Is college broken, or are student's distracted?

The Economist blogger Schumpeter recently wrote a thought-provoking entry in the December 10th edition of the paper entitled University Challenge, in which the author discusses "the need" for "American universities...to be more businesslike."

The basic argument of the post is as follows. The rising cost of higher education is symptomatic of "much deeper problems: problems that were irritating during the years of affluence but which are cancerous in an age of austerity."According to Schumpeter, these problems include, "the inability to say 'no'" and what the blog terms, "Ivy-League envy." The first problem involves spending, in that many universities and colleges continuously seek to offer more (in the way of new courses, facilities, etc.) than present finances can adequately  fund. The second problem--likely connected to the first--involves a deep-seated obsession for many schools to move up an "academic hierarchy, becoming a bit less like Yokel-U and a bit more like Yale." This obsession, according to the post, drives many schools toward an emphasis on research, an emphasis that leads to more scholarship than is feasibly useful, and less time spent teaching (see the entry for more details regarding this point). Within the context of this argument, Schumpeter cites Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa's book Academically Adrift (a review here from Inside Higher Ed), which contends that "over a third of America's students show no improvement in critical thinking or analytical reasoning after four years in college." The message then, according to Schumpeter, is that within an age of austerity,  rising costs, coupled with student debt (topping $1trillion) and evidence of decreased learning should compel colleges and universities to "slim down, focus and embrace technology: American universities need to be more businesslike."

I will not pretend to know much about the details of what Schumpeter is discussing here. Having graduated from a liberal-arts institution about seven months ago, I have relevant experiences of contemporary college life, but not of administration and academic reform. Perhaps others more experienced and qualified will share their thoughts, for the benefit of us all.

Given all that, Schumpeter makes a number of points which warrant reflection. Student-debt is a real issue, especially when so few can earn enough to both pay off their debts and live creatively (though perhaps living creatively with debt will become a skill of which we shall see more in the coming years).  Furthermore, if an obsession with research affects the quality of a professor's teaching, should colleges and universities put so much pressure on tenure-track professors to publish?

What is happening to our nation's colleges and universities? Costs and debt have certainly risen, but are students really studying less? Are they learning less, as research suggests? Does college administration put undo pressure on new professors to publish, perhaps even at the expense of their teaching?

I can't answer these questions, but I can offer some observations. First, I don't know if students today study less, but I have readily observed (and experienced) the pervasive nature of contemporary technology. For better or worse, online data-bases, key-word search options, and Google have all become potent assets of the undergraduate paper-writer.

Yet all these tools involve the Internet, where the potential for data-overload at best--and utter distraction at worse--is all too real. I can't count how many times I've observed people (myself included) multi-tasking through projects which, if we are really honest with ourselves, demands every faculty an undergraduate is likely to posess and then some, to do well. Yet if facebook updates from the most recent finals' week are any indication, many otherwise-insanely busy people still end up spending a lot of time in facebook-verse. Coupled with the "convenience" of such tools as Outlook, is it any wonder that a lot of people find writing a paper difficult? If true learning occurs when we're stretching our intellect and industry, few things seem more likely to thwart such efforts than the ever-present temptation of near-instant distraction.

Are student's learning less? I honestly don't know, but my experience suggests that those who figure out how they learn (and apply that knowledge) tend to do quite well. By this I mean people who figure out how to take useful notes, study efficiently, and have enough patience to do tedious work when necessary. These are not always the smartest folks, but they usually produce good results, and often end up smarter than everyone else anyway. If we really expect good results from everyone, however, then we might have to give them a model for how it might be done (and probably more than once).

Does faculty research interfere with teaching? This question is particularly beyond me, but my experience has been that it does not. I went to a small, liberal-arts college where many professors regularly conducted research. Their classes, however, were largely discussion-based, and their feed-back on papers was good. Most were also available during office-hours, and if you talked with them long enough, their experiences with research could prove very helpful. In short, professors conducting research can use their experiences to help students, if given the right context.

Must colleges and universities become more businesslike, as Schumpeter suggests? Perhaps yes, and perhaps not. My experience of having recently gone through the process suggest that other factors (aside from spiraling costs and "Ivy-League envy") may well be at work, particularly the potential negative aspects of technology. Computers can be so empowering, but I must admit they can be so terribly distracting as well. Helping people navigate these distractions may prove a most useful intervention for colleges and universities today. Something to consider.

Happy Thursday :)