ED 380 – Review of Class Syllabus

Class 2: Understanding American Higher Education: Patterns and Developments

Altbach, P[hilip]. G., Berdahl, R[obert]. O., & Gumport, P[atricia] J. (2005). American

higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd
ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1-70, 91-114.

Philip G. Altbach, “Patterns in Higher Education Development,” pp. 15-37;

Roger L. Geiger, “The Ten Generations of American Higher Education,” pp. 38-70;

Robert M. O’Neil, “Academic Freedom: Past, Present, and Future beyond September

11, pp. 91-114.

Small Group Discussions on readings. Here are some questions that cover some of the more important
issues raised by the authors. For Altbach, how do his considerations add a new perspective on the
nature of the contemporary university? What patterns of university development emerge? How did
World War II and the 1960s change these institutions? After reading this essay, do you begin to see the
complexity of American colleges and universities and their current pressures better?

History Question

Geiger (The ten generations of American higher education, 2005)

Altbach (Patterns in higher education development, 2005)

Altbach (Harsh realities: The professoriate faces a new century, 2005)

Gumport (Graduate education and research: Interdependence and strain, 2005)

Bastedo (Curriculum in higher education: The historical roots of contemporary issues, 2005)

O’Neill (Academic freedom: Past, present, and future beyond September 11; 2005)

Dey and Hurtado (College students in changing contexts, 2005)

Zusman (Challenges facing higher education in the twenty-first century, 2005)

Gladieux, King, Corrigan (The federal government, 2005)

McGuiness (The states and higher education, 2005)

In Geiger’s “The ten generations of American higher education” (2005), he argues that history has a
significant role in higher education because every generation has had a significant role. In the 1630s,
there were only 3 colleges: Yale, William and Mary, and Harvard – and they existed to train students for
the seminary. At this time, the college curriculum was mostly classical (greek, latin, the ‘great works’).
Students came from the local communities. It wasn’t until the Morrill Land Grant (1862) that
matriculation increased in different subject areas, particularly engineering and “equalized” the
professions. Another important development was the GI bill (1944), which helped democratize
education. He also labels the generation following the GI bill (1945-1975) the period of Academic
Revolution because this is when the numbers of students increasing colleges and universities increase
three-fold (15 percent to 45 percent) and the campuses have to adjust to the growing diverse
populations.
In Altbach (Patterns in higher education development, 2005) he discusses the changes in higher
education since WWII and after the 1960s. There was a reform movement in the university system, one
that especially affected universities in western Europe. Countries, such as Sweden, decentralized and
democratized their administrative system, responding to their students. These reforms were not
implemented in the United States, Japan and Germany. However, in the 1990s, there was a second
wave of reforms known as the managerial revolution, which increased the power of the administration
and decreased the power of the faculty. In addition, during the past two decades, many universities
have moved to vocationalization.

In Altbach (Harsh realities: The professoriate faces a new century, 2005), he discusses the changes
that the professoriate has undergone since WWII. Since WWII, the professoriate has become more
diverse. There are less tenured trace positions available. There are more full-time positions, but these
are not tenured positions. Altbach also discusses that in the 1960s, many professors were hired and got
good salaries and had their consciousness raised due to the social movements that occurred during this
era. Many anti-war movements occurred or began on college campuses. But now, in this present day,
the pay or salary has not kept up with the standard of living. Also, Altbach argues that many professors
are unhappy or dissatisfied with their jobs. Approximately 2/3 of those surveyed in 1990 harbored
negative feelings.

In O’Neill (Academic freedom: Past, present, and future beyond September 11; 2005), he compares
the state of academic freedom for the professors during the 1940s and 1950s (Red Scare and McCarthy
Era) and in the post-9/11 world. He first introduces the 1940 Statement of principles on Academic
Freedom and Tenure as being accepted as common law, but then says that during the McCarthy era that
tenure was not guaranteed (loyalty oaths, rentrenchment). He also describes Supreme Court cases
where tenure is not guaranteed, especially when there is a financial crisis. In the post-9/11 world,
research and handling of research materials has been restricted. The availability of restricted and
important data has been limited. Scientists and foreign students have been barred. The number of
graduate students entering the United States has declined.

Zusman (Challenges facing higher education in the twenty-first century, 2005) discusses the past 20-30
years and the changing demographics. On our campuses, there are more students of color, more
students who are over the ages of twenty-five, and more first-generational students (or students who
are attending college for the first time in their family). Yet, despite all this good news, the degree
awarding rates for students of color are low and we still have issues of access. She also discusses that
there is a bad job market for doctoral students, and that there should be a moratorium of sorts imposed
on that market.

According to Dey and Hurtado (College students in changing contexts, 2005) our college and university
campuses composition have been changing since WWII. There has been a growth in the non-traditional
student (over the age of 25) – this is the fastest growing student population. Also, most of the students
in our colleges are now women, and this is radical considering women were not accepted to the first
colleges. Colleges and universities are now more multicultural. Colleges now also have more part-time
enrollees. College students are also more satisfied, and more prepared for their college experience
(better grades). Also, Dey and Hurtado discuss how college students have experienced an ideological
shift – they are not as political as they once were in the 1960s. College students are not as liberal, but
that is because what was once deemed liberal have now become mainstream.

According to Bastedo (Curriculum in higher education: the historical roots of contemporary issues,
2005), there have been many changes in university education since the 19 th century, especially the
increased specialization of academic disciplines and the pursuit of what students what to study. The
increased specialization of programs began in the late 1800s, after Harvard presidents Eliot and Lowell
abandoned classical curriculum and introduced electives.

Bastedo (Curriculum in higher education, 2005) also discusses that it was in the social and hard sciences
where specialization began. In addition, due to the social movements in the 1960s, identity movements,
and other multicultural awareness issues – Bastedo (Curriculum in higher education, 2005) states that
universities have had to “segregate” certain disciplines, that is to separate certain admission processes
for the more popular academic programs.

Bastedo also mentions changes in learning and technology that have affected higher education: long-
distance learning, Internet, e-mail – and experiential learning (volunteerism, study abroad, immersion) –
that have richly influenced the new learners.

Gumport (Graduate education and research, 2005) discusses the history of graduate education. It
began in the 19th century, with our German ties to hard science. Johns Hopkins University (JHU) was the
first university to collaborate with German schools in the sciences, as it sent people over to Germany. In
1876, JHU was established and it is often thought as the marking of the beginnings of graduate
education and research function of universities. JHU began to offer major merit based scholarships for
graduate students and linked scientific research to graduate education. Other schools soon followed –
and this is how it affected the study of master’s education.

In 1863 the National Academy of Sciences was founded, which later established the National Science
Foundation (Gumport, 2005). Until then, graduate education relied heavily on private donations; such
has J.D. Rockerfeller and Carnegie. Now, according to Gumport (Graduate education and research,
2005), graduate education is facing a tight budget.

According to Gladieux, King, Corrigan (The Federal Government, 2005), in 2001-2002, most of the
federal government’s support was through research (45%, $22mn) and development and direct student
aid (23%, $11 million). Research and development money is mostly concentrated on the hands of 100
institutions that grant Ph.D.s. – these institutions receive 80 percent of all science and engineering
funding. In addition, according to King, Corrigan, and Gladieux (2005), the aid has moved from needs
based to loans. We have also seen the introduction of unsubsidized loans.

The financial straits of higher education have been echoed by McGuinness (The states and higher
education, 2005). According to her, in 1995-1996, approximately 35 percent of the current revenue was
being provided by the state (the rest was being allocated by the federal government (15 percent),
student tuition (38 percent), and other (11 percent)). However, according to McGuinness (The states
and higher education, 2005), the reality is that state appropriations cannot keep up with rising costs
(tuition), and that as of 2000 the states can’t keep up with the pace of subsidizing higher education.
Therefore, most of the subsidizing has come from tuition, not from the states.

TOPIC 2: LEADERSHIP
Eble, Kenneth (The art of administration, 1978)

Kouzes and Posner (The academic administrators guide to exemplary leadership, 2003)

Chaleff, Ira (The art of followership, 2008)

Weingartner, Rudolph (Fitting form to function, 1996)

Eble (The art of administration, 1978), describes leadership as someone who “serves.” He also invokes
Robert Greenleaf’s (1977) definition of servant leadership – and states that a great leaders is a servant
first. Eble also distinguishes the difference between functional and substantive roles in leadership.
Functional is the day to day, “dirty” work; whereas the substantive is the more conceptual big picture
work.

Whereas, Rudolph Weingarter’s (Fitting form to function, 1996) vision of a leader is someone who can
organizationally make good decisions. He also discusses the instiutional mission. Then there is Clark
Kerr, who thought of multiversities – or universities that have multiple functions: research, teaching,
and providing a rich experience. Weingarter also discusses the difference between a business manager
and a university leader – how it is not so transactional – and at the end of the day – the student needs to
invest in his/her learning. Hmmmnh, do I agree?

In Kouzes and Posner’s book, the Academic administrator’s guide to exemplary leadership (2003) and
Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin’s piece “Rethinking the “L” word in higher education” (2006)
– both stress the importance of behavior and traits in exemplary leaders. Kouzes and Posner stress 5
steps or aspects that each academic leader should follow: model the way, have a vision, challenge the
process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. (talk about these in depth). Kouzes and Posner
also discuss what key values people look for in their leaders, primarily credibility, honesty, people who
are forward looking, and people who are competent. For Kouzes and Posner, leadership is building a
relationship. You need a good follower.

Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin (2006), also stress these similar values. Through their studies
of leaders, they have determined that there are certain traits and behaviors associated with leadership:
courage, confidence, strength, social distance, competence, relational and interactive behaviors.

This brings us into our last reading in leadership by Chaleff (The art of followership, 2008), who stresses
the courageous followership model. Chaleff says that sometimes we lead and other times we follow –
but we have to be good at doing both. There are two main styles: the courage to support and the
courage to challenge, and once again, you must be willing to do both.

TOPIC 3 – Policy & Challenges

Zusman (Challenges facing American higher education in the twenty-first century, 2005)
According to Zusman (2005), states are paying for 1/3 public schools but students are increasingly
bearing the brunt of this costs – esp. through loans, because colleges and universities are awarding less
scholarships and grants and having students take out more loans. She also stresses vocationalization –
and all the issues tied along with that: political research, less autonomy, etc.

According to Altbach (Harsh realities: the professoriate faces a new century, 2005), he says that there
is a paradox of American higher education – because we are the system that is the most revered and
modeled, yet we are also facing huge budget cuts, enrollment uncertainties, pressures for
accountabilities, and confusion about academic goals.

Gumport (graduate education and research, 2005), there are many obstacles facing graduate
education: retrenchment, tightening of the academic market, decline in federal support, decline in
federal research budget. Before WWII – graduate education was funded by private philanthrphy –
Carnegie and jd Rockefeller – big bucks.

Gladiuex, King, Corrigan (The Federal Government, 2005)

McGuiness (The states and higher education, 2005)