next »

[John Garner]

I should like to suggest that one Institution's "Deadwood" is another's "Kindling".

Professor S. Peterfreund, Northeastern U, states...

" The worst thing that could occur if the concept of professors of the practice became a common institutional phenomenon is that administrators, assuming that there is a circulation of workers and a self-regulating market, would have no compunction about dumping teachers and playing fast and loose with careers on the mistaken assumption that there would always be someplace for professors of the practice to practice. "

...and therein lies the problem with this concept.

Administrators will not "reduce in force" a program that is bolstering enrollements. However, only "programs" do this, not disciplines. A discipline has many practical applications, but those applications are technical. Creativity by its very definition entails a leap from the practical and familiar to the innovative and abstract. The technical application follows the theoretical research by more or less about 50 years.

What we really need in academe is a way to overcome this "lag time". Areas of academe that look impractical usually only look that way because the right person or company has not yet developed the concept to its potential.

It has been my experience that serious "oneupsmanship" pervades Tenure systems and research institutions. Such petty activity is like poison to academe.  However, the flow of justifiable accountability and student demand is for the "program" end of things where a graduate with a B.S. or perhaps an A.S. can get employment and benefits that rivals the salaries of the college faculty.  

So, do we in the technical end of things have to take a vow of povety to teach in our field? What acout the theoretical-research-orientated Professor? Is there justification for a program such as mine here at Ivy Tech and indeed all two-year schools to support the Tenure and the research system of four-year and reseach institutions?

Probably, but only if progress and beneficial knowledge are accumlating in the process. This is justifiable only if we are not supporting the "deadwood". So, how do we tell  "deadwood" from "kindling" when the proof takes approximately 50 years?

This makes the "downsizing" of four year research institutions with Tenure enevitable and the proliferation of the two-year institution without Tenure.

However, this model of business will end up ruining education because it does not support research, publishing and innovation.

You see, business is business and education is education. Where they are mixed the almighty dollar prevails and the spirit of education fades or dies completely.

It is our choice in education. It is too bad that the road less travelled is turning out to be the road of research and scholarship because too many College administrators are starting to think like Wall Street analysts.

Simply put, a four year research institution cannot have the same financial accountability that a two year Jr. College has. The playing field is too uneven and they are not even playing the same game. Moreover, public education K-12 systems are using so much financial resources that some cooperatives are retreating into a K-16 mode.

So how do you manage to show accountability in a Four-year institution? Can we have a managable 50-year plan? I will tell you now that this will not sell in Peoria. How do you integrate a public education system and a college or university? Or...Should you?

Has the model of education in America outlived its practicallity?

How do we stop education from evolving in the wrong direcction? Moreover, what direction is the wrong direction?