To neglect an individual's education today is to condemn him or
her to mediocrity tomorrow. So it is with nations. Education is
the cornerstone of a free society, the bedrock upon which a
strong, healthy state is built and sustained.
The demands of the modern era are being pushed at ever increasing
speeds by extraordinary advances in technology. Those societies
which anticipate these advances and best prepare their children
for the future are likely to reap the most benefit from them.
Those which do not, will not.
It was the third president of the United States, Thomas
Jefferson, who said: "Enlighten the people generally and tyranny
and oppressions of both mind and body will vanish like evil
spirits at the dawn of day." Jefferson's may be a somewhat
idealized view of the matter, but the connection between
education, democracy, and economic opportunity is vital to the
well-being of any free society.
If there are no perfect democracies, there are successful ones,
and useful lessons may be drawn from their experiences--including
those in the field of education. The purpose of this
paper is to point to specific practices in the administration of
higher education in the United States and other Western
democracies that may have applicability across national
boundaries.
Ideally, an American university is a laboratory of democracy, in
which teachers and students participate in a free exchange of
ideas drawn from an ever-expanding world of information. If
students and teachers sometimes fall short of the mark, the ideal
is nonetheless important. An open dialogue is as fundamental to
the system of higher education in the United States as it is to
the political system.
Naturally, there are many challenges to university life in the
United States. First and foremost is finances. The federal
government contributes little to the country's universities and
institutions of higher learning. While this leaves them free to
determine their own curriculum and policies, it nonetheless
imposes substantial financial demands on the institutions
themselves.
There are other, related difficulties: maintaining high academic
and research standards; ensuring the quality of faculty
appointments; assuring flexibility and rigor in a curriculum;
maintaining political and intellectual freedom; balancing a moral
obligation to educating the poor and disadvantaged against the
costs of financial aid.
In the United States, it is not just the university
administration which determines how these challenges are to be
met. Interested groups--faculty, students, alumni,
professional associations, and employees--often influence the
discussion. These complementary--and sometimes competing--
voices help ensure that the process will remain democratic, and
in the end, enriching.
Variety in Higher Education Institutions
A characteristic of modern democracies is the freedom citizens
have to select from a wide variety of goods and services.
Quality improves when competition is vigorous. The same
principle of choice holds true with institutions of higher
learning; increasingly, it is being applied to primary and
secondary schools as well.
Students in the United States have a larger number of colleges
and universities to choose from than any other country in the
world. The existence of this number of choices directly benefits
students, who can select--from a vast array of sizes, programs,
and locations--the colleges and universities which offer the best
opportunities to meet their academic and cultural goals.
The many choices available to students force schools to compete
for qualified students. This leads some schools toward
specialization; for others, the competition obliges them to offer
the widest possible selection of courses. Schools which fail to
meet student needs lose enrollment and can eventually be forced
to close. Those which offer the best choices and maintain the
highest standards attract the most talented students.
There are approximately 600 public four-year colleges and
universities in the United States. Over 1,550 colleges and
universities are entirely private. (Although the two terms are
often used interchangeably, a college refers to an institution
which offers students only one degree, typically, a bachelor's
degree in liberal arts or science. A university, on the other
hand, can award more than one degree, and typically a number of
specialized graduate degrees as well.)
Public Higher Education. U.S. state colleges and
universities are generally funded in part by the taxpayers of an
individual state. Student fees and tuition cover the remainder
of the costs. These are public institutions; by definition their
primary purpose is to educate students who live within the
borders of the state. Thus students may transfer from one
college to another within the state with little difficulty,
provided they have the proper academic standing.
Out-of-state residents may be accepted to state schools, but in
most instances they are required to pay higher tuition costs.
State colleges and universities average one full-time teacher or
research faculty for every 16.9 students. As of the 1991-1992
school year, the average annual cost for a full-time student to
attend a state school was about $5,700, or about 15.5 percent of
the average annual income per member of the labor force.
These public institutions vary greatly in size and enrollment.
There are small-to-medium size four-year colleges, ranging from
500 to 2,500 students; comprehensive state universities, with
about 10,000 students; and large multipurpose universities, where
more than 20,000 students are enrolled.
U.S. Private Higher Education. While some private colleges
may also receive support from state legislatures, most of their
revenues come from student tuition, private donations, foundation
or corporate funds, endowment revenues, and federal grants.
By and large, private colleges and universities have more
full-time faculty and researchers per student than state
institutions, approximately one for every 12.8. This is in large
measure attributable to the higher tuition costs and larger
endowments found at many private colleges.
In 1991-92, the average annual cost per full-time student at a
private university was about $14,350, or approximately 39 percent
of the annual income of an average member of the labor force.
While the size of private institutions varies as much as that of
public institutions, two-thirds of them have enrollments of under
2,500 students.
Another distinguishing characteristic of private colleges is
their diversity. Many were established for specific religious or
cultural missions. In many ways, these schools reflect the
diversity of the United States and the freedom of individual
groups to pursue religious and academic experiences of their own
choosing.
In the past, virtually every religious denomination in the United
States had at least one college or university affiliated with it.
While many of these ties remain, in general, they are much looser
than in the past, and the students they attract come from widely
diverse backgrounds.
A similar phenomenon is taking place in colleges and universities
that were originally all-male or all-female. Over the past two
generations, many men's and women's institutions with long
traditions have opened up their doors to students of the opposite
sex. This move corresponds to a general evolution in U.S. views
on the subject of co-education and, furthermore, has enabled many
colleges with flagging enrollments to add substantially to their
numbers.
In general, small private colleges and universities strive to
create an atmosphere of community and learning, to define a clear
mission and identity for themselves, and to ensure that their
curriculum and programs reflect this special tradition. Many of
these smaller institutions focus specifically on undergraduate
education. Quality of instruction is their lifeblood and highly
regarded professors are often the subject of vigorous competition
by rival institutions.
Admission Standards. Nothing defines an institution of
higher learning more than the quality of its student body.
Naturally, in a country like the United States where competition
is the norm, and there are many schools to choose from,
universities go to considerable lengths to attract the most
talented and promising students they can. Others seek students
with more specifically defined skills or interests, whether in
science, the arts, or athletics.
This same competitiveness and specialization defines the process
of admissions in most of the country's respected colleges and
universities. Small religious colleges, for example, may
emphasize the spiritual goals of their incoming students as a
part of admission consideration. Private colleges of all kinds
tend to be highly selective; that is, they scrutinize the
academic preparation of the applicant, along with scores on
national tests, performance in secondary school, and the nature
of their extracurricular activities.
With some notable exceptions, comprehensive state colleges and
large public research universities generally have somewhat lower
standards of admissions. Generally, they will accept anyone who
has earned a high school diploma in their states. They offer a
range of flexible undergraduate programs, stressing professional
training, technology, engineering, agriculture, and physical
sciences. Typically, they offer hundreds of courses to fulfill
graduation requirements.
Administration of Higher Education: Typical American Structure
The President. The most visible administrator in American
higher education is the college president, or chancellor, who is
the chief executive officer of the institution. His primary
responsibility is the smooth functioning and financial management
of what are generally multimillion-dollar institutions.
The power and prestige accorded to a college president is a
uniquely American tradition. As the university is often the
largest employer in a city, a local college president is one of
the most visible members of the community. He or she thus plays
an important role in projecting the image of the university
academically as well as economically.
Hired by a board of trustees after an often arduous national
competition, presidents generally come to their positions from
other institutions where they have served in a similar capacity
or in another high-level administrative position. A university
vice president in the state of Alabama, for example, may become
president of an institution in North Carolina. Presidents must
bring to the institution a track record, or at least the
potential, for raising funds; they must bring evidence of
decisive leadership, strong moral character, and commanding
communication skills. To sustain respect from the faculty, the
president should also have acquired some renown as a scholar.
The president exercises power mostly through influence and
persuasion. Almost all decisions that the president makes are
backed by a series of recommendations and broad
consensus-building efforts by senior administrators.
Board of Trustees. The men and women who make up the
board of trustees are often alumni of the institution who have
gained distinction in their professional life or individuals of
prominence within the local community. Trustees decide on policy
as it affects the institution as a whole. They guide investment
strategies; they approve budgets to implement the policy; and
they often decide on key personnel appointments. In the best of
institutions, the president works closely with the trustees,
soliciting their advice on programs and enlisting their efforts
to raise funds.
The average number of trustees for a private institution is 30.
When their terms expire, replacements are generally selected by
the sitting members. Many times, a special interest group will
have an important voice, or even selecting authority; for
example, the alumni association may be in charge of selecting one
or two seats on the board.
In public colleges and universities, boards of trustees average
about 11 members and are most often appointed by the state
governor and confirmed by the legislature. In some states,
however, trustees are elected. In either case they serve for
prescribed terms and come from different geographic areas of the
state. They are usually business executives or professionals,
having gained success in corporations, small business, law, or
medicine, for example. Their careers equip them to steer the
institution toward financial stability and continuing
professional integrity.
Senior Administrators. The operations and programs of the
institution are managed on a day-to-day basis by a senior
administration team including, for example, academic, financial,
and foundation vice presidents, sometimes called provosts, who
are responsible for education programs, budgets, and fundraising,
respectively.
The next level of administrators is the deans who manage the
affairs of smaller units of the institution, such as the colleges
within the university or discrete administrative functions, such
as the dean of the college of commerce or liberal arts, or the
dean of admissions.
Senior administrators often meet as a group to ensure consistency
in policy matters and to advise the president. Should a dispute
among students escalate beyond ordinary procedures, for example,
the president would assemble senior administrators to advise a
course of action that would best safeguard the integrity of the
institution.
Department Chairman. Academic departments are run by
chairmen, sometimes called department heads, who usually teach a
course or two in addition to their administrative duties, and who
report to the dean of their college. For example, the college of
engineering, governed by the dean of engineering, is likely to
have departments of civil, electrical, mechanical, and/or
chemical engineering. Often the title of chairman rotates among
faculty members every three years.
Typically, the chairman of an academic department monitors the
curriculum, coordinates teaching assignments for the professors
in his or her department, and carries out a host of
administrative duties in addition to teaching. He or she also
convenes the department faculty to decide on routine matters of
department procedures and policy, and serves as a kind of
informal judge in matters of dispute within the department. From
among the department faculty, subcommittees are often appointed
to search for new faculty and to make recommendations regarding
promotion and tenure.
Faculty. A college or university's faculty has the
largest role in deciding who will teach at the institution and
who will be made permanent among their number. Tenure, the
guarantee of permanent position, is accorded on the strength of a
professor's teaching and the merit of his or her scholarship.
Typically, tenure is recommended for a professor who has been
teaching full-time with distinction for seven years and who has
published a book or several significant articles. The department
tenure committee, selected from among tenured faculty members,
evaluates the professor's work and makes its recommendation to
the institution-wide tenure committee, which makes the final
decision. If the professor is not granted tenure, he or she will
likely move to another institution.
Faculty divide their intellectual energies between teaching and
research. In research-intensive universities, according to one
recent survey, 29 percent of the faculty devote more than 20
hours per week to research. In a teaching institution, such as a
small liberal arts college, only two percent of the faculty spend
over 20 hours per week in research. Conversely, 81 percent of the
faculty in a liberal arts college spend from five to 20 hours per
week teaching classes; whereas at a research university only 63
percent of the faculty are in the classroom for that much time.
The faculty exercise a good deal of control over the curriculum
and are, naturally, the main contact between the students and the
permanent staff of the university itself. Faculty can also
influence the senior administration through their participation
in the faculty senate. This body concerns itself with salaries
and benefits, budget, and institutional policy, and is the most
important body to address academic standards. To the faculty
senate will go motions to reform curriculum, to raise admission
requirements, or to impose graduate requirements. In matters of
institutional policy, such as student living arrangements, the
faculty senate votes on resolutions intended to advise the
president and trustees.
Coordinating and Evaluating Higher Education
For most democratic countries, the task of coordinating and
evaluating higher education is a function of a central
authority--a ministry of education, or a committee of provincial
ministries. In the highly decentralized and independent system
existing in the United States, however, this is accomplished by
the states themselves and a few private nationwide educational
organizations.
State coordinating boards, often called boards of regents or
commissions of higher education, are appointed by the governor in
most states; in some others they are elected. These boards
oversee the distribution of education resources to the public
colleges and universities of the state, so that costly programs,
such as veterinary medicine or metallurgical engineering, are not
duplicated in several institutions. They decide which
institutions should award doctoral degrees and which should only
award master's and bachelor's degrees. And they see that all
geographic areas of the state have reasonable access to general
higher education.
The state of Colorado, for example, has a Commission on Higher
Education consisting of nine members, appointed by the governor
with the consent of the Colorado Senate. The Commission members
meet monthly, are paid a modest fee, serve four-year terms, and
together reflect a geographic and political balance. The
state's General Assembly appropriates the money to fund higher
education and allocates it directly to the governing boards of
the state's 12 public colleges and universities. The Commission
on Higher Education, however, in consultation with the 12 boards
of trustees, recommends the level of funding to the General
Assembly and establishes a formula for distributing it to the
different institutions.
Other Geographic Coordination. Regional coordination
among private colleges is another matter. Because private
institutions are not accountable to the state for their general
operation, they are not obligated to coordinate with other
schools. However, in order to avoid having to compete
unnecessarily with nearby colleges, private colleges often
coordinate their curricula and programs by means of alliances
with neighboring institutions, both public and private.
In central Massachusetts, for example, Amherst, Mount Holyoke,
the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Smith, and Hampshire,
have established a cooperative arrangement among themselves. All
five offer courses for the benefit of any student enrolled in any
of the institutions. The responsibility for the courses to earn
a degree in Asian studies, for example, including the study of
Japanese and Chinese languages, rests mainly with Mount Holyoke
College, a private college, while the courses in legal studies
are offered at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, a
public institution.
Accrediting Systems. Institutions of higher education in
the United States are evaluated by a private, nationwide
accrediting system. Accreditation is thus a prerequisite for the
establishment and credibility of any institution. Receiving it
signifies that a university or college curriculum is of
university-level caliber, has sufficient teachers and the
necessary library, laboratories, and student facilities to
maintain that level of instruction. Being accredited means that
the degrees the institution awards will be recognized across the
country.
The loss of accreditation has serious financial implications for
any college or university. Not only does it mean the certain
loss of student enrollment, but the loss of federal grants and
loans as well. Some curriculum grants offered by the federal
government and private foundations, moreover, are available only
to accredited institutions.
U.S. Regional Accrediting Agencies. All U.S. higher
education institutions, both public and private, fall within the
purview of six regional accrediting bodies. For example, the 550
institutions of higher education in New York, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the District of Columbia
look to the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools for
accreditation. After establishing guidelines by consensus among
the member institutions, each regional body goes about confirming
that members meet agreed-upon standards of quality.
No institution is permanently accredited, but must seek
re-accreditation periodically. A candidate for accreditation or
re-accreditation submits a report on itself to the accrediting
body. Outside committees made up of volunteers from other
institutions review the report and comment on how well the
institution is meeting its self-described short-term and
long-term goals, as well as how closely it is adhering to its
statement of mission. Finally a team of outside professors and
administrators visits the institution to inspect the physical
plant and to conduct interviews with the faculty, staff,
students, and administrators. The reaction to the institution's
self-study as well as the evaluation made by the visiting team
become the accrediting body's report back to the institution.
The entire process is designed to encourage continuous
self-assessment, and to provide an assessment of the educational
effectiveness of the institution. The evaluators who volunteer
to provide the peer review of an institution's success generally
agree that there are many ways of achieving goals. The
accrediting process is not designed to assure uniformity of
means; rather, the intent is to assure that standards of quality
have been met.
Accreditation of Disciplines. In addition to regional
accreditation, there is also national, subject-based
accreditation. Many individual programs within colleges and
universities are accredited by those professional associations to
which the department belongs. The American Assembly of
Collegiate Schools of Business, for example, accredits the
business administration programs at the University of Virginia;
whereas the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools--the
regional accrediting body--accredits the University of Virginia
itself.
Professional discipline associations review programs by looking
at the quality of course offerings and the amount and substance
of material that must be mastered by degree candidates. Music
departments, for example, seek accreditation from the National
Association of Schools of Music. Colleges of education are
accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education. By clearly defining the separate requirements for a
degree in music performance and for a degree in music education,
or by explicitly determining how much classroom practice is
appropriate for teachers, the professions themselves monitor the
quality of preparation given to the men and women who will be
joining their ranks.
Preserving Academic Freedom
Higher education is arguably one of democracy's most critical
institutions. Just as an independent judiciary and independent
news media serve to preserve basic freedoms, higher education,
when it sustains academic freedom, serves the free marketplace of
ideas and fosters the intellectual climate necessary for a
dynamic and responsive society.
Open discussion between teachers and students is one of the
defining characteristics of American education. Maintaining a
climate where this can be done, however, is one of the continuing
challenges facing higher education. Indeed, free speech has
become one of the most divisive issues on American campuses over
the past few years, as views on race, ethnicity, politics, and
sexuality have often pitted decency and respectful discourse on
one hand against the constitutional right of free speech on the
other. Often these battles are carried on in student-run
newspapers and magazines, where even the university president is
not free from attack.
Despite their diversity, American universities are not free from
misperception and bias. No human institution is. Hiring,
promotion, and tenure decisions are often highly contentious, as
ethnic, racial, and gender issues receive a good deal of
consideration in addition to academic achievement.
The primary responsibility of the faculty in a democratic society
is to follow the academic ethic: that is, to teach with an
obligation to the truth and to base this truth on evidence,
rational argument, and disinterested investigation. Edward
Shils, writing for the International Council on the Future of the
University, characterizes the obligations of the college
professor: "By developing in his students the capacity to
participate in the great traditions of science and scholarship,
in however minor a way, by getting them to understand, at the
very least, the modes of imagination and the characteristic forms
of criticism which they exhibit, a teacher demonstrates his
reverence for truth and fulfills the consequential moral
obligations, in a manner specific to him as a university teacher.
His obligations in relation to truth automatically generate a
sense of obligation to his students. If he leaves them with the
impression that everything is settled and that there are no
longer any but minor problems, or with the belief that when
problems were settled in the past it was always either by
deduction from dogma or by the application of established
methods, then he has failed not only in respect to those students
as individuals but in respect to the maintenance of the spirit of
inquiry, which is at once rational and reflective."
Encouraging Student Participation
Students often have a voice in university affairs. Student
leaders are sometimes appointed to search committees for senior
administrators, and on occasion are asked to sit in on
departmental meetings. Most public institutions provide for
student senates. Historically, these organizations have been
primarily concerned with budgeting and planning student
activities. But in some instances students can play a more
decisive role, through participation in task forces that study
issues and make recommendations.
Student Orientation. Most U.S. colleges and universities
make a strong effort to help incoming students feel at home in
their new surroundings. Orientation of first-year students is an
important part of this process.
In a typical U.S. college orientation program, beginning students
are invited to the campus a week before the returning students
arrive. The new students often meet in an informal setting to
get acquainted with one another and to learn about the practical
aspects of student life, such as course selection, dormitory
living, social activities, and tips about managing time. They
become acquainted with the credit-hour system and are advised
about the amount of outside class work that is expected of them.
Building a Curriculum
The American university curriculum has been under revision for
most of the 20th century as ever more complex and conflicting
demands have been placed on higher education. Most U.S.
institutions continue to struggle with the matter. One of the
most recent, although certainly not the last, of these debates
has centered around the question of "Eurocentrism" and the extent
to which U.S. curriculum should be based on the classics of
European literature, history, and culture.
Answers to such questions are often provided by committees
comprised of faculty and administrators. Almost by necessity,
each institution arrives at a combination of courses which makes
sense for its own student body and the degree of specialization
it wishes to maintain.
College curricula can be shaped in many ways. For example, the
University of North Texas in Denton has chosen to cluster
required courses around the ideas of reason, virtue, and
civility. Some curricula are governed by sequential logic, such
as the 10 courses at New York s Brooklyn College that set down a
solid foundation in art, ideas, science, and the values of
Western and other civilizations.
Edwin Delatter, Dean and Olin Scholar in Applied Ethics at Boston
University, in his study of the intellectual and moral purpose of
American education, describes the difficulty that attends
curriculum deliberations. Those involved in the process of
defining a university's curriculum, he writes, should: "resolve
to exclude the shallow and trivial, and to include only that
which requires intellectual rigor, truthfulness, accuracy, and
independence of mind. These standards are not entirely sufficient
either, though, because disagreement will persist over what they
mean. After all, scholarship that some consider trivial is
deemed important by others. But if administrators and faculty
remember that the time available for undergraduate study is
limited and precious, they may at least exclude some
nonessentials. And if they truly want students to become adults
who can exercise judgment in a condition of liberty, they can
avoid propaganda."
Conclusion
As countries reform and restructure their institutions of higher
education, they must wrestle with many difficult issues: Who
should have access to higher education? What should be taught?
How should it be taught and learned? Who should govern, who
should evaluate? And, last of all, how will the institution be
financed?
In reflecting on these, educators may wish to keep in mind some
basic principles:
Higher education should be highly accessible.
The curriculum should be regularly renewed and reviewed in a
fair and open process.
An educational mission should be carefully articulated.
Academic ethics should be stressed so as to assure freedom to
teach and freedom to learn.
Governance should be shared among all who participate in the
academic enterprise.
Finally, the test of the quality of teaching and research is
the long-term benefit of higher education to the country.
Successful administration of higher education is based on a
commitment to a process rather than on the private ambitions of
individuals. Ideally, issues do not get lost in the
institution's own bureaucracy. Like democracy itself, people who
are affected by the decisions should have a voice in the
decision-making. The administrators, faculty, and students in
these institutions should all think of the institution as a
community built on mutual benefit.
MANY CHOICES IN ONE SYSTEM: THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
The state of Wisconsin, with a population of over 5 million,
consolidated its many public colleges and universities into one
centrally administered system in 1971. This consolidation
enhanced its efficiency while preserving a wide range of choices.
The University of Wisconsin system includes 13 University of
Wisconsin Centers, located throughout the state, which offer the
first two years of general education. Students may then transfer
to other campuses to complete their degrees.
In addition, the Wisconsin system includes 13 comprehensive
universities. Two of these four-year institutions, at Madison
and Milwaukee, are research-intensive. Between them they have
several postgraduate professional schools and award a variety of
doctorate degrees. In its 26 separate locations, the system
serves over 160,000 students.
The flagship institution is the University of Wisconsin at
Madison. About 43,000 students are enrolled, one-third of whom
are pursuing graduate degrees. The campus at Milwaukee has over
25,000 students, and the rest of the campuses have from 3,000 to
10,000 students.
There are many choices for study. Over 300 undergraduate majors
(fields of academic concentration) are offered, and each campus
specializes to some extent in related majors. The River Falls
campus, for example, offers most of its majors in agricultural
and natural resources. The university at Stout, on the other
hand, is strong in business and technology.
Besides choosing a major at the end of their first or second
year, students also choose a "submajor" (often called a minor at
other universities) that complements the main area of study--a
major in international relations and a submajor in a foreign
language, for example, or a major in computer technology with a
submajor in business administration.
In a system this large and varied, many combinations are
possible, depending on a student's interests and career
expectations.
Average class sizes and the makeup of the student body vary from
campus to campus. At the Madison campus many classes enroll over
100 students, while on smaller campuses classes average 22 to 27
students. The campuses in large cities, such as Milwaukee, serve
a significant number of part-time students who have full-time
jobs and are over 24 years of age. At Madison the greatest
number of students are of the traditional age (18 to 22 years
old) and attend the university full time.
Students may move freely among the campuses within the system,
since all credits are recognized by all other locations. Because
living at home can save money, some may elect to commute to a
University of Wisconsin Center for the first two years. Students
also have the flexibility of changing their declared major or
moving to a different campus if they choose.
In addition to the University of Wisconsin system, the state
offers 16 technical colleges to provide vocational training
opportunities. These offer over 300 programs that take from one
to three years to complete and include such choices as nursing,
food-service management, automotive technology, and computer
programming. Many of the credits earned in the Wisconsin
Technical College system are accepted by the University of
Wisconsin system, so a student can enroll in either system and
eventually receive both technical training and an academic
degree.
LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION: MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE
Founded in 1837 when higher education for women was still rare in
the United States, Mount Holyoke College is a private women's
liberal arts institution located in central Massachusetts. About
2,000 undergraduate women are enrolled.
The school is an example of an institution administered by
collegium, a self-governing community that makes decisions by
consensus. According to its Faculty Study Committee on the
Principles of the College, Mount Holyoke is dedicated to
"freedom, learning, and community of purpose." It seeks to
realize these principles in its curriculum, in its faculty and
students, and in the continuing involvement of alumnae in its
activities and governance.
Mount Holyoke offers one undergraduate degree, the bachelor of
arts, and 28 majors. To earn a degree, students must complete
128 credits (most semester-long courses are either 3 or 4 credit
hours), demonstrating both breadth and depth of learning.
One-fourth of the credits are to be taken from seven designated
areas: language, third-world culture, physical education, two
areas of humanities, laboratory science and mathematics, and
social science. Another third of the courses are in the
student's declared major and minor.
Although almost a third of the students who attend Mount Holyoke
come from the surrounding area, the rest of the students come
from all over the United States and from 57 different countries.
International students make up 11 percent of the enrollment.
Members of American minority groups make up 15 percent of the
student body as a result of Mount Holyoke's active recruitment.
All students live and eat together in the college's residence
halls, each of which houses between 65 and 135 first-year through
fourth-year students.
Admission to Mount Holyoke is based on the applicant's high
school records, achievement on national tests, recommendations
from high school teachers, and, importantly, a personal interview
conducted on campus or with an alumna close to where the
applicant lives. Getting admitted is highly competitive. Over
1,800 women applied for the 465 first-year slots in 1991-1992.
Entrance into Mount Holyoke does not depend on ability to pay.
Tuition, room and board, and other fees at Mount Holyoke were
$23,900 for the 1992-1993 school year. Sixty-five percent of the
students, however, receive some form of financial aid.
The faculty-student ratio is 1:9, allowing for a much higher
degree of personal interaction. And students participate along
with faculty in governance. For example, students sit on the
Academic Policy Committee, the Board of Admissions, and the
Academic Deans' Advisory Committee.
The Mount Holyoke Alumnae Association launched a $125-million
fundraising campaign in 1986 and achieved its goal in five years.
The purpose of the campaign was to increase the support for
student financial aid and faculty salaries, to improve campus
facilities, and to support academic and technological research.
Almost 25,000 alumnae in 92 alumnae clubs throughout the world
continue an active association with the college. Of the 21
members of the board of trustees, six are voted in directly by
the alumnae.
In a close, focused atmosphere, the women who make up the student
body of Mount Holyoke are part of a community of learners and
teachers. They are exposed to cultures and perspectives from
around the world and across time. And after graduating, they can
continue to participate actively as alumnae in supporting this
liberal arts college community.
FINANCING HIGHER EDUCATION: WHO PAYS?
Questions about financing higher education continue to cause wide
debate within the United States and other democratic societies.
Higher education broadly benefits society as a whole. Should its
expenses therefore be paid from general government funds? What
about the students themselves? They stand to benefit from going
to college. Should students and their families pay for what they
receive? And what about the commercial and service interests
that are served by higher education? Should universities receive
substantial, secure funding from the private sector?
Each country answers these questions differently. Japan, for
instance, tends to think that students and their families should
bear the major part of the burden of supporting higher education,
and the burden is heavy indeed. According to one estimate,
education expenditures account for over a third of total family
expenditures for the years children are in school. Not
surprisingly, higher education in Japan is substantially
dependent upon student tuition; it makes up 67 percent of the
revenues for the private universities, which enroll about 85
percent of college students.
In contrast, the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and France,
charge students either nothing or a small service fee. These
nations have decided that the substantial burden for the costs of
higher education is the responsibility of the public. Ninety
percent of the revenues of French universities, for example, are
from general public funds.
Other countries mix public and private funding. The universities
in Spain, for example, receive 80 percent of their income from
the public, but the balance comes from the students themselves.
All mixes are possible. German institutions in the mid-1980s
derived about 70 percent of their revenues from the government.
The remaining 30 percent came from industry, commerce, and
medical services--and none from students.
Australia is an interesting case. With higher education
dependent on the government for about 90 percent of its revenues,
Australian policy-makers are considering ways to diversify its
funding. The government is looking at challenge grants (a grant
given on the condition that a matching amount be secured from
another source), offsets provided to industry for contributions
of funds and equipment, and collective bargaining to include
support for higher education in wage negotiations.
The United States has a complex structure for financing
education. Everyone who benefits from higher education pays for
a portion of it. Tuition accounts for 20 percent of the revenues
of public institutions and 55 percent of the revenues of private
institutions. Government funds in several forms--outright
grants, programmatic grants, or contracts for services--account
for 70 percent of public institution revenue and 20 percent of
private. The private sector--through unrestricted gifts, grants
for projects, and endowment contributions--provides 10 percent of
the funds for public institutions and 25 percent for private
ones.
WHAT IS ACADEMIC TENURE?
The peculiarly American tradition of connecting academic tenure
to academic freedom was codified in 1915 by the newly formed
American Association of University Professors (AAUP), an
independent professional association. Responding to threats and
dismissals of professors whose transgressions were their opinions
rather than their classroom or research competence, AAUP issued a
public declaration of principles. It insisted that the freedom
to teach and research, the freedom to pursue the truth, was
necessarily linked with protection from economic coercion.
In subsequent conference reports these guarantees have been
restated. For example, AAUP s "1940 Statement of Principles on
Academic Freedom and Tenure" defines academic tenure this way:
"After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or
investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and
their service should be terminated only for adequate cause...."
In exchange for this protection, so it is assumed, professors
will engage in the disinterested pursuit of truth. The 1940
document goes on to clarify: "Tenure is a means to certain
ends--specifically, (1) freedom of teaching and research and of
extramural activities and (2) a sufficient degree of economic
security to make the profession attractive to men and women of
ability. Freedom and economic security--hence, tenure--are
indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its
obligations to its students and to society."
Although academic tenure has widespread support among American
professors, and qualified support from
administrators and Americans in general, it is the focus of
considerable debate. On the one hand, tenure is consistent with
American principles of fairness and justice. It embodies general
Jeffersonian ideas about the importance of knowledge and pursuit
of truth to the future of a free society. On the other hand,
lifetime guarantee of employment is an anathema to a society that
values merit and excellence and that functions in a competitive
market economy.
Those who argue that tenure is relevant and necessary say that
the tradition bolsters personal courage and relieves teachers
from ideological conformity. Academic tenure, it is argued,
serves to support professional autonomy whereby senior professors
monitor quality within their ranks.
According to AAUP recommendations, a new faculty member must be
granted tenure after a seven-year probationary period or move on.
It is a system of "up or out." Tenure committees usually
comprise a selection of tenured faculty within a department who
make recommendations to the entire department's tenured faculty.
Once the department agrees to grant tenure, it is customary for a
university-wide tenure committee to review the recommendation.
If the recommendation is affirmed, the appropriate dean takes
that recommendation to the president who confers tenure.
Tenure in and of itself does not mean promotion, nor increase in
salary. These matters are handled in a separate process. Tenure
is sought for its own end, and as such it becomes a paramount
rite of passage, a mark of approval from respected colleagues.
It has a certain mystique about it that is a mainstay of American
academic culture.
Those who argue that tenure has become irrelevant and unnecessary
cite differences between American universities at the beginning
of the century and now. Due process has become commonly assured
to all professionals. The fact of tenure does not in itself
guarantee economic stability, it is argued, so much as the
professional's seniority and reputation for academic achievement.
Protection from ideological pressure from the outside,
furthermore, has been displaced by pressure from inside the
institution to conform to certain ideological tenets. Senior,
tenured professors may sift challenges to their political views
from among those applying for tenure. Tenure may guard against
meddlesome trustees and legislators, but it does not against
pressures to conform inside the institution.
The argument against tenure, furthermore, points out that
security can not only breed incompetence and sloth, but also
encourage insurgency. In other bureaucratic institutions, job
security is offered in exchange for the relinquishing of certain
freedoms. The difference is instructive. In the civil service
and in the military, employees are sensitive to the fact that
they are a part of the public face of their institutions. Their
private opinions remain private. In the university, by contrast,
opinions are freely expressed and made public. The university
remains neutral, above the fray, but the individuals who make up
the institution freely expound on public policy without peril.
Most historians of American higher education agree that academic
tenure has served to encourage the development of an independent,
autonomous higher education that is at once a source of support
for the betterment of society and a source of commentary on the
society. Whether the custom continues to enjoy the general
support of the academic community in the future, however, remains
to be seen.
HUNGARIAN HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM PROPOSAL
In October 1992, the Hungarian Parliament's Subcommittee on
Higher Education requested that the Citizens Democracy Corps
(CDC) review a draft education bill under consideration by the
Parliament. Derek Bok, on the executive committee of CDC and
president emeritus of Harvard University, traveled to Hungary
together with a few colleagues to meet with members of the
subcommittee, officials from the Ministry of Education and other
ministries, representatives of the Academy of Sciences and the
Conference of University Rectors, professors, students, and
others.
Bok and his colleagues asked the Hungarian legislation a number
of questions which might serve as guides for countries
contemplating the reform of their higher education system. Among
them were the following:
How well does the draft law succeed in securing appropriate
autonomy or freedom from inappropriate state interference?
Does the draft law adequately safeguard the legitimate rights
and freedoms of teachers and students?
Does the draft law adequately encourage consolidation to
achieve economies of scale and other measures by universities to
achieve more efficient use of resources?
Does the draft legislation adequately encourage a proper
reintegration of teaching and research in the nation's
universities?
How well will the draft law serve to meet the manpower needs
of the nation?
How well does the draft law provide for the long-term
financing of higher education?
Does the draft law provide adequate encouragement,
incentives, and safeguards to promote education and research of
high quality?
Does the draft law provide adequately for the
reintegration of Hungarian higher education with foreign
universities and other institutions of higher learning and with
the international scholarly community?
FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS
As countries make fundamental decisions regarding support for
their institutions of higher education, they must also deal with
a separate and equally important financing issue: how to pay for
the living expenses of university students. In a democratic
society purporting to provide equal opportunity, taking care of
deserving students is an important task. To assure that higher
education is extended not just to affluent families, even those
countries that charge no tuition have a plan of some kind for
supporting students.
Most countries have worked out a combination of outright grants
on the basis of need and loans that are repaid after graduation.
Great Britain links subsistence grants to its mandatory grants
given to all students. The subsistence part of the grant is
given only to needy students, awarded by local education
authorities and funded by the central government. Full-time
students in a degree-level program receive a mandatory grant with
an appropriate subsistence portion. This student-grant plan,
although modified recently with repayable loans, has a 30-year
tradition.
A similar grant program was available to German students until
the mid-1970s, when the method of providing subsistence support
shifted to loans. To qualify for a loan in Germany, students
must show not only need but also satisfactory academic progress.
The loans are interest-free and must be paid back within 20
years. Only about 30 percent of German students, however, are
eligible for support.
Repayment after graduation does not always work as planned. In
the United States high default rates on student loans are being
addressed with an integrity plan that, among other measures,
links student-loan status to income tax returns. If a student
loan has lapsed into default, the person's federal income tax is
increased proportionately. Australia has given consideration to
a plan to collect some of the costs of education through a
retrospective taxation system. When a former student's taxable
income reaches the national average, he or she pays the
government a percentage of the costs incurred while studying.
Besides offering grants and loans, countries attempt to support
students through a variety of plans. Subsidies and indirect aid
provide support in some countries. Greece and Portugal, for
example, subsidize meals and housing and provide books and
services at minimal cost to students.
Some universities in the United States offer work-study programs.
Most schools hire financial-aid students to perform jobs on
campus that pay for part of that aid: shelving books in
libraries, cleaning laboratories, raking leaves on the grounds.
In the United States student financial aid is administered by the
institution itself. Every college and university, private as
well as public, has its own financial aid office. After a
student has been admitted, he or she can be considered for a
combination of grants, loans, and, if appropriate, work-study.
If the applicant is dependent upon his or her family, the amount
of aid awarded is the difference between what the institution
determines the family can pay and what it costs to attend. For
example, a student going to the University of Wisconsin at Eau
Claire in 1992-1993 was expected to spend $7,400 in nine months.
If the office of financial aid determined that the family could
contribute $3,000, the student would have been offered a package
that totaled $4,400, perhaps $2,400 in a loan and $2,000 in a
grant.
In order for the officials to determine the level of family
contribution, applicants must submit family financial data,
including parents' income and assets, the number of children
attending college, and the number of other dependents in the
household. The financial aid office uses standardized guidelines
to calculate the amount that they judge the family can afford to
contribute to the applicant's college expenses.
Naturally students shop for the best financial-aid package, just
as the universities offer the most favorable aid packages to
attract the most promising students.
BUILDING CURRICULUM: A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
Curriculum, the collection or body of courses offered at a
college or university, is often under pressure from a variety of
sources. The interests of faculty, employers, students,
administrators, benefactors, and social philosophers seldom
coincide completely.
In large public research-intensive universities, curriculum must
accommodate the needs of a highly diverse student body. For
colleges having a student body of 10,000 or fewer, however, and
for private research universities (Stanford, Chicago, Princeton,
and Yale, for example) a focused or specialized curriculum
becomes a way of defining the character of the institution.
Sometimes institutions are forced to rethink their curriculum in
order to survive. New York's Brooklyn College, for example,
responded to the threat of severe funding cuts, and the
possibility of closing, by restructuring its curriculum and
streamlining course requirements. It consolidated seven separate
schools into one coordinated general education curriculum that
improved its reputation, reduced the numbers of faculty and
administrators, and made better use of facilities.
Another institution that restructured its curriculum is Fairleigh
Dickinson University in Rutherford, New Jersey. As revised, its
undergraduate curriculum is based on a sequence of four courses:
"Perspectives on the Individual" focuses on the singular
consciousness grappling with forces in the universe--readings
include Elie Wiesel, Night; Pico della Mirandola,
Oration on the Dignity of Man; The Autobiography of
Malcolm X; and Plato, Apology and Crito.
"The American Experience: The Quest for Freedom" stresses the
founding documents and later commentary on the identity of the
American people--readings include the Declaration of
Independence; the Bill of Rights; The Autobiography of
Benjamin Franklin; Sojourner Truth, Ain't I a Woman;
and Upton Sinclair, The Jungle.
"Cross-Cultural Perspectives" explores the shape of several
countries' traditions--readings include The Bhagavad-Gita;
Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart; Gregorio Lopez y
Fuentes, El Indio; and Oscar Lewis, Five Families:
Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty.
"Global Issues" focuses on social and political issues that
cross borders and continents--readings include John Hersey,
Hiroshima; Martin Buber, I and Thou; Albert Camus,
The Plague; and Aids and the Third World.
In its guidebook for curriculum planners, Core Curriculum and
Cultural Pluralism, the Association of American Colleges
stresses that the "process is as important as the product; a good
planning and implementation process improves chances for
success." Strong programs are constantly being evaluated and
refined: "They are vital, alive and ever-changing as a result of
constant review and improvement." By cooperative teamwork an
institution can be in a state of continuous improvement.
Building curriculum, then, is an activity that draws together the
faculty and administrators in a process at the heart of
deliberative democracy.
GLOSSARY
academic freedom -- freedom granted to faculty members to
teach their subjects as they know them and to pursue areas of
research unrestrained by politics or ideology. It is also the
freedom of students to learn and to pursue the truth without
being pressured to subscribe to political or ideological
perspectives.
accreditation -- process by which an educational
institution is given nationally recognized credentials.
bachelor's degree -- baccalaureate degree, usually earned
after four years of higher education. It is designated by general
area of study: for example, bachelor of arts, bachelor of
science.
campus -- geographic area of a college or university
including its buildings and grounds. A typical American college
campus has administration buildings, classroom buildings,
dormitories, gymnasiums, a student center with meeting rooms, a
sports stadium and other playing fields, and open places with
benches and walking paths.
credit hour -- a unit of academic work. A typical
American full-time student completes 16 or more credit hours each
semester in order to earn a bachelor's degree that requires 128
successfully completed credit hours.
dean -- administrative official in charge of a school,
faculty, or unit of operations; for example, dean of the nursing
school, dean of the graduate school, dean of admissions. Deans
may also represent special concerns, for example, dean of women,
dean of academic affairs.
liberal arts college -- an institution that offers a
general four-year curriculum, including such subjects as
literature, philosophy, language, history, mathematics, and
physical science, leading to a bachelor's degree. It is to be
distinguished from an institution that offers professional or
technical training.
tenure -- guarantee of a lifetime position as a faculty
member of the granting institution. In conjunction with academic
freedom, tenure theoretically ensures that higher education is a
free marketplace of ideas.
tuition -- money paid for instruction. Sometimes fees are
added to tuition as a separate cost, for example, laboratory fees
and fees for admission to athletic events.
university -- a collection of several undergraduate
colleges in combination with graduate and professional schools,
granting a variety of degrees. A university may comprise a
college of agriculture, college of engineering, college of
liberal arts, college of commerce, as well as a medical school
and a law school.
ORGANIZATIONS
American Academy for Liberal Education
1015 18th Street, N.W., Suite 204
Washington, D.C. 20036
An institutional membership organization dedicated to ensuring
high standards for liberal education among its member colleges.
One standard, for example, is "Liberty of thought and freedom of
speech are supported and enforced, bounded only by such rules of
civility and order as to facilitate intellectual inquiry and the
search for truth."
Association of American Colleges
1818 R Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Having a membership of over 600 public colleges and universities,
AAC seeks to enhance liberal education and secure its integration
with professional programs and courses of study.
Citizens Democracy Corps
2021 K Street, N.W., Suite 215
Washington, D.C. 20006
A nonprofit organization that encourages and assists American
private corporations and foundations in their efforts to promote
free-market economies and democratic institutions in Central and
Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences
The Ohio State University
186 University Hall
230 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1319
A national association of baccalaureate degree-granting colleges
and universities whose purpose is to sustain the arts and
sciences as a leading influence in American higher education.
The Foundation Center
1) 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 938
Washington, D.C. 20036
2) 79 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10003
A nonprofit organization maintaining four libraries in the United
States for the public. It serves as a clearinghouse for
information on grant-making activities; for example, it houses
directories of international foundations and grant-makers.
Independent Sector
1828 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
A coalition of 830 corporations, foundations, and voluntary
organizations having national interests in and impact on
philanthropy. As part of its research function, it tracks the
role and function of nonprofit organizations worldwide.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
1)2, rue Andre-Pascal
75775 Paris CEDEX 16
France
2)OECD Publications and Information Center
2001 L Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
OECD aims to promote economic and social welfare of its 24-member
countries by coordinating policies. It publishes the journal of
the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education,
Higher Education Management, three times a year.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Altbach, Philip G. and Robert O. Berdahl, Eds. Higher
Education in American Society. Rev. ed. Buffalo, New York:
Prometheus Books, 1981.
Barzun, Jacques. The American University: How It Runs, Where
It Is Going. 2nd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1993.
Ben-David, Joseph. Centers of Learning: Britain, France,
Germany, United States. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers, 1992.
Bok, Derek. Higher Learning. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1986.
Boyer, Ernest L. College: The Undergraduate Experience in
America. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.
Boyer, Ernest L. and Arthur Levine. A Quest for Common
Learning: The Aims of General Education. Washington, D.C.:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1981.
Cheney, Lynne V. 50 Hours: A Core Curriculum for College
Students. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the
Humanities, 1989.
Delattre, Edwin J. Education and the Public Trust: The
Imperative for Common Purposes. Washington, D.C.: Ethics and
Public Policy Center, 1988.
Eurich, Nell P. Systems of Higher Education in Twelve
Countries: A Comparative View. New York: Praeger, 1981.
Financing Higher Education: Current Patterns. Paris:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1990.
Flexner, Abraham. Universities: American, English,
German. New York: Oxford University Press, 1930.
General Education in a Free Society: Report of the Harvard
Committee. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1945.
Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic
Community. Washington, D.C.: Association of American
Colleges, 1985.
Kells, H. R. Self-Study Processes: A Guide for Postsecondary
Institutions. Second edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1983.
Levine, Arthur. Handbook on Undergraduate Curriculum.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978.
Levine, Arthur, Ed. Higher Learning in America, 1980-2000.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
McCarthy, Kathleen D., Virginia A. Hodgkinson, Russy D.
Sumariwalla and Associates. The Nonprofit Sector in the
Global Community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1992.
Oakley, Francis. Community of Learning: The American College
and the Liberal Arts Tradition. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1992.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Idea of the University: A
Reexamination. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Riesman, David. On Higher Education: The Academic Enterprise
in an Era of Rising Student Consumerism. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1981.
Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University: A
History. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1990.
Rudolph, Frederick. Curriculum: A History of the American
Undergraduate Course of Study Since 1636. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1977.
Schmitz, Betty. Core Curriculum and Cultural Pluralism: A
Guide for Campus Planners. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges, 1992.
Shils, Edward. The Academic Ethic: The Report of a Study
Group of the International Council on the Future of the
University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Smith, Page. Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in
America. New York: Penguin Books, 1990.
Tough Choices: A Guide to Administrative Cost Management in
Colleges and Universities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Education, 1990.
About the Author: Celeste Colgan is a fellow at the
Hudson Institute based in Indianapolis, Indiana. She received
her bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of
Wyoming and her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland. She
served in federal government from 1986 to 1993, her last post as
deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
_________________________
Project management and editing by the Institute for Contemporary
Studies (ICS)
Vice President -- Kenneth L. Adelman
Editor -- Heidi Fritschel
The mission of ICS is to promote the self-governing and
entrepreneurial way of life. Through its imprint, ICS Press, ICS
publishes a wide range of books on public issues. For a catalog
or more information, write: ICS, 243 Kearny Street, San
Francisco, California 94102 USA.
Freedom Papers Series:
Editor: Howard Cincotta
Associate Editor: Rick Marshall
Design: Barbara Morgan
