The past two posts have focused on how there may be too much catering to the current view and understanding and not enough exploration into new areas of study, utilizing the New York Times Magazine "It's all about Teaching." Also, as Barry Schwartz points out, it may be that in our market crazed society, the Universities have no choice but to meet the demands of the students. But as discussed previously, when the market encroaches into non-market sectors we lose. Though universities may be making an honest effort to accommodate students, it may not serve them as well as we intend.
Today's post discusses another article in the NY Times Magazine. The article is entitled "Those who write, Teach," by David Gessner.
The Writer-Professor
Gessner discusses his transition from a full-time writer to life as a professor. The benefits are measurable. A steady income and the benefits of health care, the chance to teach eager students, and on the whole a more stable life. But Gessner points out that a question about this transition is often left unanswered. "What exactly does all this teaching do to our writing? And what, if anything, does it mean for a country to have tenured literature?"
Gessner eloquently describes what may be lost for the person in this dual position. "There was an essential fanaticism in all their efforts (Thoreau, Dickinson, Melville), then sense of an entire life thrown into the great project of creating works of art. Even if we grant that you can be as original within the university as up in your garret, we must concede the possibility that something is lost by living a divided life. Intensity perhaps...the creation of literature requires a certain degree of monomania, and that is, at least in part, an irrational enterprise. It's hard to through your whole self into something when that self has another job."
I believe that Gessner is not alone in feeling that he lives a divided life. I feel that many of us may feel drawn towards one area of work, only to be tethered by our "obligations" to another area. Those in all levels of education may feel this tug-of-war. This dual between passion and pragmatics. How do we rectify the two?
For Gessner, as for many I believe, compromise is difficult to reach. He worries that his "own words may have grown tame along with [his] life." Later he writes, "I don't know how long I can survive in captivity...I do love teaching and recognize how lucky I am to be living for at least part of each day in the real world, but while I try to be commonsensical, lately I have begun to feel something rising up inside me."
The answer?
This internal battle is not new and the question is not an easy one to solve. I do have an answer, but it's more of a suggestion and one's own path can only come from within.
What we must realize is that we all can contribute to society, and an individual must find the area of work, where he or she contributes best. Some of us are called to teach, some of us are call to write. But we must understand that "Those who Write, Teach" as the title says. Meaning that if an individual feels he/she can educate, challenge, probe the minds best through literature they must write literature. If an individual feels they are best suited to teach in a more formal way, it is their duty to teach. After all someone must teach students the literature that is out there. If a teacher or writer decides to cross over and eventually comes back, his/her students (or readers) will be better off, because of the gained experience.
It's a dilemma, how to use our time. But all we can do is go for it for who know how long we've got.
The Benefits and Burden of Academia- The Writer-Professor
Too much input? Part 2: An encroaching market
The following is an excerpt from the book The Costs of Living: How Market Freedom erodes the best things in Life (1994), by Swarthmore Psychology Professor Barry Schwartz.
"As this economic imperialism continues to occur, each of these domains of activity [i.e. professions such as lawyer, doctor and professional athlete] is eroded as a distinct practice; its goods are replaced by economic goods.
"Another example of this process...is education. The goal of education is to impart knowledge and develop in people the ability to think critically. Education at its best creates well-informed, responsible, concerned citizens. Education at its best is essential both for the well-being of our economy and for the well-being of our democracy. What happens to the practice of education as increasing competition among member of society for material resources leads to increasing competition for good (that is, high-paying) jobs? In response to this competition, employers keep creating new educational hurdles that must be jumped before job entry in possible. These hurdles have a profound effect on the way people view education. With education closely tied to job entry, job training, and material success, it becomes an 'investment' (literally, not metaphorically) in your future. The money spent on school is expected to be returned, with interest, later on. You start putting a dollar value on a college degree by surveying the salaries paid on the jobs to which it gives access.
"It is easy to imagine deciding whether or where to go to college by engaging in the following kind of calculations: A degree from the state university will cost $40,000. If you took that money and invested it, and entered the job market four years earlier than you otherwise would, would the interest on the investment coupled with the four extra years of earning power compensate for the higher-paying jobs forgone? If the answer to this question is yes, you don't go to college. Or perhaps the calculations might go like this: Harvard will cost $100,000, while the state university will cost $40,000. Will the job opportunities provided by a Harvard degree pay back the extra $60,000 invested? If the answer to this question is no, then you might go to college, but you won't go to Harvard.
"Once people start thinking about education in these terms--as an economic investment--it affects what they want out of education, and thus how they evaluate what they get. Suppose people stop valuing knowledge as an end to itself, or as an essential ingredient in the making of mature, responsible citizens, and start valuing it only as a means to material ends. If enough people assess their education in this way, what actually goes on in the college classroom will change. Colleges and universities will have to be sensitive to market demand; they will have to provide what students want, or the students will go elsewhere. The goal of education will shift from creating well-informed, responsible citizens to creating skilled, high-income workers. And in pursuit of that goal, the institution will change what it does. The very practice of education defined as are all practices, byt he goals that direct it, will lose its disticitiveness. It will simply become a part of the economy, an input, a cost to be factored in when the economic consequences of various possible life decisions are evaluated. To the extent that this 'economization' of education occurs (and it already has at many if not most of our universities--even the 'elite' ones), the practice of education will cease to be a counterforce to the pursuit of self-interest that governs behavior int he marketplace."
I feel this excerpt dictates what we will lose if education becomes a means to an end; if education is simply about getting a job. To take it furter--if a job is a means to an end; a job is simply about getting paid in order to by things, what are we really after in our society. It seems all our actions are a means to achieve money and the ability to buy things. Is that what we want? Are the best things in lufe those you can purchase?
Think about what you value most in life and if it can be purchased? For me things education is about the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and we must appreciate learning for learning not just because it's going to buy is things we think we need.
Further this passage relates to the case of Annemarie Bean discussed last week. Whereas she may have contributed to the overall culture and character of her college, some students were not getting what they thought they should be getting so she was let go. Colleges and universities must be careful especially in this consumer culture, where we (mslef included) often tend to believe that we can have everything. It's not true and we must understand that our preconceived notions of what a college or a particular class is supposed to be like may not be correct. And instead of finding fault with the institution we must take a look at ourselves and ask what we are really trying to get out of college: Is it a path towards more money? Or is it about the experience of learning in an institution with others who are also there to learn and grow intellectually.
I understand that change is part of the process and colleges must change as knowledge changes but we must fully assess ourselves and the goals of our institution before we mold our higher education system as a mirror of the economic system.
Too much input?
The September 21st issue of the New York Times Sunday Magazine is entitled: Teaching. The articles discuss everything from tenure, to academics at the Naval Academy, and to the dual-life as a novelist and professor.
The benefits and burden of Academia
I will first summarize the articles and then discuss how life in academia can be too comfortable for students and professors alike. What are the drawbacks to the increased freedom and stability that come from life on a college campus? On the opposite end of the spectrum, what is life like without enough choice at college?
For this post I will discuss tenure. Next, the dual life of the writer-professor. And the thrid post in this series will discuss the academic life at the Naval Academy.
Tenure: Decided by students?
This past week I received a memo requesting a written evaluation of one of my professors. The letter reads (I will refer to the Professor as DR. P):
"Dear Evan,
During the present academic year, Dr. P is being considered for reappointment and promotion to Associate Professor. Your comments on Professor P as a teacher and as a faculty member outside the classroom will be of great help to those involved in making the reappointment and promotion decisions."
Wow! My comments, my thoughts on my professor decide whether or not he/she will have a job. Tenure decisions are extremely serious. At Swarthmore, when a professor is up for reappointment, a wide range of students receive a letter just like mine. Students with high grades, medium grades, low grades; majors, minors, non-majors and non-minors. Class evaluations are also give out, but these letters are the serious ammo to be used in favor for or against a certain professor. For the most part I feel the letter request at Swarthmore is pretty good. There is a wide range of input and the content of the letter is left up to the writer, and not predermined by a stock set of questions. However, Swarthmore tenure decisions are not perfect. Just last year, after a professor was denied tenure, students started a campaign to reevaluate the tenure decision. This was a professor they loved. It just goes to show how complicated the tenure process is. And though Swarthmore's process is not perfect, I do feel it is more just than the tenure process at Wesleyan College, as dicussed in the NY Times magazine.
Author of the article "Judgment Day," Mark Oppenhiemer details the tenure process of Annemarie Bean. She was hired at her almamater Wesleyan, and was told that on her course evaluations 85% of her students must rate her course as Outstading or Good, for her to cotinue as an member of the college. Dr. Bean teaches unique classes, such as the history of minstrelsy, and is rather quirky person. But as Oppenheimer describes, Bean only receive 76% Outstanding or Good and her job was in trouble, and she was ultimately denied reappointment. She was also denied reappointment at Williams. But, what Oppenheimer finds, by looking through her course evaluations, is that most students really loved or hated her. Some found the quirks endearing, others grating. Some liked the loose structure of the class, others despised it.
(Digression: there is much research on whether studets evaluations are accurate or not. It seems to be largely dependent on the context, (marks may not be as high if given out before the final exam, or may be high if studets are given a treat while they rate the courses. For more see NY Times: Judgment Day, by Mark Oppeheimer.)
So I ask, are we losing some of the character at our colleges because some students don't rate the course outstanding, but others do?. Don't many of us choose colleges where we can learn for the sake of learning? Aren't professors like Dr. Bean the ones we go to college for?; the ones who open our minds to think about a topic in a way we didn't think could be possible.
My good friend took a course on the band the Beatles, which he loved. He did all the reading knows the stories behind the songs, some might say useless others might say fascinating. Currently, Swarthmore has a class called "Battling Against Voldemort," that was recetly featured on MTV News. http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1595623/story.jhtml
Read the article and watch the video. Should quirky classes such as these be cut out fo colleges.
One must remember that college is a business, no matter how lowly of lofty the institution, colleges must make money. And who are the college catering to? The students.
Some might say this is great. The students must have more say, after all it is they who must take the course and they (and or their parents) who are paying for it. But college should be about more than what a student wants. After all, I am sure when I am 50 years old I will have a different perspective on my college experience that I do now. After all how much do 18 and 20 year old college students know? Quite a bit, I am one of them. But I haven't finished college yet, so I am not going to pretend like I know how I will remember the impact of my various courses. The President and Deans of the college must seek to mke colleges uique. They must provide niches of thought and understanding that cannot be found elsewhere.
Do we really want all our youth learning the same things in college, having the same experiences, and getting the same jobs? We are close enough to that if not there already. I hope to meet college graduates who can teach me something, I want to find people from whom I can learn. Let it be the role of the institutions, the institutions must take responsibility to provide the world with diversity of thought, creativity in ideas, and an overall way more fascinating existence.
