which it wouldn’t seem unbelievable.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
The Culinary program had its graduation Wednesday night. About 40ish students were there, along with over a hundred family, friends, and faculty.
Each student was introduced to the crowd by name. When one particular student was introduced, a little boy -- I’m guessing six or seven -- stood up and yelled loudly “That’s my brother! That’s my brother!”
Graduations never get old.
Albums do, though. I saw somewhere that Liz Phair’s “Exile in Guyville” is 25 years old. Yes, technically, 2018-1993=25, but that can’t possibly be right. Simply not possible.
Creatively, Phair was pretty much a one-album wonder, but she made it count. (Yes, she had a pop crossover hit in the early 00’s, but the album was forgettable.) “Exile” managed both to come out of nowhere and to capture its moment. Admittedly, I was at a moment in my life where lines like these from “Divorce Song” were a gut punch:
It’s harder to be friends than lovers
And you shouldn’t try to mix the two
“Cause if you do it and you’re still unhappy
Then you know that the problem is you
She attracted attention for being frank about sex, but really, she was frank about everything. Her vocals were flat, but that came off as frankess. She could barely play, but in that context, minimalism passed for honesty. She told it like it was. Subsequent albums were more competent, but less interesting; she had one story to tell, and by the second album, she had told it.
For whatever reason, that era lent itself to one-album wonders. Bettie Serveert’s “Palomine,” released at about the same time, set expectations that their subsequent work didn’t meet. Ditto for The Breeders with “Last Splash.” (Another refugee from that era, Belly, just came out with a reunion album that’s pretty “meh.”) Kristin Hersh managed to continue to produce good work, but the rest of that cohort really didn’t.
Still, “Exile” was strongly present at a distinct point in my life. It cut through the noise in a way that few albums ever have. If that point was 25 years ago, well, the math can’t possibly be correct. It just can’t.
Time is relentless. On Thursday, Dean Carl Calendar experienced his last Brookdale graduation. He was at the first graduation, in 1970, and every graduation since then. After 48 years, he’s moving on to other things.
Congratulations, Carl. It won’t be the same without you.
Wednesday, May 09, 2018
(No, this isn’t a reference to the old Muppet sketch “Pigs in Space…”)
Over the summer, Brookdale is bringing its Rutgers University partnership to Brookdale’s main campus. Experienced admins know what that means.
Let the space jockeying begin!
There’s widespread support on campus for bringing Rutgers here. The partnership itself isn’t new; it was first established 20 years ago. But in that time, it has been at a branch campus (in Freehold), rather than the main campus. We’re moving it to the main campus in hopes of making it more appealing for students who would like to stay here to complete their four-year degrees. Selfishly, I’m hoping that it will entice more students to stay here for the sophomore year, since they’ll be staying through the senior year anyway. We have plenty of capacity in our 200-level courses, and the faculty have indicated that they’d be happy to run more sections of upper-level courses if enrollments warranted. The selling point for students and their families is clear: get a four-year degree from the flagship state university while living at home, paying only community college tuition for the first two years, and being on a pretty, collegiate campus with clubs and sports the entire time.
All of which is lovely. But then there’s the question of where to put them.
A retiring dean likes to say that the thorniest problems involve “mammals in space,” and I’m discovering that he’s right.
Among the variables:
- Over the years, certain classrooms have come to be “owned” by certain departments. The ownership isn’t literal, of course, but the physical layout and technology in the rooms have been optimized for certain courses. For example, we have “composition classrooms” in which a set of desks in the middle of the room are surrounded by computers along the walls, so students can alternate between individual work on their papers and lecture/discussion in the middle. We also have “speech classrooms” in which we’ve put up monitors in the back of the room facing the front, so a speaker doing a presentation can see the PowerPoint slides without looking backwards. Repurposing rooms like those could involve harming the quality of teaching.
- Faculty generally prefer to have offices near where they most commonly teach, and generally prefer to be with their own departments. Cascadia Community College in Washington state has done some interesting work with organizing faculty physically by different principles, so it can be done, but we’re still invested in the “department” model. As a longtime fan of Jane Jacobs, I see the appeal of mixing it up, but this just isn’t the time.
- A move involves much more inconvenience for some people than for others. “Why us?” is a very real question.
- Campus visibility. I don’t want the partnership to be a well-kept secret. I want students to know, from the first day they’re here, that the option exists for them. It only works if students know about it.
- External visibility. Coordinating marketing involves allocating costs and decision-making between two institutions. We’ve done it before, and both sides are willing, but it requires attention and maintenance.
- Time. It’s May, and we fully intend to have this up and running in September.
- Cost. Moving is not free.
- Potential growth. To put my cards on the table, I hope the program grows. If it does, over time, it may need more room. Any solution that would “landlock” it, even if it buys short-term peace, is a bad idea.
- Parking. Always.
Happily, the plan on which we’ve landed manages to preserve the dedicated composition and speech classrooms, and doesn’t involve moving any faculty offices. That took some doing, but it worked. We’ll move one dean’s office, but only one building over.
My question for wise and worldly readers who’ve been through similar changes elsewhere: what else should we look for or expect? Did you find any landmines that surprised you? Mammals in space are tricky, but in this case, I see the payoff being worth it.
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
A few years ago Myra Snell coined the term “stupiphany” to describe that forehead-slapping moment when you realize something that’s so obvious in retrospect that you feel stupid for not having seen it sooner.
I had one of those this week around OER and dual enrollment.
Most public high schools supply textbooks free of charge to their students. Most colleges don’t. When a college teaches courses in a high school for high school students, someone -- whether the district, the students, the parents, or the external funder, if any -- is likely to get sticker shock at the cost of the books. That’s because they’ve been working on a “free textbooks” model forever. The aspect of OER that seems so novel in the college setting is old hat in the high school setting.
Put differently, aggressive adoption of OER at the college level can make dual enrollment classes much easier to sustain.
To the extent we move in that direction, we’re addressing cost on a couple of fronts. We’re taking textbook costs off the table, and we’re making dual enrollment classes available on a sustained basis to more students. Those can be remarkable money-savers in themselves, and because they aren’t eligible for Pell grants at this point, they can help students conserve their Pell eligibility.
The stupiphany came in realizing that the two are connected. Meaningful progress in OER adoption would make meaningful progress in dual enrollment much easier. Even the most strapped school board can manage to cover “free.” Even better, many OER resources are consistently updated; as recent news coverage from Arizona has shown us, that isn’t true of traditional textbooks. Nothing against Blake Shelton, but when I saw that a young girl was issued the same textbook he was issued at her age, I had to grimace. If the social studies book refers to President Reagan in the present tense, it’s time to replace the book.
The common denominator between OER and dual enrollment is access. In fact, with dual enrollment we’ve had questions raised about how much access is too much. Several high schools allow students who don’t register for the college course to sit in on it. Some faculty here have objected that the free-riding students are setting themselves up for better grades later by getting a free preview. I’m torn. Yes, free-riding creates obvious issues of sustainability. But you could also read it as studiousness. I don’t object if students use libraries to read up on the subject matter of classes before taking the classes, or even if they view MOOCs on subjects prior to taking the classes. If anything, I tend to have a soft spot for students who are so eager to learn that they jump ahead. It’s a good problem to have.
Outside of certain literature or philosophy classes, I’m generally skeptical of the claim that a given subject can only be taught with The One True Text. Part of the point of the focus on “student learning outcomes” is that it frees up faculty to try different approaches to help students learn. As long as the students get what they’re supposed to, any of a number of different resources could work. Yes, a course on Shakespeare requires texts by Shakespeare (or by the true author of “his” plays, if you’re more conspiratorially-minded). But an Intro to Marketing course could use any number of different resources and still get the students what they need.
Dual enrollment has fans and foes, but I’ve never heard anyone complain that the books weren’t expensive enough. If the growth in dual enrollment leads to speeding up the pace of adoption of OER, everyone wins. Except maybe for folks who collect textbooks owned by famous people now over 40.