Rippner (2016) explains that “government leaders want to ensure that a quality education is being produced at an efficient rate” (p. 144), which I believe is often in direct conflict with what university faculty believe is their goal. She recognizes that “faculty do not always identify themselves with their institution, but rather feel more loyalty to their fields” (p. 118). They are scholars first, tied to their discipline with responsibilities beyond teaching that include research or creative activity, service to the university usually in the form of shared governance structures, and occasionally, as at my institution, community service. Some faculty are also concerned with civic outcomes, such as participation in our larger democratic process, in addition to academic learning outcomes, and in my experience, are not focused on “higher completion rates and greater perceived employment prospects (e.g. jobs and salaries)” (p. 115). While they tend to be concerned about the achievement gap, they do not want every student who enters their program to complete.
The faculty on my campus certainly do not see themselves as producers of degreed individuals and generally resent any metaphors that compare what they do to a factory worker and their students to consumers or customers. Corrigan (2018) explains that some humanities professors “view the whole question of jobs as crass utilitarianism — beneath, if not antithetical to, the intellectual, spiritual, or political calling of the humanities. On the other end are those who believe that the humanities develop skills — communication, creativity, critical thinking — that are useful in a wide range of jobs but leave students to work out the details for themselves” (para. 5). On my campus, perhaps because we are small and as the only California member of the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges (COPLAC) faculty greatly value interdisciplinary work, it is not only humanities professors who make these arguments.
Making this more complicated is the fact that most university administrators, at least within academic affairs, themselves were faculty at one time. At the risk of sounding like an armchair psychologist, I believe that these administrators often find themselves torn between their identities as scholars and their responsibilities to implement policies. I have seen that they are dedicated to making an impact on their campus and the system as a whole but often find they can’t maintain the cognitive dissonance of these competing interests. They burn out trying and move from campus to campus at such a fast rate that they don’t have time to learn the local context. They leave behind a “deep state” of staff, lower level administrators, and tenured faculty who often maintain the culture of the campus and wait out anyone trying to make change.
The conflicts and gaps among how faculty see themselves; governmental policies implemented by administrators; and what stakeholders know, don’t know, and want are enough to lead to deep dysfunction at many universities. On my campus, it led to a landslide vote of no confidence against our previous president. The rift and tension are still being felt today with real implications for student learning.
Rippner, J. (2016). The American education policy landscape.
The faculty on my campus certainly do not see themselves as producers of degreed individuals and generally resent any metaphors that compare what they do to a factory worker and their students to consumers or customers. Corrigan (2018) explains that some humanities professors “view the whole question of jobs as crass utilitarianism — beneath, if not antithetical to, the intellectual, spiritual, or political calling of the humanities. On the other end are those who believe that the humanities develop skills — communication, creativity, critical thinking — that are useful in a wide range of jobs but leave students to work out the details for themselves” (para. 5). On my campus, perhaps because we are small and as the only California member of the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges (COPLAC) faculty greatly value interdisciplinary work, it is not only humanities professors who make these arguments.
Making this more complicated is the fact that most university administrators, at least within academic affairs, themselves were faculty at one time. At the risk of sounding like an armchair psychologist, I believe that these administrators often find themselves torn between their identities as scholars and their responsibilities to implement policies. I have seen that they are dedicated to making an impact on their campus and the system as a whole but often find they can’t maintain the cognitive dissonance of these competing interests. They burn out trying and move from campus to campus at such a fast rate that they don’t have time to learn the local context. They leave behind a “deep state” of staff, lower level administrators, and tenured faculty who often maintain the culture of the campus and wait out anyone trying to make change.
Rippner also discusses that the government sees the importance of providing “transparent information to students and families” (p.144). It is true that higher education is shrouded in mystery, and this is a problem for many beyond students and families. Way back in 2012, I published a pair of blog posts 20 Things I Wish I'd Known About Higher Education When I Worked in Nonprofits Part 1 and Part 2 to help provide some transparency to community partners. They still get viewed regularly today. It took a lot of time to do the research for these because we have so little transparency. So little is known about higher education, that even our own students are often surprised that faculty are not teachers and that they usually have little or no training in curriculum development or pedagogy.What is the purpose of higher education: To prepare for a job, or to cultivate an active lifelong curiosity? https://t.co/UsLYopTkMO— The Chronicle of Higher Education (@chronicle) July 7, 2018
The conflicts and gaps among how faculty see themselves; governmental policies implemented by administrators; and what stakeholders know, don’t know, and want are enough to lead to deep dysfunction at many universities. On my campus, it led to a landslide vote of no confidence against our previous president. The rift and tension are still being felt today with real implications for student learning.
References
Corrigan, P. T. (2018). Jobs Will Save the Humanities. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jobs-Will-Save-the-Humanities/243767Rippner, J. (2016). The American education policy landscape.
Hi Merith,
ReplyDeleteI think you (and Rippner) make an excellent point about faculty missions not aligning with government goals. This would probably be especially true of freeway faculty who teach at multiple schools and thus do not necessarily have a particular loyalty to one place. Your post made me realize that Rippner does not cover faculty and faculty governance in too much detail, other than to mention that faculty can have significant academic freedom. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) (1994) speaks to just such an issue and argues three reasons why faculty should have a say in the entire range of policy decisions. Namely, they argue that allocating authority to faculty helps to accomplish the institution’s objectives since faculty are scholars well acquainted with their discipline (AAUP, 1994). I think this speaks to your point about faculty being torn between their identities as scholars and their responsibilities as policy-makers. If they are involved in the policy process and their opinions as respected scholars are valued, they may experience less of this disconnect.
I was also particularly interested in your point about higher education being very non-transparent. There have been several policies and initiatives (both successful and unsuccessful) to attempt to make higher education more transparent (Higher Education Transparency Act, College Transparency Act of 2017, Higher Education and Employment Transparency Act, etc). I notice that many of these acts focus on internet transparency, and making websites more clear and with more complete information and data. I often wonder though – is that enough? We have tons of policies, rules, and regulations detailed on our campus website, yet I see students and families that do not even know that such a website exists, nor how to navigate to it. I imagine there are other ways to increase transparency for students and families, although I’m not entirely sure what is being done at the CSU level to accomplish this purpose.
Thanks for posting,
Emily G.
References
“American Association of University Professors” (1994). On the relationship of faculty governance to academic freedom. American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/report/relationship-faculty-governance-academic-freedom
Hi Merith, I struggle with some of the same tensions on our campus. I think that Rippner's points you cite above are especially relevant to the CSU system and our all-encompassing graduation initiative. I echo our faculty's concern in light of these largely mechanistic attempts to get students in and out with a degree in four years -- at what point are we helping our students learn how to THINK?
ReplyDeleteA couple of years ago, I attended an AAC&U (Association of American Colleges & Universities) conference with my president and several high level administrators. The AAC&U's primary focus is on "improving undergraduate education and advancing liberal education." For two days straight, keynotes, speakers, and small group discussions lamented the demise of liberal education -- the pursuit of education for the purpose of pursuing an education. I wonder what kind of disservice we're doing to our students by focusing primarily on jobs?
M -
ReplyDeleteThanks for this blog post. I’ve been in Student Affairs for all of my career and I’ve struggled to connect with faculty since the beginning. I’ve always felt as though we were fighting for the same cause (students) but in our own way. I’ve been often confused by the ways in which policies are created on my campus, which seems to be done in isolation. Yes, staff are ‘represented’ on Senate just as students are but it’s always seemed like they just had a seat at the table and no voice. Maybe they choose not to speak up or feel intimidated by others around the table. As Ripper (and you) mentioned, faculty don’t see themselves as part of the institution but moreso connected to their field and their research. They’ve also most often always been independent contractors, or at least that’s how I’ve rationalized it. They are experts in their field and excel at research and publishing. I can see how being a part of a large system and identifying with it and its goals creates some dissonance.
Higher education is in fact very convoluted. It’s a tangled web of loopholes, policies, protocols, and institutional cultural practices. Of course anyone from the outside (namely students and families) would struggle to navigate the complexities. Particularly those from marginalized backgrounds struggle. This continues into both the staff and faculty ranks as well. I myself have had my own struggles professionally in trying to partner with faculty to influence policy decisions. Hell, it took me a couple of years to figure out who the key stakeholders were on campus when it comes to policy decisions. Things are better now but I wonder if ever the divide between academic and student affairs will ever be minimized. Is it even possible since, in effect, we were raised differently? We arrived at our institutions in different ways, and I’ll offer, for different reasons but with the same goal - to cultivate global citizens. I guess only time will tell.
-Jazzie