• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Admissions and the Adolescent Brain

June 20, 2011, 6:30 pm

Los Angeles—Admissions officers often talk about trying to get inside the heads of high-school students, but JoAnn Deak knows the terrain quite well. After all, she’s been studying the human brain for decades.

On Monday morning, Ms. Deak, a psychologist who specializes in childhood development, spoke here at the annual conference of the Association of College Counselors in Independent Schools. She gave an illuminating lecture on the brain development of adolescents, those creatures who constantly delight and perplex the lucky people who get to shepherd them through the college-selection process. “The starting salary for your jobs should be $300,000,” Ms. Deak said, to hearty applause.

Like it or not, Ms. Deak told her audience, parents, teachers, and high-school counselors are “neurosculptors” of teenagers. What adults say and do to adolescents will shape who they grow up to be. So, Ms. Deak said, they have a responsibility to help students manage their anxiety about college. “A big part of your job is to keep stress levels in bounds,” she said. “Stress isn’t bad, but pervasive stress literally starts killing neurons.”

In other words, helping a teenager apply to college is not only an admissions issue—it’s also a developmental issue. As such, there’s much room for teaching. Guilt and punishment typically won’t help a teenager remember to turn in his application materials on time, Ms. Deak said, but helping him develop a plan for remembering to meet such deadlines just might.

Above all, Ms. Deak said, teenagers (even those with superduper SAT scores and a long list of intellectual achievements) are not the same as adults. It’s a matter of development, not smarts. So, while an adult with a fully developed brain can juggle various responsibilities with two hands, Ms. Deak says, “adolescents, on a good day, can juggle with one hand and one finger.”

Among teenagers, for instance, the prefrontal cortex still has much growing up to do. This is the region of the brain that governs “executive function,” enabling us to exercise judgment, meet goals, and suppress socially unacceptable behavior.

What teenagers do possess is a raging amygdala. That’s right, the amygdala is that almond-shaped bundle of nuclei that sits deep within the temporal lobe. It processess emotional reactions, like pleasure, anger, and fear. You know, the very states that so often accompany the application process.

So the next time that high-school junior starts wailing at the mere thought of not getting into Princeton, just remember that she might just be having what Ms. Deak calls an “amygdala moment.” It might be irrational, yet also quite natural.

You heard it here first, folks. College admissions is all about the amygdala.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • lgrochowalski

    I agree that in the past, that was the purpose of contingent faculty. But things have changed, especially at community colleges. In my state, and at my community college, more than 75% of courses are taught by adjuncts, who, using the 70% formula as above, make about 1/2 what full-time faculty make per course.

    Our ratio between full-time and part-time faculty is 3-1 in favor of adjuncts. Adjuncts teach core courses as well as those specialty courses–and almost 40% of adjuncts teach 4 courses a semester (the maximum possible), 8 courses a year–and earn about a third of what a full-time faculty member makes (whose load is 5 courses a semester). In my college, about 225 courses that should have been taught by full-time faculty are taught by adjuncts (the full-time faculty were given course releases for various reasons). The adjuncts aren’t paid what the full-timer would have been paid for the same course. This NOT a substitute teacher situation–the adjuncts are employees of the college who have been teaching many of these courses for 10 or more years.

    As the article noted, full-time faculty are also paid to serve on committees, hold office hours, and advise students–adjuncts do these things for free, as their contracts are teaching-only, which further reduces their actual per-hour income. Why do they do it? Because they care about their students, who might fail without this “volunteer” work.

    Another interesting note: our state’s community college presidents retain ALL the money from courses taught by adjuncts, while the money from courses taught by full-time faculty goes directly to the state, and only a portion comes back to the college as state aid. In other words, adjuncts are cash cows. So, in this dysfunctional environment, it is no wonder colleges take advantage of contingent faculty.

    Let’s say all adjuncts leave their jobs. What would they then do? There are NO full time positions available (or at least very few) available in the state, and at the bottom of openings are jobs in the Humanities. Should these professionals with advances degrees flip burgers? As someone else wrote, it’s better to fight from within.

    I think paying adjunct faculty on varying scales is an idea to explore, but it won’t make a dent in the problem as long as states like mine allow colleges to hire adjuncts at low pay so they can then milk their courses for extra discretionary funds. State laws need to change, funding needs to change (to hire many of those adjuncts into full-time positions), and many full-time faculty need to change and embrace their part-time co-workers, not disparage them.

  • adjunctcarol

    Wow you guys need to move to WA. I get about $3,500 per 5 credit class plus health benefits.
    Granted I max out at $28,000, but have lots of time to decide what I do and when. We are treated mostly well, but it has been a long road. But they and we forget we are not FT. One must identify what one is willing to give vs. what the pay is for.

    My School: The baby steps

    AF have phones, computers, desks, email, offices (although shared, we make sure people have enough space to adequately work… except for FERPA privacy stuff. Apparently who cares about FERPA :-). I am trying to use this FERPA loophole to get better offices ), direct deposit and twice a month paychecks (can you believe at one time it “cost too much to do that for adjunct”??), get a small stipend for two local PD day, can apply for up to $500 for personal PD money every few years, yearly teaching excellence awards -one for FT one for AF, an AF committee, can participate on committees (no pay but baby steps), strong FT support… recently got a 100% matching of local dollars to state equity dollars!

    In WA: The lawsuits (and legal maneuvering largely due to strong unions that represent both AF and FT)

    AF have accumulated sick leave, unemployment, health benefits at 50% (and summer even if not teaching), strong FT support (unions that unite FT and AF; and they provide terrific protection for union workers).

    Baby steps and lawsuits.

  • adjunctcarol

    If I was hired FT: my entering pay would be about $45,000. (masters)
    Of course our FT are the 2nd lowest paid in the state.

    Lies, damn lies and statistics= Mark Twain I believe.

    Quarter system: 45,000/(3 quarters x 4 classes) = $3750 per class. FT teach 4 classes per quarter with one class deferred as “governance.” So a full teaching load is 3 classes per quarter.

    My $3,500 doesn’t sound too bad except I am capped at 8 classes per year (28,000; not including summer).

    So what percentage of FT pay am I?
    28,000/45,000 = 62%. Or 28,000/30,000 = 93%. or 28,000/33750 = 83%

    Do FT do 11,250 in governance? HA ha ha ha aha do do do do

    NO ONE can SHOW that 75% of pay = 75% of work. A big union question. Some of us think that classes are worth more than governance monetarily. I do governance, more than many FT. I train new adjunct and FT! Students know no difference except some of us share offices.

  • adjunctcarol

    Isaac: KEEP THE FAITH.

    Keep Writing.
    Although most are silent, hundreds of thousands are behind you (and they are not holding axes). :-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502957934 Melanie Schikore

    If an adjunct takes work to complement a full time job one night a week, then perhaps the pay is fair. If, however, a university staffs its courses with mostly adjuncts to the extent that adjuncts carry the same teaching load as full time faculty at 1/3 the compensation and no benefits, that is something that needs to be looked at.

  • gplm2000

    Yes, there is a pay differential between full time employees and part time employees. Every organization that I am aware of pays less for part timers. I do not understand the gripes by the adjunct instructors. Is this a foreign concept to them? Ask WalMart what the difference is and why. Personnel costs are the single highest expense for any organization. As a result wise management trys to minimize them. Adjuncts are used to keep the cost of employees down. If one does not like this type of job, then do not do it. Very simple.

  • gplm2000

    Although I understand the effort and hopeful anticipation of achieving a Phd., it is not a guarantee of employment nor should it be one. All it means is that you are expertly qualified in your field. The hiring organization must judge you against other applicants, decide on how much it can spend on you, and keep overall expenses as low as possible. As they said in the Godfather movie, “it is nothing personal, just business”.

  • librarydirector

    Unfortunately for those caught in the web of the (horrible) job market, the U.S. university adjunct system is designed to be part-time employment. This is not a job as a partner in a law firm–and barely analogous to a non-partner. This is part of a system that was designed, for better or for worse, to allow universities to bring in lecturers on an ad hoc basis to fill in for the overflow. Perfectly legitimate. Academic journeymen.

    Whether or not that’s good or bad, that’s what the system is and how it was designed to work. It doesn’t work badly for what it’s designed to do–but the problem is that so many people want it to be a different system. I think that for those who want a part-time, academically oriented job, teaching as an adjunct is fine–as long as you’re willing to settle for pretty much whatever is the going rate. Think of it as the intellectual’s alternative to moonlighting in retail. No, you’re not going to make as much as the full-timers, but you’ll do okay. And you won’t be digging ditches.

    Is it comparable to the pay/status/authority/standing of a (full-time) tenure track professor? No. It was never intended to be. And unless the system is changed, it really cannot be expected to be. And, frankly, there has never been a full-time job known as “Adjunct Professor.” It is by definition part-time work. For part-time wages. And if you take the job you really have to know that you’re in it for the love of teaching and to either increase your Christmas account or make extra payments on your mortgage. Nothing more.

    Should those folks who have earned a Master’s degree or a Ph.D be paid minimum wage for important work? Absolutely not. Should universities pay minimum wage for adjunct services? Absolutely not. But if you think that intellectual part-timers should be paid a better-than-part-time wage, then either fight, or sue, or move. For years I was restricted by my inability to make geographical moves. Among other things, my salary suffered. Now I can count on mobility. Now I can make cogent requests for market salary rates. And I have done well. But if I were to have offered my services to whomever could and would pay for them in a limited geographical area then I would have had to take whatever was the going rate. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

    Bottom line–the work is important. The system is flawed. But no one wants to hear the whining. Again, fight, or sue, or move. Or do what you agreed to do, which was to help your students learn.

    If you’re doing your job at least they’ll be grateful.

  • szakin

    And you’re clearly very happy, judging from the tone of your reply?

  • http://twitter.com/IsaacSweeney IsaacSweeney

    Writing is fighting ;)

  • dxg197

    At my campus (which is not a research university) faculty spend about 25-50% of their time teaching. This is because the service commitments are much more than most adjuncts or administrators would ever admit and getting research starting with few resources is much more time intensive that most people would believe. So according to that, if a starting assistant professor is paid $60K per year an adjunct may be worth as little as $1800 per course (since faculty teach 8 courses per year).

  • lawilson

    Every single one of the replies to gplm2000 is spot on. The whole point in having forums like this is to encourage discussion about best practices, new technology, and whatever else might be on the minds of those of us in the field. There is nothing at all wrong with the subject of this article and it’s certainly not whining, as gplm2000 terms it. In fact, I’d be much more concerned if there were nowhere for us to share thoughts and ideas or we were afraid to do so.

  • utchron9

    @gplm2000

    In what sane world is teaching 4 courses a semester at a college considered “part-time” when the “full-time” faculty are teaching 2 courses a semester or simply handling administrative duties? It seems that one of the issues we are trying to engage with is that many departments are moving to an employment model where they have one or two full-time faculty for administrative duty, but rely on a legion of adjuncts to handle the actual teaching duties. Other issues include misleading the adjuncts into thinking there are viable opportunities for professional growth within the department and a future as a full-timer.

    This reminds me of working at a factory and talking to a bunch of “part time” employees who averaged 40 hour weeks and had been around for around 10 years. Whenever the company was reaching the legal timeframe where they would have to pull them in as “full-time” they were all “let-go” for two weeks as there was no longer a “demand for their services.” Once the company was cleared of the legal hurdle they announced a new “demand” and rehired all the part-time people again. The part-timers did not complain as they were making between $40-$120 per hour. There are some similarities with this situation as with adjuncts, but there are some important differences also.

  • jovanevery

    Adjuncts are grossly underpaid almost everywhere. Largely because the market is flooded with people willing to do the work without arguing about the pay. I strongly advise people to think carefully about taking on this work given the low pay, poor conditions, and very low status. I also disagree with gplm2000 that part time work should necessarily be low paid or low status.

    However, if we want pay and conditions to change, the workers need to assert themselves, including setting a personal bar below which they will refuse this employment. Unionization is another option though not a quick and easy one.

    As long as colleges don’t have any trouble finding employees with this kind of pay rate, they have no reason to pay more.

  • kece

    Long long time ago while I was still an undergraduate, I had to work at a large national retail store much like WalMart.

    The management hired two people; a single mother who worked full-time to support her baby, and I, the college student who worked part-time put herself through college. We both received the hourly minimum wage. The only difference was, she worked a full 40-hour shift, and I only worked about 15-20 hours maximum. But in the end, we were compensated on an equal scale for the work we would do. It was fair. I did not complain.

    The adjunct pay however is not calculated on an equal scale, and that is simply not right – because there is no regulation to make it right. Just as you say, it’s a way for employees to keep the cost down by taking advantage of the lack of regulation.

    As for the if-you-don’t-like-it-don’t-take-the-job part, that sound like the bosses from the Industrial Revolution era. We don’t remember them as “wise management” today, we think about them much differently.

  • adjunctcarol

    stand up, sit down, write write write

    It seems accreditors really need to acknolwedge what percentage of classes are adjunct taught, and to be sure ALL faculty are trained, encouraged, and motivated. But if they acknowledge it, then their own schools must also examine their situation. Are there any adjuncts on accreditation teams?

  • adjunctcarol

    :-) Worth cannot be measured by pay.

    Adjuncts who are repeatedly hired every three months (a quarter system) add value and consistency to students’ educations.

    I’ve been hired everythree months for 13 years. Our VP of finances says “adjuncts are for flexibility” right. I’ve had – literally- the same load for 13 years, and with exactly the same schedule for 8 of those. I am by no means alone in this.

  • philostitute

    gplm2000:
    Either you are not a PhD and teach for “fun” or you didn’t see recent statistics that adjuncts make up around 70% of the teaching faculty on many campuses. If you think it is OK to exploit the faculty who teach 70% of the campus courses, then you are not a professional academic, but merely someone who moonlights as an adjunct and has no academic aspirations.Most PhDs want to be FT-TT faculty but due to the exploitation of adjuncts and elimination of TT faculty, they can never hope to be one of the privileged few who actually are paid fairly. No one outside academia will hire PhDs as people don’t like to hire those with more education than they currently have.

    The reality is that adjuncts are a completely exploited labor force with no bargaining rights and the administrators who perpetuate this status quo are doing so to justify their overinflated salaries. Administration costs at most universities have quadrupled in the last 30 years while the percentage of FT-TT faculty has slipped to 30%. Administrators love adjuncts because they cannot complain about working conditions. If they do, they will not be rehired. They work for slave wages, much like illegal immigrants. Adjuncts have no bargaining power and must keep their mouths shut if they want to eat. Administrators like the “flexibility” of using an exploited and silenced labor force so unlike the FT faculty who demand input into administrative decisions.

    Who loses: the students, the university and the exploited labor force. You paint this as a choice issue, but other than administrators, no one has any choice at all in changing the status quo.

  • yes_gotocollege

    Excellent article which gets us to the point of the issue-we should be considering the “whole” prospective student in the college admissions process. S/he is not a number, not a data plot, not an item to be marketed, but a human being who has emotions which are in the developmental stage-meaning s/he is vulnerable.
    We as college admission professionals have a “human responsibility” to guide these prospective students through the college admission process, not by taking advantage of students’ vulnerability but through a truthful, sincere and yes even compassionate manner.

  • 11147066

    What disturbed me about this article, another case of trendy neuroscience making claims it can not fully support, is the suggestion that parents and counselors are responsible for helping teenagers manage their anxiety about college admissions.  Of course we do share that responsibility, but what about the hyperinflated and frankly deceptive college practices?  Instead of speculating about how the adolescent amygdala is vulnerable, we can more pragmatically, and ethically, ask college admissions offices to stop false recruitment in order to lower their admissions rates, the keeping of huge waitlists from which almost no one will be admitted, and the exploitation of unbalanced early decision programs to “craft” their classes.  Yes, high school students are sensitive and vulnerable.  That makes it more imperative to hold college admissions staff responsible for their policies.
    Emily

  • peters137r

    Perhaps not quite so simple. Students tell multiple schools they will attend as they submit multiple deposits. Do you see an ethics issue there? Absent wait lists colleges have empty seats that some students would love to occupy but have no opportunity. Not a good situation for any of those involved.

  • millersr

    Emily,
    While I know nothing about your background as a scientist, I’m curious about what parts of Ms Deak’s presentation you found to be “trendy neuroscience making claims it can not fully support”? Personally I find it difficult to argue with her ”above all, teenagers are not the same as adults. It’s a matter of development, not smarts” statement. Would you consider that perhaps you and Ms Deak have now both made claims that can’t be fully supported - and that both of your messages are “right”?

  • EasyReader

    Having been a teenager, raised a teenager, and now observing my grandchild as a teenager, I can totally agree with Ms. Deak’s observations.  I’m wondering if we aren’t sending kids to college before they are ready.  Yes, there are a lucky few who can handle the responsibility and pressure.  My daughter was that way.  But there are so many youngsters who get in over their heads and end up dropping out.  Perhaps adding another year of high school (call it prep year) would allow the brain to mature a little more.

  • grward

    Definitely the best advice yet! If a potential applicant can’t get their application materials together adequately before the deadline, and yet they are still being pressured to do so by the adults around them, then it’s not only the student’s brain that may not be performing optimally.

    What happens to young people who may be bright, perfectly nice young individuals but who just haven’t reached an appropriately mature “brain state” yet? I’ve seen hundreds pass through my first-year classes over the past couple of decades. Of course they don’t keep up with their course material until it’s too late to master the material before the exam, of course they don’t begin assignments until the last minute, and of course they then fall behind until all of their problems compound so much that even the sturdiest of the sturdy would crumble under the stress. Of course. Why should we expect it to be any other way?

    Getting everything together for an application to an institution of higher ed is generally less demanding than mastering the requirements to do well in a typical array of university or college courses: we as adults should consider a young person’s ability to do the former as an indicator light to tell us if they are ready for the demands of higher education. If they don’t give the proper indication, and we still pressure them to go, what other outcome should we expect?

  • http://twitter.com/sjrlee Susana Reyes Lee

    It is definitely interesting how your non-traditional students do more and handle more while still doing somewhat better than the traditional college-aged student. Most would say that it is experience and maturity, but this would suggest that it is also the maturity of the brain that matters and helps the situation.

  • davi2665

    The trendy neuroscience comment applies to at least two assertions by Deak.  The first is that pervasive stress starts killing neurons.  High and persistent glucocorticoid levels can indeed damage some neurons, particularly in the CA1 sector of the hippocampal formation, but this is a far more serious problem in the elderly (where poor blood flow exacerbates the problem).  The developing brain appears to be more plastic than the mature adult brain, with a greater likelihood of additional neuronal proliferation in the face of challenge.  I would like to see the evidence that persistent “stress” in adolescents produces higher or more damaging levels of glucorticoids than seen in mature adults.

    A second area of questionable neuroscience is the description of a “raging amygdala.”  This component of the limbic forebrain is particularly suited for evaluating incoming stimuli and interpreting the likelihood of potential danger.  The amygdaloid complex provides an emotional context for sensory stimuli as an individualized reaction.  I would like to see the evidence that the amygdala is more reactive, or produces greater and more damaging outflow to its autonomic and neurohormonal targets in adolescents than in mature adults.

    The prefrontal cortex does take a couple of decades to mature and to make its full synaptic connectivity.  Hence, one does not expect to see an adolescent as president of a fortune 500 company, or leader of a complex organization.  What this has to do with managing anxiety in an adolescent applying to a university eludes me.

    Unfortunately, too many individuals like to take a little bit of scientific knowledge, then use it as a cause-and-effect explanation for something to which it does not apply, citing “studies” that either do not exist, or do not show what is being claimed.  No one claims that dealing with adolescents is easy, but it seeking the justification of “neuroscience” to give pseudo-explanations does no one any good.

  • big_giant_head

    Um…have you _met_ any teenagers?

  • FUtah2011

    Neurobabble.

  • emboro

    I definitely agree with earlier comments that many young adults who head off to college have not reached a certain level of [brain] maturity that would allow them to handle their new responsibilities.  College can allow for such students to learn and mature over the four years spent at their chosen institute, but not every student truly gains what they should, even if they do successfully receive their diploma.  Because of this, students are finding it harder to enter the workforce, many times because they didn’t gain the necessary experience to make the next step in their career. 

    When students are preparing for college they should make sure they know what they are getting into- there will always be academic and emotional stressors, but it’s important for students to know when they are ready to take on college, not just because it is the traditional next step after high school.

    Here’s an article on what students (and parents) should consider before investing (because it sure as hell is a major life investment) in a college and what factors should be weighed before making the commitment: http://j.mp/lN8gSq

  • wlgoffe

    Another take on how much and how many things teens can handle is covered in “The Myth of the Teen Brain,” http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein-THE_MYTH_OF_THE_TEEN_BRAIN-Scientific_American_Mind-4-07.pdf . While he agrees that teens’ prefrontal cortex operates differently from adults, the reason isn’t clear — it could well be the environment that leads to different development. On the broader issue of “teen turmoil,” he argues that outside the Western world, teens experience little of the turmoil that we take for granted (in fact, most don’t have a word for “adolescent.”). Apparently teen turmoil is rare in the history of the West as well. The article describes what we in the West are getting wrong in raising our teens.

  • jesor

    This was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education describing a presentation to a general knowledge level audience regarding neuroscience.   For the things your asking one would expect that you would look for them in a refereed journal or at the very least a white paper presentation at a conference of neuroscientists.   Your critique, while it may be well founded in that forum, is simply pretentious in this one.   To put it more simply, one should not chide the owner of a Honda Civic for not being able to make a decent showing at the Indy 500 when both of you are stuck in traffic on the Beltway.

  • Socratease2

    And you are a leading expert in neuroscience I suppose? I love how people in these forums can just decide that something is true or false based on whatever random thought happens to be floating through their brain. Of course this is still the dark ages of neuroscience and I do not think we can say there is a straight up connection between something as specific as college applications and the function of particular brain structures like the amygdala. But the general point about brain development in young adults is not “neurobabble.”  But if you can give a reasoned argument why it is “neurobabble” then please do, I can’t believe two people liked your one word admission of ignorance. But in this culture it never hurts to be trendy rather than intelligent.

  • mrmars

    And once these kids get into college, which most will these days as institutions scramble to gobble up every potential tuition payer they can find, starting a mere four months later and continuing for the next four years, they will be asked to use those still-under-development brains to rate their faculty for the purpose of – in part at least – determining tenure and promotion, and that’s supposed to make sense?

  • transparentopaque

    Oh, yes. By all means, let’s just extend childhood a few more years. What’s the rush? The root of the problem discussed here couldn’t possibly be the Disney-world life that our youngsters grow up with, or the fact that many of our children much prefer World of Warcraft to learning about the actual world in which they live. If we actually expected maturity of our youth, maybe we’d see maturity by the time they end up in the admissions office. 

  • Dr_Zachary_Smith

    Something called a university has existed for about a thousand years. The first incarnation lasted until the rise of humanism, at which point the raison d’être for the university changed, and thus so did the university. The second incarnation went through some major shifts until it too changed in the nineteenth century with the advent of the research university. The research university as the dominant model was joined by other major models in the twentieth century, ranging from the rise of land-grants to small liberal arts colleges to the community college.

    It is our fantasy that because we wear polyester versions of what our supposed intellectual and vocational ancestors wear that we are following their model. We aren’t. Some of us (in the community colleges) need to discard the old model altogether–we’re no longer producing Abelards, and haven’t been for a long long time. 

    We are greatly confused in higher education, in part because we want to be Mr. Chips, who was never more than a fiction to begin with. We want to believe, with the humanists, that education can save your soul, whereas the whole of the history of the twentieth century suggests that it has no such power. We wish to think that education produces a literate, thoughtful electorate, even as the barbarians gather in Iowa to loud huzzahs.

    Until we think clearly about what education can and cannot do, and discard our sentimental views of the past, we will not advance, and we will not appropriately serve those who come to us.

  • cmorrissey

    Darwinian forces are alive and well in higher education.  The key line in Mr. Thrift’s observations that
    “the financial model is marginal” will drive most institutions to adapt at a much faster rate.
    Most have already lost a sustainable competitive advantage.

  • unusedusername

    “Any critique needs to be accompanied by at least some notion of what the writer would do instead.”
     
    OK then, the author needs to follow his own advise.  What specific ideas does he have?

  • darccity

    The problem is that the university is changing, but not as a conscious, articulate, unified, and coherent response to changing market demand, political and institutional upheavals in funding, technological progress in communication and information processing, and rapid demographic shifts. Instead, colleges are adrift, reacting piecemeal and often self-destructively to these forces. Signs of this drift are a widening gap among universities in what college life means, who attends college, and what defines a college degree. The medium may not be the message, but variance in the delivery system affects how students, employers, and society view the experience, product, and ultimately the necessity of college. As the information tranferred by “I have a college degree” becomes increasingly meaningless, eventually parents, employers, and students will discover that the emperor has no clothes.

    So how do we focus this “real debate” that the author encourages. First, we must identify a method for creating reform before it gets imposed on us from outside. Currently, college presidents, faculty committees, boards of regents, and accreditors are the vehicles for designing and delivering reform. That process is broken. Committees of faculty will always defend the status quo, which translates to a holding action to prevent eliminating departments, inconvenient class hours, and replacing aged faculty with young, vibrant PhDs with more current knowledge of their fields, pedagogy, and ability to relate to college-age students. Surveys of presidents reveals how out-of-touch they are as well as their risk bias against change that could threaten their stature, power, perks, are salary. Accreditors are little more than trade associations to defend faculty, analogous to the NCAA is for coaches and ADs: “they need more facilities and funding to do their jobs well.” And 99% of all colleges get reaccredited. Other colleges simply choose their accrediting body, lowering the bar till they find someone to pass them. The process of reformation thus requires the credibility of a national debate that has teeth to establish and enforce its policy reform recommendations for change.

    Secondly, real reform requires real data collection. The debate about reform cannot be based on perceptions, conventional wisdom, and prejudice — which all we got right now. Currently, colleges are conservative institutions that rely on public relations to create images, spin data, prevent information release, and do damage control when scandal threatens. The result is little useful information about which to analyze college performance, efficiency, or variance. Efforts are rebuffed to require data release or even collection! NSSE surveys are relegated to public institutions (only two of the top ranked privates comply). USNews has been the most successful in attacking the “all colleges are good in their own way” view: ranking forced colleges to collect and release semi-comparable data, but most of that info is about inputs or grad rates, rather than the student experience, process of learning, or learning outcomes. A real debate means an end to anyone claiming “you cannot measure learning.” If you grade students and write letters of recommendation, you know something about evaluating what’s going on in your classes. Get your sleeves rolled up, and help test and improve the measurement tools! Until we require standardized measurement and release of outcomes, meaningful reform cannot be achieved. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Betty-Austin/557082992 Betty Austin

    Hello Nigel:  Within your request for higher education reform do you see any signifcance in student/teacher dress codes?  Modern society has become more relaxed in appearance and studies have linked that style to underachievement and student/teacher satisfaction. Please comment.
    Thank you,
    Betty Austin

  • jffoster

    The sarcasm is often the best part of the whole article and thread. Done well, it tends to expose the weakness of an argument.  

  • burkanwills

    Is there any space for scholarship, curiosity, or learning in this new model university?

  • mgpiety

    I think part of the crisis is that we in higher education have not defended its inherent worth. Education is a good in itself quite independently of any instrumental value it may have. Even Menand, as I point out in my piece “The Life of the Mind” (http://www.mgpiety.com/M.G._Piety/Blog/Blog.html), fails to acknowledge this. That, I would argue, is our real challenge as educators–to get people to appreciate how education improves the quality of people’s lives, not just the quantity of stuff they can produce and accumulate.

  • kyushumntsphil

    Yes, let’s change “higher ed.”

    Let’s begin by ridding ourselves of the de-personalized postures of specialists, of rationalists siloed away in all departments so mutually isolated from each other.

    Let’s have more, wider, more human quoting — direct and indirect — across the classroom, across the campus, across disciplines, across cultures.  Blend departments, if necessary.  Maybe end the ghettoes of freshman and remedial comp, and of “creative writing.”  Put all that literacy in the hands of current “experts” who currently can’t be bothered with literacy themselves at all.

    If many still insist departmentalisms, fine — but reward those who get more and wider quoting from students.

    For more:  www.EssayingDifferences.com

  • fesmitty77

    I concur.  These are articles on academe… sarcasm sort of goes with the territory, no?

  • tenntchr

    That is a wonderful question:  where do students have the ability to become the scholars we desire, with independent ideas?  I am currently attending an online university.  I find that there is much less room for curiosity and exploration in online courses, because there is less dialogue and socialization between professors and students.  Education is moving at the speed of light, but unfortunately, I am not sure that academia is keeping up. 

  • pesor33

    It is a shame that the NAFSA annual conference could not deliver more insight into changes for higher education.  One would think that with 8,000 delegates someone could provide some new ideas.  Don’t you think the old model university is breaking down because of the input of technology?