Why do we do this?
Colleges and universities have practices so ingrained we don’t even think to ask that question.
These were developed for good reasons, but their intended or original purpose is gone. We often serve habits and traditions instead of them serving us.
Let’s look at a few.
You typically need at least 120 class credit hours to earn a bachelor's degree.
For each class credit hour, you need a certain amount of contact time in the classroom and expected work outside of the classroom. (The mental model here is the time it takes to assemble widgets on the assembly line. Or, perhaps, ferment grapes into wine.)
Why 120-hours? Was it based on extensive research? Was it proven that an individual with that much classroom instruction and work, along with requirements for their major, was better than 100 hours or 140, or 200 hours?
No.
It was so college faculty could qualify for a pension plan.
While 120 hours was the requirement at some colleges and universities, in 1906, it became the standard as the Carnegie Foundation required it of institutions for their professors to qualify for a pension plan (now TIAA).
There are ways to organize instruction outside of the current industrial model.
This includes block systems (one class at a time), “Maymester” (classes in sprints in the winter and spring, similar to a block system), competency-based education (where students test at intervals to determine if they move on to the next section), and others.
Do professors stand in front of the classroom and lecture students because it is proven to be the best for students over more interactive learning?
No.
It started in the 5th century BCE. It was widely adopted in early universities as the professor likely had the only copy of the book.
Now, it’s tradition. Since most of us grew up with this type of instruction in K-12, it is incredibly familiar and comfortable. My personal preference is for this type of class—usually.
As we all know, the quality of instructors varies widely within any given institution.
Those Summer Nights
Do colleges and universities need to idle very expensive facilities over the summer? Is it proven to provide excellent outcomes for students and faculty to have a few-month break between studies?
No.
It was so students could go home and help with the harvest. Now, it’s just a habit we defend to the death because we are entitled to summers off from school.
Schools say that’s when professors do their research and students do internships. Both research and internships are also done during the regular academic year. Not sure what makes summer the season of magic.
A true summer semester would help students complete college more quickly, providing tremendous cost savings.
Do you need a multimillion-dollar athletic program to be a successful college or university? Could you attract students and donors without it?
I don’t know. A few specialized schools do without sports teams, but no one else is willing to give it a try.
NCAA Division 3 schools, the least competitive in college athletics, median annual spend on athletics is $2.5 million.
All Division 3 schools lost money on athletics in 2019.
Are large lecture classes the best for the students?
No, they are best for the institution because they are insanely profitable.
The average price for a 3-hour credit course at a public university is $1,170. That means a 500-person lecture class brings in $585,000. The average pay for a person teaching a college course is $3,556. Even if the class is taught by a full professor making an annual salary of $100,000 and they only teach three classes per year, that’s $33,333 for the class. Either way, that’s one amazingly profitable model.
Were admission standards developed to ensure students could perform at a collegiate level? That they wouldn’t be wasting their or the institution's time? That a specific cohort of students needed the right blend of students?
Again, no.
The modern admissions system was started as a way for small private liberal arts colleges to keep out Jewish people.
Do we need some admissions process? Yes. But we can do better.
Searching for Meaning in so Many Meetings
Do granting tenure and post-tenure review need to go through more than two or three levels before being decided?
No.
It’s a lot of CYA for the occasional lawsuit. The excessive review process puts candidates and faculty under review through hell and has massive hard and opportunity costs.
Is anyone willing to admit that their level of review might be redundant or unnecessary and give up a little power and influence? Not without a major fight and lots of accusations about bad intent.
Are search committees absolutely necessary for so many positions on campus? Is the value these committees provide equal to or over the lost time and productivity of the people on the committees?
Incredibly doubtful.
Search committees were about inclusion to ensure that things were not missed due to bias; now, it’s about not trusting others.
The attitude is that if staff, faculty, student, or member of a certain group is not on a search committee, it will be incapable of hiring the right person. “We” don’t trust “you” to get it right without our input.
And there is a valid question if they always produce the “best” candidate or just the best compromise for all the personalities in the group.
The whole process has become ludicrous.
Is requiring or preferring a master’s degree for staff positions on campus necessary to ensure that the best possible candidates are hired?
Please.
Experience would work just fine. The requirement is nothing more than self-justification. I would guess a number of those positions probably don’t need a bachelor’s degree, either.
But Wait, There’s More
Do we need departments as the world needs more cross-disciplinary approaches to problems?
Are PhDs and a faculty background necessary for college presidents to be effective leaders?
Are transfer credits from other colleges or universities deficient in some way that the student needs to retake a class?
Is it important not to offer many classes on Fridays, weekends, or after 5:00 p.m.?
Should professors be required to go through continuing education about the latest research on teaching effectiveness?
No, no, probably not, no, and yes.
Are there dozens of processes, procedures, structures, habits, and traditions that could be critically examined that I can’t see because I’m too close to higher education?
Yes.
Will most colleges and universities invest the time, energy, and money to look at what is considered sacrosanct or just part of university “culture?”
Yes and no.
Smaller colleges and universities in danger of closing, merging, or facing significant budget challenges will be forced to.
The rest will live with the status quo or make changes on the periphery that don’t upset incumbent administrators, staff, and faculty.
To make changes, a great place to start is to start asking questions. “Why do we do it this way? Does it still serve us? What is the latest research on this process or approach? Is there a better way that we haven’t considered?”
What did I miss? I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. Please email me at steve@stephenludwig.net with things in higher education that have outlived their usefulness or anything else on your mind.
Excellent article. It gets to a number of areas in higher education that need to be redone and refined to better serve stakeholders like students, the community and greater society.