New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: Defining Baptist higher education for the 21st century
 
Opinion: Defining Baptist higher education for the 21st century Print E-mail
By Bill Underwood   
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Bill Underwood

(ABP) -- At Mercer University, we communicate with alumni and friends through an electronic newsletter. Not long ago, one of these electronic newsletters mentioned some upcoming campus events, including a lecture by President Carter on how his faith informs his perspectives on issues facing our society; a visit by a prominent Islamic scholar, who would be speaking about the Muslim world view; and a national summit to examine ways that persons of faith should respond to the practice of torture.

We received several interesting responses. One said, “Muslim Mercer. Jimmy Carter Mercer. Political Left Mercer. Well, no wonder it’s no longer Georgia Baptist Mercer. And rightly so.” Another noted that it saddened him to see that his alma mater had “become a very liberal institution similar to ones in the Northeast with summits on terrorism and torture as well as lectures from an Islamic leader and a misguided past U.S. President” (sins apparently unmitigated by the fact that prominent conservative leaders Newt Gingrich, Arthur Laffer and John Bolton also had recently spoken on campus).

This type of criticism is nothing new. It reflects a long-standing and fundamental disagreement about the nature of Christian higher education.

Our finest Baptist universities were founded by more progressive Baptists, who believed that religion and ignorance were a dangerous combination, and who therefore advocated for places where students would grow both spiritually and intellectually as they learned to pursue discovery, solve problems and think for themselves. They prevailed over more conservative Baptists, who objected that education could lead students toward doubt and even disbelief unless it focused on inculcating particular doctrinal or political points of view.

The most conservative Baptists, however, intensified their resistance to the aims of higher learning as new discoveries in science challenged literal interpretations of the Bible. Rather than attempt to harmonize the discoveries of modern science with our understanding of the Bible, as prior generations of Christians had done, the most conservative Baptists rejected the discoveries of science and challenged the teaching of those discoveries in Baptist schools. Similar controversy occurred in response to new discoveries in an array of other academic disciplines.

Some of our best schools responded by walking away from their Baptist identities. Others defended the integrity of their academic environments by adopting measures to protect themselves from control by particular Baptist denominational bodies. The landscape of Baptist higher education continues to change as our remaining schools face declining financial support from state and national Baptist bodies and become more ecumenical places, with a declining Baptist presence among their governing boards, administrative leadership, faculties and student bodies.

So, if being a Baptist institution of higher learning no longer means we are formally affiliated with a particular denominational body -- or that a majority of our faculty, staff and students are Baptists -- then what will it mean?

Surely it will mean that we are places that embrace serious intellectual life as a way to glorify God -- places where students and teachers are free to follow the path of knowledge and understanding, regardless of where that path might lead. This commitment to excellence in a free and open search for truth, knowledge and understanding is the most important attribute of any great university.

But that alone is not sufficient to make a school a great Baptist university. Baptist schools should be distinctive in important and substantive ways from state universities or secular private colleges. Surely being Baptist should mean that we provide a quality education in an environment that reflects the core values of our faith -- including regular religious observances on campus, expectations of personal integrity and morality among students and staff and creating a campus culture where people genuinely care about one another.

But being a Baptist university can mean even more than this.

Our faith-based mission empowers us to explore a broader range of issues than are examined at secular universities today -- issues that are fundamental to leading an informed life and were once central to higher education but are now largely forgotten in our universities. Why am I here? How should I spend my life? What should I care about most?

Baptist schools are empowered to explore these questions and the ones that grow out of them, like: Where was God at Auschwitz? Or, how can a God of love allow millions to be trapped in almost-unimaginable poverty?

We can likewise be places where the great moral and ethical issues of our age can be considered in an intellectually rigorous fashion from various faith perspectives. What can we learn from ours and other faith traditions about torture, creation care, immigration, war and peace, human sexuality, abortion, assisted suicide and the death penalty? These and a host of other questions cry out for rigorous intellectual consideration from Christian and other faith perspectives -- especially in a culture where debate on these questions seldom extends much deeper than battling bumper stickers.

But we should also remember that faith is not entirely, or even primarily, an intellectual matter. We are commanded to love our neighbor, and we are instructed to manifest that love by serving those in need. Surely central to our mission as Baptist universities should be encouraging our students to see the face of God in the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, the stranger and even the prisoner. Central to our mission should be cultivating in our students an ethic of service.

Perhaps more than anything else, cultivating this service ethic in our students will be at the heart of the finest 21st-century Baptist universities.

-30-

William Underwood is president of Mercer University, a Macon, Ga.-based Baptist school founded in 1833.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (21)Add Comment
How dare you?
written by mcskinny, September 01, 2009
It seems to me that some critics do not want informed Baptists who might be trained to reason and think coming out of a Southern Baptist university. A person who thinks outside the party line just has to be wrong in their mindset. They seem to take the closing words of the book of Revelation and apply them to all the Bible as well as to all aspects of Christian life today.
Charlie Mac
...
written by tj282828, September 01, 2009
I mourn the fact that this president did not mention the timeless truths found in the Christian faith. True Truth never changes. He paints a Baptist university as a place of flux, change, and study designed to enable each student to make up their own mind. Yet is this how the Christian faith operates? Do preachers stand up and say "you may or may not believe this" or "Thus says the Lord!"? To be sure the preacher has no authority in his own opinions, but if the preacher talks the Truth of the Bible he stands upon the solid Rock. God's word is true regardless of the hearers opinion. A perfect God need not change, for change would be moving from perfection to imperfection. The Baptist university described above holds to no confession or changeless truth. What is Baptist about this school? Baptist believe in unchanging Truth found in a perfect God, and this university is no longer worthy of the name Baptist. After all, its not as if Baptists do not have a heritage or defined beliefs.

How Baptist is Mercer?

"So, if being a Baptist institution of higher learning no longer means we are formally affiliated with a particular denominational body -- or that a majority of our faculty, staff and students are Baptists -- then what will it mean?"

Mr. President,

If Baptist professors are leaving you, Baptist students are not attending your university, and Baptist denominations are separating themselves from you. . . you just might not be Baptist! You sir, like many liberals before you, have killed another Baptist institution that Baptist money built. You call it progress, we call it stealing!
Excellent as Usual...
written by Big Daddy Weave, September 01, 2009

Since his years at Baylor as a law professor, Underwood has consistently championed authentic Baptist freedom. Back in 2004, Underwood took a strong stand against "communal academic freedom" in a debate with his Baylor colleague, David Lyle Jeffrey. In my opinion, Underwood has emerged as THE leading 21st century proponent of authentic academic freedom in Baptist Higher Education. I hope President Underwood will share his wise words more often with those of us active in Baptist life and involved in Baptist Higher Education!
No flux no thinking
written by mcskinny, September 02, 2009
TJ you made my point very well. Universities are supposed to be places of flux and change where students learn to think for themselves using the best information available.
Knowledge of changeless truths is made more valuable when one gains wisdom to apply those truths and discern which truths are indeed changeless.
Once a 'truth' held by the Christian church was that the earth was flat and square. Thinking and discerning minds long ago proved this to be wrong, but not without enduring scathing attacks from those who would hold to the past. Sure there are timeless truths, but some misunderstanding of God still awaits enlightment from trained thinking discerning spirit led men and women.
Charlie Mac
College an't all about the Bible
written by Slick, September 02, 2009
If one wants a fundamentalist Bible college (meaning probably unaccredited by a legitimate accrediting agency), such is available at Bob Jones or other similar schools. If one wants a well-rounded education that provokes him or her to think, one needs to attend a real college/university. Mercer is one such school. No one is forced to attend. Students at legitimate colleges and universities are exposed to many perspectives and can draw their own conclusions based on broad knowledge. Listening to a Muslim isn’t going to change a Christian into a Muslim. Understanding Islam doesn’t mean becoming a Muslim. Midwestern seminary recently offered courses in understanding Islam.

Knowing about sin isn’t going to make me sin. In fact, probably just the opposite. Many years ago I graduated from a large state university but the education I got there along with further graduate studies, a terminal degree, and seminary study didn’t sway my basic beliefs if God’s Word or in my Christian faith. It’s reinforced it.

Some people want only narrow-mindedness. One only has to look at early church history (read Catholic church history) to see how wrong so many things really were taught and BY THE CHURCH! Stifling knowledge, thought, and questioning that is intended to lead to greater understanding is just plain wrong.
)
...
written by tj282828, September 02, 2009
No one is saying a Baptist university should not study all topics of knowledge. Yet I am saying a Baptist university should give deference to the Truth. Why? Because there is Truth and lies. Why would I want a Christian institution to be open minded to lies? If we believe in Truth and lies, isn't favor to the Truth the logical choice?

Charlie Mac,

The early church nor medieval church believed in a flat earth. You have bought into a humanist lie hook, line, and sinker. Which shows all the more why true Baptist education is needed. Please visit this link below. Evolutionist started saying this nonsense to paint the American Church as standing in the way of progress/evolution.

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/creation_flatearth.php

Your comment points to why we need Baptist education. Secular liberals constantly paint the orthodox as ignorant, close minded people standing in the way of progress. Who made Western Civilization literate? Fundamentalist Christians who believed everyone should be able to read God's word. Who laid the foundation for modern science? Conservative, Bible believing Christians like Isaac Newton who believed the Bible when it says the earth was made in wisdom. . . making scientific law possible. Francis Bacon said ""It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." Who is Francis Bacon? He came up with the scientific method. Education is in such a poor state that most Americans do not even know who Sir Francis Bacon is. . . How we need true Baptist education that displays Christian excellence.

response
written by Dr. J, September 02, 2009
That fact that Gushee teaches ethics at Mercer says much about the obvious bias of the administration.
Mission of Church and College Incompatible
written by Mark Osgatharp, September 03, 2009
By it's nature, collegiate education must be conducted in an environment with some degree of academic freedom and open inquiry. By it's nature, the message and ministry of the church is doctrinaire, exclusionary, dogmatic and inflexible.

These facts, of necessity, make the idea of a church supported collegiate institution of learning an impossibility.

A church cannot, consistent with it's mission, support an institution which tolerates diversity of opinion and academic freedom. A college, consistent with it's mission, cannot put itself in submission to dogmatic doctrinal parameters.

The obvious incompatibility of the distinct missions of church and college is clearly seen in the rift between the historically Southern Baptist colleges and universities and the state Conventions which have traditionally supported them. It seems to me all the trouble could have been avoided if, long ago, the churches had recognized that they cannot, consistently with their God given mission, erect and support a collegiate system.

Let the church be the church and let the college be the college and let the college seek its funding elsewhere than the church, and then the problem will be solved.

Mark Osgatharp
response
written by Dr. J, September 03, 2009
It is not the search for truth that conservative Christians reject (in fact political conservatives embrace the search for truth and the free exchange of ideas), it is advocacy of left-wing, socialist, condescending views from teachers similar to Gushee that cause objections.
teaching needed to help the young navigate the intellectual debates
written by Xenophon, September 03, 2009
There are a number of vexed questions being discussed here. One is the difference between research and education. Many universities have taken on both roles and have confused the mandates and ground-rules for each endeavor. While there should be academic freedom to pursue research as widely as possible, it is another question whether teachers should be free to inculcate whatever positions they so choose in the young at the parents' or parishioners' expense.

It is very reasonable for parents to expect that the Christian college that they entrust their children to will train them in their religious and moral tradition. Can this mission be carried out while teachers train students to discern valid and sound argumentation in critical thinking programs? Certainly, it can. In fact, exposing young adults and adolescents to the means of rationally identifying truth should only complement their religious study. We have the Truth, so we have nothing to fear.

What we do have to fear is sloppy and fallacious "reasoning" frequently espoused by atheists and other non-Christians in academic settings as the youth lack the tools and the standing to point out the errors that many critics of Christianity fall into so easily. For example, take a look at the You Tube debate between Christian apologist William Lane Craig and various atheists. He dissects their arguments and usually wins these debates hands down, at least in terms of logic and evidence. But consider if you were an 18 year old in, say, Bart Ehrman's Religious Studies classes. Could you pick out the problems in his arguments as Dr. Craig did in his debate with him? I seriously doubt it. See the You Tube debate for what I am talking about.

Well, one might say, when students go to the Evangelical Christian professor's class, they will hear another perspective. That might or might not be the case at many of these colleges. Baylor has made efforts to purge Evangelicals from its faculty. That move led to the firing of its last president. Such measures had taken place previously such as the efforts to rid themselves of William Dembski, David Lyle Jeffrey, and Francis Beckwith. I know that Mercer has some folks in their Philosophy Department from Tulane where I attended that features exposure and training in classical liberalism. Mercer also has Arthur Laffer on its faculty. So, I cannot complain about Mercer's intellectual diversity in some areas. I am not familiar with Mercer's overall level of intellectual diversity. But other schools have a less than stellar track record. Consider this study on hiring conservative Christian faculty. I have the link below but here is an excerpt in case whoever reads this does not take the time to click the link: "Redding cites an experiment in which several graduate departments received mock applications from two candidates nearly identical, except that one 'applicant' said he was a conservative Christian. The professors judged the nonconservative to be the significantly better candidate."

http://www.aei.org/article/13863
...
written by tj282828, September 03, 2009
Mark,

You make an interesting point, but I believe you are arguing an either/or fallacy. Both the secular and faith based universities are seeking after truth. The question is how best to get there? The secular universities say total freedom to violate biblical doctrine is best. Yet Baptist universities argue that all truth is from God, and therefore all facts must be organized in a non-contradicting way. . . facts include biblical revelation. The Baptist way used to be Western Civilization's way. Harvard and Yale were both started as Bible schools. There was a time when education was very much under the clergy in American communities. Supreme Court decisions started to federalize education in 1947. My point is America became a super power under a solid protestant education system. We have done nothing but decline as a civilization as the secularist have taken control of our children's education. In short, the Christian education system is far better than the secular. Secular schools fail in teaching morality. If you don't believe me, just go to a public school. . . or see their average graduate.

The author of this article is fooling himself. Mercer will go the way of Harvard and Yale. Both of these colleges had presidents like him who tried to take the middle way. They were followed by pure secularist, and the abandonment of the Gospel was complete. Bill Underwood is a poor student of history, ignorant of the power of ideas, and frankly naive. Let's face it, if the drop in Baptist students and professors does not get through to him nothing will. Yet for those with eyes to see, he and his college have abandoned all that it means to be Baptist.
LET THE CHURCH BE THE CHURCH
written by Mark Osgatharp, September 04, 2009
tj282828,

Colleges are, first and foremost, businesses. They exist for the purpose of monetary gain to those who operate them. Therefore, they will accommodate whatever ideas they must in order to get students and donors.

When our society was dominated by conservative Protestant religious dogma, the schools accommodated that. When our society moved to a liberal Protestant religious philosophy, the schools accommodated that. When our society moved to secularist psychology and hedonist based philosophy, the schools accommodated that. They will accommodate whatever idea they must in order to retain students and donors.

You say that Mercer will eventually abandon the gospel altogether. I say they already have. The only reason they continue to feign a Baptist front is to keep Baptist dollars and Baptist students coming in.

Not knowing Mr. Underwood, I cannot comment on his abilities but I would guess that he is not naive or ignorant of history at all. I would guess that he understands, from a financial perspective, the value of the continued support of Baptist churches and people and well as the necessity of maintaining a school that will attract the widest range of support and patronage from outside the Baptist ranks.

When the Baptist churches stepped into the realm of collegiate education with the establishment of Brown University over 200 years ago they took the first step towards spiritual Sodom. The constitution of that school specified that "into this liberal and catholic institution shall never be admitted any religious tests, but on the contrary, all the members hereof shall forever enjoy full, free, absolute, and uninterrupted liberty of conscience."

Once such a policy is established there is no place to draw the line. That school, which was hailed as a great advance for Baptist people in its day, is now a cesspool of raw hedonistic sewerage.

The churches of Jesus Christ were not established to explore truth as an abstract concept. They were established to teach and rigidly uphold the doctrines of Jesus Christ. Let the church be the church!

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
related problems in higher education
written by Xenophon, September 05, 2009
I agree with Mark that administrators of colleges and universities are money oriented. Most universities are not for-profit organizations, but they do gain prestige and can offer more amenities to students, faculty, and alumni with more $$$. A large part of this corrupting process is not only from the public at large but from government and institutional research grants. Competing for government research money has led colleges that previously focused on teaching undergraduates to transforming themselves into research universities.

With this move, universities hired a different type of person to serve on their faculty. Instead of seeking out people who are widely well-versed in their discipline and having a knack for enthusiastically conveying information and stimulating thought as they personally interact with students, universities have moved to hiring very narrowly focused researchers, as opposed to teachers, who shun teaching and personal relationships with students to engage in obscure research. The vast majority of this research is unnecessary and goes unread. The average readership for articles published in academic journals in the hard sciences is less than one reader per article while in the social sciences and humanities the average readership per article is around four readers. But this research does bring prestige among academics (due to the total number of articles published whether or not anyone actually reads this stuff) as well as government and institutional grant money.

Besides the researchers not being as attentive to students or as talented and inspiring as teachers, these folks tend to be much less interested in preserving the canon of established ideas and literature. In fact, many of these folks are hardly familiar with any literature or ideas outside of their narrow specialty. Why should they be since they are paid and recognized ONLY for innovative research?

In order to deal with this inherent tension in most universities today, I would suggest de-coupling the educational element in universities from the research component. If professors engage in research to a moderate degree, their teaching can be enhanced as they remain current in the literature of their discipline prompting them to revisit the recurring set of issues they teach from a fresh perspective. But when a professor's entire career and livelihood depends solely on ground-breaking research of a narrowly focused kind, then naturally we are going to find most professors at universities to be unaware or disdainful of traditional intellectual touchstones. They will also avoid students since interacting with them beyond what is minimally necessary takes away time from their research. They also tend not to be as temperamentally inclined to fostering such personal relationships as are real teachers.
...
written by tj282828, September 08, 2009
Thank Xenophon,

Your comments were very insightful. I emailed a friend of mine the following with your blog. He very much agrees.

Below is a blog I read that was interesting to me. I have talked to two professors who do research for universities. I asked how their research got into the hands of corporations or manufacturers to impact society. To my great surprise, they spoke of how they were doing research for research sake. There seemed to be a purity or higher value for the things they were doing because making money was not the goal, but rather a pure pursuit of discovery. It seems as if government grants are slowly forcing universities to research speculative or theoretical areas of knowledge that do not impact society at large. Does this make sense? Do you agree? If this is true, we have a big problem. First, millions of dollars are being wasted on projects that do not help society. Second, good teachers are being sidelined for good researchers which dumbs down graduate and undergraduate students. Third, government dominates the focus of our major universities which keeps them from independent thought and innovation. Please let me know your thoughts. What senator in Washington could change this?

Basic (theoretical) research leads to applicable knowledge.
written by Arce, September 09, 2009
The pursuit of basic knowledge can lead to application. Most scientists in academia and some research institutes are conducting research to extend our knowledge in their area of expertise. As that knowledge moves into the public arena, companies fund other scientists and engineers to use that knowledge to apply it productively. From basic research came solar electricity, micro-computing, many medical advances, etc.


When research is unfettered by concern as to whether the results will have application, then knowledge about the created order is obtained, e.g., truth, and is unrestricted in its publication. When that knowledge is available, private interests can use it to develop proprietary applications of the knowledge, which they can use or license to others for the benefit of their investors. Hence we have cell phones, digital recordings, smart credit and debit cards, many of our current vaccines, treatments for cancer, etc.
Graduate education vs. introductory teaching
written by Arce, September 09, 2009
Much of graduate education is participation in research, to learn at the frontier of knowledge and to learn how that frontier is advanced -- how to identify a research question, write a proposal, get approval for the research, conduct the research, analyze and write up the results, and get them published.

Advanced undergraduate education in most institutions involves the faculty who are involved in research or who at least stay current on the research in their field and incorporate it in their teaching. Basic undergraduate instruction, including remedial courses, is more often conducted by full time instructors. Most colleges and universities use graduate students as teaching assistants, except that some near completion Ph.D. candidates may teach introductory courses, so that they develop the necessary experience and skills, while under supervision, to teach at the university level when they graduate.
...
written by tj282828, September 09, 2009
Point well made Arce. . . this is why I blog here: my mind is stretched!
...
written by tj282828, September 09, 2009
Arce,

Perhaps the question is how true is this article when applied to research?

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed03041997.cfm
reply to Arce
written by Xenophon, September 09, 2009
Well Arce,while some research might be desirable for the reasons that you stated, faculty keeping current and basic research leading to scientific breakthroughs, most research is not of that nature. First, as I stated above, professors in research universities are solely hired and promoted to do research. Teaching is rarely considered as a relevant criterion in hiring or promotion in these institutions. So, students are short-changed by being subjected to less enthusiastic, less personalistic instruction in the classroom. These professors many times are not competent to teach outside their narrow field of expertise. This narrowness produces a few great graduate seminars but robs the undergraduate of a liberal education that should be guided by the professor's general breadth of knowledge (as well as some depth) and insight, not monomaniacal expertise on an obscure research project.

Moving to the other supposed advantage of university research that you mention, basic research in science. What you say might be true to some extent in the physical sciences, but it is very dubious in the social sciences and the humanities. I do not think that there have been many breakthroughs leading to the cure of life-threatening diseases due to one more research project on the rhyme scheme in Shakespeare's sonnets. Even if some of this work is useful, most of it is not--if you doubt it, I suggest attending an academic convention or reading some academic articles online or in the university library near where you live to see what is going--but the pressure to publish is so great that it is doubtful that a number of older very influential academics such as Nobel laureate Ronald Coase would have ever received tenure since he published so few articles and books.

Even in the so-called hard sciences where any serious research might turn out to be helpful somewhere down the line, the question arises, why should students and their parents who want a sound education that develops their minds and their level of knowledge subsidize abstract research that distracts in time and energy from the educational mission of the university? Parents and students are paying for an education, not contributing money for research. If the state or a private consortium wants to set up something like the Rand Corporation or Bell Labs, fine. But please do not corrupt the university to do what might be valuable work that should be clearly labeled for consumers and contributors as pure or applied research, not education for the young and not so young anymore.
reply to Arce 2
written by Xenophon, September 09, 2009
Arce, I just noticed something you said above that is misleading. Here is your assertion quoted from above: "Basic undergraduate instruction, including remedial courses, is more often conducted by full time instructors. Most colleges and universities use graduate students as teaching assistants, except that some near completion Ph.D. candidates may teach introductory courses, so that they develop the necessary experience and skills, while under supervision, to teach at the university level when they graduate."

Here are the stats on American university faculty cited in a study on the increasing use of adjunct faculty in American universities: "Across public research institutions, for example, the report finds that full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty members make up only 41 percent of instructional staff, while full-time non-tenure-track make up 20 percent, part-time faculty members off the tenure track make up 20 percent, and graduate employees are another 19 percent."

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/03/adjunct

I can tell you from experience, many professors hate to teach. They say so in the crudest terms in the way that they refer to teaching, students, and undergraduate courses. Professors who have reached a certain level in terms of years served and publishing record are "rewarded" (that is faculty and administration's term) by having their teaching load reduced.

Those who do teach undergrads are treated lower than the janitors in terms of pay, status, benefits, and job security. Teaching ability counts for less than nothing in many research universities.

There is a perverse system in place in large American universities where students are lumped together in huge lecture classes. The professor presents a canned lecture twice a week. Then grad students teach smaller break-out sessions one day a week and answer specific questions raised by students. The professor grades by multiple choice tests that are graded by machine two or three times each semester. Rarely are papers or any written work submitted. Students do not complain since they can skip these classes without detection. When they do attend, there is no need to be prepared since there are no questions asked of students ala *The Paper Chase* or class discussion. Students can cram for tests or buy the test answers from well-connected fraternity boys. There is little or no intellectual stimulation or demands placed on students nor is written work demanded in the form of essay questions or research papers.

Here are the pay-offs for this system prevalent on college campuses: grad students can get some teaching experience as you say, professors can come up with a prepared routine twice a week and otherwise be rid of students, and students can avoid demanding classes that require much in the way of study so that they are free to play and watch sports, relax, and party. All the while, tuition and taxes keep increasing as parents are satisfied as long as their child receives their diploma as an entry into the middle class.
reply to pj
written by Xenophon, September 10, 2009
Thanks for your compliments, tj. Yes, I do believe that governmental grants distort the decisions that college administrators make in a number of ways. First, while they do not force administrators to make bad decisions, government and foundations skew the incentives so that refocusing a college's mission from education to research is hard to resist. As you can tell from my previous remarks, I strongly disagree that we should compromise young people's education in order to subsidize obscure research that occupies most tenure track professor's time.

There is little question about the quality of education at private liberal arts colleges in comparison with large research universities. A study in the 1970's found that a disproportionate number of Ph.D's were awarded to students who obtained their Bachelor's degree from a liberal arts college. Another extensive, longitudinal study conducted by Alexander Astin, an education professor at UCLA and brother of actor John Astin, published in two books decades apart (1970's & 1990's) found that students in private liberal arts schools reported greater satisfaction with their education at the time they were students than did students in research universities. Astin also found that students in liberal arts colleges received significantly more personal attention from professors and interacted in class with their peers more than their research university counterparts. The liberal arts students were more likely to participate in sports and extra-curricular activities such as drama. Astin also found that liberal arts college graduates were more likely to hold graduate and professional degrees. Astin's books are entitled *What Matters in College? Four Critical Years* and *What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited.*

What can be done about this higher education scam? I do not know. As I pointed to in my reply to Arce, there are a lot of folks who benefit from the current system. Young people who go to college frequently do not really want to do the work that a good education requires. There is also something about the "college experience" (football games, parties, lounging around on or near a large pretty campus, fraternity activities, etc.) that many people find valuable. I have to say that I enjoyed attending Auburn as a grad student in economics. It was fun. So, I can see the lure of what goes on there even if I did not get caught up in the more unsavory aspects of student life. Yes, you can write your Senator or Congressman, but I doubt it will do any good since most middle class people like the set-up we have now in addition to the other vested interests who gain from the current system.


Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.