Has higher education lost its way?

The Real World of College: What Higher Education Is and What It Can Be by Wendy Fischman and Howard Gardner has attracted considerable attention by other academics, who reinforce some but oppose other assertions the authors made. The summary of comments made by the authors certainly stimulated my curiosity. Their finding was that "higher education has become a largely 'transactional' endeavor, focused entirely too much on jobs and bogged down in well-intentioned institutes, centers and programs that distract from its main purpose." Fischman and Gardner's book is based on 2,000 interviews of students, parents, faculty, administrators, trustees, alumni and others over 10 years at 10 institutions.

Some of the questions raised included:

• Are institutional faculty and administrators aligned with student and family expectations?
• Is the prevailing transactional student focus on career-related outcomes out of whack with other, and more transformational, purposes?
• Has the proliferation of services and learning opportunities eclipsed the core of building intellectual capital?
• Are student experiences at elite institutions different or more like those offered in less-selective settings?
• Why do students struggle with finding a place and feeling included, which results in poorer mental health?

I reserve judgment related to the premise of the Fischman & Gardner book since I have not read it. However, other authors have posed alternatives for education leaders to consider.

One alternative takes on the rankings that influence students' choices and set up a hierarchy of elitism for academics climbing the prestige ladder. Colin Diver's Breaking Ranks compares the rating system for higher education to that of refrigerators and concludes that systems like that used in the US News & World Report can and should be resisted. The oddity is that elitism is commonly defended as an extension of free market competition with "the best" having access to the highest quality of education. This view relies heavily on the individual privilege of learning versus the public benefit of high quality and accessible education for all. An alternative approach to rankings uses the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) to measure the impact of institutions.

A long-asserted view of the future of higher education is that it should relate more purposefully to workforce development. Focusing on content mastery and skill development aligned with employment opportunity has potential appeal to prospects entering college immediately after high school graduation as well as for the those seeking lifelong retooling that is offered in adult learning. Vocational preparation can be more expensive than programs in the humanities and social sciences, which has lead some institutions deliberately discounting them. Related to workforce objectives, tools are now available to measure institutions' contribution to the economic mobility of their graduates, which is one of the most important criteria related to public good. With previous rankings having been based on reputation, resources, and other elitist criteria, focusing on real impact for broader student populations may help to dislodge the stranglehold of elite and Ivy institutions, a persistent problem being challenged by Malcolm Gladwell in his "I Hate the Ivy League" initiative.

"New" models for U.S. higher education have been proposed, such as Paul LeBlanc's "Students First." The LeBlanc proposal relies on changing the currency of educational outcomes from credit hours accumulated to competency based learning. LeBlanc characterizes the competency focus as an idea that has emerged over time and should be utilized to examine broader institutional changes related to policy, funding, and accreditation. LeBlanc also advocated a balance between bureaucracy and love in institutional functioning, raising question about the tyranny of credit hours and fear of law suits. Matt Reed's reflections on LeBlanc's book raise important questions about candor in the academy and how to avoid favoritism if institutions move to a more humane or love-centered place. Ray Schroeder proposes that there are two academic communities, one is the declining traditional residential campus and the second includes the thriving professional education focused institutions. The model advocated by LeBlanc and further described in his other book "Broken" is based on the second kind of institution, achieving savings by moving instruction to virtual, cheaper, and larger scale.

Should or can higher education change looms behind both the Fischman & Gardner and LeBlanc books. Any need for innovation should begin with determining if students' interests are being served. That higher education was viewed as serving elites and was biased toward a liberal agenda appeared in some reports over the last several years. While this belief was adopted by some conservatives, it was generally not endorsed by independents or liberals. More recent research indicates that the general public view of the value of higher education has returned and most students' trust of the institutions they attend did not suffer from the COVID pandemic. The American Council on Education research indicates that, although there is improvement in public perceptions, differences in point of view by politics are dramatic. What is most consistent in the public's growing concern that the cost of higher education is too high but another vulnerability looms in scandals that undermine the credibility of institutions.

Jason Wingard, President of Temple, warned that "Higher Education Must Change or Die." Responses to the essay reflect greater optimism. Bright spots include how pandemic induced changes informed presidents with new approaches and refreshed perspectives. Most important in their view are improving affordability through greater entrepreneurial activity which results in improved accessibility and flexibility. A Forbes Magazine six-part series included recommendations for "Leading in a Time of Change."

While lofty visions of transformative education are commonly voiced by many educators, simply being served efficiently is a priority for many students. Some believe that imagining a completely new university could be a way to get to the core issues of innovation and that the fundamentals aren't that complicated. The core elements would include focusing on learners, refining technology, active pedagogy, blurring disciplinary boundaries, attending to stakeholder interests, and honing the research emphasis of institutions to the nature of the campus and the communities it serves. Active engagement in purposeful learning is central to these core elements and internships offer a particularly effective way for students to acquire a variety of outcomes from these experiences.

Finding summative optimistic, yet practical, print resources is helpful when reflecting on the future of higher education. Inside Higher Education republished select articles into "Educating and Supporting the Whole Student." While the idea of developing the whole student likely has multiple points of origin, one is the German idea of "Bildung," that "considers moral, social, and emotional maturation as inseparable from intellectual growth." Reinforcing what higher education does well, Light & Pfrozheimer identified 10 core challenges of being "Great Universities." Their book offers suggestions on things that can be done that are not too expensive or complex, thus offering a path for any institution rather than those that are resource rich.