So I went to the grocery store, and I had some time for reflection, and it occurred to me that part of the problem with having a conversation about what to do about higher education is that we often do, as Dean Dad noted in a comment to yesterday’s post, talk past one another. So, somewhere between the broccoli and the yogurt, it occurred to me that perhaps it would be useful to talk about the various “fronts” (as I see them) in the broader picture of higher ed in the US. Because contrary to what you might think because of my tendency toward polemic, I don’t really believe that there is only one front. I believe there are many fronts, and in some respects we need to be addressing each front with multiple tactics simultaneously, which is one of the reasons higher ed reform is, like, this totally impossible thing.
But let’s say it’s not impossible. Let’s say, just for a minute, that we actually might make major changes. I think a first step is thinking about who the players are. Who needs to be on board for any reform to have traction and to actually happen?
The General Public (students, parents, taxpayers who are neither students nor parents, politicians, people who watch television – basically, “society.”) If we don’t have the general public, I don’t care how much we protest or discuss or research or argue or whatever: we aren’t getting anywhere. From my perspective, we need to make the General Public see why they should invest in higher education. Clearly talking about jobs has been a failing tactic in this regard. Another failing tactic has been to try to operate as if nothing’s wrong (Excellence Without Money) so that the General Public doesn’t realize that anything’s wrong in higher education. (Think about it: are you willing to pay for a plumber to come out to your house when all the plumbing is working fine? Um, no. But how fast do you call a plumber when your toilet is backed up and overflowing? Why we want to pretend that the toilet is not backed up and overflowing, I seriously have no idea.)
People on the Administrative Side (Regents/Trustees, Presidents, Provosts, Deans, etc.) You might think that these folks would be on the side of higher education reform, that they really want for higher education to work better for students and for those who teach them. You’d be wrong. I’m not saying that because I think administrators are bad people or that they are the “dark side.” I’m saying it because the needs/values of an administration directly link to their ability to sell what’s happening at an institution to the General Public in order to put together a balanced budget. In other words, it is in their best interests to be on message that “everything’s fine! Nothing to see here! Lalala!” than it is for them to advocate for sweeping systemic change. Because “money” and “free market capitalism” are basically not very friendly with “sweeping systemic change.” Administrators are in a pickle when it comes to the fact that unless you get a critical mass of institutions on board (so, say, all the schools in a state system) then any efforts to change are undermined by the free market. So, for example, let’s say Institution X decides that they will only offer as many courses as can be taught by full-time faculty with benefits. Other area institutions do not make the same commitment, and they continue to hire adjuncts. What happens? Students get shut out of classes, enrollments go down, the reputation of Institution X is compromised because it “doesn’t meet students’ needs” and because there is now a problem with retention. You can go on from there. This is why administrators are so concerned about where the money is supposed to come from when we talk about these issues (and why they rightly should be) and why the divide between administration and faculty can often seem so great. But so here’s my theory: if we can deal with the General Public and make them see why investing in education (as more than job training) matters, that is going to be a strongly persuasive thing for administrators, for whom money is the first and most important issue.
Workers (Faculty (ladder, full-time non-tt, part-time), Staff) The workers in this scenario, as far as I can tell, have two primary concerns. The first is (or should be) learning. Are students getting the education that they need to thrive and are we doing as well as we possibly can do for students? The second is treatment in the workplace, which involves pay and benefits (obviously) but also involves things like whether one’s work is respected/appreciated, resources to do one’s job well, etc. But here’s the problem. I think that oftentimes workers forget that the concerns of the above two groups are not the same as theirs. At all. And then they come off like crazy whiny people. So, for example, a favorite thing that people say all. the. time. at my university when they disagree with something is to announce, “Well. You realize that if we do X then we’re opening ourselves up to all kinds of law suits. Blah blah blah blah academic freedom blah blah hurting the students blah blah blah.” Let’s note that none of the people (and I’ve heard this sort of garbage from tenured folks, staff, adjuncts, what have you) who come out with this stuff are actually lawyers. But the point is, that sort of grand-standing does NOT persuade administrators, nor does it do a bit of good in persuading the General Public that they should invest in what we do. It just makes us look like freaks. Freaks who are out of touch with society in our ivory tower offices. Freaks who are full of shit. And this is why I’m skeptical of the potential for position papers or protests or whatever to do any good. The General Public doesn’t understand what the problems are (and the NY Times is not making it any clearer for them, quite frankly), administrators think the workers are full of hot air, and the workers themselves aren’t doing a good job of showing either of the other two groups what’s in it for them to stop unfair practices or to invest in areas that have low profit potential.
So what do y’all think? Am I leaving anybody out, or can we agree that these are the three groups that need to be addressed in any reform effort? And if we do, what do we need to do to speak to the needs of these groups? Suggestions? How do we make reform something that all three groups come together to make happen? Is such a thing even possible?
Honestly, though, when you define them that way, isn’t the primary concern of the workers their own jobs? I mean, the concern of the university as a whole is (or should be) learning (although I would also define it to include something like “production of knowledge” which I *do* think is necessary to higher education/universities, and which *isn’t* the same as learning). But as a worker, my concern really is my own job. It just so happens that my job addresses learning (or in my case, used to!). But there are a ton of workers at any given university whose positions only tangentially deal with learning.
NK – I think the reason I chose “learning” there was that I was thinking of it as a broadly inclusive term – in talking about the production of knowledge, we’re at a very basic level talking about a researcher learning something and then disseminating it to others; then there’s student learning; then there’s the fact that even if you work in IT at a university, or in the office of planning and development, or whatever, the mission of the institution is a mission of learning, and so even by doing tangentially-related-thing, ultimately you’re doing so in the service of “learning” – broadly defined.
On a personal level I would agree that everybody’s primary concern is his/her own job, but I’d say that isn’t a terribly strong rhetorical position, when it comes to outlining an issue to outsiders or to persuading outsiders to embrace a particular point of view. So I guess I’m making a distinction here: in my daily life, sure, my job is my first concern, but when I write on this blog (for example) or when I’m in a university-wide curriculum committee meeting (as a more daily life sort of one) or whatever, I think my particular issues are not terribly interesting to anybody else nor do I think my particular issues are representative, something others can rally behind, or something that opponents are going to pay attention to.
1. I think students are part of the public, but they may be an interest group on their own.
2 . We are required for accreditation purposes to do regular assessment and review of all parts of the university. Amidst the boringness of much committee work, the look on the VP for administration’s face when she was told that she had to do program review, and link the work of her units to educational mission, was priceless. As she said, they see themselves as serving the institution, but really, when you fix the AC, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a campus or a retail store.
While I think the accreditation mandate is excessive, it does remind us that everyone should be thinking about how their work serves the institutional mission.
That said, one reason for the vast expansion in administrative and staff ranks is to keep up with demands for assessment, accountability, etc.
So, what would the methodology be for convincing the general public?
(While I commented much more at length on the previous thread, which was my path of entry to the current conversation here, I have exactly the same question as Z. Again: been working on this, have had colleagues working on this, seen negative fruit.)
As far as educating the general public about what we do (and why it matters), my grand idea is reality tv. The myth of the 6 hour work week would be shot at least.