Friday, April 01, 2011
The Dark Side of Choice
I actually agree with this.
Many public colleges and universities have embraced “comprehensiveness” as part of their “access” mission. The idea is that part of “access” is access to whatever program the student wants. Whether that program is liberal arts transfer, culinary arts, or auto repair, the college is presumed to be on the hook to provide it. I’m increasingly skeptical, though not for the traditional reason.
In olden times, I’m told, there existed in the land a strange breed called “professional students.” They could be identified by their distinctive markings -- tie-dye, mostly -- and vague smell of weed. They stayed in college forever, ekeing out meager livings and never confronting the real world. They accomplished this by changing majors a half-dozen times or more, thereby forestalling graduation. Some have also suggested that forestalling draft eligibility may have had something to do with it.
Several decades of tuition inflation and erosion in the minimum wage have threatened the natural habitat of the professional student, driving them nearly to extinction. So that downside of comprehensiveness has become largely moot. Now, when students stick around for a long time, it’s usually because they’re attending part-time and working close to full-time. In my own dealings with students, I can attest that I hear much more of “how can I graduate faster?” than “how can I stick around longer?” They’re much more interested in getting jobs than in staying on campus forever.
No, my objection is based on quality control, cost, and what for lack of a better term I’ll call student cluelessness.
I consider quality control and cost closely related. The more you have to water down a program, the more risk you’re taking with the quality of delivery. When a program is a little bit better than it has to be -- what I call “excellence,” or skeptics might call “waste” -- then in good times it can take risks, and in bad times it can make some sacrifices and still do right by its students. But when a program is already running dangerously lean, any cut of any magnitude will do real harm. (Even in good times, it won’t have the resources to experiment, and thereby to improve.) Too much efficiency at what you do now can actually prevent improvement, since there’s no room for the mistakes that are part of the learning curve.
There’s also an issue of blind spots. We all have them. A program with only one, or even two, full-time faculty in it is likely to have significant blind spots in its discipline. I’d be shocked if it didn’t.
All else being equal, a college of, say, 5000 students can probably do a better job of supporting twenty programs than it could of supporting fifty. Absent unique program-based funding, the larger number of programs means that each program gets fewer faculty and fewer resources. Each one runs leaner. That means each one has more blind spots than it should, less room to experiment than it should, and more adjuncts than it should.
Student cluelessness is the other objection. As programs multiply and the distinctions become finer-grained, students are less able to make intelligent decisions among them. Since each program has its own unique requirements and chains of prereqs, guessing wrong can put a student out of sequence and make completion more difficult. Yes, good individual advisement can reduce the incidences of that, but complexity inevitably breeds confusion.
At the two-year level, there’s also a basic issue of the degree of specialization that should really be expected. Outside of a few very prescriptive vocational programs, like Nursing, most of the degree programs tend to be heavy on the gen ed. Everybody has so many credits of humanities, social science, math, and the like to cover, so there’s only so much room for specialized coursework. Slicing that remainder of credits ever thinner seems likely to lead to diminishing returns.
Obviously, I’d rather have enough resources to be able to do everything well. That would be nifty. But in the absence of that, I’m increasingly convinced that it’s better to do fewer programs and do them well then to try to keep doing everything with less.
What do you think?
Dissertation Writing Services
2) I second Eileen's point about geography. Many 17-year olds choose schools for where it is, not what programs are strong (especially public schools, I'd bet). Telling them to switch schools later is much more difficult than telling them to switch programs.
Making this even tougher is that even if newer programs are appealing, no one (literally) knows how they will be in the long term with respect to employment and reputation with employers/other schools until a few cohorts of students have actually completed the program.
Please help us! We recently invited you to participate in an online survey run by the Berkman Center at Harvard University about your experiences and opinions as an active blogger. To the best of our knowledge, we have not received your response to the survey. You can participate in the survey by following this link:
Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. You can reach us at firstname.lastname@example.org or view our FAQ at http://bloggingcommon.org/research.
Thank you in advance for your time.
The Blogging Common Team
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Of course, learning to cut down a huge number of options to a manageable number of options might well be considered a key life skill, given the world we live in.
All in all, I can't help wishing there were more Cooper Unions out there. Three programs, all free. If you had to pick three programs your college offers, and let those be the *only* things, and you knew you'd get the funding to be able to offer them tuition-free, what would you choose and why?
The biggest problem is that the students who are most at risk (the writing sample by the spammer posting at 3:34 AM would by typical) are the ones who really need structure in their curriculum, but we offer them as much flexibility as we do an honor's student.
For terminal programs, however, we expererience problems similar to what DD describes; that is, maybe too many similar programs, not enough feedback from local employers on whether students find work after completion, unclear numbers concerning supply and demand and, despite being institutionally pretty good at advisement, conficting and confusing messages to students.
The money the new program garnered (and the tenure lines) end up supporting the department's traditional program as well, which is still far bigger, but which isn't the campus darling because it isn't "new."
Of course nobody mentioned that a good portion of the new majors were students who were otherwise planning to major/minor in the existing program already.
This is all wrong, for sure, but given the nature of the departmental funding process, folks play these games all the time just to get the funds and staffing levels the departments need to function. Talk about perverse incentives.
I know that my answer to that is students, and so I'd say that a deliberate, faculty-driven curriculum, is a Good Thing. Perhaps this is an argument to make to those folks from the state who want New Programs Right Freaking Now?