editorially speaking Perceptions Listen to the concerns of some constituencies that have a legitimate interest in higher education. The le&slator faces a dilemma. Her public advocacy of higher education, which is genuine, is balanced by a practical concern to insure that public monies are being put to effective use. She feels d e r a b l e in supporting institntions that the public often perceives as wstly and inefficient havens of "undisciplined thought" and that don't seem to be able to provide solutions to society's current considerable problems. There are pressing social needs such as lock& away criminals, buiiding and maintaining roads. and caring for the sick and wed that must be met. ~ v e n ' i fthese immediate social criies can be overcome, society's future educational needs can best be addressed by strengthening K-12 education, which seems to be in a greater crisis than higher education. More of her constituency is affected by K-12 problems t h a n by higher education's. It seems clear to her that cutting social programs "draws blood", whereas cutting higher education involves "trimming the fat". This position is reinforced by some recent, relatively substantial cuts that do not seem to have had a particularly adverse effect on the system of hieher . education as a whole, where i t is business as usual. More students than ever have enrolled i n in.;titutioni of higher educatiun despite relatively recent budget cuts with noapparent major bifficulties.-~hesestudents are all treated to the same traditional processes of education as their predecessors were, especially in entry-level courses, since resources do not seem to have filtered down to those levels. Also, the recent scandals in some of the private institutions involving the misuse of overhead funds is not encouraging. ~ o e s n ' i t h epublic system of education have access to such funds too, and who knows where misuse stops? The general public seems to have bought into the suggestions., o e r h a ~ naivelv s and with a little encouragement bv .. the rducatimal communit~:that hgher education has all the solutions lo societv's ills. kientists will produce a cure for cancer, and they will increase the economic well-being of societv through their discoveries. For example, discoveries in materials science can lead to better computer chips, and biotechnologv promises to improve whatever crop seems to have prbbiems or whatever human ill needs cure. But, there doesn't seem to be much relation between the amount of support given to higher education and the realitv of the promised results. Furthermore, higher education facultyare perceived to have really "cushy"jobs because they are very well paid (wmparatively) and don't have to spend much time on their job. Imagine, teaching only one course that meets three hours per week-and with all those assistants to help them! And even if they teach two such courses, it's still only six wntact hours per week. (Those who really teach undergmduates know that the number of contact hours is a false measure of actiuity, yet there are, unfortunately, large numbers of faculty who literally only devote these three hours per weektheir actual lecture time-to teaching a three-hour course.) The administration perceives the problem of higher education to be, primarily, a matter of productivity. Some will point out that in 1636 Harvard started with classes of about 20 or 25 students taught by each faculty member. Today many institutions still teach most of their students at that ratio; others see it as an ideal for which to strive. (Little recognition isgiuen to the dichotomy when ratios are ~~~
.
-
a
discussed that a n institution mav haue a student-to-faculty ratio of 25,yet departments of chemistry may haue classes that haue 200-400 students in them). The administration realizes that faculty are its major resource, and they account for their major costs just as any organization doing business does. (Faculty spend too much time and effort in teaching subjects, ideas, concepts, and understandings that could be learned by studen& on their own usingextant methods of instruction that are thought to be "radical".) Manv administrators perceive that their institutions shoufd emulate the so-ca'lled "flagship institutions", which is to sav. thev should strive for the prestige of a researchorientezfac;lty and all that entail; The research university model requires faculty to be unfettered by teaching in order to pursue what they will, a truly noble undertaking in the eves of some. (This model turns the faculty into entrepreneurs who haue little loyalty to the irktution, a result that does not bode well for institutions that should help shape and advance the educational process.) Facultv. general. feel ~ uupon. t Some have such heaw ". in .. teaching l(vads and so manJ. departmental responsihiliti& that thuv have little tune Sor scholarlv pursuits und pn~fessional Gowth. Others were lured to-institutions with the promise of a research ambiance that would permit them to bursuc [hew disciplinary interests with minimal organized teaching responsibilities. 'Chty have been encouraged to pursue iheseinterests through a system of grants which, for the most part, produce modest success providing an incentive to continue on this path. Since most new (young) faculty have little training or experience in teaching, they tend to vigorously pursue those activities for which they have been overtly trained, hired, and encouraged, i.e., research. Even though these people were hired with funds specifically earmarked in the budget for teaching, is it so stranee that thev don't place a hieh ~rioritvon classroom teaching? Is is so strange that this tension between research and teaching has encouraged the development and implementation of a wide variety of administratively condoned techniaues to circumvent the actual teaching function? Is it so strange that those who carry the bruntof undergraduate teaching feel frustrated and used in this environment? Finally, there are the students, the people for whom the system is supposed to exist. Undoubtedly most, if not all, are concerned with where their education will lead in terms of their future and their job prospects. Many perceive their education to he their route to a "good job". The better students, in their idealism, perceive a relatively clear series of steps (especially if they are well advised) by which they can effectively utilize the system of higher education to achieve their personal eoals. Less focused students, who are probably fn the maGrity, are more likely to be motivated bv the belief that "more education is better" even though thky are uncertain as to exactly what that entails. Historicallv students have been patient, accepting consumers. This is changing however. ~oday'sstudenis are much more certain of their -goals,. which are increasinrrlv defined in vocational terms, and much more assertive than their predecessors. Collectively, these constituencies, each with its perceptions and its legitimate interests and concerns, should determine the direction of higher education in this country. The continued inattention of the faculty to its responsibilities can only lead to a deeper disenchantment of society with the system of higher education. JJL
-
-
&
Volume 70 Number 9 September 1993
693
