The Higher Education Learning Crisis

Yes and the biggest joke of all is the online courses and programs put forth by some of our so called real institutions of higher education. This whole online avalanche has led to the cheapening and the selling of degrees. 100 percent of deans and VPs agreed that online was very inferior instruction but these same hypocrites continue to expand the online offerings. That way students can really get less for their education dollar and universities can reap more money at the cost of academic integrity and learning.

Ann is correct. Online courses are the same as ongound and just as rigorous and you must participate and submit material in order to progress in the class. Online courses allow working parents, for example, to complete educational requirements they would have great difficulty completing due to job and/or family obligations. So, I think this is a great way to use the technology available to educate people. To berate online courses shows lack of education and understanding on the extremely myopic view of the accuser. The same goes for people completing online courses going for jobs. I find that almost always they know more about what they are talking about compared to those who completed onground degrees. It is all in the person, really, not the institution. What happened to the individual in all this? This is why society is going down the tubes.

I have experienced both. I worked more intensely for my online courses. I found them invigorating and applicable to my career. Online instruction is not putting your f2f lecture notes online. You spend a considerable amount of time reading and writing. The interaction is not only with the instructor but also with your classmates. You must read in order to do the work and writing is especially important to communicate ideas clearly. The student's writing must be not only substantive but also must demonstrate analytical abilities and problem solving skills. The assessments are based on performance task that require excellent language skills and implementation of the material to solve a problem. The collaborative work is an important part of team learning. Intelligence is no longer about how much information that you can retain but about how this information can be used for critical thinking and problem solving. So your version of virtual learning seems to be based upon poor information. I applaud higher learning administrations for trying to upgrade their approaches and realizing that we can educate many individuals not only in our country but globally. We can share so much when we know how to use technology properly. By the way virtual professors are not cheapening our educational system they are recognizing that there are other learning styles and needs of those who want to learn. Virtual provides another venue to learn.

The students I see in their freshman and sophomore years hate to read. They have difficulty listening for 50 minutes and have personality problems. I compete for their attention. They pay more attention to their cell phones and MP3 players. They are not inclined to wrestle with the material. They do not follow direction and I wonder what it is that I need to do to inspire them to work hard. They cannot discuss an issue because they don't read anything. That is the majority of my students. However there are a few who pay attention and read. Am I supposed to be customer-service- oriented and placate them into learning. I believe in order to learn one must want to learn. The plight of higher education rests on the shaky foundation of grade school. I told one professor that "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". He said, "I need to push them into the water." I don't feel my job is to be the police-professor. Is it me or is it them? If students hate to read on the college level, what is the professor to do. I am an adjunct professor of psychology at a historically black college in Florida.

I agree for the most part. However, I've taught online, and with considerable success, but only because I put in far more effort than I was paid for, to engage students through discussions and provoke them to think. I rather think that I was the exception, and not the rule. Had I not had some flexibility in my schedule, that much would not have happened.

Vincie's metaphor of the "avalanche of online degrees" is a call to dialogue. How much critical processing and inquiry actually goes into the whole topic of "online course delivery?" I agree that we are rushing headlong into a technological rabbit hole. I also agree that the impetus for delivering online courses is not "student-centered" as many claim, but is convenience-centered (great for faculty with no personality)and driven by the almighty dollar. But to be fair, I will admit to being in the company of those who took an online course that I found interesting. However, during that experience I found myself "guessing" the meaning of the tones,"cyber body language" and silences of my colleagues in our online discussions. Some of the material we covered was culturally sensitive and required expert, in-person facilitation. Every thought does not come in complete sentences, but sometimes represents itself as a brief interruption taking many forms (sighs, gasps, one word added to another's comment, etc.) To say that "online course delivery" is the same as in-person delivery is well, sad, and reeks of a limited educational experience. Haven't you ever had a professor spontaneously digress inspired by a snarky and/or brilliant student remark? Language play, encouragement to speak or otherwise contribute, empathetic glances toward someone who is just about to break silence on a sensitive topic, observing a student reflecting, eyebrows raised in thought, awkward moments of pause, all are missed in an online "learning" environment. Speaking from my professor position, limitations include but are not limited to, switching modes of teaching when I recognize that the one I planned to teach with isn't working (half way through class, calling on a student who looks like they have something to say, apologizing because I misread the expression, being happy that the student noticed I noticed them, and relieved that they smiled at me as they left class. Moments like these are not conducive to "cyber-interpretation." Teaching is about transferring (and exchanging) knowledge, and a critical part of that process includes making mistakes and building community not filtering responses and hitting the backspace key. I think that we need more human connection as we teach and not less. Let's at least talk about online course delivery and consider it thoughtfully from multiple perspectives not enter into it as the proverbial frog entered into the pot of "warming" water....

Online coursework is no easy route to getting a degree. Online courses actually require a great amount of discipline, time management, and organizational skills. I know many top notch students that have been great scholars in Brick & Mortar classrooms, but could not succeed at online classes, because they just did not have the discipline to stay consistent. Among the skills that our writers stated are lacking in most college graduates, they emphasize that too many of them are not prepared to "accept responsibility and accountability" or to "meet the expectations of employers." I think online courses reinforce a level of discipline that enables one to excel in these areas - because you are accountable to manage your own schedule and progress without having that constant push from an external source. Thus, you gain skills that are going to make you more reliable and dependable to an employer. This is primarily because in online courses, you have to motivate yourself to do what is necessary to get the task done. Hence, you resultantly carry that mindset over into your professional prospects.

Several posts have already indicated this, but online and hybrid courses tend to require more self-discipline for instructors and students alike. Promotional materials displaying pajama-clad students smiling at their laptops are mostly fiction. It is really easy for all participants to try to coast as much as possible. Hence, the increased scrutiny of online learning environments by regulatory bodies.

Also,the students who thrive in an online setting are typically those who already love learning and are committed to their own education. As others have stated so clearly in earlier posts, if we want to learn, we must push ourselves to do so -- regardless of the delivery system.

Cealia,

The concept of education in a classroom setting began way back in ancient Greece, when philosophers were free to talk about various topics in the agora and people would gather around to listen. They then moved to a more isolated setting where exchanges of ideas would take place. This is the core of true education. If one did not like the speaker or the discussion, one would merely leave it. The problem with education now is that this wonderful original model has been butchered by modern society in that students are forced to attend school and most do not want to be there. You are absolutely correct in this. Modern society lacks vision in this area, in that primary school is being used as a socialization process, when originally the family was used for this.

Post-industrialized society has tainted education to such a degree and that is the reason you see the mess you do now. The spirit of education is lacking, because that is not how modern education works, but when this is not present, the entire system falters. The ancients were so right about most things, why can't we follow them again in this aspect? People have become so dense and zombie-like, how can you even stand looking at them every day in class?

Also, there is way too much emphasis on exams and this must be looked into as well. It has been proven here in NYC, that exams are not the end all in life and the approach to exams has left even more students behind in that all that is taught is the exam, whereas the scope of learning has been cut out. Students are missing out on the education part and just doing the exam part.

The entire system must be re-evaluated and re-vamped, but the mentality is still that of the industrial age and this is the problem.

I think that a major point here has not been discussed. That point is that universities can only do so much in the time they have the students as most if not all freshmen are not prepared for higher learning because of the dumbing down of the public school systems. When new students arrive in college they have such a steep curve to catch up in study habits and reading comprehension. High schools are focused on teaching a to a test so they do not drop in performance and lose funding. So should the focus be on scrapping the current public school model and putting more emphasis on preparing those students for entry into college. Once that happens universities can toughen their curriculum because university systems are performance rated on how many students they retain which has caused change to prevent freshmen from completely failing out. It should also be realized that not all students are meant for college and that trade schools are not a bad thing. As far as online classes are concerned, those are the only way some of us can attend school as some do not have the luxury of being able to leave our jobs during the day to attend classes not offered at night.

How many years have I been hearing about crisis in the academy? It's just another call for more education research funding for more painfully flawed studies such as that by Arun and Rocsa.

With a broader population of students entering college, it would be expected that a broader range of preparedness would result. So who's problem is this once they're sitting in my classroom? Mine as a teacher. It means I have to work harder to create a worthwhile teaching-learning experience. I make the time to design a class at either the undergraduate or graduate level. I have the energy to put myself forward in class to engage and motivate students. I make the time to answer questions and converse with students after class. The responsibility for all of this is mine as the teacher. I never blame students for a boring class. The result: I have yet to meet a student who did not respond by putting their all into the class. I would bet the same model could easily hold true for an online class.

Well said Ann! You get what you put into it!!!

Hmm....lots of rhetoric here, but little in the way of solutions. If you have a solution that will simultaneously reduce class sizes, improve written communication AND reduce the total cost of a high quality education, don't keep it a secret. Also, the notion that "professional training" is somehow inferior to liberal education is questionable at best and sounds more like resentment among some members of the academy who have seen their fields decline in importance with the rise of the professional schools. Don't get me wrong, there is a serious need for some cultural reform and an emphasis on getting more research active faculty in front of more students, but a return to "the good old days" whenever they were is not the solution.

As an adjunct instructor in a community college, I totally agree with Tim's assertions. Students coming into college level work cannot write a decent thesis sentence that contains a concept and main points. Knowing how to write an outline is a total mystery and researching only reveals what a basic Google search brings forth.

Paisley nailed it. Judging the sentence structure and spelling errors in these entries, I believe the education system has failed the majority of posters. The rest are arrogant windbags.

I think this depends on what your goal is - to produce a small, highly educated elite class, or to get more of the general population up to a basic level of post-high-school education.

Decades ago, only a minority of graduating seniors went further with their education, so this was a pre-selected class of intellectually proficient, and usually economically stable individuals. Of course, this means that upon graduating college, there was a high percentage of grads that were intellectually highly developed. They entered college as relatively gifted, privileged people, and left college even more so.

Entering colleges in America today, there is a huge proportion of kids even from families that struggle economically, and even kids who weren't classic 'high-fliers' in high school, and even kids who made mistakes, had children too early, or struggle with mental/emotional disorders ... these kids now have access to a "higher education" that was once not even a realistic 'dream' to this lot several decades ago. More kids today overcome more challenges to attempt to go to college. I am humbled when I see what my students struggle through outside the classroom - yet show up every time on time and work hard to learn. I had none of those problems or distractions 30 years ago, and I was a 'high-flier'. But ... I was a privileged full-time student, living on campus, working on campus, no children, and a stable family to 'fall back on' when times got tough. College students today have much more LIFE on their plates, and they are working hard to balance it all.

Given the changes in demographics of students pursuing college today, compared with the relatively isolated elites that did so decades ago, will the same percentage of college graduates today be as academically productive and intellectually superior as those in days gone by? Of course not.

But if the goal is to educate our citizens, colleges are doing so at a greater rate, and reaching more of the population, today than they ever did 20 years ago.

Whether the same percentage of students reach the exact same academic achievement goals as they did decades ago is frankly irrelevant. You're comparing apples and oranges on a population level.

The high-flying elites won't get lost - they will always learn and be brilliant, and contribute wonderful ideas to our society. But they don't stand out as much in your silly statistics, because the population of college students is huge and diverse today compared to even just a few decades ago.

Do not fall into the false divide between online and traditional classes. Focus not on the delivery method but on the 19th-century factory-training mission of K-12 creeping its way into the undergraduate program. How? By way of the careerist "educationists" who see university administration and standardized testing (oh, excuse me, "standards-based education") companies as meal tickets. I am a doctoral student who teaches a half-time load and serves another half-time load for a total of $13,000 take-home pay per year. I have no time to study because the administration is too cheap to hire enough full-time faculty to meet increased enrollment and the faculty push the unwanted tasks off on us to preserve their own research time. We are caught in the middle. It's the same at every public university in the country. We (grad students) also are the ones who have to deprogram the incoming unprepared freshmen. Many read, write, comprehend, and interact on a junior-high level. I am not exaggerating. I have measured their reading and writing levels. Start by cleaning out the administrators and the incompetent "teachers" at the K-12 level. Give good teachers the power to teach as they see fit, without bean-counting rubrics and endless make-work paperwork. That's not accountability--that's an administrator justifying his or her existence.

I disagree with you vincie, I got a second masters in ed online. It was more challenging and robust than the face to face. In fact I had a better quality of teachers since they were from all over the country and from many fine institutions.

Hello, I have two roles in this world - teaching as an adjunct at a large public university and running a separate program to help low income youth prepare for and enter college. I am also a private therapist. I am disappointed that this conversation moved to focus on online vs not - that is a side issue. The initial blog makes some powerful and provocative statements. I am really curious about folks thoughts on solutions. How can we encourage higher education institutions to adopt standards of rigor, to return to learning over consuming, to hold fast to the concept of liberal arts in at least most colleges? I will absolutely concur that when I taught sophomores in college last semester I was shocked at how ill prepared they were, especially their writing skills. I did find, however, that they were very eager to participate, and once they saw my own commitment to the process of teaching, their commitment to learning doubled. I will disagree that having adjunct professors is a problem. At this point, the amount of pressure on the professors on the tenure track to publish and accomplish is so high, never mind the enormous class sizes - they cannot really focus on students. Until that is remedied, adjuncts can actually be the more available and accessible teachers. It is important, of course, to screen and hire those adjuncts carefully. I also believe the fact that I work in the world outside academia is helpful to the students.
Finally, when I attend conferences for college access, the amount of marketing and fanfare the colleges put on to "sell" their school is shameful and discouraging. They would be so much better off creating a top rate college academically and recruiting through attraction, not promotion. The ratings really are a huge problem in moving into a better time for higher education.

Well, I hate to break it to y'all, but Johnny still can't read, and neither can Janie because Johnny got her pregnant at 15 and they both think education is one big joke. Why work when entitlements can support them and they can live at home! I have a Master's in Education and have been a college program director (teaching learning) and CEO of a small advocacy/ombudsman company, and like Johnny and Janie I can't find a job either. But, I can read real well! If you want students in college to do well: hold the bar high above their heads, and keep raising it. Urge the public schools in your region to do the same with all of their students K-12. Hungry, homeless, parentless children will have a tough time in school, and little preparation to cope with the sacrifices training for any profession or career presents. Try more vocational and experiential education in all schools and colleges. Stop focusing on "math" as the God or Goddess of "good education". I struggled through Algebra when Emil Berger in MN created the "New Math" in 1962 or 1963, I got A's in my 3 classes of Research Methods and Statistics in college. (I had to take those classes and keep my GPA up) The only Math I have ever needed is how to make a salad to serve 80 people (plus calculate portions for a projected unknown number of people who will eat more and more guests that expected), how to adjust a pattern down or up to sew clothing, spacing my crops in my garden for highest yield, and calculating doses of injectable medication based on kilogram of body weight for animals and my kids. I would much rather see my students able to communicate verbally and in writing or in pictures, be critical when solving problems, be creative when brainstorming, and have the resilience to persevere. I am old. I come from a 2nd generation Americans Scandinavian family of editors, writers, actresses, accountants, and a farmer. I could read and understand Greek Mythology by age 4, and was acommissioned artist by age 13. I taught other students (who were struggling) in early elementary school. I could repair almost anything that went wrong with my car or truck, and repair most everything aroundthe house by age 17. I'm not a savant or prodigy. I was raised to believe that only success in reading and the arts were acceptable behaviors. I was too scared to get in trouble at school because I was told the Principal would paddle me, and I'd get far worse when I got home. Take away video games and put kids to work. Take away their sagging pants, and girls: please wear a bra under your shirt (not over), and don't wear a thong where the public can view it. Teach respect: yes sir and no sir (or m'am)for a start. Teach a lot of Thank you sir (or m'am) Then colleges may have good students to teach!

Marion,

I tend to agree with you. I have only taken one post graduate class on line, but both enjoyed and learned from it without having to fight traffic and find a parking space. I plan to take another this summer.

When I was a University student (Russia SPb), I and my classmates were afraid not to pass exams and to be expelled, so the professors could be tough with us. Not sure about the USA, but e.g., a University in Switzerland is interested in having more students (even bad ones) because it is payed for every student it teaches. So the students have stressless life -- they are not afraid to be expelled. For many young people the following is valid: "learning every kind of culture is a violence; look deep into your soul and you'll understand that in reality you do not want to learn but want to have fun instead."

Why did this discussion leave the question posed and move to on-line learning? As I understand US education rating, according to the President of the community college where I teach, the US has fallen from first to twelth in the world in one generation. Our local students are supposed to enter college "prepared." It is my personal opinion that ALL US education has failed our students. It was supposed to be a problem when I was a student 44 years ago. I learned from my roommates. When working on my Master's, I learned from classmates. Now, I'm in the developmental department of the community college. If these students are even minimally prepared why is a developmental department necessary? Because a there is a population obviously not prepared. Thus, making a developmental department necessary. Furthermore, as educators, we are either unaware, or not incorporating, the lack the physical development of the frontal cortex. In the early days of class, I have students in groups reading and outlining a reading section I have copied on frontal cortex development. Very engaging discussions have come from these activities. Because I am part-time, I send my students to tutors, the department full-time PhD's and student embassadors for extra help in his/her learning. That cortex will be fully developed by age 25; extra help is necessary. I also respond to my students on-line, but I do not teach on-line.

Listening to stories told by a rotating circle of local School Superintendents every Thursday night for 4 years and never read a book or write a paper is a great way to get an EdD, but does it mean something----and to have those people be put in charge of schools---is sad. And don't forget the course on "Highliters in the Classrooom" to get 3 credits for a higher salary.
But that's why teachers get (from their Principal)16 identified kids out of 26 in their classes and fall apart---well who wouldn't---you try writing 85 lesson plans every night, making 85 tests, etc,,,,,and pleasse make sure to allow charter schools to take more money out of public ed.

You have identified the correct problem, but Taylorizing (e.g., learning assessment) is precisely the wrong answer. One cannot successfully absorb any graduate level education part-time, or off-site; it requires socialization.

see csiri.org to see links to many differentiatied ideals about changing education to an open system, where the student chooses theri own course and the teacher acts as a crew member on the everyday voayage on a Ship of discovery, where learning is self-motivated. You can take a class of gang members and connect them with music of their own and dance and art, because music and movement and rhythm are not only the best way to develop the human brain in a neuro-scientific, quantum physics' based reality where nothing is static or industrial age, but everyone is of value and can contribute their unique talents. Motivation comes from within, and teachers can use my Bowe scale to set themselves free of teaching to the test. This kind of assessment is focused on helping the child learn to be a part of a team. Each team designs their own rubric, and grades themselves every day, and the teachers can thus decide easily who needs help and who does not. On a scale of one to ten or poor to rich (any child, even those who do not know math, can appreciate this rubric) was your teamwork, your team, etc. rich or poor today? If a team falls below a five as a group, then the teacher knows they need intervention, coaching or even moved to another team. Teams form around Design projects that the teacher can create to challenge and that teach what the child needs to learn and don't waste time on tests or grades that measure only two types of intelligence. The children have positive feedback instead of stress and learned helplessness. My books describe these developmental models and relate how new discoveries can change the old paradigm that thought of the universe as static. This goes all the way back to the Greeks, eleatics who thought there was a static reality that could be figured out, vs. vitalists, who believed that a vital entelechy or soul informs all Life from within. We now know that 95% of the universe is "dark matter", meaning we really know nothing and need to change what we think we should teach to teaching to the soul of each child and allowing them to be free to love and laugh and play their way to a successful and whole human.
I call this soul: Music, and claim it is the basis of all other types of learning and teaching. In other words, math and language are subsets of Music and techne, the Greek word that was the root of technology, included art. The original Olympics in ancient Greece promoted and honored not competitive sports as we do in our funds for education, but rather the improtance of team "sports" such as drama, poetry, dance, art, and music.
We have lost our connection to the universe we inhabit, the connection we have with nature is not one we can afford to ignore, as all creation sings in harmony. Darwin's theory of evolution has been promoted as a religion of atheism, and we tell our children we live in a free country, when atheism as a religion has replaced God (or Goddess?) in our world. The Right to Care has been ignored and trampled upon. There is no basis for morality, yet a theory that presupposes Life cannot be used to explain Life. We now know the fallacy of the old industrial-age paradigm. I was an engineering and psychology student in the 70s, and I have seen no progress, only a committment of a static universe of statistical heresies, because the observer does affect the observation, as our very thoughts affect water molecules and our brains are 75% water. If any child has only one person who believes in them and gives them positive and honest feedback, their whole life changes. I have seen this in over thirty years of homeschooling, and then I returned to online education to get a Master's in Education in Instructional Technology with an A average in one year and went directly into Walden as they are "dedicated to social change and student-centered." However, I found this to be not the case, and have spent too many years and student loans getting to a dissertation stage of a PhD in Education & Leadership, Self-Designed. I have written books on the subject and have answers for all levels of education to include open systems and what Peter Senge and peers called Schools That Learn. Why is Head start funded, yet not Montessori or Waldorf? Every Head Start class is based on one teacher's good ideas, yet no one has challenged these with better ones. Or perhaps we have and no one has listened because of the money invested in old paradigms and statistics that can be used to prove either side and often are not as valid as the qualitative study in actual life conditions. I am going to do a dissertation on Early Childhood Learning Centers of different types using musical intelligence from the perspective of the teachers. If we got rid of all the money and time spent on outmoded bell curves and standardized tests, and stopped paying administrators obscene amounts, there would be plenty of funds for bringing art and music back to the forefront of education as a cross-cultural intervention that would permit students to really experience and appreciate other cultures and times in a hands-on constructivist mode where, like Elkind and Gardner, we use processfolios and online portfolios using video game technology and music self-chosen by each student to document true learning and development in both teachers and students, who then become partners and crew members on this etermal Ship of discovery where Play is the best way to learn at any age and no one tells each other that their way is better or more truthful. Sorry about my Faulknerian ramblings.) We know that pi is not a real number, it repeats infinitely, yet we need it to find the circle's math. Heartmath.com shows that PHI, the Golden Mean of 1.6, is a real number ignored by educators whose salaries are more important than children, and this is attained by the heart itself, beating with the music that is life and builds up to more complex systems, when appreciating life and allows intuition to become the springboard to learning. Why do happy children turn into drug addicts or suicide risks at 13? Because their own unique talents and goals are waylaid in an educational system promoting only two types of intelligence? If the teacher becomes the navigator and guide to safe harbors instead of having to be a taskmaster assigning homework so there is no time for reflection and hunches, the real way we advance as human beings who are healthy and happy and whole may be revealed.
See my books on these matters on my storefront on http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/anuradhe.
These books are also available as downloadable ebooks, very cheap way to motivate yourself to change the system from within as teachers and caring individuals who value each child and know there are no disposable kids!

Critical thinking? Higher level thought? After living in countries overseas (and originating from Boston), I find myself in Nevada, the absolute end of the spectrum ranking 48th in education. One local blog discusses the "fairness" of requiring a HS diploma in order to enroll at the local community college. After all, college is a "right" and everyone deserves one (at little to no cost).
Education in Las Vegas is as esoteric as the neon facades on the strip that promise wealth and status. Just a wisp of smoke that disappears when you try to grasp it.

There are so many errors in the thinking of these authors that one might wonder if they had spent their whole lives in colleges. I think they should rethink the title of their book.

Let me take just one grievous error. The authors believe the problem is that “students do not learn enough in college.” They then define what is missing is the ability to think, speak, write, understand and solve problems, be responsible, consider the perspective of others, and meet the expectations of employers.

If the authors think an institution can be created to do all of these things, then I challenge them to create such a model. I have serious doubts that the authors — or anyone — can achieve this laundry list of ideals. No such institution, I believe, has existed in the history of the world.

The blog is, therefore, started on the wrong foot. It lacks a clear understanding of how we got here. What they define as a problem can’t be blamed on college rankings by USNews which began just 25 years ago. It can be traced back many centuries to the first universities in the West. And it can’t be solved, as the authors hint, by changing the culture. Culture, especially the culture of education, is set in brick and mortar and remains much as it has for hundreds of years. Esperanto might have been a good idea, but we still speak English.

Teaching isn’t the first concern of the university, despite its marketing brochures. I joined the faculty of Carnegie-Mellon in 1968 — just as the school was firing one of its best teachers after eight years on the faculty because he had not completed his Ph.D. I was told I was the English Department’s best writing teacher, just as my contract was not renewed after three years for the same reason. The current disinterest in teaching ability — and the glorification of credentials (including publications, grants received, and professional affiliations) is nothing new.

Students go to college to gain status. That is why parents give Ivy League schools $200,000. — any education is secondary. If you doubt this, try offering the education without the transcript and diploma.

Wise up.

I agree.

I concur that the search for efficiency and to be responsive to employers has led to an unfortunate academic ethos that favors narrowly focused instruction in practical skills, at the expense of preparing well-rounded persons who are able to meet the demands of being well-informed citizens. The force of these trends, regretfully, will be very difficult to overcome. But a campaign to do just that would be, neverthelees, worth the effort.

I couldn't agree more!!!! If there is any consultation to what some have indicated about the motivational factors, I observe the same thing in the military on active duty. I am approaching a major life event by retiring after 25 years of service with a Master's degree in psychology and am pay grade terminal (because there are no numbers above 9 on the pay scale)and hope to enter higher education as a teacher. I am hesitant about the motivational factor from the student perspective. Not at all concerned with my own motivation. However, I view this as a chance and challenge to change the course of just a few students. I say this because much like leading other service men and women, you can only capture one or two at a time and develop them into autonomous contributors. If educators took the time to adopt the same philosophy, the tide would turn for the better. I am not sure if the lack of motivation comes from the unmotivated individual themselves or a society (to include the parents) that allows them to be such! Who knows... What I do know is that part of employee selection in our institutions should include discussion and emphasis on all these points posted in the blog. The organization of institutional leadership needs to shift and then attract those that can expertly execute the vision of the institution through teaching. I am not saying the vision doesn’t exist, I am saying vision means nothing without the passion in the employees to push the vision to reality…. Vision means nothing without passion. Interestingly, passion creates vision, which is why I think this blog hits MANY valid intersections! It is obvious that many are very passionate about pedagogy!!!!

Those are my two cents, which aren’t really worth that much!!! Regardless, this is a motivating blog and am looking forward to the challenges that exist!!!

Many debates about higher education seem to just bring up longstanding debates --liberal arts vs. professional/vocational skills – or try to blame the high cost on one thing or another – emphasis on expensive research-oriented faculty with low-teaching loads, increases in non-faculty administrators, increase in student amenities, or students and families not making college choice decisions based on full and accurate information about cost vs. value.

One way to analyze the challenge in higher education is to look at what high-performing non-profit organizations have increasingly adopted as a best practice – logic models, theories of change, and measuring outcomes. While many community-based social service agencies have been forced to adopt these models, hardly any college or university has had its funding tied to such measures of performance.

If we critically examined the prevailing assumed logic model or theory of change for undergraduate education, we would encounter a number of assumptions as well as missing elements.
1. We do not have clearly articulated and agreed upon outcomes for undergraduate education.
Different stakeholders care more about some than others. Here are the main potential outcomes to choose from:
• The degree itself, which is taken by many (but not all) in society as a proxy for a certain level of education and skills.
• Access to certain jobs that require a college degree, or jobs that require specific degrees (i.e. nursing, engineering).
• Prestige, status and connections (for those that attend elite institutions).
• A core “liberal arts” set of skills in critical thinking, reading, writing, problem-solving, etc.
• Subject matter mastery in the major.
• Access to further graduate or professional education.
• Civic skills, knowledge, disposition, identity, values.

2. Whatever we determine to be our intended outcomes (whether core, subject matter, vocational, or civic) there should be a set of activities or inputs that directly develop that set of knowledge and skills. For the most part, the primary set of activities in the predominant model of college education is for students to take a certain set of courses, with two of these, three of those, this set in preparation for the major, another set within the major, etc. The assumption is that successful completion of these set of course requirements are a legitimate proxy for having gained the intended set of skills and knowledge. However, this assumption is based on further underlying assumptions that are not necessarily reliable:
• The primary teaching activities (lectures, small group discussion, readings, papers, exams) are effective methods for students to learn the intended material and develop the skills.
• Graded course requirements (tests, papers, projects) are sufficient measures that the student has gained the intended skills and knowledge.
• Successful short-term learning of course content equals long-term retention of that course content.
• Successful completion of a course equals attainment of the course learning objectives.
• The sum of the learning objectives across all those courses adds up to the overall set of learning outcomes for the degree or for what it means to be a graduate of that institution. (Colleges often have vision statements about what all of their students will learn and develop, but the specific skills and attributes rarely actually make it into individual course learning objectives.)
• There is no possible way of assessing overall skills and knowledge of seniors prior to graduating (either across the institution or even within majors). Individuals and colleges cannot do it, and heaven forbid, that any outside third-party do it or that any assessment would be imposed by the federal government.

3. Even if we could rely on, with confidence, the logic model that this set of activities leads toward the desired outcomes, we have additional assumptions which dominate higher education – assumptions which may hold true some of the time, but certainly not most or all of the time.
a. Excellent researchers are ideal teachers of undergraduates.
b. Even if some researchers are not ideal teachers, the proximity to their research adds educational value to nearby students. (They cross through the airspace of undergrads.)
c. The highest status, privileges and rewards should be conferred on the best researchers, regardless of their teaching ability and performance.
d. Faculty who excel at teaching but not at research should be relegated to secondary status, paid less, and offered no job security. Excellence in teaching should not constitute any guarantee of continued employment.
e. Learning that takes place outside of formal registered courses does not really exist and therefore does not count. And certainly would not be measured.
f. Student development is more the responsibility of student affairs staff than faculty, but since it’s outside the curriculum and student affairs personnel are secondary to faculty, it doesn’t really count.
Even some of the smallest social serving nonprofits today are forced, by their funders, to demonstrate and measure outcomes and to validate that all of the assumptions and links throughout their logic model are valid and reliable. If a nonprofit cannot, demonstrate with its own data that a particular chain or assumption is valid, then it’s often required to point to other research that does.

The straightforward application of logical models and theories of change to undergraduate education would immediately help to better align institutions around a clear set of outcomes and a set of activities or inputs that clearly lead to those intended outcomes. It would also lead institutions to at least attempt to measure the overall mastery of skills and knowledge of their graduating seniors.

Too true, sad.

It became obvious that the primary purpose of a college where I taught for twelve years was not to educate students but to retain as many as possible. When a student was not in class, each instructor was required to call the student (up to five days)until the student was reached. As full-time instructors taught between 125 and 150 students, much time was spent making phone calls. The responsibility for attending class and for learning was removed from the students and placed on the instructors.

I believe the reason there are so many students who fail when they to college is because public education has failed our children. I live in Texas, though I am a native of Nebraska. One only has to look at the statistics of high school failures or drop-outs throughout the United States to see what is truly happening. Overwhelming, southern states having the highest rate of failures and drop-outs. Northern, eastern, and western states, however, have higher rates of success. Many want to blame the skewed ratings on the huge population of illegal immigrants in the southern states or on poverty, but that cannot be proven without doubts. The real problems started with Bush’s No Child Left Behind program, which is still in force today, and although many legislators at both the state and national level admit this, and educators all over the United States know this, nothing is being done about it.
I am a mother of three. I don’t have a master’s degree, nor do I teach in public schools. I earned my bachelor’s degree while working full time and raising a family. I now teach ESL and EL Civics, which I absolutely enjoy. I really do not have any desire to become a teacher in the public education system because I have heard so many negative comments by teachers in the system. They all say their jobs are no longer about focusing on teaching children, but their primary concern is the avalanche of paperwork and their brainwashed dedication to the state standardized tests that the children must pass in order to advance through the system. Here, a child is not allowed to be flunked more than twice at any grade level. I am no certain on that policy, so please don’t quote me. It might be only once, for all I know. All I know is children do not receive a genuine education. In that I mean, they are too caught up in practicing for the “test,” that they really do not learn how to read or write correctly, nor do they encouraged to think critically and learn to analyze and investigate facts. Although most school systems here do have advanced level classes for what they consider honor students that is more project based, for the most part, all the average students, or what are called “regulars,” are given only substandard instruction and are brainwashed with the necessity to only know enough to pass the state test! Regulars are often bullies, looked down upon by the so called pre-AP and AP students. A regular student might get straight A’s and perform very well with his/her school work, but they are not considered excellent students because they do not have the “AP” label. The regulars students do not get to be challenged, they those interest, plus they have that stigma hanging over them that they are just a regular. This is what I have observed while putting three children through the Texas public education system. I have heard the comments my own children said in observance of how the various students are treated. I have seen my youngest child bring home copies of the sample test questions that she was required to practice in lieu of actually doing homework with a learning purpose.
My two older children graduated in 1998 and 2000, the pre-NCLB era. Back then, they had a somewhat different educational experience. They both excelled all through elementary and high school, and graduated with honors. However, they had to have been recommended by educators to be placed in honors level classes. They barely made the cut some years while in elementary because of some test they had to take to determine if they should be allowed in the honors classes even though they were performing with mostly A’s in all subjects. Many A/B children were confused and shunned if they did not get into the honors classes in elementary. It was a prized status symbol for them. I can say, though, that during my two older children’s elementary years, the public school that they attended was excellent. The teachers were constantly incorporating programs that got the students exited about learning, such as Writing Wizards, and I fail to recall the other programs they had, but such programs no longer existed when my youngest attended public elementary school in 2001. She had the opportunity to attend a private school at a church her first three years where she was taught a very good Christian curriculum. She had already learned advanced math, spelling, reading, and had even learned how to make a Power Point and work with other applications on the computer in second grade. She was also already writing with cursive. When she began to attend a highly acclaimed school district here in Texas when we moved, she was in third grade where they aren’t allowed to write cursive yet. The methods they used to teach were different to her and confusing. She nearly failed science and social studies, but she placed well in a spelling bee. They put her in regulars classes because even though she apparently had advanced skills, it could not be proven in the public education system. She was finally recognized for her higher order thinking skills when she hit middle school (5th-8th), and she blossomed as a student. Later, she proved herself worthy by graduating high school in the top 10% and had 30 hours of dual credit to boot! It was a struggle and a fight to get her the educational opportunities she desired. If just one educator says, no, a child should not take college classes at 15 years of age, then the parents have to go to bat for them! It was because of our persistence that our child was able to beat the system and achieve what she did. Many parents just give up at the first adversity.
I received an excellent education as a child my fist eight years in a one-room rural school with an average attendance of ten, and with one teacher for all grades. We had no computers or calculators, no DVD’s or other visuals other than our textbooks and our own creative endeavors. We explored subjects, researched, read, wrote, discussed, did projects, and learned together in groups. No one was singled out as better than the other. We learned basic reading, writing, and arithmetic; plus learned how to think for ourselves and make judgments. I went onto high school with a total student body of 300, which included the town 7th-12th graders. Overwhelming, the country kids as we were called, consistently graduated in the top 10; though for our town, the top 10 was the top 10 individuals, because 10% would only have honored 3 or 4 students! I graduated 2nd of a class of 36 students. I took classes that allowed me to think critically, analyze for myself, debate as necessary, and when I was tested, I competed for the correct information on the same level with everyone. There were no such things as honor classes. A high percentage of students graduated; many honored as A/B students. Our GPA was based on 4.0; not on 4.0 or 6.0 because of someone’s status as a regular or AP student. We took standardized tests as required, but those tests did not determine if we would go to the next grade or not. They were simply a measurement the state took on all public education students to see what the system may be lacking in the system for instructional purposes, not if the students were smart enough, or that the teachers may not be good enough and should be penalized! If the curriculum in place was not sufficient to help student pass the measures in the standardized test, then the state would examine what it could do to improve in whatever subject matter necessary.

The situation with the NCLB law is pitiful. Here as well as in other states, teachers and administrators are cheating. Some get caught and some don’t. Their motive is they lose money or their jobs if students fail the test. The law does not care if students might be doing very well in their classes, or that the teachers are instructing them well to generate passing to great grades. The law does not care if the curriculum is insufficient to teach students what they really need to know in order to have good life skills, or the skills to go onto higher education. The law only wants the students to pass that test at any cost in order that the states will continue to have their funding. It is all about money, not a meaningful education.
We need to get back to basics with education. That is the root of the problem. They need to kick out the national NCLB law and let states go back to doing what they might have been doing well before the law. For the life of me, I still do not understand why the United States government allowed an education law to be modeled after one of the worse educational systems in the nation. Yes, I am bantering Texas. And as we all are aware, the Texas SBOE is the laughing stock of our country! What they have done and having been doing to the textbooks is a crime. Only qualified educators should be allowed to determine the content of the nation’s textbooks! This has been going on the many years, folks! Hopefully with the next state board elections, these religious fundamentalist, dentists, and other assortment of non-educators will get voted out of office! In southern terms: “That’s all I gotta say ‘bout that, ya’ll.”
Thank you!

As an Adjunct Professor in a state university in PA and having just finished grading my students midterms begging anyone to show some minimal comprehensive of the topics I emphasized in class I say AMEN...it often feels like the students sit in lecture wishing they had a remote to change the boring channel...

So is sitting in a lecture hall with 300 students any better? I can tell you as someone who completed both a Bachelors and Masters Degree online, there was nothing about it that was a joke. It was as difficult, or even more so than attending a "traditional" classroom. You say that 100% of Dean's and VP's said online was inferior. So I'm guessing that you went and talked to each and every Dean and VP in the country? I think not. Before you make inflammatory comments, you might want to check your facts. Online education is not for everyone, I think we can all agree on that. However, to complete a degree online takes a lot of discipline that not everyone has.

I'm surprised this has turned into a discussion about online learning which I support, but I'd like to comment on the authors' focus. It seems to me that the problem starts much earlier than higher education. What "assets" are students coming to higher ed with? My understanding is that many students require remediation in order to successfully complete work at the post-secondary level. If so, although I am sure there are politics at work regarding your proposition, then instructors have little choice but to teach at a lower level. We need to overhaul our entire education system, starting at PK.

For higher education to fulfill their core mission, I believe they need to focus on teaching students to apply whatever they are taught to real life situations instead of leaving things at the theoretical level. I believe students, society and employers would benefit from this approach than the traditional one in place in most universities. Thanks.

Higher education is just showing the symptoms of a failing educational system in this country.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Ann and Fab are dead wrong. Online courses are not the same as ground by a long shot. I teach at a large university that offers many courses online and also on campus. Students know that technical, hard science/tech courses should be in person and that the liberal arts courses are better online.

I have taken online courses, received A's and learned nothing but how to Google answers faster than the clock on a timed test. The online course is just an easy grade. To top it off, online courses that require students to participate in threaded discussions throughout the week are the worst. Most of the conversations focus on a simple, low level set of yes/no questions (at the knowledge level of Bloom's Taxonomy). I've seen this at the graduate level, and there's no way that the online graduate student has learned as much as the student who attended class on campus.

This is symptomatic of the problem with online education. Education is not simply a good that is "delivered" to a customer. Teaching is an art; it is the act of creating a real relationship between teacher and student. This cannot really be done remotely, and certainly not with a set of canned Powerpoint slides or a stale old podcast. If businesses believe that "you can't fax a handshake" and everyone accepts this, why does everyone seem to believe that a lecture or discussion session can be "delivered" like a Fedex box? Another funny comment was the person who commented that online education helped her with "grammer, etc." Can't get over that one.

This may sound mean, but who cares where the blame falls? We could talk about that all day. Right here we have a fantastic group of students, faculty and staff. What can we do to work together to improve the situation? Let's have a dialogue about that!

Faculty, how can student affairs support your efforts with our students outside the classroom?

Student affairs, what do you need from faculty to help our students?

Students, where do you feel we are missing the boat in empowering you to become independent decision makers and members of the community?

I am in complete agreement with you. I have attended traditional universities and an online university. The online university required much more reading and researching, as well as extensive writing, with proper APA writing guidelines. Both universities were very expensive, but I feel that I received a much better education online.

I cannot agree with you more on that Ann.
I am currently enrolled in a Doctorate program which is completely online. Before I started the program I had my reservations as I had never taken an online course prior to this endeavor.
I am starting my third year and I can say that it has been a great learning experience. I feel that online learning encourages self-learning and tends to help students to become independet learners and more self-efficient.
But i do agree with Ann that "you get what you put into in any environment".

Smartest thing anyone on this board has said thus far. Our system isn't dying... it's dead. Time to start from square one and explore a different way to grow our young learners.

I'm late to the party, I suppose. Yet as a former and current student who was definitely an unmotivated underachiever during my undergrad years, I'd like to bring my perspective to this discussion.

Students are undermotivated not because they are dumb but because they are smart. They have realized something that their professors refuse to grasp: higher education is a joke, a scam. They know that if they don't study, they will muck along, and if they do...they may well be marked down anyway based on personal bias, "equalizing outcomes" or some other petty nonsense. And if they do work hard and get a good grade? They'll still lose out to the kids with better parents, or to the kid who loads his schedule with easy-As and shamelessly games the system. So why not lay back and enjoy oneself rather than play the rigged game?

Reading some posts here I see professors with that insufferably self-pitying attitude, "Why should I work harder than my students? Is it because I get paid? Professors used to be respected..." That kind of pompous, arrogant, entitled attitude is WHY students don't respect their professors. They are prissy, they have this attitude that they shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to do, they lack HONESTY, and they lack strength.

There are some good, well-intentioned professors. But I myself have to confess too often I succumb to the temptation to dismiss them because of the system they inhabit, and because they often lack the courage or the inclination to stand up for what they presume to believe.

There's talk about how the quantity of students has increased while the quality has declined. What is overlooked is the abundance of political professors (most especially feminists) who are a disgrace to the system and incentivize young men to refuse to take it seriously.

Some would blame the consumer culture of education, or American culture. There's some truth to that. But it's also the case that nothing really forces professors to be prigs who think that accessibility is optional or that following a standard rubric for their classes is a slight to their dignity. You can't blame the mass culture or the influence of money for what is completely a matter of personal choice by too many professors who think they are better than the community they are PAID to serve.