The New Republic has a piece up today that, gulp, commends the higher-education reform agenda of one Mr. Rick Perry of Texas. Perry is, the writer avers, a visionary. The TNR commenters are, predictably, apoplectic. Their rage seems a bit hard to justify from where I’m sitting, but I’ll be the last one to decry the leavening effect that a touch of choking apoplexy can have on an otherwise dreary Thursday morning.
On, though, to Perry’s policy recommendations. I’m not terribly confident about his yen for super-cheap, mostly online education. Not at all. The super-cheap part is intriguing, of course, but I’ve never seen anyone approach an online course (they’re not so uncommon these days) with anything more inspiring than an “Oh shoot, I forgot I’m supposed to post something on that stupid message board” attitude. More promising, to me, are Perry’s various ideas about tying tenure and salary decisions to teaching outcomes, however those outcomes can best be measured (this is no simple matter). Over my five years of grad school, I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the offices of big-shot professors kibitzing about, well, other big-shot professors. And I’ve seen the way that they grimace at their watches, snap their laptops shut, and mutter something to the effect of “Oh shoot, I forgot I’m supposed to teach that stupid class.” Watching them dawdle off to the lectern, one’s imagination does not swell with pictures of pedagogical virtuosity.
It’s easy, and not wholly unvirtuous, to look down one’s nose at such examples of pampered professorial laziness, but having done a couple of semesters-worth of teaching myself, I can sympathize. For professors at research institutions like the ones I’ve attended, the incentive structure runs decisively away from teaching. Many, if not most of us, have chosen to attend graduate school because we really, really love to to read and think and talk and write about our disciplines in a serious, sustained, in-depth fashion. So that right there means that we will have a preference for the parts of the job that put us in conversation with others who share our interests, inclinations, and expertise. It’s just more fun to explore or spar with colleagues who can keep up. It’s also tremendously satisfying to write something that can win the respect of one’s best peers.
Contrast this with the classroom, which, if you’re teaching undergrads, and nevermind undergrad introductory courses, will be in some large part populated by people who are there because going to college is just what one does if one is ambitious, intelligent, middle class, directionless, etc. It can indeed be an electrifying experience to reach out to, and actually reach, a segment of one’s allotted undergraduate charges, but this is for many professors a rarer and harder-won pleasure than interacting with already interested colleagues. And when tenure, raises, and professional standing are tied disproportionately to one’s scholarly achievement, it becomes increasingly unlikely that the average professor in a large research institution will approach the classroom as much more than an afterthought.
I think there are serious questions to be asked about the unreflective manner in which whole (socioeconomic) classes of eighteen-year-olds are funneled into higher education, so I am prima facie skeptical about Perry’s goal of expanding college enrollment, but whether or not the current crop of college students are where they belong, they are there, and Perry is right that they are paying an outrageous amount of money for the privilege. So simple justice, among other things, would seem to dictate that we do something to maximize the probability that they will actually learn something during their college career. One reasonable step in this direction might be to convince professors that they have a stake—be it professional, financial, etc.—in seeing that their students learn. So whether or not he’s a visionary, as the TNR author would have it, Rick Perry’s educational program does indeed seem to deserve a careful hearing. And the New Republic deserves kudos for giving it something like that, much to the consternation, and cathartic relief, of its commenting readership.
August 25th, 2011 | 1:48 pm
One of the best things for higher education from a Perry presidency would simply be a demonstration that you can go to A&M and still be president. A quarter century of Ivy Leaguers is more than enough. They haven’t exactly been great stewards of the country, and have merely served to demonstrate that we currently have a credentialocracy rather than a meritocracy.
Of course it should be a no-brainer to place Michelle Rhee in charge at the Department of Education.
Student loans for undergraduates should be slashed. As with housing, access to cheap access has benefited lenders and sellers of education far more than consumers of education.
Fairly simple steps would go a long way. It’s really only in the last 15 years that the problem has gotten out of hand. Education reform (and entitlement reform, of course) should be a fundamental part of any candidate’s platform.
August 25th, 2011 | 1:49 pm
Ugh. “access to cheap access” should say “access to cheap credit” above.
August 25th, 2011 | 3:03 pm
The answer to the question is, “No.” “No,” Mr. Perry is not a higher education visionary. Instead, like many conservatives (although I doubt that Mr. Perry could tell you why–he’s just following the elephant), Mr. Perry wants to cut access to higher education in this country for those whose families can’t afford it. To keep the poor poor; to trim the size of the middle class–these are the goals of those who like neither democracy nor the middle class (which go hand in hand). Attacking higher education not only makes Mr. Perry popular with an anti-intellectual constituency, it forwards the conservative goal of transforming post-war American to antebellum America.
August 25th, 2011 | 4:15 pm
Mr. Corbin et al.,
Although measuring student outcomes may have some place in educational reform, its value is limited. Indeed, it is neither wise nor conservative to rely on this approach.
Teachers and systems of education are not the sole or even primary factors determining educational success. The primary cause of education is the student. Success in higher education is based primarily on native intelligence, moral character, and family culture. Of course good teachers and wise educational systems are important, but their impact is limited. So measuring outcomes does little to determine the quality of education provided to the student. The best any institution can do is provide students with the opportunity to do well; the rest is up to the student. Recognizing the importance of personal responsibility has been one of the best insights of conservative thought.
The wisest and safest way to craft qaulity education is by listening to the voice of tradition. The university and its classical series of courses has been nurtured and passed on from medieval civilization, because it effectively forms students in the arts and sciences. Growth is always possible, but the experience of generations of scholars and teachers should not be dismissed lightly, especially for the sake of a utilitarian analysis that fails to recognize values that transcend the market. Indeed, His Holiness Benedict XVI has pointed out that one of the most important missions of the contemporary university is to offer to men and women a vision of truth and goodness that is not limited to monetary gain or quantifiable advantage.
Sincerely,
B. Smith
August 25th, 2011 | 4:38 pm
Hi Zach,
I find it pretty funny that you’ve obviously just taken some anti-Bush talking points and done a “replace all” for Bush with Perry, and are apparently unaware of some minor differences in their life stories that make “he hates poor people!” just a tad unconvincing.
But I find it REALLY funny that you feel the need to put “Dr.” in front of your name. I have a PhD too. No one cares, dude.
August 25th, 2011 | 5:27 pm
But I find it REALLY funny that you feel the need to put “Dr.” in front of your name. I have a PhD too. No one cares, dude.
Dr. Brian,
Dr. Zachary Smith was a character in the 1965-1968 television series Lost in Space.
August 25th, 2011 | 5:44 pm
David: Um, OK. So you’re suggesting that someone used a satirical pseudonym that has nothing to do with his post. I guess it’s possible, but doesn’t seem likely. What would be the point?
Seems to me more likely that Dr. Zachary Smith is a professor at Northern Arizona University (the first non-TV character hit on google) or somewhere else who has no sense of humor or self-awareness and wrote his actual name, trying somehow to impress with his silly title.
August 25th, 2011 | 11:24 pm
Like David, I assumed it was a take on the TV character. But that would be ironic, since Dr. Smith was hardly known for his wisdom on the show, but for his academic preening.
August 26th, 2011 | 7:49 am
Full disclosure: I have a masters in chemical engineering. I don’t like labels (especially on me!) but they would probably call me a conservative. I accept, insofar as I want to conserve what is good from our collective experience–the bad stuff can go where it belongs! Now–will any of you dudes listen?
What I object to re higher education is how people pay increasingly outrageous sums to come out without being able to string a few sentences into a grammatical paragraph that makes sense; or to be able to analyze an argument from reasonable first principles to logical conclusions; to live in and enjoy the fruits of the most productive economy on earth, while having no sense of how it comes about, and while feeling poor and unsatisfied materially; to be drawn into losing one’s faith in God; to value “gay marriage”; to think that, even if Rick Perry is following the elephant, that would be bad; to believe global warming is the greatest threat to mankind; to buy into the dictatorship of relativism; to learn how to create ugly art and ugly music, while believing it’s the government’s duty to subsidize; to study Marx in a “great books” curriculum (either Karl or Groucho!) while ignoring Smith (either Adam or Dr Zachary!); etc.
There’s nothing I can do to improve such an “education” system, and very little Rick Perry could do as president. What I will be happy to do, and I hope Rick Perry will help me do, is to opt out. It galls me to think that my taxes, and the debt repayments of my children and grandchildren, are used to prop up such a toxic and dysfunctional system.
August 27th, 2011 | 1:50 pm
In the sciences, a professor who glances at his watch and mutters irritably that he has to go teach that blasted class, grrr, should quite possibly not be required to teach it. Excellence in research and adequacy in the lecture hall are almost completely uncorrelated. In fact, many outstanding researchers are not able to communicate coherently in English. (This is obvious to every conference attendee.)
The positions should be officially separated. This process seems to be well underway in the current mania for hiring adjuncts to teach undergraduates and should not be discouraged.
(I remember Dr. Smith not for his academic preening, but for his avarice, cowardice and selfishness. But I believe the character was a medical doctor, not a Ph.D.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact