One Semester General Chemistry and the Brain Attic

There is currently a discussion on the Council on Undergraduate Research list serve about one semester general chemistry courses designed and targeted to specific degrees and/or careers.  One view of the debate is that students should not waste time on anything that is not specifically needed on the job, day one after graduation.  The issue is timely for me in that I was involved in a debate this week about transfer credit for organic courses to serve our bio majors.  The argument was put forward that we really shouldn't be testing the transferring students competency through an ACS exam, because the ACS exam covers material not needed in biochemistry.

I am not sure to what extent this attention to minimalist education is a consequence of the current economic and political climate, or something else.  Rather than give in to addressing those issues, I will play my traditional role of cautionary observer.

Many students either don't know or only have a vague idea of what career they hope to enter, or they are deluded as to what career they have a shot at, based on their capabilities.  Also, even if a student knows and is able to achieve a specific career, that does not mean that they will be secure in that career over a lifetime.  A broader knowledge base might aid them in changing careers.  How many articles have been written about how today's students will have multiple careers rather than a single one like their parents or grandparents.  Add to all of this the need to be able to work effectively across disciplines that ally with ones chosen career and we really do need to consider if ten different general chemistry courses, each focused to a specific career makes sense.

In the larger picture, while narrowly focused training may be appropriate for technician based careers, we must consider if it is appropriate for true higher education.  I have often thought that as the percentage of American high school graduates going to college has increased the percentage that really want a higher education has remained about the same.  The difference is the number of students who really only want and/or need a technical training.  We need technicians, so why not offer that minimalist and focused training separate from the bachelors degree.  This might address some of the grade inflation pressure educators feel from students who argue that they don't really need to knowledge, just the degree.

T.S. Hall

Left Hand, Meet Right Hand

The California Legislative Analyst has called for guaranteed access for California students to their local California State University campus.  This is in response to the increases in campuses declaring themselves impacted, which allows them to ignore local access priority and then pick the best qualified students from anywhere in the state.  Setting aside the meritocracy issues, the CLA report says, "We believe that ensuring local access to all eligible students is more important than maintaining equal admissions criteria for all applicants."

One must keep in mind that admissions are a less-than-zero-sum game in this system, where budget cuts and space limitations have left the system unable to accept all qualified students.

On the other hand, the system Chancellor of the CSU, Charles Reed, has stated that given the impact of budget cuts, "We can no longer justify offering practically every major at every campus . . ."  The targets for program cuts would be based on lower enrollment programs.  With state funding cuts for next year predicted to be on the order of eighteen percent, one wonders what the definition of "lower enrollment" might become.

What happens when both plans come together?  If a prospective student lives near a campus where the program they are interested in is cut, but outside the region of the campus where the program survived, should they change career aspirations?  Should we put out maps of regions of the state where physics or geology are still studied for parents to move to for the benefit of their children who want to study in those areas?  It should be interesting to see how this works out.

T.S. Hall

Gainful Employment - Part II

Last week I began this topic by discussing the issue of the potential for "gainful employment" requirements in higher education.  These requirements would demand that the incomes of graduates cover the costs of the education students receive.  The emphasis so far is on for-profit colleges and universities, but they may well trickle down to those of us in the non-profit education business.  As promised, today I will look at some possible ways gainful employment might be measured.

Option A: Average income of the institution's graduates - The simplest option, this would spread out the highs and lows of degree cost over the entire student population.  So long as the average income is acceptable, high cost degrees in the STEM fields would be covered by the lower cost degrees in other fields.  This will encourage forming larger institutions where income averages can remain more steady.  Of course this will do little to improve smaller individual programs which are shielded from the gainful employment standard by the mass of student outside the program.

Option B: Global average income per specific degree - This would involve determining the average pay of the newly minted degree holder nationally, regionally, or state and then assessing the cost of the degree at the particular institution.  If the tuition/income ratio is acceptable funding would be made available for that program.  The advantage would be that schools would be encouraged to get rid of degrees that really don't pay for themselves.  Of course, since in some fields boom and bust cycles are common some leeway would be be needed so that programs are not opening and closing with the boom and bust of the economy.

Option C: Institutional average income per specific degree - The Option A funding scheme does not allow for assessment of the value added by a specific school's program.  If my school's graduates are highly sought after and earn above average salaries post graduation, my tuition/income ratio should not be evaluated based on average income in a specified geographic region.  Of course this means that tracking of individual students would have to be accomplished.  Those of us involved in student development grants know how difficult this can be.  Schools would need to add to their costs by hiring people to track students.  The advantage of this option would be that the individual program would reap the rewards of producing a higher valued product.

I am sure there are other options, but I think my point is made that the practical issue of "gainful employment" standards is worth considering and discussing before it is imposed on higher education.

T.S. Hall

Concealed Weapons

There have been many words dispensed on the issue of campus violence and allowing concealed weapons on campuses.  An then yesterday the story broke of a disagreement between faculty members that got really ugly.  A faculty member at Cal. St. Northridge has been arrested for repeatedly urinating on the door of a fellow faculty member who he disagreed with. 

Really?!  That's what we have come to.  Getting pissed off and then pissing on one another's doors?

Certainly it is better than gunplay at faculty meetings, but we should be able to set an example for how people trained in higher order thinking handle their disagreements.

T.S. Hall

Gainful Employment - Part I

Over the course of the last eighteen months the number of articles questioning the value of a college degree have been increasing.  Federal and state governments are suggesting that they might apply some sort of "gainful employment of graduates" test to educational institutions in considering funding levels.

The idea of a value added assessment for degrees is not anathema to me.  I do, however, wonder how such a system might work.  There are several options that come immediately to mind.  None of them are perfect, but discussing them within the academic community might enable us to become partners in crafting the end result rather than the victims of another poorly thought out funding strategy.

The advantage of such a policy could be to help curb grade inflation and ensure a quality of product (graduate), since producing lots of poorly educated students with high grades will induce a Yugo Effect where lots of cheap poor quality products is economically unsustainable to the producer.

Of course this means that colleges and universities will have to do a calculation of the cost of producing a product of value verses the payout they get from the graduates.  Degrees with small numbers of students and/or high costs of education will be difficult to sustain.  The STEM fields could suffer through one or both of these issues.

There is also the question of when gainful employment begins.  Does postgraduate education count as gainful employment?  Again, STEM fields could suffer depending on how "gainful employment" is defined.

The effect of the cost-benefit analysis might be the closing of many degree programs and, if handled with forethought, the consolidation of some degree types at specific universities.  The STEM fields might find themselves consolidated into poly technical colleges and universities where larger numbers of students would make the accounting work.  The downside of this is that some regions just don't have enough students to support such programs so technical education could become something geographically distant for many students and therefore unattainable.

Another problem of this system of funding is that it will reduce degree flexibility so that the boom and bust cycles seen in some disciplines will be exacerbated.  As degree values fluctuate, so can departmental funding, making it difficult to manage programs.

A gainful employment policy will also make it increasingly important that educational institutions act as employment agencies.  While this in not in itself a bad idea, it will demand increased resources to support the new Dean of Employment infrastructure.  This will take resources away from the educational enterprise.

In Part II of this commentary I will look at ways "Gainful Employment" might be defined.

T.S. Hall

Salted Student Evaluations

The results of the Fall Semester student evaluations should be in mailboxes any day now.  Before opening them and starting the Spring Semester in a funk make sure to apply a healthy grain of salt.

In a study released by a University of Northern Iowa professor in early December, one-third of students surveyed admit that they stretch the truth in evaluations, including lying on the comments section (20%).  As hard as it might be to believe, most often they do so to punish professor's they don't like.

The evaluation literature is replete with studies that show factors that have nothing to do with education play a significant role in student's evaluations, yet universities continue to place weight on this flawed tool in assessing faculty.

One of my colleagues from a private institution reported that his school sent a memo to faculty before final exams indicating that students would not be allowed to file the online evaluations for classes until after faculty had submitted grades.  No doubt, if asked they will swear that there is no connection between student evaluations and grades.

I am not saying that we should not have student evaluations, just that we should recognize that they poorly measure faculty competence.  In my own case I have found some very useful comments in evaluations.  I also find comments stating how unfair it is that I don't give practice exams that contain all the questions likely to be on the exam, that even though the front row is empty students hiding in the back can't read the board well enough, etc.

If are not yet a tenured full professor print a copy of the UNI study and send a copy anonymously to your Provost or Academic VP.

T.S. Hall

Laws of Power - Laws of Productivity

As happens all too often I recently found myself in the middle of a petty power struggle.  The childishness of the actions and comments that were part of the debate made me wonder why anyone bothers to try to do anything for the good of the university, college, department, or the students.

In talking to someone outside the university about the events and results I was advised to read the "48 Laws of Power" so that I could avoid having my civic spirit crushed in the future, by crushing those that don't agree with me.  My advisor suggested that I was being too open, honest, and welcoming of the thoughts of others and that through the Laws of Power I could learn how to bend everyone before me to my will.

My first thought was that controlling people and crushing those who will not bend is not who I am.  On reading the Laws of Power I am sure of this.  I am not interested in power, I am interested in productivity.  I want my energy to go into making the department as a whole stronger rather than being wasted on positioning myself to keep others down.

I wonder if the pursuit of power for the sake of having power isn't a large part of the problem in many of the dysfunctional departments I have been associated with.  Would be chairs focused on accumulating power and crushing people with other ideas and the faculty members spent too much time counting heads and currying support over minor issues rather than joining together to raise everyone up and improve the entire department.  People interested in a department focus rather than the intestine wars within the department can never get traction in leadership votes because they avoid taking sides in the power plays and get crushed by the power players.

My department, the Statehouse, Washington, etc.  It does not matter where we look, power rules over productivity.  At least so long as we chose to allow it to.  If enough people opt out of the power plays but stay in the decision making process we could all avoid having to take sides in a destructive cold war with our departments.  The power players only have the power we give them.

T.S. Hall