There is a very interesting column in today’s NYTIMES about
the lack of academic standards in higher education. Entitled “Who will Hold Colleges Accountable?”
it is written by Kevin Carey and can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/opinion/who-will-hold-colleges-accountable.html?hp
It starts with an anecdote about how athletes at major
football colleges are obtaining credit hours at on-line institutions by taking
“gut” courses to remain eligible for varsity competition at their “home”
institution while really not learning anything. (This practice was first exposed in last
month’s edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education.)
The author uses this story as a jumping off point to
criticize the lack of uniform performance measurements in higher education and
states that “the notion of recording academic progress by counting the
number of hours students spend sitting in a classroom [credit hours] is
nonsensical.” He goes on to assert “the
most promising solution would be to replace the anachronistic credit hour with
common standards for what college students actually need to know and to be able
to do.”
As a professor, I’ve always been a little skittish
about creating a long list of common standards that can clog up a curriculum
with mandated readings. I like the
intellectual freedom that I currently have to present students with a host of
competing ideas and intellectual frameworks.
I then challenge them to think critically and to decide which set of
tools and possible action steps will be most effective in any particular
situation.
But as a program director, I understand the
usefulness of broad academic benchmarks for comparing the depth, breadth, and
quality of different nonprofit masters programs. This is why we applied for and received
certification of our nonprofit profit programs from the Nonprofit Academic
Center Council (NACC). Unlike many
other nonprofit programs that are appendages of business, public policy, and/or
social work schools, all the topics identified by NACC as being critical to quality
nonprofit training are found in the core curriculum of Bay Path’s nonprofit
programs. You can see the rigor and
thoroughness of our programs by looking at our course descriptions on this website. Thoughts?
Jeff
Creating a set of *broad* benchmarks and learning outcomes is certainly the way to go. I've worked with professors and program directors on restructuring programs and curricula, and am dismayed when they form quick ideas about creating rigidly black and white "yes" and "no" standards. Even in fields, such as medicine and engineering, where there are common standards set that are required for successful licensure, focusing on common standards remain a foundation, not a core.
ReplyDeleteWe should remind ourselves why students come into our programs. Firstly and most commonly, to get an education that will, hopefully, lead to the student becoming a productive member of society. Other reasons are personal enrichment, "fun" one could say, and societal expectation, among other reasons.
But if we focus on those learning a discipline to function productively in society...we're not just teaching a trade or skill; rather, we're teaching our students *how* to learn. What I learned in the NMP/MHE program while I was at BPC was precisely what I needed to know to be an effective advancement officer during the status quo. But societies and economies evolve, trends change, and new research is conducted and published. Learning to learn as an advancement officer, you could say, goes above black and white common standards.
Setting common standards build the foundation of what is necessary to understand, but that kind of black and white selectivity of program content doesn't teach students to be lifelong learner. But building upon those common standards, students find their niche, their area of interest. This spark usually leads students to honing a particular area of research that leads to professional specialization, research, or continued education.
Matthew,
DeleteThanks for you comment. If I read you correctly, we are on the same page. Learning in Higher Education--certainly at the Masters and PHd levels--needs to go beyond learning for the present, and prepare students to adapt/learn to deal effectively with the unknown challenges of the future. I hope the NMP/MHE program did that for you as well as prepare you for the here and now.
Again, thanks for commenting Others?
Jeff
Exactly. And I'd say that is even more important at the PhD level where research is such a large component of those students' futures.
ReplyDelete