Covid-19 Response: Evidence of How Higher Ed Can Be Completely Restructured?

[polly_mer]

One thing I have to say, though, is that I'm glad the crisis will force my colleagues to lower their assessment standards a bit. For the most part, they're just not appropriate to our student body, a substantial portion of which (i.e. all the international students--which is a lot of students) are being taken advantage of, and really aren't prepared for a university education in a foreign language. My colleagues accept a 75% failure rate in their courses, which is just crazypants. (For my part: a bare pass is relatively easy in my classes, but doing well is not.)

This all depends on what someone is in a particular institution to do.  When I taught general education courses, the point was to broaden some horizons so my courses were set up so anyone who put sustained effort over the term could get that bare pass and move on.

When I taught engineering courses, the standards were set such that I would be comfortable buying medicine, driving over bridges, and similar activities from professionals out in the world with a degree from my institution.  A 75% failure rate for an intro class filled with people who were in love with the thought of a high-paying job without thinking through why that's a high-paying job is pretty standard.  That way, students can go find something else to do with their time early in their university careers.  I can think of many international students who couldn't hold a conversation in English, but could read English well enough to set up and perform the math to solve problems.  I have no concerns about them, much the same way I have no concerns about my current colleagues with physics, math, CS, and engineering PhDs who still can't hold an English conversation at the level of fluent native speaker, but do incredible science, engineering, math, and programming.

When I taught education majors, premeds, and nursing students, I had similar standards because those areas also are ones where people better know what they are doing and it's a public service to help students figure out early that they need a different path through university.

Gen ed courses should basically be eliminated to free up time, energy, and resources for other activities, but fine, checking a box is an acceptable level of pass in that system.  Some courses, though, require actually knowing something and should be held at that standard.  Institutions that have such large percentages of students who can't do university-level work probably should reevaluate their mission to either remediate and having longer degrees to account for the remediation or stop wasting people's time, energy, and resources.

[Diogenes]

To be fair, in principle for-profit companies are putting money into government coffers via business taxes and income taxes of employees, while government-funded institutions like universities are always taking money from the government and would always be happy with more. I'm well aware that for me to work where I do requires all kinds of tax money from for-profit businesses and individuals who work for them. So at times bailouts make sense.

(Note: Companies like investment banks that don't actually create wealth but made money off sub-prime mortgages, etc. are in a different category. Same for Enron, and others where their apparent success is based on some sort of fraud. Bailouts in those cases are counter-productive since they'll just mess up the economy further.)

Except they don't actually pay taxes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-21/why-delta-with-huge-profits-wont-pay-taxes-for-years 

[Caracal]

One thing I have to say, though, is that I'm glad the crisis will force my colleagues to lower their assessment standards a bit. For the most part, they're just not appropriate to our student body, a substantial portion of which (i.e. all the international students--which is a lot of students) are being taken advantage of, and really aren't prepared for a university education in a foreign language. My colleagues accept a 75% failure rate in their courses, which is just crazypants. (For my part: a bare pass is relatively easy in my classes, but doing well is not.)

This all depends on what someone is in a particular institution to do.  When I taught general education courses, the point was to broaden some horizons so my courses were set up so anyone who put sustained effort over the term could get that bare pass and move on.

When I taught engineering courses, the standards were set such that I would be comfortable buying medicine, driving over bridges, and similar activities from professionals out in the world with a degree from my institution.  A 75% failure rate for an intro class filled with people who were in love with the thought of a high-paying job without thinking through why that's a high-paying job is pretty standard.  That way, students can go find something else to do with their time early in their university careers.  I can think of many international students who couldn't hold a conversation in English, but could read English well enough to set up and perform the math to solve problems.  I have no concerns about them, much the same way I have no concerns about my current colleagues with physics, math, CS, and engineering PhDs who still can't hold an English conversation at the level of fluent native speaker, but do incredible science, engineering, math, and programming.

When I taught education majors, premeds, and nursing students, I had similar standards because those areas also are ones where people better know what they are doing and it's a public service to help students figure out early that they need a different path through university.

Gen ed courses should basically be eliminated to free up time, energy, and resources for other activities, but fine, checking a box is an acceptable level of pass in that system.  Some courses, though, require actually knowing something and should be held at that standard.  Institutions that have such large percentages of students who can't do university-level work probably should reevaluate their mission to either remediate and having longer degrees to account for the remediation or stop wasting people's time, energy, and resources.

Without getting into this argument again, I don't really think the distinction is between which things are really important and which aren't. It would be more helpful to think in terms of how different disciplines structure majors or programs in terms of the way that knowledge is built up. The model for a lot of STEM or professional programs is more like building a lego set from a box. Things need to fit in particular ways or the whole thing isn't going to work like it is supposed to. In history on the other hand, it is more like you are building something free form with those legos. Yes, you have parameters and certain sorts of classes you need to take, and  a few are required and essential, but many can be swapped out for each other.

Since I think of classes that way, I don't think there's going to be any huge damage if my classes aren't as rigorous or as good as they would be absent these extraordinary circumstances. Or, at least, I don't think the whole structure is going to fall apart. You can still be a history major even if you might have learned a bit more about the Civil War if my class hadn't been forced online.  I don't teach grad students, but I would actually feel quite differently about requirements for a PHD or a masters in these circumstances. Getting a doctorate means having completed a series of requirements. A department couldn't in good conscience just say "Oh, well, because of this disruptive event, we are just going to let people without the required knowledge pass comps," or "This person couldn't write a satisfactory thesis or adequately defend it" but its a bad semester so have this doctorate." You need to be able to keep the same standards. I think I'd feel basically the same if I was teaching the required skills course for undergrads in my department. If students are going to pass that course they need to be able to acquire certain skills and do certain things if they are going to be majors, so you have to make sure you can modify the course in a way that is going to result in them getting those skills.

[marshwiggle]

Without getting into this argument again, I don't really think the distinction is between which things are really important and which aren't. It would be more helpful to think in terms of how different disciplines structure majors or programs in terms of the way that knowledge is built up. The model for a lot of STEM or professional programs is more like building a lego set from a box. Things need to fit in particular ways or the whole thing isn't going to work like it is supposed to. In history on the other hand, it is more like you are building something free form with those legos. Yes, you have parameters and certain sorts of classes you need to take, and  a few are required and essential, but many can be swapped out for each other.

Except that, from what I understand, it still doesn't work quite like that. If you're building with Lego, you can swap out a red brick for a yellow one, but if you're going to build on top of it, you still specifically need a brick there. From what I've seen all kinds of humanities courses past first year have no prerequisites; the only requirement is that you be beyond first year. So, it's more like in STEM, you're building towers of Lego, whereas in many humanities you're building a free form structure  that doesn't get more than about 2 layers high. It may cover a lot more area, but it can't go as high.

[Hibush]

I am not doing a particularly good job of migrating things online. My university is totally the kind of place that would muscle out the instructional staff if it could, and I'm not intrerested in looking expendable.

I just got a message for all instructional faculty about a webinar series running today and tomorrow: How to teach lab courses on line.

I might watch out of morbid curiosity. Organic synthesis on the stove at home, counting on the vent hood to disperse the toxic emissions?

[marshwiggle]

I am not doing a particularly good job of migrating things online. My university is totally the kind of place that would muscle out the instructional staff if it could, and I'm not intrerested in looking expendable.

I just got a message for all instructional faculty about a webinar series running today and tomorrow: How to teach lab courses on line.

I might watch out of morbid curiosity. Organic synthesis on the stove at home, counting on the vent hood to disperse the toxic emissions?

Didn't Mary Shelley write a book about that kind of thing?

[apl68]

LOL!

[Hibush]

Hotels raised the airlines' bid today. They want $150 billion. Where is the Association of American Colleges & Universities in the handout line? Congress is negotiation massive handouts. It is essential to be in line now.

[spork]

I would be happy if this pandemic demonstrates how much of "college" consists of unnecessary, expensive fluff -- in terms of the norms for curricular content and delivery, student activities, athletics, etc. For example: Why must college consist of eight semesters over a four-year period?  Why have an academic calendar that consists of just two 15-week semesters per year, with over a month off in December/January and a three month hiatus over the summer? (Yes, I know there are many post-secondary institutions that offer a summer term, but ours doesn't and we're not the only one.)

[Caracal]

I would be happy if this pandemic demonstrates how much of "college" consists of unnecessary, expensive fluff -- in terms of the norms for curricular content and delivery, student activities, athletics, etc. For example: Why must college consist of eight semesters over a four-year period?  Why have an academic calendar that consists of just two 15-week semesters per year, with over a month off in December/January and a three month hiatus over the summer? (Yes, I know there are many post-secondary institutions that offer a summer term, but ours doesn't and we're not the only one.)

Because institutions work in certain ways? Because all of this wasn't created by an educational theorist in 2010? Because if it had been it would probably all be terrible in different ways? All kinds of things are "unnecessary." You could make a pretty good argument that the vast majority of necessary formalized learning has already taken place by sixth grade, maybe earlier. Really if someone can teach you how to read and write and you get some really basic arithmetic you can probably fill in the rest if you want to badly enough. In the 19th century, lots of prominent Americans had extremely limited and sporadic formal education. Lincoln got about a year. After that he just read a lot. Frederick Douglass literally scrounged up reading material and basically taught himself how to read, but most people aren't Frederick Douglass...

The point is that of course most parts of the educational system are superfluous. Nobody needs us to learn about the Civil War or Organic Chemistry. There are books and you don't even need to leave the house to read them. Colleges are cultural and social institutions and that's the context in which people learn things there. I think you could make a pretty good argument that the weight put on these institutions is a driver of inequality right now. If you were a white man in the 19th century, it was a lot easier to move up in the US than it is now, and it helped that educational credentials weren't required in most professions. However, I think it misses the point to argue that colleges should somehow be cut back to the "essentials" as if we can remake the whole thing in one stroke.

[dr_codex]

I am not doing a particularly good job of migrating things online. My university is totally the kind of place that would muscle out the instructional staff if it could, and I'm not intrerested in looking expendable.

I just got a message for all instructional faculty about a webinar series running today and tomorrow: How to teach lab courses on line.

I might watch out of morbid curiosity. Organic synthesis on the stove at home, counting on the vent hood to disperse the toxic emissions?

Didn't Mary Shelley write a book about that kind of thing?

She did, but it's probably not the one that you're thinking of ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Man

[Wahoo Redux]

I would be happy if this pandemic demonstrates how much of "college" consists of unnecessary, expensive fluff -- in terms of the norms for curricular content and delivery, student activities, athletics, etc. For example: Why must college consist of eight semesters over a four-year period?  Why have an academic calendar that consists of just two 15-week semesters per year, with over a month off in December/January and a three month hiatus over the summer? (Yes, I know there are many post-secondary institutions that offer a summer term, but ours doesn't and we're not the only one.)

Because institutions work in certain ways? Because all of this wasn't created by an educational theorist in 2010? Because if it had been it would probably all be terrible in different ways? All kinds of things are "unnecessary." You could make a pretty good argument that the vast majority of necessary formalized learning has already taken place by sixth grade, maybe earlier. Really if someone can teach you how to read and write and you get some really basic arithmetic you can probably fill in the rest if you want to badly enough. In the 19th century, lots of prominent Americans had extremely limited and sporadic formal education. Lincoln got about a year. After that he just read a lot. Frederick Douglass literally scrounged up reading material and basically taught himself how to read, but most people aren't Frederick Douglass...

The point is that of course most parts of the educational system are superfluous. Nobody needs us to learn about the Civil War or Organic Chemistry. There are books and you don't even need to leave the house to read them. Colleges are cultural and social institutions and that's the context in which people learn things there. I think you could make a pretty good argument that the weight put on these institutions is a driver of inequality right now. If you were a white man in the 19th century, it was a lot easier to move up in the US than it is now, and it helped that educational credentials weren't required in most professions. However, I think it misses the point to argue that colleges should somehow be cut back to the "essentials" as if we can remake the whole thing in one stroke.

Anybody remember the debacle with a guy named Marty Nemko, lo, these many years ago?  The guy had a column in the Chronicle of Higher Education for about 10 minutes in which he suggested all sorts of things, everything from how to negotiate the job market to re-calibrating higher ed, including getting rid of summer break, and he even went so far as to suggest that we eliminate college campuses----have everything, including dorms, in one or two high rise buildings; faculty should have cubicles, not offices, etc.  Never mind that we already operate on campuses that have existed for 100 years, etc.

The poor guy was excoriated so badly he scuttled his own column. 

I think we could improve higher ed.  We just need to be smart and non-radicalized about it.

[Hibush]

One higher-ed group has jumped in. The United Negro College Fund and the Thurgood Marshall Fund are lobbying for $1.5 billion to HBCUs. That's a higher ed sector that has been financially precarious recently.

[spork]

I can see one potential effect: more outsourcing of back-end systems to centralized service providers. Higher ups here have discovered that staff cannot work from home because 1) they lack their own computers and 2) historically the university has refused to provide VPN access.

Just like separately teaching thousands of sections of the same course at the same time but in different geographic locations, stand-alone data management at hundreds of campuses across the country is not necessarily the best approach.

[writingprof]

I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, but all the college-as-we-know-it-is-over talk I'm hearing is making me sad and scared.

On the other hand, everyone advancing that narrative still expects their kids to go to college, so maybe we're okay.