← End-of-Term Conundrums, Part 2: Student Evaluations

The Importance of Minority-Serving Institutions

January 16, 2012, 7:53 pm

This past week the Institute for Higher Education Policy released a report titled The Role of Minority-Serving Institutions in National College Completion Goals. The report urges the nation to look closely at minority-serving institutions (MSI’s) and their work with underrepresented minorities for clues on student learning and student success. It also emphasizes the role of MSI’s in educating a disproportionate number of low-income and first-generation students. Nearly 98 percent of the black and Native American students who attend MSI’s are eligible for need-based financial aid. Moreover, almost 50 percent of MSI students receive Pell Grants in comparison to all students. These students, according to countless research studies, are some of the most difficult to retain and graduate as they have less access to quality education and opportunities.

According to the report (and a growing body of research), MSI’s are successful because they approach education holistically, recognizing that students learn in different ways. MSI’s use culturally sensitive and relevant curricula and as a result they see much greater success in the sciences, math, and engineering than their majority counterparts. Also according to IHEP’s report, MSI’s implement in-class and out-of-class learning experiences that complement each other. They also advocate for interactive and applied learning, noting that racial and ethnic minorities respond well to teaching that resonates with their life experiences.

One of the most important points in the report is that MSI’s offer students the opportunity to explore and develop their identities and to understand their self-worth. Moreover, MSI’s offer these same students leadership opportunities that they often do not get at majority institutions.

Although the report is focused on models of success, it would have been helpful to the reader and MSI’s themselves if there were some emphasis of areas in which these institutions need to grow and improve. I would have also appreciated recommendations for funders and policymakers in terms of the areas that should be supported financially in order to foster even more success.

For those interested in reading the report, it can be found here. In addition to the themes that I have culled from it, the report also focuses on MSI success in the STEM areas, teacher education, and highlights individual student successes.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged HBCUs. HSIs, Institute for Higher Education Policy, Lumina Foundation, Marybeth Gasman, Minority Serving Institutions, tribal colleges. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

jffoster

Sounds prima facie like racist, ethnicist, regionalist, generational class mobility but not too much-ist, educationist self-esteem dispensatressist condescension to me. Colleges that only have “teaching that resonates with their students’ “life experiences” are bordering on committing fraud, and the more limited the experiences, the more fraudulent. Sounds like another argument for Black Man go to the back of the bus. And 1st generation college student hillbilly or -billie, we don’t expect much of you and we’re only going to teach you in ways that “resonate with your life experiences” because we can’t have 1st generation hillbillies having lots of new worlds opened to you and you probably wouldn’t have the imagination or reading background to understand them anyway. . .
juliewhite

Accurate description of far too many. However, to be fair, as inlibrarian notes, sometimes this attitude has been adopted because it really is such a hostile environment and any kind of stepping outside the box is likely to result in some kind of negative repercussion.
robjenkins

Yes, you do.
rescomp

This is the most asinine piece I have read in the CHE in a very long time. So, all administrators are authoritarians, libertarians, or lumps. And you, sir, are a pompous, arrogant fool who has to rely on convenient, catchy labels in order to deal with people in your neat little, narrow-minded world. You have a lazy mind and I suspect this is evident in the quality of your teaching and research. In short, you are a fool.
barbarashell

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that you don’t have a very high opinion of administrators. I think it might be well to remember that many [most?] administrators in HE come from the faculty ranks. Is this the Peter Principle at work?
robjenkins

No doubt you’re right, Julie. But in that case, the Lump becomes an enabler as well. Is it possible that hostile environments like the one inlibrarian describes exist and thrive because too many spineless Lumps enable them? Who was it that said, “People generally get the kind of government they deserve”? I wonder if that could apply to colleges and universities, as well as to nations.
robjenkins

Probably.
v8573254

I does seem as though “they” put something in the water that a new administrator drinks; the shift rarely takes more than a week or two.
juliewhite

Yes, I take your point, Rob. But in these economically unstable times, it can be hard for people to step out of their comfort zone. I think it’s an interaction between individual choices and institutional/societal context.

That being said, nothing frustrates me more than colleagues who are Lumps. And I agree that they are NOT harmless. But unfortunately they are allowed to stay in their positions because there seems to be an assumption that they are.
juliewhite

Wow, how about some respectful dialogue? We chastise our students for not being civil. We have a responsibility to model civil behavior.
robjenkins

Your point is well taken, too, Julie. Believe me, I understand about people fearing for their jobs.
misanthropic789

*sigh* A university is a large bureaucracy (sometimes a VERY large one) and in any such organizations there are all of these stereotypes. I have never worked for a company that didn’t have it’s share of Lumps. This is in no way a disease specific to universities.

I would, however, caution against assuming that any non-superstar is a lump. There are a lot of dedicated administrators out there doing what they can or what they have to do to keep things running. Extensive reporting requirements (to the federal government and, for public institutions, the state) take up a LOT of what looks like wasted time and overhead, but is in fact the way that the institution keeps the money flowing. Much of those administrators time is spent keeping the back office out of the way of faculty and making sure the lights stay on.

I guess what I am saying is that even the smallest college is the size of a mid-sized company, and has comparable problems and personalities. An R1 is more like running a Fortune 500 company. There are bound to be bad apples throughout the tree, but it is unfair to assume there are any more of these here than in any other industry. Remember that the majority of administrators are making far less doing what they do for higher ed than they would make if they went to work for a big company.
robjenkins

So, all administrators are authoritarians, libertarians, or lumps.”

Pretty much.
robjenkins

And by the way, Barbarashell, it’s not really accurate to say that I have a low opinion of administrators in general. I’ve been pretty clear in these pages about the type of administrators I admire (and tried to emulate when I was an administrator)–basically, those who respect and trust faculty members, who get out of their way and let them do their good work, who see themselves as facilitators, not dictators. I’ve known several administrators like that in my long career, but, sadly, I can’t say that they’ve been in the majority. Do you disagree?
robjenkins

I think that’s fair, misanthropic.
inlibrarian

I am doing my best to get out on my own terms, but honestly, it has crossed my mind that ticking someone off would get me out of here with a cushion of unemployment compensation.
jbarman

OK – IHE administrators fall somewhere on a continuum of effectiveness, and Mr. Jenkins has identified “lumps” as simply existing within an organization without adding much value.

Doesn’t this describe management at all types of organizations? Indeed, doesn’t it describe all employees regardless of whether they manage or not? I’d suggest that almost all employees add some sort of value – even if that value is inordinately small when considering their salaries or positions.

In sum, are IHE administrators any more lumpish than anyone else?
green_hornist

The only thing I would add to the conversation at this point is to observe that there are a good number of administrators working hard to make things better. Higher Education administration is one of the most difficult settings in which to make such progress, because there are so many impediments, opposers, and roadblocks everywhere you look.
robjenkins

That is indeed a dark place, inlibrarian. I don’t recommend that you go there. Continue looking for another job (I assume you are looking), and when you find one, leave on good terms, burning no bridges.
robjenkins

No. Maybe. There may be somethign about higher education that invites more of this type of behavior. Anecdotally, my brother left the military after 12 years to teach at a large university. He lasted a year. Couldn’t stand the incredibly slow pace at which things develop in higher ed. Went to work in industry and couldn’t be happier.
isucetl

It occurs to me that Rob’s continuum of “authoritarians, libertarians, or lumps” applies to pretty much everyone in higher ed, not just administrators. I’ve observed as a faculty member myself that most–if not all–of my colleagues at any given institution fall into a fairly similar continuum. I’d guess that the relative percentages of people in any of the three categories stays pretty constant, regardless of whether we refer to admin, faculty, or other staff types.
ovpstaff

finally, a reasonable response. Thanks for stating the obvious: the continuum from ineffective to effective, from dastardly to saintly, from inhibiting to facilitating is a characteristic of any category of employee, including faculty members. Why, why, why is there this persistent desire on the part of faculty members to skewer administrators? Stop complaining, and if you think you can do the job better, do it!
11179102

Good thing Rob is writing about administrators and not Black Studies Departments…
guiones

I found this article very useful as a reminder of the motivations behind certain behaviors; it always helps me to consider why some people do what they do (or don’t do).
britcar7

How utterly insulting, misguided, puerile, and unnecessary is this column. What kind of contribution do you imagine yourself to be making to acadame, in general, or to your readers? And why on earth would the Chronicle publish it?
tabtab

The article describes to perfection the recently retired Provost of a major university to whom I reported as a Director. Couldn’t have described him any better had I tried. At our first meeting I asked: “Do you want to schedule regular meetings with me?” No. “Would you like me to send you monthly activity reports?” OH, no! (emphasis as spoken). His tenure and my time under him went exactly as you might predict. My whining aside, I would be interested to know just how wide-spread this type is, though, and not just in the sense of “Oh, everybody has one”. @Misanthropic wrote earlier that lumps exist not just in the academy, but in industry, too, yet s/he defends academic lumps by pointing out the financial sacrifice they make to administer with their EdDs. I respectfully call BS, and I apologize for fitting a stereotype myself, but I submit only perhaps the top 15% of university administrators across the board *could* survive as even middle managers in the real world, let alone as CEOs or senior executives. They are not sacrificing to “administer” as academics at a university; it’s all their skill sets allow. In my experience as an: employee at a TOP public university (5 years), admin there gets a B+. Manager at a major university (5 years) – admin gets a B+. Assoc Director at a selective liberal arts (1 year) – an A. Director at a so-called major university (15 years) – a C at best, and a solid F for the last TWO Provosts to whom I reported. That last lump retired with a $120K+ pension AND a six-figure “consulting” contract with his former employer. Did I make poor choices to experience this? Perhaps, in hindsight, but those last two lumps were not in place when I started. Several factors enter into continuing lump management: region, history, perceived status, the Peter Principle, but also importantly the general feeling emanating from President’s office as to what s/he may want: self aggrandizement, minimal strife, a political career, and even occasionally what is good for the university and most importantly, its students. That latter attitude used to exist among academic leaders; the corporate type in the academy has a different agenda.
misanthropic789

I wasn’t attempting to defend lumps so much as pointing out that the three categories defined in this column are insufficient to categorize the vast majority of administrators. Just as most authoritarian administrators aren’t overtly trying to be evil (even if it seems that way to faculty, since we are all aware that a PhD in, well, anything, is of course excellent training for running an organization with a multi-billion dollar budget and extensive governmental reporting requirements), most seeming lumps are, in fact, modestly effective (if imperfect) administrators trying to get things done and failing to communicate well as to what those things are.

Yes, there are the ones who are coasting to retirement and really don’t care. But those are not nearly as numerous as one might expect, and occur in similar numbers to the faculty out there still teaching the same old dull lectures off type-writer written notes from 1985 while they wait for that last danged grad student to graduate so that they can retire.

My problem with this entire discussion and this entire series of posts is that they are broad stereotypes that do NOTHING to help either faculty or administration understand the other. There are authoritarian faculty (I had a student this semester tell me one of her other profs dropped her with no appeal after missing two classes, despite having contacted the prof the day of the 1st missed class to tell the prof she had been in a CAR ACCIDENT and was in the hospital, then following up with a doctor’s note), there are faculty lumps (see above example from a 2007 graduate seminar), and there are libertarian faculty, but if I were to claim that all faculty fell into one of those categories I would be vilified. Why is it OK to do that to administrators?
robjenkins

First of all, I’m not stereotyping anybody, because I haven’t talked about anybody in particular. I believe it’s perfectly legitimate, when dealing with large groups of people, to identify broad types or categories. I never said that similar categories couldn’t be constructed for faculty, nor did I say that ALL administrators fall into one of these categories–although, generally speaking, I do think it’s fair to say that most administrators either mostly do good things, mostly do bad things, or don’t do much of anything. That seems self-evident to me, and I don’t understand why it has evoked such vitriol.

As for this particular type, just look at all the posts above that say, essentially, “Yes, I know this person well.” It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. It’s based on 27 years of observation. Am I generalizing? Of course, of necessity. This is a 700-word blog post, not a 500-page book. Am I way off base? I don’t think so.

As to the question of what I hope to accomplish, I’m trying first of all to hold a mirror up to administrators who fall into this category, to let them know how the rest of us view them. Based on several of the posts, I’d say I succeeded at that. I also believe, as I said above, that faculty basically get the government they deserve. If an institution has more than its share of administrators who get by without making any real decisions, then the faculty are at least partly to blame for that situation–and, once they recognize it, they can take steps to change it.

Rob
tabtab

Rob, Thanks for the blog. I enjoyed it very much, as you may guess. I think the vitriol probably comes from those who worked under administrators who mostly did bad things — or, as some responders point out, replies from the defenders of those same lumps to the complainers. If your boss was good, or even just benign, then your ax to grind may be less than those who spent a career working for very poor administrators, by any impartial judgment. The bad ones also flock together when it suits them. Even though my judgement is not impartial in this case, I can still analyze abstractly. I would state, too, just so I am not written off as a chronic complainer, that I also reported to one of the best academic administrators I have ever seen at this same third-tier “major” institution where I completed my career. He could have easily been a corporate CEO or COO. A new President swept him out and hired a succession of two sycophantic but tragically inept lumps to fill the position.

While I grant that faculty can change some things in some cases, if the fish stinks from the head down AND has the clout and dirty tricks to remain in power, then the choices are to keep one’s head down or leave.
tardigrade

“Remember that the majority of administrators are making far less doing what they do for higher ed than they would make if they could get an equivalent job in a big company.”

Sentence corrected.

Just like the majority of adjuncts are “making” far less doing what they do for higher ed that they would in a tenure track position.
tardigrade

“There may be something about higher education that invites more of this type of behavior.”

The boom/bust cycle of term-based work, perhaps? The fact that the vast majority of problems (i.e. particular students) eventually go away if one waits long enough?
thia_m

“Simply put, The Lump doesn’t really do much of anything, whether out of sheer laziness or apathy or a desire not to upset the applecart or just an overdeveloped sense of self-preservation. The Lump is the administrator who never answers your e-mails. The one you rarely see except at meetings. The one who attends all the meetings but doesn’t say much. The one who, when asked a direct question, will hem and haw, dissemble and deflect.”

By this definition, do you mean The Lump Liz, editor of this nonsense who fires people who cause her to upset her applecart??? And if you are that passionate about this, shouldn’t you be defending Ms. Riley???
thia_m

Afraid to upset the applecart??? As in liz, the editor of all of this? Please. I’m sure this guy will be fired too, if he gets hate mail. OMG. People are upset! Fire everyone!
barbarashell

Im not sure. I have been a college administrator for over 25 years and during that time I have witnessed a great many inept administrators, but that didnt make them dictators. The problem, as I see it, is that they dont know if they are doing a good job, they just assume they are. They usually dont ask for feedback and professional development is seen as a weakness. What I see inbedded in your comments is that faculty need respect and that apparently most, if not all, do good work. That respect thing goes two ways and it must also be earned. I have supervised excellent faculty and I have supervised horrendous faculty- years in the classroom did not seem to make a difference. What I cant seem to get you to agree on is that there are good and bad administrators as well as good and bad teachers. In my view, neither have a corner on the market. One final point, as a senior administrator I can and do something about ineffective supervisors [aka administrators], whereas I cannot do much, if anything about ineffective [tenured] faculty.
i_am_nomad

What you refer to as “lumps”, I have routinely called “barnacles”, because when they affix themselves to an organization they invariably reduce momentum as well as devour their host. Of course, this colorful metaphor only applies if you imagine your university to be a wooden-hulled ship.

Another nautical moniker I use is “driftwood”, which is organizational deadwood that has been transferred (i.e., drifted to) your department.
robjenkins

I like your metaphors better than mine, nomad.
robjenkins

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly that there are good and bad (and inbetween) teachers, just as there are good and bad (and inbetween) administrators. What people seem don’t seem to get is that I’m a faculty member, writing from a faculty perspective. (I was also an administrator of one sort or another, including department chair and dean, for 16 years, so I have some idea how administration works, or is supposed to work, or fails to work.)

Please note that, on the sidebar, there is an ongoing call for guest posters. I imagine the editors would love to have an administrator write a post about ”The Three Types of Faculty Members,” or whatever. It would be even better if that administrator would be willing to use his or her real name. Do you suppose there will be any takers? Or do people just prefer to call me ugly names anonymously? (Not you, barbara. You’ve been very civil, and I appreciate that.)
deliajones

How about a follow-up article on the faculty lump who functions much like an adjunct; that is, teaches, holds office hours, then goes home. (Most adjuncts do way more than that but are not expected/required to.) Some full time faculty do the same thing, for way more money, leaving all the work of the department and College to others.