For those of you playing along from afar, my Study-cation is over and this summer term of my MA studies is a wrap. Here's my latest paper. Thank you for the moral support.
Although American Higher Education in the 21st Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges by Michael N. Bastedo, Philip G. Altbach, and Patricia J. Gumport points to 10 distinct generations of American higher education over the course of 374 years, the attributes of the 11th era are in the midst of being defined. As a newcomer to the world of higher education, my perspective and experience are limited but the text confirmed what I have witnessed the past four years: American post-secondary institutions are historically reactionary in response to adapting to societal needs.
Whereas the authors note that this current transition between generations began in 2008 due to marked “economic turmoil” (Bastedo et al., 2016), there is no evidence to support any widespread sense of urgency by higher education institutions to take a proactive stance to usher in much-needed changes to benefit contemporary students and society.
Redefining higher education’s purpose
As with previous generations of American higher education, institutions appear to be in a staunch holding pattern resistant to the writing on the wall indicating antiquated systems and mindsets. Step one to being a proactive force of progression is for American higher education to ascertain its contemporary role in society. Previous generations of American higher education are routinely defined by internal shifts of constricted purpose such as training clergy or training teachers. Conversely, this evolution of the 11th generation is driven by expansive external factors such as the rise of individualism and increased access to higher education.
The 2014 article, Changing How We Think About the Goals of Higher Education by Chad Hanson, outlines the importance of considering identity development as a component to learning outcomes as post-secondary institutions move forward. Hanson points to higher education’s tendency to focus inward on administrative and public policy needs when making changes as opposed to the cognitive development of students (Hanson, 2014). Although institutions include cognitive development while tracking learning outcomes for accreditation purposes, it is not common to include identity development of students.
As we consider students as both consumers and products of higher education, there is a growing importance for institutions to redefine missions to foster all-encompassing individual learning outcomes. The 11th generation of American higher education must embrace the responsibility of developing well-rounded individuals in addition to simply serving society’s economic needs of producing human capital.
Meeting the needs of students
The current era of higher education presents a stark contrast to past generations especially regarding student body composition. Past data and experiences seem to be obsolete as institutions struggle to forge a path forward based on the current needs of 21st century students. From a marketing perspective, higher education must accept the fact that in order to survive and thrive in this 11th era, there has to be proactive plans in place to attract and satisfy students.
The 2022 article, The Different Types of Potential Learners and What They Want by Doug Lederman, examines categories of prospective students in relation to the need for post-secondary institutions to implement intentional relationships in order to maximize outcomes. According to Lederman, “… colleges and universities are increasingly competing against not only each other but an ever-broadening array of alternative providers who might offer education or training more affordably, more conveniently or more effectively” (Lederman, 2022, p. 1). The only way traditional higher education can compete in such a market is to identify, cater to, and pursue students based on individual needs.
Considering past, current, former, and prospective student data from various types of learners regarding “levels of satisfaction” will provide valuable insight for institutions committed to “doing better” (Lederman, 2022). As a note of interest, Lederman identifies six types of learners that institutions should prepare to serve: Wayfinding intellectuals, campus enthusiasts, junior specialists, evolving professionals, midcareer climbers, and trajectory transformers (Lederman, 2022).
A fully-functioning proactive 11th generation of higher education will involve institutions committing to detailed marketing, recruiting, and service plans for each of these learners. I envision there will be an organizational/structural shift in higher education to accommodate these actions plans.
Whereas the majority of these areas are currently addressed by overarching institutional offices, the 11th generation will require a detail-oriented approach that will perhaps be best executed by specific colleges and even departments. This increased responsibility would demand an increase in resources regardless of the implementation access point.
Becoming diverse institutions
Not only do 21st century students demonstrate a multitude of motivations to learn, they embody diversity as a reflection of society in a way unapparelled to any time in the past. In order to benefit contemporary society and serve rising generations, higher education must advance past the simple rhetoric of diversity manifested in token policies and define a path of substantial action. It is past time to accept, embrace, and activate some truths regarding the necessary identity of higher education in this 11th generation. There is no denying that the world is diverse and rising generations are global citizens primed to infiltrate and lead in all aspects of society. Post-secondary institutions have a responsibility to break with past exclusionary mindsets and forge a path for progress.
The 2022 article, ‘Beyond Rhetoric’ on Diversity by Collen Flaherty, is a brief case study of sorts of UMass-Boston’s efforts to be an antiracist university. Just a few months ago, the university issued a bold proposition to meet the high expectations of a bold new world. It is not surprising that the university’s draft vision statement ignited heated responses: “Diversity, equity, shared governance, and expansive notions of excellence are core institutional values. We hold ourselves and each other accountable to ensure these values drive all decision-making in research, pedagogical innovations, resource allocation, and the development of policies and practices” (Flaherty, 2022, p. 1).
The reactionary debates and conversations regarding UMass-Boston’s draft vision statement are crucial to shaping an effective 11th generation of higher education. Areas of consideration for implementation of such a vision run the gamut from the historical disinvestment of diverse curriculum, such as the university’s Africana studies program, to its failed efforts to diversify its faculty. Although putting forth such visionary statements and subsequently having divisive conversations are necessary steps to the fruition of diversity in higher education, Flaherty’s article makes it clear that true saturation of practices depends on consistency and commitment by institutional leadership.
Flaherty provides a quote by Keith Jones, a non-tenure-track UMass-Boston professor lauded for his DEI contributions, regarding failed faculty searches for the Africana studies program. Jones said, he and his colleagues are, “profoundly troubled that at this historical moment, the institution does not understand the urgency to act, the urgency to make different structural interventions, the urgency to move beyond performative rhetoric to actually changing campus culture in a way that would benefit our students, our staff, our faculty and the communities we serve” (Flaherty, 2022). What a powerful call to action for American higher education to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk.
Beyond increasing access
Higher education’s surface approach to expanding access and increasing diversity in the student body has in essence been short-sighted. Creating a relevant 11th era of higher education is dependent on providing a diverse and inclusive learning experience. The institutional component of 21st century higher education has to have diverse leadership at the helm. The academic component of 21st century higher education has to have a diverse faculty as its foundation. Without diversity intertwined in its structures, higher education institutions are simply running in place and maintaining the status quo despite increasing student access.
The oppressive cycle of the exclusivity of American higher education is a direct correlation of the lack of diversity in institutional and governmental leadership. The 2021 article, Tolerable Suboptimization: Racial Consequences of Defunding Public Universities by Laura T. Hamilton, Kelly Nielsen, and Veronica Lerma, focuses on how increased access to higher education via the University of California system has prompted a divestment of state funding. Consequently, the authors contend that “data demonstrates how limited organizational resources impact the provision of academic advising, mental health, and cultural programming for racially marginalized students” (Hamilton et al., 2021, p. 561). The article’s assessment of the plight of culturally progressive and inclusive universities as being defined by a cycle of limitations speaks volumes to the necessity of external diversification in addition to internal institutional missions.
Although the authors concede to the inevitability of increased access to higher education, they also reveal the unprecedented challenges associated with such inclusivity. From a funding perspective, this era of postsecondary racial neoliberalism has created a “separate and unequal system of higher education” (Hamilton et al., 2021, p. 562). The authors define postsecondary racial neoliberalism as “the particular way that race and class, as systems of oppression, have recently intertwined in higher education” (Hamilton, et al., 2021, p. 562). Postsecondary racial neoliberalism has manifested itself as inter-institutional competition for funding that is controlled and distributed by “racialized hierarchies.”
Data supports the negative correlation between increased access to higher education over the past 80 years and decreased public funding. The authors point to how this “fiscal austerity in resource-starved universities has racial consequences, regardless of administrative intent” (Hamilton, et al., 2021, p. 562). As this 11th generation of higher education continues to take shape, a reckoning must take place between internal and external factors affecting higher education in order to survive and thrive going forward.
Conclusion
As I envision the future of American higher education, I am forced to confront my naivete. I am envisioning the next phase of American higher education from an idealistic point of view as my reality is inundated with apologist dinosaurs. The inclusive rhetoric shrouded in bias is sometimes overwhelming and debilitating. I am convinced that the only way to build an equitable and diverse 11th era of American higher education is a grassroots effort to mobilize diverse graduates from the past two decades. Not only does higher education need to attract and retain more diverse administration, faculty, and staff, higher education needs to be more politically diverse with its state funding lobby.
Drafting mission statements and facilitating conversations regarding student needs, diversity, and societal responsibilities of higher education are all well and good, but fundamental change is not something that will simply be spoken into existence. Implementing a successful, progressive 11th generation of American higher education includes pinpointing inclusive institutional missions by providing diverse student-centered learning experiences devoid of the proliferation of systemic inequity and oppression. I am at a loss of how to get there from here but I have never been more committed to trying.
תגובות