english essay

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

For many years, Murray Spetber, professor of English and Anerican Stud- ies at Indiana Universiry, Bloomington, has srudied and wrinen ¡bout intercollegiate athletics. With the publication of his book College Sports Inc.: The Athletic Depatment vs. the Unìuersìry (Hcnry Holt, 1990), hc achieved narional prominênce as en expert on this topic, often discussing his work on nerwo¡k television and radio p¡otrams' and in maior news- papers and journals such as The New york Tünes and The Chronicle of Higher Education.

'With the 1990s þublication of his rwo books on lhe history of in¡crcol- legiate athletics, Shaþ.e Doøtt the Thundet The Creation of Notre Dame Football (Henry Holt, 1993), aíd Onuar¿ to Victory: The Crises That Shaped College Sporrs (Hcnry Holt, 1998), hc consolidated his rcputation as a lcâding authoriry on thc subject. Sperbcr has also workcd activcly for the refo¡m of intercollegiate athletics, and currendy scrves as the chair of NAFCAR, the National Älliancc for College Âthletic Reform.

His newest book, B eer and Circus: How Big-time College Sports Is Cip- pling IJndergaduate Edrcation, cxtcnds his critiquc of intcrcollcgietc ath- letics, and he illust¡åtes its negedve impact on all parts of the modern university, particulerly on undergraduate education'

Murray Spcrber has also participated in thc debate on thc role of collcge sports on his campus. His c¡iricisms of his universiry's policics havc at- tracted national attention and have propelled him into a number of major

controve¡sies. Harvey Araton oÍ The Ne* Yorþ Times recently Praised Sperber for his willingaess to anack 'the increaeingly dysfunctional collegp sports system" at his school and throughout the country.

BEER AND

CIRCIJS * HOW BIG-TIME COLLEGE SPORTS

IS CRIPPLING

UNDERGRADUATE

EDUCATION

AN OIIL BOOK

HENRY HOLT ¡.ND COMPÀNY ' NEV YORK ¡ -- --'á'uu\J

viii I coNTENTs

13. Undergraduate Education Triage: Honors Program Lifeboats 135

PARl THRFF

Beer-and-Ci¡cr¡s Rules

14. Cheap Beer: The Oxygen of the Greek Sysæm 151 15. Drinking Off-Campus and Far Off-Campus

(Spring Break) 168 16. Parry Round the Team 182 17. Rally Round the Team-As Long as

Ìt Wins and Covers the Spread 201 18. College Spons Megalnc. 216 19. College Spons Megalnc. versus

Undergraduate Education 230 20. Vho Loves the Jocks? 239 21. The New 3 R's 248

Cotclusiott: Wbat Should Happerz uerstls Vbat Probably Will Heppen 262

Notes 277 Indez 309

PREFACE

College students constitute the most ncglected,least undcrstood element' of the .{merican academic communþ. . . , Undcr- standing [theml requires something of a giganric effon if we are to ovcrcomc t}e unrecognizcd bias of ,{mc¡ican academic t¡adition. Thet tradirion acknowlcdges thc risc and fall of [col_' legel presidents, professors, courses of etudy, and cndow¡ncnts. As for students, however, they llow rathcr aimlessly in and out of our picrure.

-F¡edc¡ick Rudolph, precminent historian of

Amcrican higher education

þ uaotntt's commenß! though totally relevant today, were writæn

J_ì over rhift'¡ ycârs ago in an essay on the history of srudcnr life. -I- ll-During the 1990s, as the controversies on .,political corrcctncss' and "multicultu¡al curriculum' swirled about, and I mainly faced a rising tide of undergraduate illiteracy in college English courses, I often remem- bercd Rudolph's call to study srudcqt life. The 1990s controversics, so prominent in the nadonal media, seemed irrelevant to the writing and read- ing problcms of my students at Indiana University, Bloomington, and to the undergraduates whom I encounrered at similâr instirutions.

Allan Bloom denounced the educational t¡cnd he te¡med Tå e Closing of the American Mind, but he taught at the Universiry of Chicago and did not know the lcgions of undergraduates whose minds had never o¡lencd. Di¡csh D'Souza condemned what he considcrcd lllibetal Edtaation at b^y læague schools, but he never âsked e clâssroom of state university students foi a dc6nition of libcralism, rhen waited as only one or rwo hands hesi- tantly raised. Those authors, as well as the muldrude of other writc¡s de- crying the state of American higher education, follow the tradition depicted by Frcderick Rudolph: they place the presidents, the faculty, or the courses

,¡:

X I PREFÄCE

ât the center of Ame¡ican universities and colleges, and they cons.ign stu- dent life to the periphery. Most of all, the critics frght the curriculum wars, and they ignore the undergraduate cultures outside the class¡oom-whe¡e the vast maiority of students spend most of their time and energies, mainly oblivious to the curriculum.

Because the critics described a university so contrary to what I have experienced in my years in Ame¡ican higher education, I decided to study undergraduate life. Having spent all of my sn¡dent and faculty c4reer at large public universitics, I also wor¡ied about what I perceived as ehe de- cline of undergraduaæ education et these schools. My undergraduate ex- periences at Purdue University in the late 1950s and early 1960s had uansformed me, convincing me to pursue an academic career. Vhen, after graduate school at the Universiry of California, Berkeþ, I returned to the state of lndiana as a facult¡ member at Indiana University, Bloomington, I faced undergraduates from the teacher's side of the classroom, and I con- dnue to do so after almost three decades at ru. In surveying my academic journey, I am st¡uck by the fact that, as a Ârst-year student at Purdue, I took freshmen English in a class of fifteen students, taught by a full faculry mcmber; whereas at Indiana, I now teach freshmen English in classes of 150 srudents each, and I cannot begin to help studens acquire the reading and writiag ski.lls offered to me and my Purdue classmates. (Both Purdue and Indiana are typicâI, large public universities, i'ery representative of similar institutions ecross the countr,'.)

Àt Purdue and most other schools i¡ the 1950s and 1960s, honors pro- grams for undergraduates did not exisr. Universities ueated all students equally, and Ér.ll faculty members conducted most classes. Many under- graduates ignored these educational opportunities, but they were available

to evcry student who wanted them, However, in doing the resea¡ch for this

book, I discovered that the rise of honors prog¡ams at many schools in the 1980s and 1990s frequently signaled the abandonment of general under- grâduâte educedon at these institutions, the closing of opportunities for the Yast majority of srudents.

The 1999 lJ.S. Neus 6 World Report collegeissue desc¡ibed "an honors education" at large state schools, conrrasting the small hono¡s classes "taught by professors rathe¡ thán by teaching essistants-in many in- stances, by the most accomplished [faculry]. on campus," versus tle huge lectirre halls and the indifferent instruction supplied to most undergradu- ates at these schools. For example, "honors f¡eshman at [the Universiry of] Maryland take Math 14f -H, a calculus course taught in cl¿sses of about 20 sudenrs" as opposed ro the 'non-honors version, Math-141, taught to

-iì

PRE¡.\cE I xi

a few.hund¡ed students at â time," often by teaching assistans from foreign

countries, with shaky command of English. -4. late-1990s report funded by the Carnegie Foundation summed up the si¡uation: The ordinary 'bacca- laureate students who are not in the running for any kind of [honors] distinction may ger liftle o¡ no anention" fro¡n the school.

At many of theie universities, administrators as welÌ as students proclaim:

"You get out of-this place whatever you put into it"; in other words, those nonhonors students who work very hard, who aggressively 6nd good teach-

ers and courses, can obtain a decent educatioo here; on the other hand,

those undergraduates who "go afong with the flow" will not learn very much, if anything, at rhis institution'

This argument reminds me of scenes in the old Disney wildlife movie

Happy Yatley, which showed salmon returning to thei¡ annual spawning grounds, hurling themselves against waterfalls to reach the calm he¿dwa-

ters of the mountain sueams high above. Only a srnall numbe¡ of salmon

succeeded. Similarly, at most larte public universities today, some detçr-

mined and hardworking nonhono¡s studenb manage to obtain good edu-

cations, rcaching the pools of highìevel literacy and numeracy' But often

these students achieve rhis goal despite their university arid the flow against

them, within this context, honols prograrns and colleges are small hatcheries,

set apårt from general undergraduate educâdon. A nationally published

college guidebook notes, for example, that the honors Progrem at the Uni-

versity of New Mexico "offers special seminars that emphasize reading, discussion, and writing," whereas regular undergraduate education at

UNM often consists of 'monster [sized] courses" where, by definition, be-

cause of the lack of contact with a teacher, students cannot easily improve

such basic skills as writing and reading. [lNM students "complain about class sizes, which can be as big as five hu¡d¡ed students in inuoiluctory courses," but they are quickly disuacted by their beloved "Howling Lo-

.bos,' the school's college sports teams. The guidebook also indicates that

the party scene at (INM is excellent. The Universíty of New Mexico is merely one of a legion of schools in

this situation. Considering the democratic ideals in the charters of public

universides, the commitments of these institutions to the øxpaycrs of their

sutes, as well as the large amount of money that they take from students

and their families, it is unconscionable that these universities place the vast

majority of their undergraduates in a kind of Darwinian wild where on'ly

a minority thrive.

H

&

H

Ë

j

xü I PREFÂcE

*** 'We

certainly cao't give ou¡ students a quality degree-not with class size growing gcometrically and our 30-to-1 faculty/student ratio- but at least we can encourage students to have fun, and ¡oor for our teams while they're here. . . .

Football Saturdays are gleat here and sqare winter basketball nighrs. In ou¡ Admissions Offce literature, we've stopped saying that rye provide a good education----our lawyers warned us thar we could get

sued fo! Ðisrcpresentation-bur wc su¡e promote our college sports teams.

-Àn adminis¡¡ato¡ ¿t a Sunbelt ¡rniversiw

This school is a Big-tiue U: e large public research uniùersity utith high- profle football øndlor men's basþetball teants þlaying at the highest NCAA leaek, "lhís .i¡stitution is typical of many universities that have sropped trying to give thei¡ students â meaningful undergraduate education, but, because student tuition dolla¡s are a major and dependable source of in- come, they attempt to provide their students with something in ¡eturn fo¡ their money. An ,Admissions Of6.ce brochure for this Big-time U noted thac students receive "a wonderful lifesryle experience here"-the text accom- panied by photos of student fans cheering at football and baskerball games. A junior at this uûíyersity phrased it more succincdy: "This place is a four- yeâr party-one long tailgater-with an $18,000 annual cover charge."

Few critics of higher education examine undergraduate student life, and none consider the impact of big-time college spons upon undergraduates. Because, for many years, I have studied and written about intercollegiate athletics, its history and its current problems, I have lorlg wondered about its relationship to student ìife and undergraduate education-after all, in- tercollegiate athletics originated in nineteenth-century student life, and un- dergraduates have always been among its mosr a¡dent supporters, In the ¡nid 1990s, I set out to research this topic, mainly through questionnaires and interviews at vârious schòols, primarily but not exclusively those spon-- soring bþ-time college sports prog¡ams. (In 1998, I also placed my ques- tionnaire on the Wo¡ld Iíide lVeb.)

The results of over nineteen hundred survey responses and almost one hundred interviews reveâled a power{ul synergy berween big+ime college sports and contemporary student life. I concluded that many universities,

pREFÀcE I xüi

because of their emphasis on their reseârch and graduate programs, and becausc of their inability to provide quality undergraduate education to most of tleir students, spend increasing amounts of money on the¡r athledc departmenæ, and use big-time college sports-commercial enterreinment a¡ound which many undergraduaes organize their h¡>cractive social lives-to keep their srudents happy and distracted and the tuition dollars rolling in. University administrators deny that they employ tbis strategy, but thei-r denials do not change the reality: at many Big-time lJ's, beet and-círcus-tbe þ4rty scene connecte¿ to big-tiîte college spoits euents- replaces meaningful undergraduate education. Many students enjoy and willingly participate in beer-and-circus, but their assent does not alleviate the problem; indeed, it cornpounds it, making solutions more difÊcult.

In this book, I explain the orþns of beer-and-circus, its cu¡rent mani- festations, perticularly the epidemic of student binge drinking, and I offer a plan to remedy it. However, it is essential to place beer-and-circus within the context of contemporary American socieß)¡, and to inquire into the so- cial cosrs of the negl ect of geneøl undcrgraduate education.

**t

An entire academic field-ouacomes and assessments-artcmp$ to measu¡c student learning at various educational levels. Some of rhe findings for college graduates are astounding, and depressing:

In the area of qualitativc skills, 56.3 pcrcent of Àmerican-born fou¡- year collcge graduares are unablc consistcntly to perform simple tasks, such as calculating the changc from $3 after buying a 60-cent bowl of soup and a $1.95 sandwich. Tasks such as tJrcse should ¡or be insupcrablc for pcople [with collcgc degrccs].

-Ercm An Aae¡ican lrrtperative: Higher E*pect¿t¡ortt fot Highet Edøøtiott

by rhc Wingsprcad Group

The National Adu.lt Literacy Survey (NALS) administe¡ed face,ro-f¿ce interviews with over twenty-six rhousand Americans, and discovered such items as the high pcrcentage of college graduates who could not compure e simple âmount of change, as well as an even higher percentâge who could noi reâd ard understand a simple set of directions.

'When the U.S. Department of Education examined the transcrþts of

¡housairds of college graduates, the majority from public universities, in- cluding many big-timc college sports schools, it discovered one reason fo¡

Taw I PREFÀCÐ

the lo¡r' level of numeracy and literacy. Almost 40 percent of these greds had no college credits in English or American literature; almosr 31 percent had neve¡ taken a college course in mathematics; 26 percent had no courses in history or political science; and 58 percent had no universþ exposure to a foreign language.

Othcr exit surveys and tesrs of graduates produce similar ¡esuhs-low Iiteracy and numeracy rates. The main conclusion is that many colleges and universities, rathe¡ than acknowledge theìr failure to educare a majority of their undergraduates, pass them through to meaningless degrees. At one level, this is consumcr fraud; at another, because state and federal monev is involved, it is a public scandal.

Apparently some students have a mordant sense of humo¡ about thei¡ lack of education. ln the rest rooms of bars near some Big-time U's, above toilet pa¡ær dispensers, graffiti often proclaims, ,.BAcHeLor DEcREES FRoM THIS SCHOOL: TAXÊ ONE."

The problems in American undergraduate education transcend big-time col- lege sports; in fact, they go beyond colleges and universities to the country's secondary school system and its failu¡e ro prepare largc numbers of its graduates for higher education. The solutions ro this dilemma are nor sim- ple. Howcver, rather than write a¡other diat¡ibe about ,.the whole mess,', I p¡efer to focus on an overlooked and important aspect of the problem: the connections between beer-and-circus at Big-time U's and the neglect of general undergraduate educaúon ât these schools. Considering that these u¡iversities contain almost 40 percent of all undergraduatcs in America, I do not bclieve that I have overly narrowed the scope of rhis book. ln ad- dition, because many schools wish to join the big-rime college spofts ranks, the problems discussed hcre are not shrinking but growing.

tr

A Note on the Term Beerand-Ci¡cus

In ancicnt Rorne, the poet Juvenal used the phrasc bread a¡d circtases to describe the political strategy of a number of corrupt Roman empcrors, To keep the populace happy and to distract them f¡om foreign and domestic policy failures, tåese em¡rerors provided cheap daily bread and frequenr circuses-mainly gladiato¡ial contests and other riveting games. According to Juvenal, th€ strateg)' worked: because of the bread ard circuses, the people showed no interesr in politics.

During the rwendcth century, many write¡s called big-time collcge sports a "circus," and, ten years ago, i began the preface of my book College

PREFAcE Ixv Spo* Inc.:

-The Athleric Depaltment us. the (Jniversity wirh a quote from

1"1*:: 9'"-letti, former preside., "f y"r" u;l;;;;;;io"._",

"o,n_ . mrssloner of major league baseball: .Vhat ,or,

"llo*.j a -SJo."

" .i._cus--co ege spons_rhreatens.ro become,h" ;;;"r;; ;;äìn" p,,bli.,.,j*:r^S. entire enrerprise [higher education]ì;;jilî:: "

In leet, on a Íatr footban *5l*¿ *hit";.;l;;p;;'lirua.n, "p"r_ment complex ¡exr to Indiana Universiry,s

""¿i"^iåïì*äiir"*a. orundergraduaæs gathe¡ed a¡ou¡d b"* kú ; ì^;;, iï""rirr".i"" ,*_beerand.-circus. Since thar rime, I have not found a bener phrase to de_scribe the parrv scene connected ro big-time i"".."it"j"ä "ürr^å"

**"and jts effect upon many undersraduaies ",

h.;;, ;;il;*iä _""r_srtres.

t*

A Note on the euestionnahe (Jsed for This Booh

Throuthout.the book, .r discuss rhe ¡esurts of a questionnaire thar I devisedto probe rhe impact of big_time college ,o.r" ,oo,' ,"ã'"räär"ä.ro**. The srirvey contained thirteen multipl._.hoi". iu.rtionl;;;;"ii*r,"r"requesting writren answers. as well as

"n "p*_"na.J nil äoi ", ,¡.end ("If you wish to com¡nent further on ""; ;0";;;;;r.*J,"* "r,letics and student life prompted by. this questionnaire, please p1"." yoo,commenrs below"). I am not a sociar scientist,

""¿ r -*l ".iíå" "boo,my qu r-rirative results being "accurate to within rtr." o, fou, f,i.".nr"g.pornts. " In addition, because of the mixcd n"*r. ot _y potìinl å"ir¿_,distributed the qúestionnaire in undergraduate .l**,

"'rì"¡lrl *rr."rr,in publrc places on many campuses, and I put ,t on th"-Wo.k ,fîãJuz O_the results should be regarded as anecdotå¡ ,rot ".l"r,tii.,ìrj."*. *o*I handed out the questionnaire, I

"rk"d ,¡oá"rrt, ,;;;;;,;;;;",

""it. Vhen I pr¡t rhe su¡vey on the web, I protected ,t "'.norryiriri

of *r"respordents by using a public server tgoori..Nj J"t ¿r.îï.i'i"¡¡,"" log,ñles; as a resuh, a completed fo¡m came," _. _iÀî,å'."",ii..0* and with no ¡etu¡n add¡ess fo¡ the scnder.

In tabulating tfie results, I found the written comments to be as valuable as the quantitative ones. Not onlv did.,"d."..;;;;;;;;;;;;.i*.* to the quesúons requesting wrinen answers, but often they put notes nexa tothe rnultiple-choice quesdons, and they wrote, *r.r**""iì.rri, i"

". open-ended p.S. secdon ar rhe end of the survey. I,, ;;;;;; or*.extensively from these written comments, and I hope that the reade¡ learnsas much abour conremporery college life f¡o_ them J fi.'---" 'Of the 1,906 students who fillêd out the questionnair., î,izr *"." ,n"t.

l

I

I

å

Í

t

n B

ä

H

Ë # ffi

ä

ffi .ffi #

g

å

#

f,

XYi I PREFÂCE

and 835 were female. This does not reflect the gender ratio in American higher education: the imbalance occurred when mâny mole males re- sponded to the web survey than did females, probably because undergrad' uate men are more intercsted in college sports than are u'omen' Of the total rcspondents, 1,312 attended NCÂA Division I schools, and 581 were stu- dents at NCAA Division III institutions. These divisions constitute the stan- dard separation berween big-time intercollegiate athletics (almost all members of Division I give athlctic scholarships), and low-pressure, low- proÊle college sports (no Division III school grants athletic scholarships)' In addition, the number of respondents at Division II and NAIA (National Association of Intercollegiate Athletìcs) institutions was negligible (13), but

because tbesc schools give ethletic scholarships, I placed these responses into the Division I group.

The poll does not account for the millions of students at junior colleges

IUCOs) throughoút the counry nor the large number of undergraduates at schools, particularly urban ones, that do not ñeld intercollegiate athletic

Eams. However, because these institutions are so far from the world of the

NCA.A, I believe that including their students in thc survey would distort the results. (JUCO colleges do provide athletes for NCAA schools, and this

phenomenon is discussed on pages 23H1). I underrook the survey, in pân, because social scientists have done al-

most no polling on undergtaduate attitudes about big-time college spons

and its connection to the student pany scene' In the end, I hope that my work prompts social scientists to undenake research on these topics, and to produce much larger and more autho¡itative surveys than mine on these

issues crucial to the future of American higher education.

pRÈFAcE I xvü

spend their entire university ca¡ee¡s in the academic subcultu¡e: as fresh- men, they gravitate to it, and they ¡emain there fo¡ the rest of their under- graduate, graduate, and professorial years. Secondly, as a late-blooming academic, I was fortunate to attend a large public university like Prudue when it, and peer institutions, could accommodate me and similar students. The contemporary Big-time U is much less responsive to late bloome¡s rhan was its predecessor; inoreover, after yea¡s in the hard terrain of huge lecture classes, it is difficult for a student to flou¡ish academically.

I also believe that my undergraduate experience gives me a unique per- spective on, and empathy for, students within the collegiate subculrure. Because most academics at Big-time U's have known only their own sub- cuhure, they have minimal interest in, and some antipathy for, the world in which a majority of their undergraduates live. As a result, they rarely study it and almost never write abour it.

Personal reasons prompted rne to write this book-both my experiences as an undergraduate and as a teacher of undergraduates-and I hope that the reader shares my anger about the current state of general education at large, public research unive¡sities, and agrees with my suggestions for re- form.

Ten years ago, a commentator wrote about my b ook College Sports Inc.: "This thorough investigation ideotifies the time bomb planted withiq Amer- ican higher education and offers a plan for defusing it." At thc time, and for that book, I conside¡ed the statement somewhat exaggerated. However, I stand by it for Beer and Chcus: How Big-time College Sports Is Ctippl¡ng U nd e r graduate Educa t ion.

A Fin¿l Personal Note

In the int¡oduccion to this book and throughout the text, I discuss the various university sukulmres' Pa¡ticulârly the collegiate and academic ones. I also mention that individual srudents sometimes move from one subcultu¡e to enother during their undergraduate years. h facr, I did this et Purdue University: I started within the collegiate subculture, even be- coming president of my fraternity and vice president of the Inter-Fraterniry Council, but, as a senior, thanks to a numbe¡ of excellent professors, I becarnc cngaged in ac¿demics and went on to graduate school and unive¡-

siry teaching. My joumey was somewhat unusual in two ways. Most faculry members

,H;**eriffi *rll;,':î#îåî*,,iffffi +ï6 vort¿ Reþ.ott Trnltal couagc issr.rc for 20-00 1r*_"ui *u,i r.a ,r)_Jlll"r-äilr;l "..not re¡r:tcd bclow.

Thc quotcd matcrial ftom on-rbc-¡ccord inrcrvic$,! ii foorûorcd ¡ccordina ro n¡llc of in_tcrvicwcr, detc, and ptacc of thc intc¡yicw. Ho***, i,' ,f,..*" ãi¡r;;;;ä*;ä*. ,"spcak off rhc rccord, I havc norcd thìs and jnclu¿"¿ J¡i ,t "1"* ."J;:;; I;;;'"tr,l, ""_.univcniry adminisrrators and snrdcn¡s chosc enony¡nily. I undc¡sr¿nd rhci¡ rclucunc¡ to see ,*i:."":T:.:,1:::flticurarly

if rhcyspokc c,'.iály i,i ,¡.,. J"J, ü,ïìi,ää ",(nos. ¡nonyÍuÈy cv.n whcn rbcy p¡¡iscd rhci! univcr¡i¡jc¡. I ¿n¡ibutc rhis to tfic Srowiq powcrof the pubüc ¡.Ì¿rions iodurry: incrcesingty thcy advac clicnts, includtng *i"".i; jJlio ..n._ìÆall on cv¿ry conrroversLál subi¿ct, to nor an¡wc¡ rcponê¡¡, ¿nd rc¡.a.ãh¿rc, qucstiJr¡, ¿n¿ if¡n inrcrvicwce fccìs impdicd ro rc6pond, ¡o do.o

"'r¡"r*r*.J - úl ¿.ti"lii.".. *,'¡n¡¡nr.in m¡Iimum "dcnirbiliry." ,. fu a pcrson who has elways spohen his mind and put bjs name ncxt to his rcmarks, Iamdisrrcsscd by this.otf-¡hc-rccord trcnd, and I r,.p" i åã. .""n. ä*i*;;; ; i,¡". *n.w¡nts to do thc bcst wo¡k oos'ibtc. I f.t, rh_at I h¿d ro

"".,r_" "fi-,f,1_ã".i.-ä_",",ahhor:s,\ I rried to kecp thcm to ¡ minimum. rn addjú*, b.f..; qi.;;;;;i"ì,'r" , *,øro Ber in rouch wirh rhc iÂrcÍvicwc€.s. ånd urscd tbcm ro go on ,h:;;;d'õ;""ãäir.:i; agrccd b,t most oftcn chcy rcfr_rscd. My rule fir u.rg

"ff_L-r*.d.i;;ì,i¡*.#L*, ,rt¡c pc-rson had epohcn on repe. I wouíd usc thc quotc; if noq I would ¡or. Á¡ a ¡c¡utq I h¡vc a vc¡i.fiabl¿ rccord of thÊ jorcrvilwc€,s commcn,. iu. *r" *ä. J.-ù,ï"rï.î"å*+* of thc authenriciry of thc off-rhc-cccord nuntrs in thir book. Sadty 1", *rìä"ä,

" *.U..of intcrvicwcc¡ ¡n¿dc v¿cv uscful rcmu rlrr rfrcr rhc raping scssion cndcd, but I h¿vc nor quote¡thcsc commcrus.

.-, Ar for thc srudcnr Quorcs lrom rhc qucsrionnairc for thi¡ booh: becâusc the sulvcy ¿skcd

::'-:î.'y,.:* ¡csponscs, no rurn€ß werc placcd on lhc herd copics of lhc qucstionníc lrhc tril.:."Í-:T:

cl¡:ses 9id in campus gathc_rins placcs, ruch as studcnt unioo buildings;. t.åssurcd rcspondcnls rbat I could nor rcvc¡l rhcir namcc b€.¡us€ I wasusur8 ¡ puÒr¡c sedcr that docs nor mai¡tain log 6lcs, idcnriry codcj, o¡ rcru¡a ¡dd¡c¡¡c¡.

Thc ¡ëu¡ts on somc of ¡hc qucsrioos on rhc suncy difó ¡;ghrit ir._ J*.-sr-;'¡ ¿"ñner cheptcr or Ey book, ontuàrd to vàot1: n" é,",,'Ttìäijp"ïää;jri;:¿ (""*

278 I NorEs

York, 1998). Aftcr the publication of th¿t book, I continued to disßibulethe qr¡esrion¡aire, including postiÃg it on rhc Vorld Vidc Web. As a rcsult, I rerci.üed many morc rcsponsrs, and ùrs changed thc rotals somcwhet.

b addition, th¿ ¡cadcr will note in thc tcxr and iû rh¿sc foomotcs a number of citarions from thc studcot ncwspapcr and orhcr publications of Indjana Univcrsiry, Bloomingcon. I am ror siogling out my cmploycr for spccialpraisc or condcmnrtion.lU is a rypical,largc, public rescarch universiry, and b.cåusc I happcn þ rcad ¡ts student ncwspapc! and somc of irs othcr publications on a daily basrs, and clippcd and savcd many itcns lrom chosc pcriodicals ovcr rhe years, I cndcd up citing tircm in this book mo¡c oft¿n than I did itcms from aoy othcr sin/c school. I am carrain, howevcr, thar if I workcd ar anorhcr univcrsity, I would havc incÌ-rdcd as many citations from rhat school i¡ chc book as I did from Indiâná Univcrsiry.

Finally, for cntrics in rhe looc¡otcs from collegc guidebooks, bccause of rhe crratic pagrna- uon in thosc publìcations but thc coneistent alpbâbcric listing, f havc not always givcn thc pagc numbers, instead rcfcrnag thc rudcr ro the alphebctic listin8s. Sißilãrly, bccausc of the many editions that daily newspapcrs poblish, and thc lrcquent changcs of rhc hcadlines on aniclcs,I have givcn only the nam¿ of the periodical, thc subjcct, aurhor, and dare, ln a databasc agc, rbis is almosr always sufficicnr for rcrricving anìclcs.

Preface

Frederick Rudolph's commcm is in his essây, "Neglccr of Studems as a Historical Tradition," in thc anthology, The Co ege and Lhe Stu¿cñt, c¿it¿¿ by l-awrencc E. Dennis and Joscph F. Kaufmen, publishcd by rhe -A.mcncan Corurcil on F/ucation (ACE), Washingron, D.C., 1966, p. 47, Thc Carncgie Foundation for tle .{dvanccmcnt of Tcaching fundcd tic Boycr Comnris- sion and thc laner group pubtishcd RerzuentrnS Undergràdute E¿ucatioñ: A Bhcprint for Añeri.,a's Rese¿rct Univetsìtics, Stony BrooL, Ncw York, 1998; thc quotc on o¡dina¡y "bac- calaur¿ace studcnts" is oû p. 7. Thc argument that 'You get out of thrs placc whatcvcr yor.r put into rr" o.cu¡s r€pêatedly et Bit-tiñc U's; for somc primcd cxamplcs 9f it, se¿ Th¿ I¿sìàe¡'s Gu¡à¿ to the Colleges, compilcd and cdircd by thc stalf ol ¡hc Yale Daily Neøs, lücw York, 2000; for cx¡mÞtc, "LÐuisia¡¡ Stat! is ¿ lartc rcscårch urìivcrsìrf . . . jnrroducrory courscs tcnd to be large. . . .,{s onc undergrad said, 'You cun get a lot out of an LSU education if you put a loÈ iÂto ir.' " The quoles ¿bout thc UDivcrsiry of Nc',r' Mexico ãrc trom the same sourcc,2000 cdition.

An Añetì..an lñPelctire: Hithel E pectdtiotls fot Hi?her E¿tcarior was publishcd by rhc Wingsprcad Group, WåÊhi.ûgþo, D.C,, 1993. Thc mâtê¡ial quored herc is on pp.5-6. Ãn cx- plenâtion of JuveDal's 'brcad a¡d circusc¡" ph¡asc is Á Veaì, Vidi, Vlci by Klaus Bartcls, Darostadt, Gcrmany, 1999, pp,130-31. My book College Spork lnc.: Th¿ Athl¿ti¿ Deþ¿rt' øe¡t us. tbe Uníuersity wzs pub)ishcd by Henry Holt and Company, Ncw Yo¡k, 1990. fhê âdmioisuator at ch€ Su¡bclt Univcrsiry spolcc of{ thc rccord, claiming thar his bosscs would not apprcrietc his commcnt¡ abour how bcc¡'end-ci¡cus work¿d at his sclool. Thc iumor at this univê¡srry pur hii coÃutrcrìt oD thc qucstio¡n¡irc ¡h¡t t handed ou¡ on cempus at this school.

Introd,uction

The Clark aÂd Trow passages in the iûúoduction a¡e from ¡hci¡ essay, "The Organizational Context," io College Pee, Gwps: PñbIeñ! díd Prcspect' fot Rzleadt, editcd by Thcodorc M. NevJcomb and Èvcrên K- wilsoo, Chicago, 1966,pp.17-70. According to Clark ¡nd T¡ow, thc cssay "appeared fusr in unpublishêd form in 1960," and thci! conch¡sions arc based on rês¿arch done in the latc 1950s aod updatcd in thc carly 1960s. IJl thci¡ wor!, thcy go far bcyond rh. dcscriptivc passa8c! llscd m thc i¡1ûoducrion 10 this book, and thcy præcnt com' plicated social sciencc rutriccs to anelyzc college students Tb.i¡ wo¡k sparked a dcbatc among rociolo8isrs ¿nd higher-cduation authoritic-s, some sccing ìt as ¿ veluablê ldministrâtivc tool, aad orhcrs ctiticizing its st¡tiscic¿l aspcrts and rcsults- Fo¡ ¿ timc, thc Ëducationrl Tcsring Scrvicc us¿d ¡ vc¡sion of Cl¡¡k a¡d T¡ow's q,o¡k in coìlcgc pl¡c!6cnr rcsb, but rhis infuti-atcd meny social ricnríss, I¡ ths !nd, t¡. stariiticál forrnul¿s s¡nl< tbc cnrirc G!¡¿y, ¿Âd thc idc¡t

ffi SHAFT THE

UNDERGRADUATES

Jn an influential early-1960s book The .IJses of the IJniversity, Clzrk I Kerr, the president of the University of California system, contrastcd

-I- the established research universiry, for cxample, Harvard, yrlc, and his campus ar Bcrkeley, with newc¡ schools striving for rcserrch prcstigc. Hc noted that'the ma¡k of a university.on thc m¡ke'is a mad scramble for football srars and professorial luminaries. The former do little srudying and the laner linle teaching, and so they form a neat combination of muscle and intellect" rhar keeps rhe fecúlr)' and the collegiate studcnts heppy. In addition, rhe adminisrators who crcate this conjunction berween football and faculry stars do well: thcy bring fame and fonunc to thcir schools and enhance their jobs-

Ker¡ described the beginnings of a phenomenon rhat, becausc of the tu¡moil in higher education f¡om rhe mid-1960s to the early 1970s, was tempotarily pur on hold. But his vision of uniyersities .,on the makc- and their use of incercollegiate ¿thledcs as campus and public entenainmcnt started to come tn¡e in the mid-1970s. He also foresaw an "inevitable. side-effect: "a superior [research] faculty results in an inferior conccrn for undergraduate teaching."

This secdon of B¿er ønd, Cþcus Íocuses on this phenomenon: universides striving for research fame, neglecting undergrâduate education, and pro- moting their collegc spofts franchises,

trt

Tablc 1 lists thc univcrsiúcs in the 1906 ranking,.matched against the o¡de¡ of the top 15 in 1982. These lisrings dcmonst¡atc thar a

72 I BEER ^ND

clRcus

reputation oncc attaincd usuâlly kccps on drawing fâculty membcrs ând resources that sustain the rcputåtion. . . .

Over rhe nearly 80 ycars from 1906 to 7982, only ¡h¡ee institu- tions dropped our from thosc rankcd as the top 15-bur in eech case not very much . . . and only thrcc I'c!e âddcd.

-Clark Kerr, University of California prcsident emcritus

Cla¡k Kc¡r went from the University of Califo¡nia to heâd the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and, in L991, he published an impoftent article comparing the rankings of the top 6Jteen research universities in 1906 with those in 1982. Considering the momentous changes in higher education during that rime span, his findings were un- expected bur, after analysis, were enti¡ely logical: the rich arrived fi¡st and stayed on top, and no matter what the rest did, they could never ove¡take these institutions. In 1906, the early period of university research and grad- uâte schools, Ivy League universities dominated the top-Êfteen list, and almost eighry ycars later, t¡ey continued to prevail. Similarly, the first pri- vate, non-Ivies that emphasized reseerch and graduete educedon-Johns Hopkins, Chicago, MÏf, and Stanford-were sdll in the top 6fteen, as were the first public universities that embraced research and PhD programs- Berkeley, Michþn, and Wisconsin. Predicrably, at the beginning of the twenr)'-6¡st centurt , alrnost all of these schools remain in the top echelon, with only Duke and Cal Tech now consistently joining them.

Kerr dded his aniclc, "The New Race to Be Harvard or Berkeley or Stanford," and he began, "All 2,400 non-specialized institutions of hígher learning in the United Statcs aspire to higher things. These aspirations arc pârticulârly intense among the approximately 200 resea¡ch and other doctorate-g¡anting univcrsitics." He then demonstrated that this race \,r'as a fool's errand for almost all particþants. Additionally, it had negarive side-effects for all schocils, including the winnersr the emphasis on research devalucd undergraduate education, and "the regrettably low status of teaching in higher education provides faculry membe¡s less rewa¡d from rhar acdyity than they expect to gain from heightened ¡esearch" work.

In his article, Kerr also discussed the phenomenon of "Upward Drift": those universities, whether they could afford the cost or not, that relent- Iessly added graduate and doctoral programs in order to compete in thc research prestige race. Morqover, administrâtors of Upward Drift schools chose this course of action dr¡¡ing a time of economic difficulúes for higher education: in the 1970s a¡d 1980s, with the end of the baby boom, ruition revenue dropped; also, state legislators and taxpayers, disillusioned with

.,ì,ì

.-i

, 5HÄFT THE UNDERGRÀDUÀTE5 I 73

most public agencies, drastically cut funding to higher education; and in-

flaiion squeezed every school's financial resources. But Upward Drift cgn-

tinucd. lfith diminished revenue, most schools had ro make choices' Only the

¡ichest unive¡sities could afford to maintain high-powered graduate schools

and quality undcrgraduate education programs. Some small privatecolleges

that had sta¡ted graduate programs during flush times cut them' concen-

uadng their resources on undergraduâte education. Upward Drift univer-

sitics made the opposite choice: they pur scarcc dollars ìnto thcir graduate

schools and n.gleited und.rgraduate education. A 1990s study explained

thât the pursuir of ¡esearch fame and presdge \f,'ere the "Potcnt drivers of

institutional direction and decision-making' at UPward Drift U's' The

study also i¡rdicated that these schools continucd this policy in the 1990s,

despite 'much talk on campuses about downsizing and conèentrating on

the core business of undergraduate teaching'"

In 1973, Clark Ke¡¡ created a classiÊcation system for higher education

that also provided a way to measure Upward Drift' His top category, "Re-

search Univcrsities I," consisted of those institutions g¡anting at least 6fty PhD's pcr year, giving a "high prioriry to rescarch," and meeting various

othcr criæria. The established research universitios dominated the group,

but, in the next twô decades, a number of schools loined them' Sþifi- cantly, almost all of rhe new members of Research Universities I also be-

longed to NCAÂ Division I, for example, ArÞona State, Florida State' Kansas, Kenrucky, Louisiana Statc, Nebraska, Temple, UConn, UMass'

Virgrnia Tech, and West Virginia. However, even though these schools

frc{ucntly had top-twcnry college sports teams' none of them eve¡ broke

intá thc top f/ry on the standard rankings of national universities' But all of these unive¡sities changed thc natu¡e of their institutions: as the authors

of the Upward Drift study indicated, "Despite pressures to emphasize the

role of undergraduate education, ambitious institutions" were and are 'be-

guiled by the Promise of prestige associatcd with doctorate-level educa-

tion." These unive¡sities spent, and continue to spend, cnormous sums of

money on their graduate departments, and much less proportionally on

undergraduate teaching.

Upward Drift also involved schools moving uP to "Research Universities

II" (iewe¡ doctoral programs than in RU-I, but still committed to trâduate education). Among the new ar¡ivals in II were Houston, Mississippi, Ohio

U, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas Techi and Wyoming-all members

of NCA.A, Division I but, predictably, trailing ihcir wealthier siblings in that

6¡ER AND CIRCTJS

field as well. Upward Drift continued in the lower cate gories-Doctorate- ganting Universities I ¿¡d II (smaller graduate p.rotrams and fewer phD,s per year)-and included many schools near the bottom of NCAA Division I trying to climb the research and ârhletic polls- Again, none of these uni versities ever made the top-fifty ran_kings of national universities, bur they all chose to participate in the rcsearch game-cyen though, before rhe 1970s, some were liberal ârrs colleges doing a good job of educating un- dergraduates,

The universiries sitting on top of the research polls throughou¡ the rwen- tieth cenrury have always. dictated the rules of the game. The result, ac. cording to one criric,'is a monolithic status sysrem that pervades all of higher education, a sysrem which places ar inâppropriate yalue on so-called 'purc' rescarch and on thc national rcputation fo¡ the p;rson [the professor] and the i¡stitution that this research cân bring.. Since the 1970s, the ad- ministrators of almost all unive¡siúes have endorsed this .monolirhic srarus system"-whether suirable to their particular campus or not-believing that research pfestiç was the way to aftract aftention to thei¡ insdturion and to improve its standing in the academic world.

For an Upward D¡ift school ro movc higher in the prestige polls, it has to pass a more esrablishcd research institution. But higher-ranked schools are not standhg still or driftÍng downward; in fact, they work ha¡d to irnprove their positions iri the polls. For example, the Universiry of Illi nois at Châmpaigr-Urbana, with very tight budgets throughout the 1980s and 1990s, continued to pour millions into its graduate programs and to neglect its undergraduate ones. An edito¡ of the University of II- linois student newspaper described rhe state of her campus in the late 1980s: "It's clear thât all the money is going ro research. It seems so blatant when you sec the run-down Engtish [and other classroom] build- ings and the fancy ncw rcsearch buildings. The U of I is really a research park that allows irndergraduares ro hang around as long as they don't get in the way."

*

Àt Rutgers University we have s¡ænt the pasr ûfteen years [from the mid-1970s through the 1980s1 succcssfully compering both fo¡ t¿l- ented junior faculty [rcsearchers] aod for world-class scholars by promising thern minimal teaching schedules, I know of junior col- leagues who have becn on thc faculty roster for two years and have scarcelv seen the inside of ¿ tllîlï;r"

,"ro"r, Rutgers professor

5HÁFT THE UNDERGRADUATEs I 75 . Schools try to ascend the academic polls by accumulating faculry whopossess or will achieve research fame R.r--" -r- :-,_'-:ï

siry in New r.*.r, ;;;,'id* ;T itr;å:iïii[,ffi1ï1ï: ïï::for rescarch presige. In the 1970s and 19g0s, it aggressivery tried to moveup in rhê academic ¡esearch wortd {i, .h" .;;;it:;;'J;Ër" ,n"*ar this time), but, for all of its efforts, as well as "ori.

.."..rr'ì" f".ufr,hiring, .it

never managed to break into ,fr" ,op-nry .".tì"ç'of'n"tion"t unive¡sities in the U.S. Ne¿?s noll 1o. tt. rop i.lu.-nry-r",f,."röo orrrl.Moreover, as Rutgers anth,oporosist t,Jiri ü.ir*'¿ür,Tll .a in

"1980s book, generar undergraduare education ",

tt "

,.t o-Jä'"uy.rn"t and deterioratiag.

Professor Ba¡ber also related an anecdote about an ..lvy League univcr_siry,. disrurbed by the diirepure,into which reaching f,J'fJl.rlir,*l *_cendy offered its facuJry a teaching prize. The ,.r,o"raieïui." otr *,"followrng year!" .A.mazingly, other schools off"r"d ,;il";;;;ir", ., 0".,of their teaching awards. These stories, as *"ll ",

,h. il;;;Jî"ì", .oo.Iighred rhe faculty's role jn rhe deterioratio. "f

,;.-.;;:;;. äu."rio'during the era of Upward Drift.

T¡ained in the old. and the new graduate p¡ograms, mosr professors cometrom the ¡anks of academicalJy inclined und"ergraár"* ."1îì,.i10,,

,rr.traditional professorial distaste for r.".f,ing h.;. "rìi.*'i äi,.rr,.,and vocarionals.

.only the faculry,s academìc ""îil¿r*"

"rir",ir. *ua.werc worthy of their time_but not too much of it. In a f 9g0s study, theCarnegie Foundarion de¡e¡mined thar a¡ resea¡ch "rr"*rni*, ""ì, , o*cenr of the faculry spcnt more than .l.u.n horr. "

*".i'äf,i.l *a*,graduares, whereas 65 percent logged less than ren i.rì.'" ïi.i _ ,r,r,endeavor, and 26 percent spent zero hou¡s on ".a"rg-1r",. ,";;g t*"decades larer, there is even less classroom contact between faculty and un_dergraduates, panicularly b"t*.en f".ulty

"ìJ;;r#;"_eri,j . Yet, the Carnegie investígators found that ¡*"lrr, ;..IT" ü1. b""

Irl ,l.l research, a majoriry devodng mor" rn"r, *.nt io,rr, "i*t.rr, atro many over forcy hours per week. professors sometimes criticizedthcj¡.,school's .,publish-or-per¡fi" .syndrome, ¡", ,¡.y-p"rri-.ip",.å i" ir,usually quíte willingly. Their lanøuage revealed thei¡ prioüties: faculty re-fe¡red to their ,,teaching loads,,,ãs if pedagogy *.;;:';;;;;;j;

" ,,o'.when mosr ¡esea¡ch universities establish"d;;.or.;";;;;._.r,.. * *.standard teaching assignment for a fac"try _._s.r, ,i"ri, ," äììi ,*r,per week in class (however, at least one_third or

"ri pr"fo*r.ï'"rîg.a ,ospend fewer hours in a classroom, sometrmes none at all). Faculty also

76 I BEÊR ÀND clRcus

talked âbouù'¡esearch oppornrnitie s"-those bright, shiny projccts and grants to livc and die for. Moreover, when professors discussed their "own work,' they neve¡ meânt their teaching, only their research.

In America, bccause money meâsurcs the value of work, uníversitics send clcar signals with their pay scales. Before the 1970s, a few star professors received mo¡e money and perks than their colleagues; however, most fac- ulty salaries were uniformly low but equitable, with years in rank as the main criteria. Upward Drift and the tight financial budgets of the 1970s and 1980s created a new pay scale: universiries generously ¡ewarded all professors who fu¡the¡ed thc institution's research goals, and they gave the rest of the faculty-no marter how excellent their teaching-minimal raiscs. Similarly, they rewardcd "productive faculty," a.k.a. researchers' with such perks as personal research accounß, extended paid leaves to do research, and fewer, if any, undergraduate courses. Only faculty who be' came full-time adminisrators continued to climb the salary ladder, but not with thc same speed as the outstanding researchers.

In addition, in promotion and tenu¡e dccisions, universities emphasized research achievements and potential 10 a gÍeate! extent than previously; if a candidatc was an ordinary reiearcher but an outstanding leacher, his or her chanccs fo'r promotion and tenure were slim to nonc. The research imperative drove the reward system, but American business culture, nota-

bly its obsession with quantitative measuremenß and numbcrs, influenced the process. Uriiversity adminisrato¡s and committees could count a faculry membcr's publications; however, they could not evaluate teaching in any numerical way (even quantitatiye student evaluations were and arc unre- liable because of instructor manipulation and student subjectivity). Most important, rcse¿rch built a faculty member's rePutation outside the insti- turion and reflected back upon the school¡ enhancing irs reputation; whereas the fame of even a superb undergraduâte teacher rerely extended

beyond campus boundaries and made almost no impact on the national ranking of the university.

Faculry members at research unive¡sities have long d.ivided their loyalties betwccn their professional disciplines (their academic fields, societies, meet-

ings, and colleagues throughout the world) and their home unive¡sities. ln the 1960s, sociologist Burton Cla¡k described those professors immersed in the world of their disciplines as "cosmopolitans," and faculty mainly involvcd in their teaching and other duties on their particular campuses as

'locals.' Before the 1970s, most universities had a healthy percentage of

sH.{FT THE UNDERGRADUATBs I 27

"locals"; by the 1980s, whcn the Carnegie Foundation measured the per. cenrage of locals versus cosmopolitans, ir discovc¡ed rhat at rcsearch uni- versities, only 21 percent of thc faculry felt that thei¡ school was .very important" to them, whereas 79 percent considered their professional dis_ cipline as "very imponant,r' the cente¡ of their academic livcs. (,4. genera- tion later, the percentagc of "locals" probably has dropped to singlc digits at many insritutions, with the Internet enabling cosrnopolitans to remain based at, but permanently apart from, their schools.)

The decline in faculty loyahy to their home institutions also reflected uniye¡sities' decrease in loyalty to them, parricularly the failure of schools to reward their "locals," usually their best undergraduate æachers, with salary increases and promotions. The signal, especially to young faculty, was unequivocai: to gain rewards from a university, be a .cosmopolitan- ¡esearcher. And well-t¡aveled "cosmopolitans. began to consider thc uni- versity as "a place to hang one's hat" unril they accepted a bctter offer from another instirurion.

In the 1970s and 1980s, as Upward Drift schools tried to lu¡c research- ers away from other institutions, and cosmopolitans responded willingly, often initiating contacr and soliciting -outside offers,,'the ma¡ker over- heared, frequenrly rewarding researchers wirh amazing deals. This situation funher degraded the worth of undergraduate inst¡uction-teaching taleni had no value in a ma¡ket d¡iven solely by research fame. ln the late 19g0s, a number of analysts concluded tbat "Ame¡ican academe may be moving toward a single faculry rewarà strucru¡e, a sysrem desigaed io maximize published scholarship and to minimize the time and effort faculry spend on inst¡uction" of undergraduates

At the beginning of the twenry-firsr cennri that single structure is in place, and despite aÌl the lip service rhat universities now pay to a "com- mitment to undergraduare education,l mosr haye established a faculty re- ward system that relentlessly denigrates undergradúate teaching. In addition, most faculry members are only peripherally involved in under- graduate education. In the 1970s and 1980s, as a way of pleasing research faculry and increasing thei¡ iesea¡ch productiviry, uniyersitíes tu¡ned ove¡ the teaching of many undergraduate cou¡ses to lowly paid part-dme in- st¡uctors, as well as to even more poorly paid graduate students. Again, the "monolithic sørus sysrem" and Upward Drift drove the process.

trt

In my four yearg at Michigan State, I have had exactly four classes with unde¡ rwenty-five srudents and a real profæsor in charge. All

78 I BEER aND crRcus

thc rest of my courscs havc been jumbo lectu¡es wirh hund¡¿ds of students, and a profcssor milcs away, or classes with TAs þaduatc- studcnt tcaching assistantsl, or not regular faculry, peoplc who comc in off thc st¡eet and teach a coursc o! rwo. Vcry few of the TAs o¡ thcsc part-timcrs know squat about how to tcach, somc of thcm don't wcn know aoything about thcir subjccts.

-A Michigao State scnior woman in a 1995 inte¡vicw

In the 1970s and 1980s, rhe new and expanded PhD programs at Up- ward Drift U's and the diminishing number of t€nure-track faculry posi- tions du€ to economic conditions crêared a glut of young PhD holde¡s unable to obtain permanent faculry lobs and willing to work as part-rime instructors for low wages. In addition, because doctoral programs main- tained their full comþlement of graduate sûdenß, ùese men and womco provided their schools with another source of inexpensive labor. An econ- omist who studied this phenomenon srated that the part-timers and TAs are "like any pan-time employees that McDonald's would hire-cheap la- bor that colleges and universities are ¡elying on to save money," Exploiting seems a more accurat€ term then relying on; fufthermore, the money sayed ofæn went into salary raises for research faculty, as well as conringency funds to match outside offers made to "cosmopolitan" professors,

This situation accelerated the decline of undergraduate education. Time magazine reponed on the part-timers in 1987-ir termed them "Acade- mia's New Gypsies"-and noted that, nationally, 30 percent of humanities faculry were now part-timers. Other surveys in this period placed the num- ber of part-timers in the sciencès and many other acedemic areas in the 20- to-30 percentile renge. Gypsies (also called Nomads) did the bulk of undergraduate teaching at many universities: nationally, by the lare 1980s, ihey taught almost 40 percent of all undergraduate courscs, and at some schools as much a3 70 percent,

in addition to the part-timers, graduate students did a large amount of undergraduate teaching. Not only did grad assistants aid professors with the latters' undergraduate classes-ustrally teaching sections of the course, grading alrnost all the essays and exams, mceting srudents in conferences, and so forth-but grad srudents also conducted cou¡ses completely on their ow¡, so mefly that these accounted for close to 25 percent of all under- graduate classes taught annually in the late 1980s.

Wirh the pan-timers coñducting 40 percent of the classes at ao avetage research universiry, and the grad studenrs 25 percent, rhen the regular fac- ulry must have taught 35 percent. Not really: if those courses $'ith grad assistants carrying the teaching ball for faculty were subtractcd from thc

o.:-)

iprofessors' total, often only 25 percent of all undergraduate classes were iunder the sole cont¡ol of tenure-track faculty. Prediaabl¡ in exit interviews at public unive¡sities in this period, recent graduates frequently noted that they had only taken a few classes during their student careers taughr solely by full-time faculry, but, in many cases, they could nor "remember t:he

'profs' names." (By the end of the centur¡ the distance betwcen tenure- 'üack

faculty and retular undergraduare students had grown even wider than previously, with moie part-timers and grad assistants in charge of undergraduate classes than ev€r before.)

sHAFT THE UNDERcR.{DU,1TE5 | 79

What is wrong wirh part-timers and grad students teaching undergradu- ates? For pan-timers, the renuous circumstances of their employ-ment fre- quendy negates wharever positives they bring to the classroom. Pa¡r-rime¡s generally toil under oppressive condirions: they have minimal job securiry and prospects; they teach a cours€ or two at one school, a course or two at anotheÍ, and sometimes courses at a thi¡d o¡ even a fourth university during'a semester, and they spend much of their time rraveling ro and from varìous institutions-in California, they are called Freeway Fliers. For their labor, they receive short-term (usually one-semester or one-year), or ¡rr- course contracts (about $2,500 per course), and zero benefits. lthen they a¡¡ive on a campus, generally they do not have an office or a regular place to meet studenrs in confe¡ences. They try to be polite to undergraduates, but rarely do they have the time or energy to esrablish meaningful teacher- student relationships. Four, five, or six coulses a semesrcr-with normal preparations, as wtll as stacks of papers and exams to grade-grinds down the best-intentioned undergraduate teache¡ in the world,It is not a formula for producing quâlity undergraduâte educâdon.

Graduate studens share rnany of the part-rimers' difñculties-short- term contfacts, and long hours ar low pay-but many universities com- pound the teaching problems of grad students by failing ro prepare them fo¡ their classroom assþments in a systcmatic or effective way (the main preparation for part-timers are the semesters of trial-and-er¡or as grad stu- dent teachers). Because university teachiag has long been a pôor cousin to research, formal teacher training has rarely existed; graduate students spend years acquiring research skills and little time learning how to teach. Indeed, their main pedagogical model is the gJaduate cou¡se, and, some- times, when teachiag an undergraduate class fo¡ the first time, rnany grad students make the fatal erro¡ of rying ro conduct rhe class as a mini- graduate course, even using PhD research material, much to thc confusion or boredom of the undergraduates present.

In addition, many grad students, when th¡own into a class full of

80 I BEER ,{ND clRcus

students from the collegiate' vocational, and rebel subcultures, remembe¡

their recent undergraduate days and thei¡ dislike o{ these undergraduates'

As academically inclined students, they had defned themselves in opposi-

tion to students in other subcultures; now, as instructors, rhey are supposed

to be nice to them ând to understand their sPotty class attendance and frequcnt apathy toward ac¿demic work. Some graduate students climb ove¡

thesc obstacles and become good teachers; others allow their insecu¡ities

and inexperience to sabotage their teaching efforts, and they watch in frus-

tration as students mentally and physically depan their courses.

All teachers tâke student indifference and/or hostility personally; some-

dmes undergraduates so wound beginning instructors thât the latte¡ nevcr

recover. On the other hand, successful, experienced teachers place negative

student âttitudes within an institutional coirrext, and understand the diffi-

cultics of brcaking through the subculture walls surrounding most unde¡- graduates- These teachers try to work with the undcrgraduate reality' and

do not take student attitudes personally.

Thcrefore, the main diffcrence between part-timers and grad-student in-

structors is experiencc: the former havc enough to survive to ûght another

semester; the latte¡ either lea¡n from thei¡ mistakes and improve, or they

give up, or sometimes they 8o on to become outstanding resea¡chers but

bad teachers as rcgular faculry members'

À 1999 study charred higher education's ever-growing reliance on, and exploitation of, part-timers: natioqally) the percentage of part-timers on university faculties had rcached 40 Percent. And when grad student teach-

ing was factòred in, they and the Gypsies conducted more classes than ever

before-at some schools, almost 75 percent of all credit hours taken by

undergraduates. Yet a majority of Americ¿ns believe that experienced pro-

fcsso¡s tcach most universiry classcs. Âs one w¡iter observed: "The general

pubtic, which pays most of the bills' fo¡ u¡ivcrsities through taxes and/or tuition for. their children, "sees teaching undergraduates as the primary

mission of higher educaúon, and perhaps the only important one'" Mo¡e-

over, tbe public docs not uuderstand tÏe research bias of Big-time U's, nor does it have much sympathy fo¡ it. Nor should it.

ô;

ffi THE GREAT RESEARCHER :

GREAT TEACHER MYTI.J

Jn the late 1980s, in reaction to growing criticism about the research I imperative of large, public universities and their ncglect of undergrad-

Iuate teaching, some university' presidents and administrators promul- gated the myth that great researche¡s are also great teachers. They hopcd that this myth would make the problems in their gcneral undergraduate education programs disappear.

i*t

Great Te¿chers ønd Teaching . . . Teaching and research ale too often polarized-at least by those out- sidc the universiry. . . .I¡ ¡urns out timc and âgain thar those w€

. hono¡ fo¡ excellence in teaching a¡c the samc faculty we hono¡ fo¡ excellence in resea¡ch.

-Thomas Ehrlich, former presidcnt of Indiaoa Univcrsiry

Mytb: The good teachers are good rcsearchers . . . The available empirical cvidence calls the 'good-rescarchcr = good- rcachcr" argumcnr sharply into qucstion. , . scholarly productivity , and instructional cffcctiyencss havc lc¡s than 2 pcrcent. . . in com- ì mon. That means that about 98 perccnt of the variabiliry in mcasurcs j of insuuctional cffectivcncss is due to somcthing otåcr than rcse¿rch productiviry or accomplìshmcnt.

-Par¡ick T. Tc¡enzini and Ernesr T. Pascarella,

. cducation professors

82 I BEER .{ND clRcus

To promote the m¡h, many schools established annual teaching awards to reward thei¡ best undcrgraduate teachers, and, lo and behold, at the hcad of the line werc the institution's most prominent ¡esearchers. Local media cove¡ed tie awa¡d ceremonies but rarely inquired into how the school arrivcd at its decision to hono¡ this particular professor. Too often, no criteria, othcr than wanting to promote the 'great researcher : great tcacher' myth, existed, In some cases, the award was also an attemPt to sroke the already huge ego of.a star researcher, or to show a professor with an "outside offer' that the school chcrished her/him in yet anothet way. A.nd somctimes the award included the famous 'course gff" prize.

Te¡cnzini and Pascarella examined the myth closely, concluding that its

proponents invariably "argue by anecdote" and cite that small coho¡t of "cxtraordinary" faculty on every campus who manage to be good research- ers and good teachers. Lew Miller, a professor at President Eh¡lich's uni- versity, admitted: "I envy and admire such colleagues, those rare few who," in addition to full resea¡ch schedules, "insist on a full schedule of [under' graduate] courses and who con¡inue to put in long hours grading papers and meeting individually with thet sÞdents. But I do not fo¡ an instant believe that there are enough of these extrao¡dinary people to staff" whole

departments, ncver mind large univcrsities. This criticism pinpointed the flaw in the "great researcher = great

æacher" fabler teaching is labor intcnsive, and to do an adequate fob-not even a good or fi¡st-class one-requires many hours per week, at least thirty for minimum results, and closer to forty or fifty to approach excel- lencc. But resca¡ch work is also labor intensivc: whether in the sciences or dre humanities, the rescarche¡ must spend at least thirty hours a \¡r'eek stay-

ing abreast of his o¡ her 6eld, preparing research materials, as well as writing time-consuming grant proposals, conducting rcscarch, ard writing it up. Then therc a¡c meetings to attcnd' colleagues and assistants to talk with, and so forth; and, in the present agel added to traditional duties, e-mail to answer, Internet sites to monitor, and so forth. Thirty hours a week is a baseline for rcscarch activity, but most faculty spend many more hours per weck in this cndcavor, perdcularly during the ftequent "crunch times" when papers, articles, and books a¡e due.

That some faculty members can actually 6rrd enough time in a week to teach well and to maintain their ¡esca¡ch at a high level, and even do some scrvice, mainly proves tltat in any large samplq of humans, a few will ac- complish extraordinary feats, Finally, the 'great researcher = great teacher' mlth ¡esidcs alongside the 'great athlete = gleat student" one: yes, Bill Bradley was an ouæta:rding basketball player and a Rhodes Scholar, and

-i,r

THE. cRÊÁT RBsEARcHER Ë cnEAT TE^cHER MyrH I g3

ycs, cvery yeaÍ, some Division I athletes anåin perfect grades in difficult majors-but they are a tiny minoriry of thc mo¡e ,h"n oî" hunL¿ t¡o,r- sand athletes playing big-timc college sports annuafly, .uoui ü" ,"o,..-"rr petccntage as grcat researcherVgreat teachers, Intercollegiate athletes, working forty, fifry, or more hours a week- in their sports j"obi h"r. th" sarne problem as resea¡ch professors_lack of time ariì

"n"rgy ;o, una.._

graduate educadon.

Professo¡s Tcrenzini and pascarella went beyond the anecdotes about grcat professorvgreat teachers, and they examincd evcry scrious study on the relationship berween,.scholarly productivity

"nd'in.troJoo"liff""ti".- L.Ili

Th.t also plowed through the vast literatu¡e on the l"tt , topic_ the elemenrs that producc effcctive teaching and those that do not. Their conclusion, cited above and pubrished in 1994, shourd hauc drivcn a sr.te :11:Tn

*. "good researcher = good reachcr; m¡f,, U.i i, aiJ "*. 1N*"mat tttey use the word good, not gred, ¿s Ehrlich and othe¡s did; never_

theless, their weaker version did not come close to reaching ,Lir lor""r.a ba¡.)

The myth endures in the twenry-first ccntury because it scrves lrrge, public universiries so wel[: officials can cort¡noe a ¡¡r", prorn;r.;

"".".¿t€nu¡e, and give high sara¡ies to resea¡che¡s ba""ur" p."tiou, unirersity presidents and ad¡ninist¡ators have equated outstandirrg aaa""aah J*, out_ standing teaching; don,t all those teaching award *irrnlrr, .o*rn.rnor","a yth. {ae1es

on a wall in a promincnt pì"". on "".pur,'p,o;r;},. .q"._tion? On this issue, circular rcasoning rriumphs, illosi.at"å ly ,t.

"*".a,and,the on-going rationa.le (phrased trere bj fhr[ch¡: ,,1 ur)nr"or" that sndents benefit immensely þom hauing oi ,ot, -od"t, ¡o""Ç i"_U*, whose erergy itt the classroom dnives from their continLt leamiig ¡and

' ptodsctiuityl ir1 research and. scholarshþ.,, This argument, much belovcd by universit¡ adminisftators, is w¡ong on

9very counr. Only a minority of undergraduatc classes a¡e taught_often badly or

_indifferently-by research p.J..rorr; ¡r.n.., ,¡ìo fräù rn.rn- bers_are rnfrequent and negative role models. And when these pråfessors conduct an undergraduate course, they rerely teach ,t .i, .ar""r"i U."",.rr" $e þÍer ls too technical or abstrusc for undergraduates.

, -

More importanly, as Terenzini and pascarella show, effective teaching has 'alrnost nothing to do with "scholarli p.oductiuiry oí a.c._nmî.."r."

^Uriversiry of Michigan study illustrated thc actual attitudci of mâny re- sea¡chers towa¡d undergraduatc education with ,h"

"o--"no or " ,"¡"n""

,professor at that school: he "noted tlat the nature .f fri. airJpfi* ir ro.i,

t4 I BEER AND cIRcus

that he cannot teach his research to undergraduates, and he concluded, 'Every minute I spcnd in an undergraduate classroom is cosring me money and presdge.' "

Paul Strohm, a longtime critic of university hypocrisy and canr, remarked that, despite the realiry, administrators love the "good researcher = good teacher" equation, and they will ¡ever give it up because "it solves rhe problem of conflict between reseârch end teaching by denying its exis- tence," In addition, the myth not only helps adminisüators preserve rhe starus quo at their schools, but it also creates a situation where, according to Terenzini and Pascarella, "the research on effective tcaching methods will continue to be igno¡ed," and undergraduate education will continue to decline.

i**

Another higher education myth thar Terenzini and Pascarclla debunked was: "Traditional methods of insuuction proviäe proven, effective ways of teaching undergraduate sodents." They focused primarily on lecn:ring- the mâin teaching form for faculry at large, public universiries-and its failu¡e to mcet the educational needs of most undergraduates. One of the studies they examined was the 1980s report of the Carnegie Foundation on undergraduate education; in it, Carnegie investigators described a typ- ic¿l lecnre class:

.At a f¡eshman psychology leçtu¡e we attended, 300 srudems we¡e still finding seats when the professor started talking. 'Today," \e said into a microphone, 'we will continuc our discussion of le¿¡¿- izg." He might as well have been addressing a crowd in a Greyhound bus te¡minal- Like commutcrs rnarking time uÂtil their nexr depar- rure, studcnts in this class altcrnatcly read the ncwspaper, flipped tfuough a papcrback novel, or proppcd thei¡ feet on the chai¡s ahead of thcm, staring into space.

The irony of this profcssor's students.not appearing to lcarn anyrhing from a lectu¡e on "learning" apparently escaped this faculry member,

Lecturing has long been the pedagogical workhorse of higher education. Befo¡e the rwendeth century, when textbooks were expensive and scarce, lecn¡res we¡e an efficient way ro convey information to a large number of students-as long as they took adequate notes. Lecnrring also mirrored more authoritarian, paternalistic societics: the supposedly omniscient, oldcr male stood in front of the young srudents, all knowledge flowing from him

--,1)

¡ 11.- Then industrialism seemed to_confi¡m the wisdom of the lecturç. sysrem, particularly the placing "r

*o.t.rJr,J.ni. iïT."", .iï, "ro

,r.. checkpoints/tests during the oioductjon ry; ;..;;;i;Ti-"".o",o,most undergraduates did notlea¡n much in rheir lectule classes., -. -tl lt.

rw€ntierh cenrury, ,¡" I..,ur. ro.,n* .oìir.ìol "ä,i* u*r*succcss with undergraduates_th"

"*a..t."lty i*,l; ;;';;. ""."-tionals took good notes and performed well on exams_and greater successwirh sraduate and professional ,.h""1 ;;;;;-ä,, .ii*üä..*.r,,,selected group demonstrated rhat lectures wo¡ked wejl in special circum_stances: srudents needed to bring a high a.gr." oi p.rro;"itåiur¡on ,o.the lecture course (they were determincd to become doctors. lawvfcsols, 1tc.);

rn addition, .h.y *.d.t;;.;;;;äiìiliilli,il; as quickly and efficiently as possible to pass ¿iin""i, ?,<"_ì""'rrr* t" r_alecturer provided a pathway through mountains

"iì.ø.îiä""1i "* ,l*possessed the anal¡ic abilities m comprehend and take notes on the lec_tu¡es, as wel.l as the studying and library skills ,. *_nL_.* ,i. 1..**,wrth outside wo¡k (most graduate and prof"rriorr"l ,.lioJl-","iJo ,r..0to acquire these skills as undersradu"ås, ""d

b"il;;;;;*).T;."" "*_bitious a¡d atypìcal students mr¿.,,t.i, t...ur. ü.r;;;il ä*._,experience as possible_whereas lccru¡es ;;rJ;;

"rJirlr'^ou"r.,passive, if aot ine¡t. Thus, ¡he exceptional -ino..iry proridã írri"..ri.yofÂcials with the higher educarion rationale for a method imposed uponthe vast majority of students throughout the rwentierh centlrrv

Yet, early in rhe century, some ed*","r, q;;;;;; ,î" ìi.li.. -on"o,pointing our that not only did r i;",*" î"il; il;;Jil ö ää îïi:1ïï,fï:,i,ï,ï .iî;classes when the professor ,,o.,.1 ¡n lron, .f rfr.- *ï f..i"ä i"a ,rr.folklore of coJlege life came such ¡ot .,

"r, ..ouring li..',Ë'är"in,"r,o"

¡rasses from the insrrucor,s norebook ," ,rr" .,.aã",,i ""*i".i**r*going through either head.', Nonetheless, 1..,r;;;;;;;;;;:T r*r_dard teaching merhod in higher education, in part due to faculty traditionand Íamiliairy, but also because ,h. "lr;;'r*.r;*..*Tïïio.r,centered learning in discussion

"nd "ollabo."ti"e gro"ir_,rïäirm-.r, ø,faculry to.envision and, if attempted, .equired a"larg'e-in;;;;;;; or"-tessorial time and energy. drernative ,,'.,1r.¿. "lrå

¿.*"îi;'"",o"". l1:ude

shiÍ for faculty: they had to yield some .f ,frJr-r.pp"ì.a "."f_potence and omniscience in the classroom anà actu"ffy nr.rr,å rtul"no_nor easy tasks in an era when a majority of professors regarded mosrundergraduates with contempt,

""¿ "r* *fuã.íJ.ä;ililä;;":against the "uncultured masses."

rHE 6REÀr ¡ ¡s¡¡nóH¡¡ = cREAT TÈ^oHER MyrH I gj

86 I ðEER ^ND

crRcus

In the 6rst half of the century, some smal.l, liberal arts colleges like St. John's in -A.nnapolis, Maryland, insisted that their faculty avoid lecturing and teach mainly in the Soc¡atic manaer (Q-and-A dialogue berween the instructor and srudents). Unlike the predictabiliry of the lecture method, courses at these colleges demonstrated the creative messiness of student involvement in the classroom, as well as its apparent effectiveness-mo¡e than the graduates of traditional schools, alumni of progressive colleges att(ibuted their subsequent success to their "spccial undergraduete educâ- tion." In the 1960s, during protests ar research universities, rebel students regularly invoked such educational models as St. John's; however, the re- bels failed to break the faculty's commitment to lecturin¿,

ln the 1960s, custom and attirude prevenred the professoriate from abandoning the lecrure method; in the 1970s and 1980s, ìn addítion to the traditional reasons, other powerful factors-especially Upward Diift and cost efficiency-allowed lecturing to flou¡ish. .A.s a resulr, universities place the lectu¡e class at the center of general undergraduare education, ensuring its continuing ineffectiveness in the twenry-firsr century.

As universiry budgets tightened, administrato¡s realized that the way ro lower the coulse load for resea¡ch faculty, and still gain maximum dolla¡s f¡om thei¡ teachìng, was to assign a professor one huge lecture class per year, The math was simple: according to standard accounting practices within higher education, universities calculated that, hased on faculty sal- ary, it cost them '$15,000 or more pe! class taughr by a full-time profes- sor"; therefore, if students paid $250 a credit hour, thus $750 a course, th¡ee hund¡cd undergraduates in a class generated $225,000, and the uni- versity sta¡ted this lectwe course $210,000 ahead. Afte¡ factoring in other expenses, say, $10,000 to pay five teaching assistanrs ($2,000 each) for thei¡ wo¡k in the coursc, and about $2,500 for the maintenance and utilities on the lecture hall and section rooms, and $2,500 for various misccllaneous and hidden costs, the bonom line for New Siwash was $195,000 pro6t.

But wha¡ were the numbers when a profeJsor taught a class of rwenty u¡dergraduates? Tuition dollars totaled $15,000, a teaching assistant wasn't necessary, and upkeep and miscellaneous expenses dropped to abour $1,500 on the smaller room. But because this course, like the lecture, was taught by a full-time prof€ssor, it still cost "$15,000 or mo¡e.'The bottom line on the faculty member's twcnry-student classr New Siwash lost $1,500! But why not give this class to a part-timer and pay that person $2,500 for tbe course? The new bottom line: the school made $11,000. Hence the adminisuative decision to encourage Professor Mumble to do his lectpre

...:)

THE cRÈAT REsEARCHER = cRE,{T TÈACHER MyrH ¡ g7

' course €yery year and drop orher undergrâduâte courses from his schedule, ' givingthem instead to part-timers and jrad students- Multipþ Mumble by

tens of thousands of professors across America, "nd

th" ,".oi was an ex_ pansion in the number ¿nd size of lecture coirrses from the 1970s ro the present, and no glowth in sma undergraduâte crasscs-as welr as a shift from faculty to pa¡r-rimers and grad srudenm in .h".g" ol _lriy of ,h. small classes.

, In its.1980s study of undergraduate education, the Carnegie Foundation decla¡ed that a large percentage of undergraduate ,,r*¿"ü,

"i.".""r"hu¡iversities report that .most' or ,all' of their classes have more than one hundred scudents en¡olled,' in them. A Rutgers professor noted that at his school, "classes of threc hundred and four Áunj.ed *".. quit"

"ll-on,"and only a minoriry of ..studenrs had even one class, ora oi th" iou. ro ri* they were carrying [per semester], with twenry-five o; fewe. ,rud"rrr. i' ir.,, The University of lllinois at Champaign_Urb"n" ,"",

" typic"l nig ten of_

fender: U of I featured a panoply of huge lecture .ourrár, oi* "*roUir,g five hund¡ed srudents o¡ more, somedmes even exceeding one thousand. One.lllino.is political science professor taught an int odu.iory .oorr. th"t enrolled almosr twelve hundred and, during alternating y"árr,lt. aid

"lecture course with six hundred studenrs_he calle¿ tt," i.ir", hir':to,rr,g.

Some students saw lecru¡ers in the iame terms as this polirical scientist, but they rounded out the porûait..A.n undergrad at Ohio State ,.ma.ked,

A good prof in a lecrlrre cou¡sc is an entenaincr_very far away and not â pc¡son to speal to one_on-one, A bad ptof is a prison guard_ definitely not a person to speak to ore-on_one. Can ylu bel;lu. th"t I had a prof [last ycar] who took daily actendance by making us always sit in thc same sear, and having his grad assistans wali up the aisles with rhe seating charts, marking off the abscnr srudents? And he was rhe wo¡ld's \¡/orst lecturer. Talk about a captive audi_ ence. I know what the hostages in Beirur felt like.

Tlte Clicaeo Tribune reported that ai many research universities, ,.Srudens find themsclves in lecturc halls seating !,200.,,.Many ond.rgr"du",". leave college withour having had a one-on-one conyersation with a profes- sor." Not surprisingl6 the combinâtibn of huge lecture.halls, undirgrad- uate anonymity- and bad æaching produced a stream cif negative student commenrs. rA. Univcrsiry of Illinois junior condemned his mJchanical engi_ neering professor because the latter "faccd thc blackboard the entire time,"

68 I BEEN. ÀND CIRCUS

almost never taking student questioni, apparcntly contemptuous of the un-

dergraduates. An aggressive Indiana University senior rema¡ked:

Every semester hcrc I h¿ve encountcred a professor who uses an over-

head projector and w¡ites continuously on it for the wholc class, evcry class. No qucstions allowcd, no cyc contact madc. I always fccl

compelled to ask thcse profc why they do not simply hand out all

thc notcs thcy're going to write on the overhead al che beginning of

the semester, and iust lct the students show up for tbe tests? Not one

of thcsc instructors has ever answered rhis question. They iust walk

away from me,

(In the twenty-frrst century' some lectu¡ers use computer proiectofs, furi-

ously t¡ping their notcs to aPPear on the overhead screens. Technology advanccs; the lectu¡e method remains as stagnant as ever.)

Sometimes these sarcâstic and asrute reviews of faculry lecturing ap' peared in student course cvaluarions-if thc school's scantron form also provided space for wrinen commenß. Anne Matthews, a writer on higher

cducation, quoted a sample of sodent rema¡ks that she found: "Neve¡ let this man near students again; his hobby is general condescension'" "Eurobore.' 'Cancels lots of classes'' Matthews commented that 'some reviews are deliberately mcan' some pan performance and ignore con'

tent, somc are heanfelt and perceptiYe notes tossed over e very high wall'"

Many undergraduates realized thât thei! university sc¡ewed them over in

lecrure cou¡ses. Nevertheless, studenß failed to understand that' to quote

Manhews:

Few campus adults in power take [student] cou¡sc commcnts scri-

ously. Who ca¡es what thc studcnts say? The grcatest of all campus

/ sccrets is passing timc Wait them out. They leave eventually' Wc

stay. [Faculry always say] You ct¡'t allou students to ¿ictate in the

chssroom. No one is goirg to tell me wh¿t I c¿n ot càt't do in my os)L eosrses (original cmphasis).

Matthews t¡acked student reacdons from the late 1980s into the 1990s,

but, at thc beginning of the twenty-fust century, the comPlaints about the

lecture system continue, In a randoqr, cross'country survey of a reccnt edi-

ríon of The l¡sider's Guide to the Colleges (compiled and cditcd by thc staff of the Yate Daily Netts),the ¡eade¡ finds that at SUNY-Buffalo, "Most

required lecturc classes for first-year students have enrollments as large as

-i)

THË cREAT REsE^RcHÈR = cREÀT TE^cHER MyrH I g9

200 to 500," and many studcnts .just kind of sit through tlem, gazing off into space." At Michigan Søtc University, onc undergraduate noted that the huge size of lecture classes makes it .impossible for the professor to grve anything but multiple choice tests, the professor and TAs would never have enough dme to grade five hund¡ed essays.'" At the U:rivcrsity of Colorado at Boulder, "Class sizc avcragcs rwo hundred to fivc hundred fo¡ inuoductory" courses and many other ones. And at'Vashington Statc Uni- versity, "Introductory classes, especially those that meet the core require- menß, can enroll as many as fve hund¡ed students, and'the norm in the othcr introductory cou¡scs is one hundred ro wo hund¡cd.. To be fair to these schools-all Upward Drift research univcrsities and mcmbers of NCA,{ Division I-A-undergraduates at similar institutions make thc same complainrs. In facr, the most astonishing note in this litany.is the proclivity of universities to burden thcir lcast acadcmically capable studcnts-fresh- men and sophomores-with the largcst and meânest lecÌure cou¡ses.

It

In contrast to thc passivc ¡olcs studcnts are cncouraged to play in lectu¡ddiscussion classes, individualized and collaborativc tcaching approachcs requirc active srudent involvcment and participation in the teacbing-leamint p¡occss, Such mcthods encouragc studeoß ro take greatcr responsibiliry fo¡ their own learning; thcy lcam f¡om one anothe¡ as well as the instructo¡. The resca¡ch litc¡atu¡c indicatcs dctivc learning produces grcalcr gains in academic content lacquisi- tionl and skills.

-Patrick T. Terenzini and Erncst T. pascarclla,

education profcssors.

Significantly, these experts cont¡ast ..lecture/díscussion classes" wirh "active learning" situations; they and others discovered that not only did professors lecture undergraduaæs in huge halls, but that graduate assistants continued to lec$re them in so-called 'discussion sections.-small subsets of lecture classes with about twenry-five srudents. Thc effcct upon un{er- graduates was almost thc same in both siruãtions-passivity, lack of re- sponsiveness, and frequent failure to comprehcnd the material. One study found "lecruring to be the mode of instruction of 89 percent of thc physi- cal scienústs and mathematicians, 81 ¡rcrcent of the social scientists, and 61 percent of the humanities faculty.. Arrother study calculated that the number of questions f¡om students ¡ær classroom hou¡ in discussion sec- 'tíons and lecture halls averaged 3.3, moreover, mosr of rhe queries x,cre

:llï:li:: ,*:"J:11r.; ì.j. n.ar exam in this roomr), and did "

ó rrR ÀND ctRCUS

:"11"'::*::1,i1.,;1rìï..";::i,:iä:,1:,i,il;::iÍ;questions complained about the t", ------' !'!¡¡ Éu.,(¡ stuoents witl

rure; one under,.. .t--.- ^^-- - . c1r;-format, particularly its rigidtu¡e; one underg¡aduate comment, .--l-'"^"'"' vorucularly rts rrgid s

whrz alo¡o ¡n.t -,L-_ ro, _l,cctures frust¡ate me because

;ï:3:-;;:"'.::tï':.;i;'l';ìä:;iiïåfi :äi:,.+';:.*.:ï^o¡:ï j.t.r".i'.,";,l"ii"ä,ili,iï"ï.T,,1: This student cried out f*

"; i;ì rv ¡cc¡¡)¡ m¡n* about it."

û I erenzini and pâc.,.-'- -._^-- -1jrrd::r""d instructional approach,"and Terenzini

"nd Prra"r"l.l"

-"es "¡s¡vrqudr¡¿eq tnstructional aDDroac¡," tnat. . . [thesei aooroe¡h.o --- ^^': 'h"t

"Long trails of tt,."r.h' ,ugg"rrthat. . . [tåesel "ppro".¡.r-"."-lì."

u¡é! '-ong ¡râ s of ¡esearch suggesl

subrect-mafter learninø th.- --- -:ltl:*"tlt more effecdve in enhancin8subject-matter t."tning tt

"i,, "., -"¡Þ¡*q¡t¡y more efteciive in enhancin¡

ru¡¡ns. The sñ,rt.. _ , ,:

T:r. traditional,, techniques like lec-turing. The student{entered ,na*, - --.* sds¡!¡ur¡ar recnn¡oues Iike lec'

ot conrenl l,en¡n .-,.r--- ---- >ds "emphasize smail, modularized unitJof content, [and] student

ncxl"; whereas thc premise of "ra

-'^! u¡!' ucrole movtnÊ on to tht t.'e same râre t-,_ ;_ -L -

.ry lccture is that ,,all studenrc learn artlte same rate . . . leam in ,h; ,;'' ¡lrlurc ts rnâÎ "all studenb learn er

try¡tres,,_listc. j.o r^.L^ r^_. re way, and through the same set of ac-tiv.ities"-listening to the lecturer- - .'.-" *'" q¡ruugn ¡ne same set of ac-

tesB and exams cn ño".- . takmg notes, and taking multiple_choicetesB and exams en masse,

,,"1, :î: ÏH':Ïliïl"ll "t:1"':n'o supports the nonrecture posì. "wÁi1...¿-.'",i'ö Jï:ri::

Methods" summing up the findìnes: assume acdve roles" ,n non,..*.11,]1--1-'ttt::t

class' they are fo¡ced to

Íl::""";;-".h"ä;ï:d:::i:9ïï::i::ï,".,:.ffi jïj;:.*¡n a corlse, not sìmply with r through lengrhy conferences *triT:ï:]

grades, on scantron tests, bur ."..fu]ty g;, ;";;;

"*dJ'-* t]'e Instn¡ctor during which the teache¡

ot¡,"¿ i*î)",¡i,"t;;:::::;:," :::! in the.cou¡se' T|he phrase indiuidu-

I.,.:ly*n"-*i;.:;#ïl,i:ïi',"ii,'J:ï:.äï:.,'ï:i:U::admrnrsEetors who want to keeo cost-"ffi.i.ot a" po;J6li:'tt

"î:i"tu unrversities as research-oriented and

loses money, t.'.;;;;;"'äîì ItT:-'?,'*o*ts.tausht bv a proressor f*.I,v -";;.;;;; d"t.rïäi: :i"ss

ot ten srudents working with a ;

whlch, in addìtion to class time. rdual and collabo¡ative Proiectsi one in j

::1.ï*,ir;;;;.ì;;ä;iliTËJ:iäjî:i::;ïlå:iil,,liJ H:f",

by the professor soes from abour 6ve n.ì.rîï".ilir, j, b"_ g

: 11.r" of one unit before movrng on to rhe

THE cRËrrT RESEARcHER = cREá.T TEAcHER MyTH I 91

much I learn from my students," but when questioned about this, most professors respond with about as much clariry and dctail as thei¡ lecrure cou¡se studen¡s exhibit when confronted by an obscure exam question. In 'fact, in surveys of faculty opinion, professors at resea¡ch unive¡sities con- tinually complain about the "attitudes" of average undergraduates, partic- ularly their passiviry in class, their absence of intellectual curiosity, their lack of questions, and thei¡ ¡eluctance to do the cou¡se readings and discuss them. Of course, almost all faculty contact with average undigraduates occu¡s in lectu¡e classes, so these criticisms a¡e self-ful6lling-lecturing pro- duces student passivity, absence of intellectual curios.ity, and so on. Finally, professors rebuking students for not being engaged by lectures is an exer- cise in blaming the victim.

The average undergraduate understands the situation better tåan most doctorate-holding professors; a University of Texas (Àustirr) junior com- mented, "The ¡eason for the lack of srudent interest in most clâsses at my school is the fact that profs fail ro engage rheir brains during lectures. They seem so bored, and they're always in a hurry to leave as soon as the class ends. We know thac faculry are conce¡ned abour their research, and not in teaching us, and so, Iike the profs, we go essentially 'brain-dead' during class."

Ernest Boyer summed up rhe situation Á College: Tbe und.etgraduate Ex- perience in Americal

lf faculty and students do nàr see themsel"es ¡s having impo¡tanr business to do together, prospects for effective learning are di¡nin- ished. If studenrs view teachers as distant and their material as irrel- evalt, what could be a time of exciting explorarion is reduccd io a series of uniospircd routines.

Fortunately, some excellent small universities and colleges still exist, and faculry there usually provide their students ìrith individual attention and a multitude of active learning situarions. At these schools, studen$ often see faculry outside of the classroom and of6ce hours, an almost unheard of occullence at most research universities-indeed, at the latter, with stu- dents constandy "cutting" class, and very few going to faculty office hours, many undergraduates rarely see their professors at all. This realiry is rhe 6nal ¡efutation of the myth that "great researchers = great teachers,"

Befond the amount offacurry time and energy involved in nonlecture teach-tng, most professors will not a p.roaches" t.";;;.;;.ä;:i:1,:'ot'o..alized ìnstructional ap- all of their ..a*r.,-*.r^.ä, ïi:-:^'"

premise: faculry can leam f¡om endeavor. ¡*,r, f"l,r; ;î_'#iiii:.,å i:iå:,ï"".ffi ff

,lä:,f

E NEW SIWASH IN RED INK

A s úe quality of undergraduate educarion declined. in ¡he final f.l d.c"d". of the twentieth cenrury, the price of tuirion increased

-L ldramatically. Universities clairned that thei¡ costs had grown enor- mously and that they had to pass on these expenses to their "customers," their srudents. The public, pârticularly parents of undergraduates, com- plained, but they could not discover the real reasons for the inc¡eases. A¡d the media mainly focused on the price-tag for a yeat at various famous schools, rarely investigating the causes o¡ tle situation at large, public re- search universities.

For most schools, rhe source of their ñnancial problems were the dresric cuts in public and privare funding to higher education during the final three decades of the twentieth century. By the late 1990s, some expens began to use d¡amatic metâphors to desc¡ibe the situation, including the sinking of the Titattic:

A.ll ia all, our actions [i-n higher educaúon] are akin to a boar hiiting an iccberg and thc captain announcing that his highcst prioriry, as thc boat sinks, is saving the c¡ew. The next priority is avoiding any inco¡vcnicncc by continuing all activiries-the midnight buffet, the bingo gane, the shufflcboa¡d tournarneff. Thc third priority is re- pairing the boat. .And the founh and final one, should tirne permir, is saving thc passengcrs,

-A¡thur Levine. president of Teachers College

at Columbia University

NEw srwÀsH ¡¡l ¡ep lwx I 9.3

D¡. lævine's metaphor implied that while Âmerican higher educaúon sank, college presidene mainly wanted to save the crcw-rhe faculty and staff. Presidenm also.continued all university auxiliary acrivities, including big-time intercollegiate arhletics and the accompanying party scenc; more- oveÍ, these officials not only failed to repair thei¡ schools but showed liale co[cern for the soon-to-be-drowned passcnåers/students.

D¡. Levine defined the iceberg as the sharply rcduced funding and public suppoft for Ame¡ican colleges and universities. He argued that through much ofthe twentieth century, highcr education had becn a "grolrth índus- try," generously supported by all levcls of government and the public, but during the 1980s higher education became a 'matu¡e industry,'with major expansion no longcr possible. The economic prosperity of the late 1990s did not alter this situation; however, universities þorcd this realiry, instead squandering their rcsou¡ces in a cuttb¡oat comp€tirion for research prestige, rnoney, and undergraduate enrollment- And when students matriculated, schools gave them fun "activities' instead of meaningful cducations.

Some critics compared higher cducation to corporate Amcrica, noting thet mâny indust¡ies had downsizcd in the 1990s and, in lean-and-mean modes, prepared for the twenty-fust c€ntury. But not higher education: univeisiry spending had continually outpaced revenuc in the final decades of the century, also rising faster than thc rete of inflarion and rhe consumer p¡ice index. Then, when the stock markct shot up and universíry endow- ment funds g¡ew wíth it, this new source of money barely dented the es- calating costs. The balance sheets of rnany universities mírrored rhose of their big-time alhletic. departments: no me$er how many dollars camc in, expenses exceeded income, resulting in year-end scrambles to balance the books. (Some ¡esea¡ch universities did dov/¡size some departnens, but invariably they moved the savings into other divisions. Moreover, the one unit that neve¡ shrank, and indced grcw faster and fatrer than all other areas of the unive¡siry, and lost grcatcr sums of money every year, was the athletic department.)

The major cost for universitics wás the pursuit of research prestige. .A U.S. government report notcd that "resca¡ch expenses ât public colleges [and universities] inc¡eased 157olo betwccn 1981 and 1995," most of it for salary raises fo¡ star professors and lesser research luminaries, as well âs fo¡ equipment and other âmenities to help academic departments try to move upward in the national rankings. Another huge and expanding cost was úbur€euc¡atic bloat": from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, the number of nonrcscarch and nonteaching administ¡ators and staff rose by 83 percent nationelly and, at many schools, by well over 100 pe¡cent.

{ | EEER ^ND cIRcus

Âdministrato¡s fucled 'bureaucratic bloat" by employing more assis-

;;:;;;;;;, t.ccptionists, et cctcra' and bv encourasing academic de-

^ä.t" a ¿"'*" å,ot'-oftt" to relieve rescarch professors of contact

Lt t"i"rgr"¿"*"s. In addition, administretors allocated millions of dol-

"rîøt i"ía-t. and grounds, in part to aÍract studen$ to thcir

schools

r.. t*"-iãi, "t¿ als-o to kc"p th"' h"ppy while on campus' George

ü*ãtît**rla, ,n Fairfax, Virginia' made a typical move by consuucting

r new $30 million student centcr, cont.i,,ing a st¿te-of-the.an movie the-

.ä;Ji;;d.;;;' This s"hool aod manv others also pou¡ed millions into

ffiï;;,ù;;" athlctic facilities, bur much less proportionally into un-

dcrgraduatc classrooms and lib¡a¡ies'

lncrcasing exPenses put college ptesidents and their âssistants on fund-

"J:,iäïil;i', tnsroi"i in a never-ending search for dollars' pri- marilv from thc private scctor' tÏis obst¡ucted long-range

planning and

irL-äï ;;;.J;ì" ;;i""", Particularlv undergraduate ed¡cation' A

îäJ, *t*r.io official explaincd' 'These days' all levcls of universitv

ä:;tbÞ';lätt.t"¿ 'o ¿t"ot" " ' [up] to 50 percent of their time to

fund-raising."'"'ît"înJl"ut, presidents and adminisuators of public colleges and

univcrsities gaincd thc most amor¡nt of moncy lor their schools f¡om state

äil;;; ""rri, to

"""o-pt¡h that task' thev mergcd fund-raising with

'1.ättt. t" thi,

"odt""o', in the last decadcs of the rwcntieth century'

rhev failcd to avoid the iceberg that Anhu¡ Levine described' and watched

;'Jt. ;;;; ;;;';;;i"tion, to iheir ins¡itutions plummeted'

Statcs now rypically supply much less than h¿l{ the funding [for

,lcl-Ñft "å["g"' "o-a *i"ttsities] and' in 1995' state fuiding

had droppcd to 11 pcrccnl of thc budgct of the Univcrsiry of Cali-

;;. .:: ; iokc that*circu.tatcs among [pubtic] univcsirv prcsi-

¿"t* ,"* likc this, "We'vc gonc from. being state-supported to

statc'assisted to statclocated'"

-Nancy J Brucker' highcr educatiôn consultant

NEv sr\rÂsH rN RED INK | 95

times, slashed state contributions to higher educetion across the coultry, down to the rwenry-percentile-orJower range in many regions.

The boom times of the 1990s did nor reve¡se this trend; in addition, in 1999, an imporranr ¡eport on this topic predicted that ..srate spending on higher education will probably take a turn fo¡ rhe worsc. in the f¡sr de- cades of the rrvenry-firsr cenrury. The report also suggested that public colleges and univcrsities would continue to compensate for meager state appropriadons by extracdng the missing and desperately needed dollars f¡om their only dependable source of incomc-thei¡ undcrgraduatc stu- dents.

In the 1970s, when srare legislatures frsr staned cutting thcir funding for higher education, university adminisrators, searching for ncw revcnue, de- cided that because tuition lates were generally low, schools could raisc thc price on this item and rhus cove¡ their budgetary shortfalls. As the tuirion increases accele¡ated through the 1980s and beyond-rhe U.S. Gencral Ac- counting Office noted that from 1980 to 1995, the tu.ition fces of four-year public universities jumped 234 þerceflt-ltudents and thei¡ families felt more than a monehry pinch; in.facq "rhe portion of household incomc needed to pay for college nearly doublcd." Adding to the average student's Enancial dilemma, the Reagan and Bush administrarions sevcrcly cut fed- eral loan programs subsidizing $irion for many undergraduares: rhus, wh.ile tuition costs rose, federal money shrank, forcing many students to borrow privately and co assume massive debts,

Paralleling the tuition increases at public universities were eyen mole d¡amatic ones at privare institutions, particularly in the Ivy League and at other prestigious private colleges. These schools noticed the success ofpub- Iic institutions in ¡aising tuition, and they decided to follow and then trump them. Fo¡ example, tuition ar Penn went f¡om $3,790 n 7976 to 524,73e in 1999; other Ivies and sub-Ivies hed similar leaps, caused in parr by incteasing costs but even mo¡e by what economists te¡m the Chiuas Regal Effect-the consumerist belief that price equals quality.

In the 1980s, Iry League adminisrrators discoveied that many Americans believed rhat the higher the tuition price, the bener the education product, and so the Ivies began to raise ruition at an extraordinary pace. Helping them sustain these tncleases was their selectiviry in admissions, convincing many consumers that hard-to-obtain places in freshmen classes were an, other sign of quality undergraduate education. Often the Ivies delÍvered an excellcnt product, but, more important, they produced a *halo effect," con- sumers believing that many other schools with escalating prices, includíng

Historically, public universities lived up to their names-the Universiry

"f iffi;;;'u;;itv of Michisan' anå a[ other state u's were

founded

ïä:î;;å tt;t; p"opt' ot ti"i'''t"tes' and'.up to the.1e70s' legrsla-

turcs fundcd a largc pcrccntage of the financial needs of state schools'

"îårt it

"*"*ã. to'"' Th"o' t"*p"y"' disenchantment with all gov'

.r^-a'ta .*r",i""s, espceially universities' as well as difficult economrc

96 I EËER rrND cIRcus

some Publlc on grâms.

When expertr $ition was risi¡ Foundetion and

uate education ¿

universities was

mcdia bu¡ied th ting into" Harv ACT scores for uitous advenisir

F¡om the 19!

a Chivas Regal

ignored the acn

¡ead the annual

lectiviry m¡[ unive¡sities ra¡c

of schools who plus out of tcn t .disqualified an

Yet, despite r prices continue,

also offered fust-class undergraduate education pro-

phenomenon, they quickly c.oncluded that

educational qualìty. In fact, as the Carnegie in the 1980s and 1990s, general undergrad-

schools and at most lârge, public research

ì .',..

companies selting SÀT/ACT tutoriel programs'

r. as a result of the.¡nedia misfocus and the desi¡e fo¡

and sometimes wretched. However, the

countless stories on the difficulties of "get-

Ivies, as well as the necessity of high SÂT/

the laner ropic was also hyped by the ubiq-

ny college-bound students and their parents

rates of most universities' They should have

I applicants' U.S. Nsrrts even listed the hundreds

over 90 percent of their applicants That's nine-

NEv sIvA5H IN RED rNE I 97

tion: A Blueprint t'or Ame¡ic¿'s Reseøch Uniuersitres (funded by che Car- negie Foundation), called for a total ove¡haul of the cu¡rent system and a major commitment by research universities to educating their undergrad- uates. The report also contained a large nurnbcr of spccific proposals_ indeed, if implemented, undergraduate education at rhese universiries would equal the product now provided by small colleges like Swanhmore. However, to achieve this result, large, public research universities would not only have to obtain and siend enoimous sums of money on general undergraduate education, but also transform their intc¡nal culture. Thereforc, even if tie money miraculously appeared, the likelihood of these schools changing their value sysrems aod privileging undergraduate edu- cation is extremely remote.

One writer on this ropic explained that the primary value for adminis- trators and faculty at research universiries is "prestige m¿sìmizttìon, a ded- ication to rhe goal of ittstitutional exællence' (emphasis added), as gauged by the fame of the school's research programs and professors: "Being at the top of the heap is the quintessential positional good" for these.insti- tutions, yet rhe top "is limited by its very nature to a few winners-but all can aspire." However, "one of the by-products', for every school in this competition is the "declining state of [their] uadergraduate educarion. pro- 8rams.

Even U.S. Neøs, generally an advocate fo¡ "the student consumer,' ac- kaowledged the difficulry of emphasizing undergraduate education at large, public research institutions. The magazhe's 1999 college issue discussed such "refo¡ms" as 'rnaking faculty teach mo¡e aud research less,. but ad- mincd that these changes "would involve big trade-offs. Research can bring a collége public norice and improve its reputation, which can boost en- rollment and donations, which in rurn can boost academic standing and help the [school's] botrom line."

Moreove¡, the intractability of the research-equals-prestþe equation is confi¡med by U.S. Nea.rs's c¡iteria for rating universities. The magazine gives " greøtest ueigåt . . . to [academic] reputation because a diploma from a distinguished college so clearly helps gradriates get good jobs or gain admission to top graduate schools." The magazine a¡rives at numerical rankings on "academic reputarion" by asking prcsidents and othe¡ admin- ist¡ators of ¡esearch unive¡sities to evaluate peer institutions on this item, Predicøbl¡, these yoters value research prestige-not the quality of under- g¡aduatc education-most hìghly. For example, in the 2000 edition, on U.S. N¿¡¿s's five-point scale, they rate the Univcrsity of Wisconsin at Mad- ison, famous for outstanding graduate programs and also for huge lecture

fully: those publications punctured the se'

rhe vast maiority of America's colleges and

Roben Rosenzwcig, ptesident of the Association of American Uni-

vcrsitics, an association of 58 maío¡ lcsea¡ch uoivcrsities, put it very

bluntly when he charged: "For too long, universities, led by the best

of them, dealt with their neglect of ¡¡ndergraduate educarion by as-

scning that simply bcing in the presence of faculry working at the

f¡ontiers of their fièlds w¿s bencficial !o s¡udents' That sometimcs

sccrrs to mean linle mo¡e than being in the same city with them"'

Compounding the ncglect to which Rosenzweig refers is the uo-

bappy truth that whilc studcnts werã being shortchanged in thc class-

¡oom, they wcrc shclling out ¡no¡c ruition dollars at the bursat's

wi¡dow.

-U.S. Nø¡¿s 8t World Repott college issue for 1990

send in aPplication forms! One wonde¡s what

these schools? Perhaps the lack of a pulse'

ily weighted in favor of student buyers, tuition

the quâlity of undergraduate education sank'

Ten years lãter, the neglect. of undergraduate education has become' at

many r;search universities, the abandonment of undergraduate educadon'

The ¡cccnt Boycr Commission rcporÌ, Reiffi)enting Und'ergraduate Educa'

98 I ÞEER Á,ND CIRCUS

classes and beer-and-circus, at 4.3; and Clarkson Universiry, lacking major

rcsea¡ch facilities but renowned Íor facalty eftention to undergraduates,

^t 2,6. A key word in U.S. N¿r¿s's explanation ís diploma-signtfrcantly, they

use it ând.not educ¿tìon.The magazine implies that the label is of primary

imponaàce, that bccause it says Chivas Regal or Big-time U Baccalaureate,

the Scotch whiskey is superb and the person holding the degrce well edu-

cated. Clearly, this is not true. À California higher education exPert com-

mented, 'I sec students graduating who cannot write a business letter, balance a ledger, or use a comPuter to do so. I see other students graduating

from the same colleges with the same degrees'who pcrform academic tasks

at a high level and "are clearly vcry well prepared" for futurc iobs and

"du"rr"id rchooling (similarly, some graduates of Clarkson are better

trained than some lVisconsin grads in the same fields)'

For large, public research univcrsities, labeling replgces learning, and, un-

fortun"i"ly, m"oy students PârticiPate irr this game by entering college with

a single goal in mind-to obtain a diploma as easily as possible' One cx- p"rienc.ã te"cher

"omplained that for too many students, "It turns out thar

Laving been to college is thought to be the imponant" thing, not "acquiring

k-oowledge" while therc. This attitude connects to the lristo¡ic disdain of

collegiate and vocational students for academics and incellectual achieve-

ment bot, ironically, Bþ-time U's promoæ tlis Point of view by trumpeting

the label value of their degrees and downplaying their general education

progrâms. According to the recent Boyer Commission Report, when Big-

ti-" U', tr."t "undergraduate Prog¡ams as sideshows to the mairi event" (research), students receive very clear sig4als about their marginat place

within the academic parts of the insritution' 'This school úeats the average studcnt [undergraduate] like shit," said

a senio¡ at Ohio Stare Univcrsity. "And so we blow off ou¡ classes and

party on High Strcet' Go Bucþs. \'ve had a great four years of Partying and following the Bucks, but an awful four years of course work'" Whether

this student ãff"red a ,e"son for his divotion to beer-and-circus at OSU'

or a personal ¡ationaÞation fo¡ the time and energy he spent on it is irnpossible to say' The synergy between the neglect of general undergrad-

uale education and bee¡-and-circus is so profound rhat it is impossible to

separate cause and effect. But the resultiag realiry dominates many cem'

puses today.

}

ffi STUDENT MIX

AND MATCH

tudents et large, public research universities respond to their schools' emphasis,. oq' research and indiffe¡ence to general under- graduate education in þredictable, unpredictable, and sometimes un-

scrupulous ways. However,\they always filter their reactions through the true cenle! of their college livêi,. the subculrures to which they belonj. This chapter examincs the currenr slate of the traditional subculruresicollc- giate, academic, vocational, and re\l-and how rhese shape conremporaq¡ student artitudes toward the education, o¡ the lack of it, that they receive at Big*ime U's. \

-\ In their essay, Clark and T¡ow look at follstudcnt subcultures. Cur- rently at .tndiána Universiry [April 1998[.,thcir divisions ¡emain somewhar accurare. Bu¡ I also feel srudcnts tôd.ay may easily belong to one gror¡p but have lors to do with anothei.sr¡bculrure simulta- neously. \

Because I have to work my way through school with several part- time jobs at oncc, I basically identify with the vocadoùl subculru¡c. But I have done my fair share of parying and socializing icgllegiate), and have lors of collegiate friends. I'm also a hugc Hoosiers fan (col¡ legiare), But I know many students who belong to only one sùbçu! ture and ro me thar is the waste of a wonderful learoing expcrienè,

. -A female Indiana University undergraduaæ

. This woman's commenb, rypicel of the majoriry of srudeot responses to a question abour the Clark ard Tråw categories, indicated the c*rent srare

.286 I NorEs

Jey Oliva's comBtenrr on 'Every school wenrs to belicve" were in ân ånidê by Jeffrcy S¿'lingo, Chrcnich of Highet Elu<ztioa, 10131/97 . -Í}'e Bufføto Na,J covcred the 6¡¿¡ciel cosis of tIB'6 ioiniug rhe Mid-Amêrica CoDfcrcrìc€ (MÂC) in a numbe¡ of aciclcs ovcr thc ycars; penicularly informativc w.!¿ pic.t5 by A.ll.n Vilson, 11/21197; Merk GaÛ8har! 7112J99i âfr¿ Karart Bredy , 4116197 . Tie Jast naocd articlc also noÉd tha¡ rhe schocl pess€d on somc of the iatercollcgiaæ ¿tI ctic, oç;ii¡c¡ ro Á¡ll-timè unde¡g¡duate¡ in the foÀ of â $1.3J ¡billion iûcr.¡¡t in thcir aû¡ûâl fccs-$20O¡er srudcnr pcr y,cât:-and rhe Chrcaicle of Hqher Edu- ratior ütícjl oo UB (op. cit.) riotcd"tha{ thc slrdênts wcrc ûow p¡ying $280 a ycar. Jcffy Sullivan of rhc Be//alo Ncøs rcmerkcd tbi-!4$ns acusromcd to s€.ing rhe lMiami] Dolphins won't þ roo thrillcd ¿bour f\cnr Sr¿rer" 6i16l91-.pB preriden¡ Wiukm Grerncr spoke about his .Ebitions for his intcrcollcgi4e ãtblêtics plogr¡ir.in an a¡riclc by Mâ¡k GeuEhâD oI thc Beffdlo Nerus,7n3l99i in the_.eefiic articlg AD Bob Arkcilpa-nc cxplained his para.llcl ambitions; thcsc LE offcials repcaEd-¡licL opinions ir rhê Chrcaide ofaígher Edur¿tbn eÍicle (op. cit.).

Thc Plrn ttþn Reaicú prbts ia rrnlings ir part wo of eaib êdttion; the lß¡der's Gu¡¿e lists rdrools by statc, and witbin cach starc alphabccically-ir has nevcr changed SIJNY-Buffalo's ¡r¿lrrc ro thc Uoivcrsity of Buffalo, nor has thc Pñn.¿ann Reuiel¿. \Írllialr. Fischc¡ discussed ihe 'ncgativc halo cffcct" in en c-ruril, 11/10/99,

7: Shøft the Underyraùøtes

Cl¡rk Kcr¡ discussed "thc mark of a uoÍversity 'on the oâke' " in The Uses of the lJùuersity (op. cit,), p. 90, and thc "iÁcvitâblc aidê-cffeat," pp. 64-65. His anicle, "Thc New Racc to Be Hareard ot Bêrkcley o. Staaford," appæred in Cbangc øagazine, ll'/,zyflune, 1991, pp. 8-15. ln rc<eot dccades, variou¡ cridca of hi8hcr c¿ucation anacked the cmphasis on rcs€¿rch ât the cxF€ns. ol undcrSr¿duâtÊ tcechingi the nlosc widely r¿âd wâs Ch¿rles J. Sykcs's P¡of Scam: Prcfcssort ¿ñ¿ the Detrise ol Hígha EÅucation \Ncw York, 198t)- However, thc most cveû- handcd and v¡cll informed commenary on this zubjcct appcared in Christophc. J. Lucâs's Cr¡s¡r in thc Atzdaty: Rethìnþht Higbet Edac¿r,ott rn Azer,¿á (N€w Yo¡k, 1996)j L¡cås discnss€d not ody "Upward Drift' universùie5, p.214f, but also the crirics end thci¡ posidons, erd he provided ao cxccllent bibliograpby for all rcaders r¡t€restcd i¡ the rntlic¿cies of this debate.

Sæphcn F. Aldcrslcy vrotê ''Upwz¡d Dri.ft' ls .{jv¿ end lfell" for Chaíge, Sep:',.nLber/ Oaobe¡, 1995, pp,51-56; he discusscd the "potent d¡ivers of insrirution¿l direction ¿nd dccisioa-ma-king" aad providcd rnany lists and charts on Upward Drift U's from thc 1970s to rhc mid-1990s. Ronald Si¡¡pson ¿nd Suszd Fro<t in ltsìàe College: Uhdergr¿¿lat¿ E¿ucat¡ort fot .hc Psa.t¿ lNew York, 1993) cxplâincd Cla¡k K€<r's clirssilcâtion systcm fo¡ resca¡ch uru- versitiæ, pp. 67-70. I uscd Àlderclcy's lira (op, cirJ for the co¡¡clation bctwen Upward Dtift U's aqd Division f collcgc sports schools, aad ¡hc U.5. Neøs's anqual collcSe islucs (op. cit.) th¡ough rha 1990s for the top 50 raolings of aaciooal universitics. Many univcrsity adminis- trâto¡s dispurc thc U,S. Ncrzs ralkings, panicularly whcn thcir schools ratc poorly on thcm, but almoct cveryonc in highc! cduetion acccpts rhc U.S. N¿r¿s lisls as thc standard poll and vånls their cchool !o âchiev€ a higÀ plâc. on thern-

Profcssor John E. Roucche of rhc Uoìvcrrity oI Texas {Aus!iû) disc¡rssed che 'monolirhic stetu! systcm' in higher eduetion in Aí Arrl¿l¡øn lrñþeøtiue (op. cit.i, p. 136. Oae of the ba* studies of Upward D¡iJt and its cffcct on undcrg¡âdualcs ¡pp€arcd i! ¡\e Cbi.ago Tnbuie, 6121192 tfuough 6n992. Rcpoltcrs Roo c¡ossdran, Caroi Jouzaitis, ând Cha¡lcs Iæroux srudied tbc ph.Doñüron at public univcrÉiúes i! Illi¡ois a-ud adjoining sratas; dre hcadline, "Collcgcs Fi¡d Follow-thc.t¡¡dcr i¡ a No-ün GzÃc," 6nSf9Z, sums up the srudy's coÂclusions. Thc Ti6¿¡¿ x¡ics is fa¡ bettrr thán alrnost ¿ll árticles in educational journels on ¡he sáale subj€ct, altd it d¡úreriz.s r¡ê impect on individual srudcnrs. Melinde Millcr, edito¡ of the U. of lllinois stl¡dant nensp¡par et thc tirac, wae quoæd in t¡a 6lnl92 aactloû oÍ the *Áes.

RurF¡s prof¿Âso¡ BËajdnià Barbc¡ wrotc about his *hoo| i\ Aí Arittaøac! of Eueryorc: The Policics ol Educztior and che Puøre of Anaaìuø (Ncw York, 1992\, p.196, aîð the'Iy'y I¡¿tuc $iyêrsity" with úc "cou¡se off" ptizc, p, 197. Michacl Moffat (op. cii) wroæ ñan/ chaptc¡¡ of his book o¡ ond.¡B¡adurrc êducarion ãr Ruttcrs. Ernesr Boycr in Cnllege lop- cit.) discurcd the Carnegic Foundation's ñndings on thc tiñ¿ faculty spcn! teãching undergraduares,

':'}

NorEs I 287

p. 121, and on the ne>(t pagq the rcscarcå pres¡i3ê .toâI" of Upwârd Drift U,s; t}e Carncgie findirgs on faculty trmc on rcscarch arc on ¡r. 128. Cbdstophcr j. Lucas in Crisís iop. cit.) has a¡ cxccllcft discussion on thc "Faculty Rcward Sysrcm," p. 1S5-16. Em"rirus profÀor Donald Cray of lndiana Univcrsiry recalled in er intc¡view io Bloor¡¡ingon, Indúnâ, 1O/19l99, thar when he began h¡s feculrt¡ câ-rêcr ¡n ùe 1950s, ahc $rodard tcrching aseignrncnt *as four courses pr¡ serncste¡r ând salary wcnt according to ycars in rank. Io the tr¿.osition ftoñ rhc old mcthod

.ro rhe ncr¡r research impcrativc in ¡l¡c l¡¡c 1960s and 1970s, somc young faculty

drowncd in Upward Drift: rbe promotion and tcnurc rules chanlcd during thcir probâtionary pcriod; for cxample, whcn they wctc hircd, thc criç¡ion fo¡ sufE-cic¡r ,o"-"rch fo. t no.. *", a scrias of-scholarly aniclcs; whcn thcy wcre up fo. t€nurc, ir had bccomc a nraior book. lf drov'aing.faculcy protestcd thst rh€y h¡d drvored much of thair rir¡ê ¡Dd êncrgy to taching undcrg::aduates, this plea almosr nevcr savcd rhcm

Facuþ wang:lc out of re&lår tceching ¡csponsibil¡lics iñ a nùmb.r of weysj sEaightforwârd appeals to rheir dcpartmen¡ ch¿i¡s for .Þorc timc to do rcscarch.; agrccmcno ¡o,¡r"i.

"oo,r""a.when hircd or rctained by schools; and rading "a ligÀtcr load noi for a hcrvicr onc during future scmcarêfs"-vrhich rareþ arrivc. In addirioû, s;r¡c dcpenmcnrs, perticulârly in rhc sc! cnccs, allow Iâculty ro "buy thêi¡ ¡À,ay or¡r" of rcaching rcsporsibiliacs,-Thc Chiczgo Ttib*ne lop. cit.J,6123192, explaincd thc lattcr proccss: "A profêrsor in rhc U. of llliooi; elccr¡icel .ntinccring dcpa¡rrîcrt . . . has a standard tcaching load of threc cou¡scs p€¡ ycâ¡," and th.t profcsso¡ "(3¡ buy his way out of onc of thosc councs by bringing in rcr;rch fùnas cqu¡t to et.l!âst 17 pc¡cc!! of his salary, or ¡bour $20,000 on avcragc. For such profcasoF, rhc têuchiog loed drops ro onc cless cach scmcstct, about tbrcc hours pe.r wccJr io thc classlooø."

Button Clalk d.scribcd somc profcssors ss "co6ûopolitans" end othcls åo "locâb" ià his .asãy, 'Fåculry Cr¡lru¡€, " ia'fhe Sã.¿-f of Carrrpss Cahur¿r, .dì.cd W T.lty F. Luosford {Bcrkc- hy,.Calif,, 19-63), pp. 39-54. Thc Camcgiê Fourdaúon Gndinp on íocals

"crsus cosmopolit ns

arc in Erncst Botcf, Coflet¿ (op. cir.), p, 239, âÈd in hycÌs Sciolarshþ Recorrsi¿erc¿: priorities of the Prcfessoîiate lPù\c*on, NJ., 1990), p. 56. ChrÈtophcr J. Lucâs in Cr¡j& (op, cit.) com_ úên¡cd on "a sintlc faculry lcward sEuctu¡c," p. 192-93.

__-TÀc intê¡victe wirh rl¡e Michi¡¡n SrÂrc seaio¡ worn¡n occu¡¡cd in E¡¡t l¡osin& Michi¿an,

522J95; UCI-I' cconomist Emily Abcl comparcd TA's ¡o "McDoncld's . . . paft-;; cmplor,_ ccs," in Tø¡¿ ñâgázhc's ¡niclc, ",Acadcai¡'s Ncw Gypsies" by Ezra Bour:n,1r/12,lt7. Ac¿¿eñ¿, thc magazine of rhe func¡ican Association of Univcrsiry p¡ofc¡sors (AAUp), hed an cxccllcnt aniclc, "Lifc on thc 'Effccrivcly Tcrminal' Tarure Track,' by Manio Finkcbt in, Je¡uâry/Feb- ßery 7986; I d¡âw mâny of my idcae and srerisrics from thar aniclc, ss wdi as f¡om a¿ i¡ncrvi¿E, wirh Paul SFohm, úe .¿itot ol Acadcme from t9t¿ ao 1992, coûducted in Bloo_ rîingtoî, l^¿ìena,7nl99. Updees on rhe peÍ-dmr¡s, inct.åsi.og p¡cscncc in highcr cducation occurcd ttuoughout thc 1990s, and å 1999 ¡epon, Faang Choigi: &tilding thiFaadty of the Fø*ze, publishcd by thc U.S. Depanment of Educ¡tioD, Vâshington, D.C., summcl up thc situation, suppþing excc¡Icn! shristic¡. In ¿dditioû, ncwrpapc¡ aÍicles oftcD gayc ¡ vivid picñ¡¡c of thc Lifc of a pan-timcr; scc Joscph Bcrgcr's long pir.c in rhc N¿, yorl iirz,¿s, 3lgt9g-¡hc hcadlinc and subhcad sct thc sccnc pcdccdt, .After Hcr ph.D., rh€ Scâu*go', ii{./t yiog to Tu¡n a Patchwo¡k of Part-Timc Jobs ioto an A.c¿d¿mic C¡rce¡.'

Many wriæn withio hi6h¿r cduc¡tion critjcized thc inc¡casitrg usc of geduárc.sodent rë¡ch_ irg essistânt!-r lcsul¡ of tLc consr¡¡t êxp¡rsion of geduae ptogram.c er â rimê of sh¡irking economic lesourccs for mâny univcrsiÈica. Christophcr J. Lucas in Crisri {op. ci¡.) outlincd thi situaúon and supplicd sracisties, p. 10f; Cary Ncl¡oà and Michâêl B€lub€ iloqucntly ettackcd graduatc-school cmpirc-building in rûc br¡oducd on .o ¡hct Htth¿t Edacatìo¡ U¡d¿r Fù¿: pol- itícs, Ecþttotníe, an¿ thc C'itít in the Ht rnarati¿s (Ncw yorl, 1995). Erncsr Borc¡ in Schohrsbþ (op. cit.J dislikcd the usc of TAs, p. 71, but Martin Aadcrs on íA In postêt ì,, th¿ Târltpr¿ (Ncìp York, 1992), ì¡¡es vitupcrÂrivc âbor¡r ir, sråtmg, "Childúcn [fÁ's¡ æaihing chitdreo is unconscionable," p. 65. Andclsoñ conrin¡¡êd his atrack in otbcr patts of his book; inio doiog, hc prcscntcd a powcrful ca6c agai¡tst the cxploication of graduati and undc¡traduatc srudc ¡ th¡oug.h !h¿ T sysrcm.

- On tÀc blcal landscape of pan-uncrs and TAq thcrc are e fcw positiy. dcvclopments; for rrramplc, in lc.cnr ycars my owo dcpartrrcot, Englbh, ar lndiana

'Univcnity, has si8rrif-

288 I N orEs

c¡ndy incrc¡sêd ils tachcr tr¡i¡in8 for its E!¡du¡rc sßudcnts (cuphêrh.isticâlly callcd Arsociatc ln5r¡uc1ors) ¡nd instit¡¡æd.¡ numbc¡ of graduaæ courscs ¡n pcdaEo8y to conDÊct to ùe A.fs cl¿ss¡oom wo¡k, Ncvcnåelc*r, us I artuc in thc conclùsion to tÌrrs book, thc cntrrc graduatc- school sysr.r¡l is b¡okcn, ¡¡d n€.ds . rolal ovcrhsul, nor niF â¡d tucks.

Thc totâl nüanb.r of clrs.c t¿qht by pert-timcrs and grad studcnts is an clusivc Êgurc bcc¿usc ycry fcw studic-r include âll of tbc cou¡scs whcrc â profcsso¡ is in cbargc bur grad ¿¡ì¡i6t¿nts do thc bulk of drc rcaching, aod do all of ¡hc 8¡adir¡B and confcrcnccr wjdr studcíB. Inv¿n¡bly, to p¡d thcir st¡ti¡ti6, mo6t ¡csqÌch univêrsities lis! thcs. coußca as taught by full feculty, but in fact thc proêrsor tcachcs o¡ly abour 20 pcrccnt of thc couß. {thc lccurcs). 'Wh¡tcvcr thc actual nursbcrq cvcn thc cons€rv¿tivc cstimatcs in rlc 50 pc¡ccnrilc r¡ng. arc apgelling high.

cail B. Promboin -n thc Arnaícû l,flper¿ti!¿ lop. ci!.) discustcd how 'Thc gcneral pub- lic. . , sces .c¿ching uldcr8r¡duaEs ¿s thc primar'' missron of higher êducât¡on," p. 128.

8: The Grcat Reseaîcher : Great Teacher Myth Formcr f¡d¡¡na Univc¡sity p¡cidcnt Thom¡s Ehrlich wroæ hú commen¡s on "Gr¿at Te¿.hers órd î.a.hing" øThe Co*agc to Iaquie lop. cit.), pp.25-26; I essume that hc docs notmind my tâlirB hÈ ddc to h€¿¡g a¡d in$¡iliÂg inro thc m¡h that hc pcrpctuaEd.hêrc P¡ofcssors P¿rick T- T.rc¡riri ald Èncst T. P¡s.ârclla dcbunkcd rhc 'good tcachcrs arc good rcsearch_ c$" mFh ià "LiviDB witb Myús: Undcrgraduâte Educauon iD Am.ríca," Change, !^nùery/ Fcbro:ry, 1994, 9p.28-32; all of thci-t quoær in tiis chapter are from this aniclc. Thcy bascd rhc anicle on thêir boolq ¡Ior¿ Co eg¿ AÍfe¿tt Sã.¿entt: Fittdings and Ißighß frotñ Tue¿ry Yezts of Research lSznÊrzrcisco, 1991)i thc in¡êrcstcd r¿adcr cân eâsil) to [¡om thc toPics in thc anidc to tì. voluminous r€sêårdr bchi¡d it i¡ thcir book, and I ¡ecommcnd thts cot¡¡se of sc¡ion.

P¡ofcsro¡ l¡wis H. Millc¡ r¡,rotc cbout "thosc ¡a¡c fcw" hculty mcmbcrs who simuløne' ol¡dy conduct i¡rtcnsivc reæ:rch aod tcaching io "Hubris in thc -Acadcmy: Can Tcaching Suwivc ir thc Ovcrx,ccriing Quclt fo! Exclllcr¡cc¡" Crø¿tp, Scptcmbcr/Oclobcr 1990, PP 9-11, and p. 53; and in 'BoId, Im¡gitrltivc Step6 Arc Nc.dêd to Link Tcaching wìth Rescatch," Ch,onicle oÍ High¿t E¿$.atiorr, 9/13/89, p. A52. Thc quotc it thc lcxt is from thc Cåazge anidc, but rolrre poilts in thc par¿ph¡¿sc âr. froú t\c Chrorích pi.ac. Ffulich {oP. cit.) "undcrsco¡cld] rh¡t studcols bênc6t ie.E rsày," p.25.Tlc Chicago Tnåv¡¿ discusscd ùc Univcßiry of MicÌ¡- igan study end quotcd ¡hc U of M scicnct PlofcÂsor, 6/23192. Peul Strohrn wrolc his commcnts in "Thc ldcology of 'Excrllcnir,' " AAÍJP R¿potr, e Publica¡ion of the Àmcricen Âssoci¡tion of Univcrs¡ry ?rofcseoß, Indi¡n¡ Uniyc¡rirÍ Ch¿ptcr, Autu.Eo 1991, pP 2-5. Chri3toph.¡ J Lres in Ameìcan Hìgb¿t Edth.ation \oD. ail.) di¡cusses the m¡'ths sÙrrounding rcscarch and tcachint, p. 284f, ¿¡d Þkê¡ ¿Dothc! ruû .! thcm in Ctírir (oP cit'), p. 198.

,{ malority of fzculty at tc¡carcb unþ€r6ir¡ê5 consrdcr thcmsclvcs good tøchers, thus buying into lhc âdmir¡¡tration't idcoloty on the subjcct as wcll at Protêcti¡lt lhcir own ctos. Somc cvc¡ citc tho3c notoriously lìawcd indkators, srudcnt cvaluations, as proof of rhci¡ Ìcaching a¡callcdcr. How.vcr, rnßt of rhasa p¡oÊrtoß rcfuse ¡o âllow ouaside cxpcÍs iüo thci¡ cless- rooûü to .yaluetc thci¡ E¡chiD8; eod ¡o ¿$cß vbâl lhcir ltudcnts âclt¡.âlly lcamcd, if anyrhing, i¡ thÊir cou¡scs. A châritablc obtrrvar hes to conclud¿ lhet somê of thcs€ prof€ssors ale Prob_ âbly ¿dcquârc ta¿chcrs but nowhc!! ¡¡.¡¡ ¡¡ good ee thcy imagine themsclves and thcir col- leagucs to bc, and many ottrcr faculty øcmbcrs e¡c rncdioc(c to âwful tcachc¡s. Fi¡ally' in ¡hc in¡c¡cgr of full disclo¡urÊ, bcfo¡. I b.€åû rhe rcse¡¡ch Io¡ tbÈ book' I belicvcd that I ù¡s en cxcd.lcnt tc¡cåcr and I hed chc studcnt cval¡euors !o "prove" ir; I subscqucndy had my teachiag ev¡luat d by outsidc crpcÍ¡ ¿nd I h¿vc dircovscd thet, al¡hough it rs quitê 8ood, il is fet ftom oì¡¡.r.nding. Thê cxpclts ang8lstrd dr¡r I devorc mora lilDc co preparålion, studctrt confcrênccs, úd ¡uå¡li¡g papc¡s ¡nd, iD thjs l¿bo(-i¡¡tcûsiva way, try !o b€comc ân cxccllcnt tcache! I know tbat meny othcr faculty rûembcfa et rcsc¡rcb u.oivcrsitica a¡c in thc s¿mc situadon.

Thc visi¡ to thc "fræhmao prychology lccnrrc" ß ir.PÉ-tcr, Coll¿t¿ (oP. ci.)' P. 140. Mâny coe¡¡c¡ttltots hâvc discuts.d thc lcco¡t<ou¡sa mêthod: ChristoPhc! J' Lucâs in CtltÈ (oP. cir.), p, 169f; Simpson and Frosr in lzsìdc C-ollegc (op. ci¡.) havc a¡ cxccllcnt chapÈr,

qHor¡

P¡ofccaors Tê¿cl¡,' end a !.ction, 'lntcr¡ctivc Mêthods," of rhât châpt.r on thcst issucs; and

r.-1

t)

. NOTES I 289

Roben Nielsen in rhc AFT Newstetær \Al'rc¡/lcan Fcdcration of T€âchers) offcrcd insighs into thc hirtory of lecturint, "Puning thc Lccture in Its Placc," Dcc.mbcr 1990üaîruery 1991tp.16. SiInon Bronnêr {op. cit.) related thc folklorc iokc, "Du¡iÍg a lccru¡c," p. 183. Chrìstopher J. L¿cAs tà Am¿li<an Hìghet Educziotr (op. cif..) com¡n¿oÈd oû St. Johû's is A¡nepolis, Mâ¡y- land, p.280. Many auchors h¿vc discussed rhc higher-cducation rcforms suggcsæd by rebcl studenrs in the 1 960s; an cxccllent anthology on this topic was Bøyozl B erÞel4: A Sourccbook i,t Sts¿¿r'c Valu¿s, èditeÀ by Ch¡isrophd C. Keropc and Paul G. Zolbrod {Clcvcl¡nd and NcB, York, 1966).

îhc Cbrcnicle of Highd E&l.ation di¿cvss.¿, rhe financial ctisis io highcr educ¡cion and its impact on class size in vârious articleÊ ov¿r rhc years, lncluding Kercn Grassmuck's anzlysis of ¿dmi¡isu¡to¡s'rcasons for pl¡cing fâculty itr lecru.c cours¿r, 1/31/90. À¡rhu¡ M. Cohcn in Shagìng of Aaerican Hígher Edtcaron: The E tlergaLz añ¿ Grcu)th of the Co,tlz,nþo1¿ry SFært {S2Jl Fr rcisco, 1998) explaincd rhe "$15,000 or morc ¡)êr class augbt by e full-timc proLisor," p.347. Êrncst Boycr n College (op- cir.) quotêd undcrgrrduatcs on class¿s wi¡h "morc tlu¡ onc hund¡cd students cntollcd," p.145; Rutgcre profccso¡ Mich¿el Moffat norcd "class¿s of 300 aqd 400 u/cre quitc connon,' p.292j Universiry of lllinois polir¡c¡l scicnc. prolessor Robc¡r 'Wcissbc¡t discusscd his class sizcs and his 'loungc acr" iît]t Ch¡<aphibt¿t\¿ (op. cit.), 5/21192; that newspepcr also rcportcd rh¿r "studca$ find thcmsclvês iÁ l.¡ture h¿lls scetin8 1,200," 5/21192; en¿ quotcd U of I srudent Dan Lillig on r}lc mcchrnicel cngioccring profcssor who 'faccd rhc blâckboard the eÂtúc rimc," 612JJ92.'n\e intc¡vic¡v r*ith thc Ohio Statc student rook placc in C,olumbus, Ohio,6/6/88, whilc I was doi¡g rcscrrch for füllege Spo/tr Ir¿.; thc intc¡vicwcc bcgan complaining on rapc about lis uadergrad¡¡¡te cour¡¿s.

Indiana Univcrsity studcot Gcorgc Dávid rclatcd rhc story of the profcsso¡s ¡nd tåc ovcrhcad nansparcncics, 11/14194. A¡ne Mâtthêws in Bright Colle& y¿ats (op. cit.) quotêd ùÊ sÈudctrr rcrnerks, and diÁcu6scd thc cv¡luetio¡s, pp. 198-99. The c¡oss-country survey of thc Inrrìler's Gui¿a to the Colle1at ís from tlìe 1999 cdition. Mz¡y srudics conr¿sr "lcctur¿/discussion clas- scs" wiù "¿ctivc l.¿¡ni¡8" situadons; a classic work, sall vahd, ß Inuolua*ent ¡¡t L¿afling: Realizittg lhe Potential of Amcríczn Higher Eduørior, Nâtiodal lnsrirulc for Educeúon (Vash- iDSton, D.C,, 1984).

Randolph H, Weingartner \n Udergaduzæ EÅa<atioí lop. cit.) irclûded rhc .$dy rhar "found lccturing to be the modc of insuuction of" most faculty, p. 102. Thc d.y th¿r I w.orê this footnotc, I passrd by a seminar room at lndiaru Uoivcrsity aud, through thc opcn door, I sew a profcs3or stendint âr a llc¡cro, lc.rurint four studcnts! Mary Bcth Marklcin rcponcd on thc study thet calculâtcd thc numbcr of qucstions froñ studc s per classroom hour in US.4 Today,1,OI9l90.

^n \rLdcrgraduatc at thc Univcrsiry of lo¡,v¿ rcmerkcd th¡t :lectücs frusuerc

mc" in ¡n inkrvicì¡¡ in lo\r,å Ciry, 10/t9l99. Thc CarnedÊ Found¡tion has trackcd facuþ ¡nicudcs rowerd srudcDrs fo¡ many dccadcsr

Ernët Boycr in Corl¿8, discr¡ssed somc of thci¡ 6ndings, pp, 14G45; and individual univcartics, including my own, håve discovcrcd similar faculty corûplainß ovcr thc ycaa. Thc iorcwicw with tbc Univcrsiry of Tcxas (.A.usciÂ) iunio¡ occu¡rcd io thc srr.rdcnt union, 11121198- Ernest Boycr in Collzge summed up, "lf faculty and studcn¡s do not sce rhemsclver as having imporunt bnsincss to do togcrhcr," p. 141. A cornmcn! ¡s po\vcrful as Boycr's camc i^ Vhat l,lattcts i¿ College: Four ûit¡cal yeors Raurfed by Alexaadcr,{rtià (S¿n Flancisco, 1993), p.419. Àstin, â UCLA profcssor, hes conducted the most cxtc¡sivc polliag o{ undetgraduarcs cvcr undcrtakcn; hc concluded th¿t "thc nct rêsì¡lt of lhê6e úends lèrnphesis o! rÊs€¿rch, de-cr[ph¡6is on Ècaching undcrt¡ãduatcsl is a lârgc physicâl and psychological distancc berwcen thc rcsc:rch uoivcrsny feculty aod their urdcrgradu¿te 6t1¡dcn!s." Thê l2tt¿r f¿.l that thcy arc "not rcgardcd as rm- poranl êDou8h to mcrir thc pcrsonal attcdion of rhc uoivcrsity commuÂiry's mosr csleemcd mcmbcrs; thc facuhy. No wonder, then, that studcnr sâdsfacion wirh feculq' is lowc¡ i¡ thc public universiry rhân in âny othc¡ kind of insúNdon,"

9: New Siuash n Red lnk À¡thu¡ lrvi¡e's commcnts camc in an op+d piecc fo. rhc Chrcnicle of Higbct Eduatìoí, "Hi8hcr Educâtion's Ncw Status a¡ a' Maorc lndu¡¡ry,1 1131197, A48. U&{ lodat did a Bood ¡ob of rracking thc €sc¿ladnt costs in highcr cducar¡on ¿nd prinüng thc comfimr¡ of ¡hc

Beth Merklein's zrtkle on chê costs, U5/97; Jon C. Suaus's op-ed piece oa rhe same subjccr, 5117197i a¡d rhê cdilo¡¡al co!¡plaining about rhc costs, 3/5/9t. All ol thcse piec.s provided excellenr ând âccu¡ete stetistics, and I havè uscd them in rhc rcxt; thc Marklein picca toted thc iacrcasc rn rcscarch erpcÃseâ of "757Vo bêrw€co 1981 âod 1995," end rhê itern âbour G€o¡ge Meson UÍivcrsity; end rhc S¡¡eus ong " burc¡ucratic bloât. , Nâncy J. Bruckcr w¡ote about ".50 pcrccnt of thcir tirnc ro fund-raisin&" âûd "Stâres now lypicelly supply,' iq rhe Washington Posr,222./98. She also norcd ¡har whcn rh. iob pc¡forûur¡c. of administrâ rors is reviewed,;hey are "gaded on rheu fund-raising ability, and those who won'r do rr, or donl do it well, doni gcr promored'; i¡tdftd, some get fifri,

Chrurcple.r J. Lacæ a Anuiøtt Highu Eduøtion (op. cit.) woæ about rhe history of srâre ünivershies and rhcir ¡atc-twcûticrh{effury pr€dic¿m;nr, .frrprr" i ,iãrgl i, *a h,discussed the topic in his Caír (op. cit.J, pp. 110f. Froltl

" fll"rk., oåin;;u;;ï:madtsomcsense,butio".*orùeh.i"i'"..,io;il;;;f;ffi:i:1i::1J::H:i,:;ìïi:i

to allow brisht scudcnts within tÀc set. ro ârk.d, .g",ár."i, "iiiJ ".ì;;.-"ä;_.",r,"gtuitron changcd ¡jrc narr¡rc of m¡nv srudcnr bodrcs, ia¡¡icul¿¡t, "il*r-."ï"i"."o'",*r, *,0,,poor studcnts.rncreasingly priccd out "r,r,",.r,o"r'"ia'.ìts;;';ï.bï';:i:i;"", "*commnnirv cottcscs. sara Hcbcl of thc chronicre or H,gheì ú;;t¡""

"*ä. ,¡"i',r,I cr..,admiûisr¡âtron's ter c¡ldis fo¡ tuition wcrc no, r.rii.si"^[i.", 1,,;;;;il;;:,,". ""0stay in four-yeer univ€rsititc$, 70n2J99.

Pe¡rick Hcály of thc Chrcnícle of Hiche¡ Education reponed rhe pr€dicrion by Harold A.Hovcy of starc poricy Resou¡ces rnc. on ihc dccti". .n ",,";.';;.;;;i;ï;:i;j*",-"" _tle rwcnry-6r* ccnrury, 7!Z7t99t n rhê eticL,David Brcnearan, a hi6h of6cial at thc Unrversityof Vrginra, secondcd this prcdicion: "Thc båsic rhessâ8e is á sobcring one_w!,rc âcrrng likeevcrything's just wondcrful richt now fdu¡ *i"áa. r".-r,ilf .. Ii"ä;,;iï ï.;i,i,T-'r,": ;åï:"ïi,',ï'J:'¡J,"å1;1,"i ;ntl ;;;:icle of Higher Ed*cztíon teponed. thc U.S.- Gcnc¡al eår,_,*s öä*tïi_í"i oi rhe z¡¡p€rccnr inc¡ê¡'. in tuidoo fêcs of four_ycar public

""i",";r;*,'tÃiie .' l)1î"*,ri. o,o "covcr story on rhc escalatiag cosa io highcr e dr*ri.r\ 3:i;;ß),'";,¿ djr.".r.o"r"¡iijl,"*r,o ot s¿nnsylve'je nur¡bc¡s, as wcü as tåc "Chivas Regal iffe.t.- No d;";;, ,À,;;.:,;^ ._*muted into tl¡c "Glenlivct effcc,- and kecps changïg

""." ;;J,ion';oi,hi.'"li " .*breads of Scotch whislcy cscalatc.

Finan¿i¿l wotld,3rls9a, carricd tlrc repon bv K¿rherine B¿rrerr and Ri.hard cr€enc onúe risc iD luitioà vc¡sr¡s educationat qr.ra.tiry. Jus¡ * ¿. rr,.¿i" tou." "lJ;;;-;;; ;h"

.l** cacc" aspect of politics, ir does rhc same wirh thc "âdmissions -.pii ã": rì " "ìi."r

*_rmplc, thc fronr,page featuri anict¿ io USá To ¿q, 4t16t96, by i;;:;;ü...", i.¡r,i,l¿ "r.o îollcg¿s Rcjcct.Top Kids," and subbeaded, "Morc srudcnts ,ir"o

"r., "r. ,"iJ"*ìl¡¡.,,..

'han 1500 on rhc SAT is no guá¡ânlcc of an Jty kaguc educâtion.,, Noùherc in rhc fcarurc r¡ticlc js thcrc a discussion of thc lack of sclcc¡iviry of thc co cges and universirics bêyond the vy t¡ague. In irs 1t98 collegc isue, U.S. Neøs, in a promincÂr plâcc ar thr fronc of rhc "How o Apply" sclrioí, lisrcd somc iÃrport¡ar statistics, rncluding, i schools that acccpt ov.r 90 tercent-20J." Ye! rÂost rcadcrs ignorcd this reality.

Go¡don C. 'Wi¡sro¡ w¡otc .bo'rr 'prest¡g¿ t&arirñiz¿tioñ in en aîi,cle for Cbarqe maa¿zif.le, 'Thc Decline in Undcrgraduaæ Teachìng: Moral Failurc of Markcr Pressurc" (Scprcmber/ )ctober, 1994) pp. 9-14. Thc quoæs from IJ.S. N¿¡r,s abour irs cr¡t¿rie for rarht universrtics úc in ràc 2000 cditioq rh. cor¡6cat6 of Àagcla Brownc-Millcr, California higher-cducation :xpüt, about "studcnrs gredu¡ri¡g who c¡n¡ot writc a bì$i.acss lctter," wcrc in h€¡ book, ihameful Admìssiors: Thc Losì'-r Ba.tl¿ to Sctue Everyote ia Our tJaiuerjiri,es (San Frencisco, 1996), p. 12. Rudolph H, VciîgenÃet in Uñ¿¿rgradudte E¿t cattot lop..it.) .ompleincd eboul hc student concept of 'hauìn6 been to collcge .. . Iesl thc lmpofteft, tl¡ia¿," pp.126-27,Thc loycr Cornmission's Reinueæìag Undagaùøtz Education lop. cit.), remarked about "r¡ndcr- gaduatc programs as siilcshows to ttrc main cvcat," p. 37. Thc ú Ic scnjor ar Ohìo Srarc pur Ís rcmarks in rhc P.S. sccrion of the survcy form for this book on thc web, 8/1299.

i:

In rh. mid-1990s, io my adv¡ncêd cxpotitory wdting clasrcs at lndiana Univcrsity, Blooming- ton,I uscd Clark andTrow's cssay (op. cit.) æ thc basis ofawrhing assig[mêot. I askcd studcnls to rcad tic essay carcfully, and rhcn m rcspond to thc following qucstionr "ln what ways, if any, do Clark and T¡ow's four srudcnt subcultura epply ro currenr undcrgaduarc life at In- diana Universiry, Bloomingon? Fccl f¡Êc to illust¡atc your ¡rgumcnt with personal cxamplcs_ howcv_er, bc sure to focus on thc qucsrioo, rnd do not writc a mcmoir oiyour co cge cxpcr! cnccs,' This rntcntionrlly opcn_cnded æsþmcnt rcccivcd I v*ier¡ of responses and i quorc from somc.of thcm in this ciaprcr. &c¡us¿ the rtudcnrr in this cl¿ss wcrl ryp¡øì ru undÊr. graduates, I bciicvc rhar rhe' rasponscr reflcctcd thc opiruons of many ,,rlrrírl*,i, ,,f,*fand er similer univc¡sitiæ across the country. Howcvc¡, I.cl¡in o¡ly ân..¿ool,ïo, ,.¡.nnn.,validiry for therc rcsponscs. Finaitv. for oþy¡e¡s ;";;: i ;;;;": ;;rüliiiï,i"." 0",,if rhcy read their commcn¡s hc¡c, i wish to rh¡nl thcn, as wcll as all of tÀc orher s¡r¡dcnts who*"j._:".:l!":9:"d ,r'oughdut cssays on rhis as,teni.n..;. ,h";;;'"""' ""'

rr n¡¡mo.r ot ngrori¡ns ¿nd so€iôloqkç noriccd thar rhc campus iurmoil of thc 1960s brokÊdown rhc bâ¡ricrs bÛwc.n srudcnt ,,.,'bcut,*.", .f,.. ;fy;;il;;"ä,i ll.få "r,,",,groups asainst che adminisration or ¡hc nation"r æ,*,#r."H"i:;î;.;;iiï.i.**" r"o.cir.) rcmarkcd rh¡r "rhc boundarics bctween groups bccamc morc pcftnc¿bl.," and rhrs contin_ucd in subsequcnt dccadcs, ¡. zeo. p¿trick T. T¿å_i.¡ an¿ ¡rn"í i'. po"i,i.r"ú'ü*t.¿

""rhrs phcnomcnon in rhcir ¡erc-¡970s arrictc on ct",k ""d

Tr"*,.;;;"1;";;ì;;:i.], on. ,0s-46..Alcxandcr Asr¡n's comDenr âbour "!hc studcnt,s pccr g¡out,- is n his Vhat Mat¿crs iaColleget \op. cir.), p. 39t.

Thc most ¡urhorir¡t¡vc study on in¡èrcollcgiarê arblaca cngaging io anaisocia¡ bchav¡or isrhc ongoint .'Nâcion¡t Iniri¡rjo; ¿r¡d Arhtcrjcs Su¡vcy," cond;; ;; Alä U;;ì,yrn "p_st¡tc Ncw

york. Eiucational journals and-,h" *.i.;i.;;ì;;;;. i,.."är*'lii,i" " "o

survcy, for cxamplc, (JSA Todzy,8/31/99. rn.âddirion, ,h;;;o-nj'äì, iliïi.*","E, ;ïl;#i::1:-T'ii'.1:."llllï*'dh': "Í "r"'ú;,;;; ;;il',ä,i*'iili.o',*,,t uL)t'ö\ c^tr)êa ¿ srory ebour a oarw involving No¡th Ca¡olioa Statc athlctic scholarsfupholdcrs rhar rcsulÌcd ¡n ¿ ,¡urdc¡, end t/S¡ f"a"yi U+IOO', tr^rurã;;;;;;;ä;;*,"_, thc Univcrsity of Vcrmonr hockcv tc¡m.

Thc Insidels Gui¿c (op. cic.)iiscusscs the tsu srudcnr d(css cod€ in thê 2000 cdi&on, andån on.c¡mpu visir ro Ohio srar. rnâdc me awârê of rhê "c¿k. rådy, r."dir;;- i;;".""""_nei¡c for thjs book top. cir.) rcvcålcd to* "ua""t" "p.n,,i.;.;:i,"ü;.;äääi;wÊêk;.dìc s_rarjsric lh¿r 32 pcrccnr of mtc scudcnB spdr mo¡. l,oe pc."*.*

"" "p:,,* f.*than thcy did stud;rng and doing coursc sssr8nmenß was as.c¡r.in€d by comÞârinr.acb rc_spondcnr,s torats fo. rhc quêsrion on stud¡n! vc¡sus thc onc ",,p..Á r,rlll,.n.'ir,. o¡_Univ¿rsiF/ srudcnr ¡ft.ndin8 Brisrol Univclsir'. put his commcnr iî tt c p.S.

"*.¡". "i *. *.Ssurvcy forrn, 9/10/99. Scon Edclsrcin's rcma¡ks;lc ir his book, Tå¿ Tz * "t.", ùli.s", n"*¡o Ssøue ¿¡d Sscæeà ós ¿ S¡'d¿nt iñ the Niñ¿r,¿r (Nêr¡/ york, 1991), p. lO3. Lou He¡rß an¡ounced rhc rcsults of his pollint ¡n a tetk rc thc Nationìl A i¡ncc fo¡ Collc8c

Arhlctics R¿form ar D¡e!. Univêrsiry, tO¿299; hc atso sr¡pplicd rhc audiêncc .¡.irh â h¿ndout of his results. Thc Boyc¡ Commission's commcnr, "/q.r mâny unjv.rsirics, rcscarch faculty and undcrgradìrarc studcnE do nor cxpêc¡ !o ir¡rct¡cr wirh cach orhcr- js in Rciñven¡ing Un¿et graduate Eduøtioa lop. cir.), p. 9. A tood ex.mpb of undcrgrâduare contcmpt for profcssors wâs providcd by Ch¡is Edwards, a rtudent columr\ist lot thè hdiaic [ÍJnh)eßitr] D¿ib Sru¿.nt ncwspâpêr on 10/18/99: "In small-¡o*n Indiana rhc guys who staggcr etound town in chcap suits and blathcr incohcrÊntly abour rhi¡gs rhar no onc carcs about arc callgd town drunki. Hcre {at Indiana Univcrsiryì wc cs¡l rhcm prof.rsors."

W¡lliâm TÂm's lcttcr appcatcd ia thc Indiaña lunh,¿rsittl Dcily Sra¿ent o^ 3l}ttgS; Mez c,lpø-as e faculry rncmbcr at IU,I did nocettcnd úis uoiycrsiry-widc Foundcr's Day ccrcarony, I c¡nnot rcmcmbêr wh¡ù f did durir€ rhat rim. pêriod; ho\¡/cv¿r, I ¡id attênd ñy dcpanm¿ncs For¡ndc('s Dây ccrcmony hcJd latcr ther day. lJ Mqaaiñ¿ EcpÅntcd rhe canoon êndì¡cd .Un! vcrsiry X" by James Lesscr ol rhc Univc¡siry of Michigan in thc 3/96 rssuc.

Thc P¡ínr¿ton Revíeu's cxplanation of is rankings arc from its websic: w,¡/rw.rey¡.w.cony'

@ THE FACULTY/STUDENT

NONAGGRESSION PACT

;\-: Ç.

-l ,'idebooks hke the Princeton Reuieu pteserÍ evidence of the de-

I iolo¡able state of general undergraduate educâtion at large, public \-.1 ..r."r.h uni".rsi-iti.s. For specific information on how these

schools neglect this crucial enterprise-ironically, their most dependable

source of income-it is necessary to examine lvhat happens, or fails to

occur, in undergraduare classes at these instirutions' This chapter provides

this information, as well as an inquiry into why many undergraduates ac'

iept beer-and-circus as a substitute for a meaningful education'

*

À mutual nonaggression pact develops between lazy srudents and

lazier professors: "I \¡/on't bolher you if you don'r bother mc"''

-Anrte Malthews' higher education wrirer

'V€ encountered collcges where there was e gene¡al âgreement rhat

academics were weak; and faculry and students had a tacit agreement 'not

to burdcn one anothe¡' -

-.tthur LeviÀe, president of Teachers College

at Columbia UnivcrsirY

I think it's really sad that my friends and I didn't go to class much'

I nean, we all go down t.hcre [to the University oI Illinois at Champaign-Urbana] to gct an cducation, and then we don't go ro

class. But you can get a good grade without going, so it's tempting

not to go.

-Doiothy Puch, Unive¡sity of Illinois student

Big-timé U's handle thei¡ undergraduate education problem by estab_ ,. lishing a truce berween faculty who want ro spend

" -ini-u_ "oíou* ottime o-n undergraduate teaching and students who want to obtain a degree as.easily.as possible. Sadly, this truce sho¡t_circuits srudenr, aatural curi_ osit), and desire to learn. Many srudies ¡eveal that even the most collegiate

¡ or vocationally inclined srudents enter universities hoping to ,aqui.a "oeducation. Often their wishes a¡e inchoate, but, in

" suppãniue

"""a".i.eriyi¡onment, some of these men and women would ful6li their hopes and talens. However, no one ever accused a Big_time U of being sug]ortive and nurturing: "impersonal" and "mean', are rhe adjecrives thai or¿er_ graduates most often use to describe these schools.

_ As detailed in chapter 7, because Big_time U's ¡cward faculry primarily

for research, not teaching, tley assþ professors to teach massive under_ graduate lecture courses, and these classes severely restrict student learning. For example, in all paræ of the country, introductory courses in psychol_ ogy, an inherently fascinating subjecr for undergraduates trying to estabrish adult personalities, consisr mainly of huge lectLe

"l"rres. Irrdied,

"t ,om"

universities wirh high-powered research departmcnts in this disciiline, ad- minist¡arors inc¡ease the size of basic psych courses to many hundreds of students to generate more money for research programs, and to provide employmenr for large numbers of graduate srudenß_rhey work ai teach_ ing assistants in these mammoch courses. However, for most undergradu_ âtes, exploring one,s identity along with hundreds of other peopleï the same roo.m is not a learning experience

-indeed, it turns the vasi majoriryof students away from this ñeld. But as one psych professor remarked,*Tha¡'s the whole idea. Vho wanrs a lot of undergraã psychology majors harging around a research departmentl"

, ,Across the curr.iculum, many introductor¡ courses, including in such foundation subjects as marh and English, are fr"qo"ntþ t",rghi in l"rg. lectu¡e cou¡ses. If the lectures also conrain a discussion ,"a,iorrloapoo"rrr,

THE FÀcuLTy/sruDÈNT NoN^cGREssroN pÂcr I 113

or the cou(ses enroll only a moderate number of students, usually an in_

pages 78-80). The recent Boyer Commission srudy noted that, ;iron_ ly, the first years of university studies . . . the most formative years [for

studentsl, are usually the least satisfactory." professors dislike teáching in_

TA or underpaid pan-dmer is in charge of the smaller group

TA.'s "rarely come a¡med wirh serious training in p edagogy- lnor do mosr faculry, for rhar mâne¡). *As a rèsulr, f..rh^"*the ,tJients who need

courses because the material is so far from their research, and

very besr teaching-may actually receive the worst." A¡othe¡ yiew of this situation suggests that because of rhe ûnances of ¡esearch universiry, and its pursuit of the ,,nonaggression pact, between

114 ì BEÊR ,tND cIRcUs

faculry and undergraduates, Big-time U's try io persuade entering students to accept inferior education as the no¡m. The mammoth lecture classes during freshmen year help accomplish this task, reducing students to pas- sive and cynical acirudes about these courses and, soon, thei¡ entire un- dergraduate education.

It is important to note that some regular undergraduates ar resea¡cli unive¡sities 6ght the system and gain meaningful educations-a testament to their extraordinary determination. Similarly, some faculty membe¡s at these schools teach their undergraduate cou¡ses conscientiously, spending long hours on this actiyity-an indication of their idealism and ca¡eer fool- ha¡diness. In addition, one other group avoids the nonagg¡cssion, norìlearn- ing trap: honors students. However, when large, public research uniyersities siphon off their best students and subsrantial resources for special honor¡ programs and colleges, they conÊrm and even inc¡ease the woeful condi- tions of general underg¡aduate €ducadon. (See chapter 13.)

Despite Big-time U's shabby treatment of regular undergraduates in rhe classroom, they need thei¡ ruition dolla¡s and often offer a substitute for

. genuine learning: a diploma, plus a "fun experience," including bee¡-aqd- ci¡cus. Because many students arrive on campus predisposed to rhe colle- giate subculture or immediately become immersed in it, they accept rhe university's deal. A University of Missouri (Columbia) undergraduare ex- plained:

Most srudcnts here, except for the journalism rnajors, feel they don'r need to try hard [in classer] and they can get by and get their degree. You Ênd that out when you walk into you¡ first class hcrc. . . . Most Mizzou students are satisÊed with easy schoolwo¡k becausc othe¡ things are much mo¡e impo(tarr ro them, mostly parrying ând fol- Iowing the Tigers.

The Insidet's Guìde to the Colleges conirmed these comm€nts in its review of Missourir

Like many large state schools, rhe Universiry of Missou¡i is defined by ao activc frat life and a relatively loose atdrsde roward academic lifc. . . . Academics ale not a great source of stress for many Mizzou

, students,... [However,] athletics plays a big role i¡ Mizzoa life. There is a loc of spirit behind the Tigers. . . .

'What should bc the campus mascotl Tå¿ drut&en fret boy.

:-1

E FAcuLTy/sruDENT NoNÀccREssroN p^cT I 115

- -The need for as many orrd.rgrJdu"," tuition dollars as possible-

Missouri accepts 90 pcrcent of its applicants_as well as Upw"rj Drift aod empire-building propel schools to what one critic calls :gigantism_the shee¡ size and complexiry of the mode¡n universiry,,, *r[ii ..militates. against. , , closencss and intimacy" and a student_centered approach to ed- ucåtion. lndced, cve¡ bcfo¡c entering a classroom, the size àid imperson_ ality of a Big-time U indmidates and tums off many incoming fr"'rh_.rr, as do the indiffc¡ent advising systcm and the mammoth high_iise dormi_ to¡ies. and research buildings. Ooe srudent told An¡e Ma-nhews, .This school js thc anti-'Checrs,, where nobody knows your namc."

On the questiomaire for this book, an Ohio Sta¡e female freshman wrote:

, I fcel like iust a[other nu¡nber ar a large state school. I have to usc. my social sccurity number for everything here. Many of my ftiends he¡e and at othc¡ sratc schools say rhe samc thing. Also ac¡dcmics is ¡rot at thc top of my prioriry lisr anymorc, although it was when I cane hcrc, and I've sta¡rcd to live fo¡ thc weekend panics and Buckeye Fever [rooting for the school's football and baskctball rcams], ,. . For mc and my friends hcrc, our courses would be lucky to make thc middle of our prioriry lis*,

- A comprehensive survey of student attitudes at Indiana Universiry, con-

ducted by rhat school,s adminisrration, confirmed the anri_acadernic and alienated feelings of undcrgraduates. In ¡€sponse to rhe statcment sStudeáts come 6¡st" er rhis school, only 14 percent strongly agreed; and the same smaìl percentâge affirmed the srarement "sruden¡s aie intellecrually cn_ gaged in their acadcm.ic work" he¡c.

In a mo¡c graphic manner, a columnist in this school,s student news- paper discussed the common undergraduate problem of staying awake in cless: "fv-e seen people bring Big Gulps of fcaffeine-ladcnl Àior:iain Dew, liters of Jolt and mugs of coffec as thick as milkshakes to class,,, tben consume them, "only to slip into u¡consciousness as soon as the overhead projector lights up" and the prof sta¡ts talking. This wrircr admincd that the "typical college srudcnr,s lifestyle (pizza at 11 p.M.)," and so on, irrflu_ cnced class alenness, but ñnally the lack of engagernent with undergraduate education was the main culprit

 folklorist studying collegc life noticed that the comments students carved into desktops in all parts of the country mainly "express boredom or frusration" during classes. One of the .or, .o-ion iorc.iptioos_a

I16 I BEER AND cIRcU5

cry for total esqape-was the line from the TV shów Sur T¡ekr'Beam me up, Scotty!' Yet these sentimenß seem old-fashioned-recall-ing the historic hostility between most undergraduates and their professors-compared to contemporary student comments on the new "mutuel nonaggression pacr."

The enti¡c discussion [io the apartment living room] began after someonc mentioncd a student who walked in 6ve minutes late to class, then slept through every class [in that course] lasc scmester. . . .

Thcn someone intcrrupted [the discussion], articulating the sentiment

of our gencration: "Teachers should be happy that people iust shour

up for class øt all." I pondered that idea-that we placate ourselves by lowering ed-

ucarional standards to the pqint whelc simply arriving at class equals

valuing school. . , . The scntiment now is that since students "paid" for the clars, thcy also 'own" the rights to do with it what thcy will while in that class.

-Amy Webb,Indiana [tJniuercìry] Daily Student columníst

This writer protested the consumerist trend in university life, but she blaméd her fellow students for this situation. She titled her article, "Stu- dents Should Respect Professors,' yet many undergraduates would respond

to her declaration by listing th€ ',veys thet profs "diss" students. A story in ÍJ Magazine captured undergraduate attitudes on this issue: a student'in a theater cou¡se had to learn a d¡amatic monologue to deliver during the ncxt class meeting, but he lost his tape of the speech' He could only rent

a tape of a different monologue, so he rented it, claiming that 'the profes'

sdr was so far gone she'd never nodce.' She never did, awa¡ding him a high grade on tlis exercise, her 'only comment [was] that he shouldn't be afraid to pause longer between phrases."

This student's description of the professor as "far gone" needs tanslà- tion; probably she was neither demented nor ¿bsentminded; instead, she was mentally detached f¡om teaching and, in student vemacular, 'didn't give a shit" about what occu¡redin her courses or whethe¡ individual stu-

dents accwarely fulfrlled her assignmenß or not. She gave them high gràdes

so that she could get through her teaching as quickly and easily as possible'

IJ Møgazine included this story in an article headlined' :'vHAr ME sru¡v?'-illustrating it with a photo of a male college srudent asleep on a park bench, a copy of a Cliffs Notcs pamphlet covering his face. A major flaw exists in this symbolic photo: many undergraduates no longer need

-.r

T'HE FAcULTI/STUDENT NoNAcGRËssIoN PAcT I 117

the Cliffs Notes shortcut ro mastering reading assignmenrs, as numerous professors now supply "srudy guides" th¿t Áunish everything a srudenr ¡equires for a course, including exam questions and answers. The Cåicago Tribure guoted undergraduates who cxplained that the stujy guides sum up the course material, and .if they [studene] put question mãrks at the ends of the topic headings in rhe study guide, tirey úave the exam. ques_ tions followed by the answers.

A similar "dumbing down. of university coutses occurs when facuiry members, not even bothering ro dis¡xnse study guides, recycle the same exam questions year after year. Srudent organizatìons, particularly frater_ nities and sororities, assemble "test files. (called "tesr banks,, àt some schools) for these profs'courses, and the Greeks and rhei¡ friends use the dld exams.'A Pu¡due undergraduate commented, -It's not what you know in a course, but who you k-rrow Who's got the .rest 6les,'even fcir profs who don't let students keep their exams. Some students always sneak our copics for the'6les'and so the exams a¡c out there somewhere."

Unde¡ these circumstanccs, many undergradu¿tes feel thar attending dass is worthless, and studying anything other than the guides or the old exams makes no sense. This system seduces even conscientious students, and ya¡ious reports on the emount of time per week that undergraduat€s spend studying reveal amazingly low numbeis of hou¡s.

Almosr evcry university, in its official handouts to freshmen, suggests a minimum of two hours of srudying for every hour in class, therefore a student with a standard fifteen-houi course load should put in at least rhirry hours per week studying. However, many surveys on rhis topic rcveal thar most students at Big-time U's study far fewc¡ than thirty hours per week. The responses ro the quesrionnaire for this book indicate that 1i percenr of undergreduetes spent one to five hours a week "studying

"rrJ doing

course assignments"; 35 percent logged six to ten hou¡s a week on these activities; 29 percent, eleven to Êfteen hours; and only 1g ¡rercent, sixteen or more hours per week. Ilomen studied more than men but not significant amounts of time mo¡e.

As always, thc resuks varied from school to school, but again correlared wi¡h rhe Princeton Reuietu,s categorícs on this topic. For ,.Their students (almost) never study," in the late 1990s and 2000, Alabama, fuizona State, '.Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Florida Srate, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana State, Miami (Florida), Míchigan State, Missourí (Co_ lumbià), Mississrppi, Rhode Island, Seton Hal[, Tennessee (Knoxville), Wjsconsin (Madison), rVesr Virginia, and, inevitably, the University of Buf_ falo ¡ank very high. In rhe questionnai¡c for this book, respondenrs

118 I EEBR ÀND cIRcUs

ftom these universities as wel.l as other big-time college sports schools spent the fcwcst numbcr of hou¡s ¡rcr week "studying and doiflg course assign- ncnts. '

Thc category, "Thei¡ students never stop srudying," listed Carleton, the Cla¡cmont (California) schools, Cal Tech, Swanhmore, Rced, Grinnell, Middlebury, and similar institutions. The questionnaire for this book re- vealcd parallel resultsr ooly 12 pcrcenr of the respondents from "never stop studying" schools spcnt less than elcvcn hou¡s a week on this activity; 27 p€rcent loggcd cleven to 6fteen hou¡s; 36 percent, sixteen to twenty hours; and 25 pcrccnt, over twenty hours per week, meny over thirty hows. The only universitics in NCAA Division I-.4, with undergraduatcs spending com- parable hours wcrc Rice and the Univcrsity of California, Berkclcy. .

Yct, the one statistic shared by students in bbth of the Princeton " studying" categorics wcrc similar gradc poiat werages. Vbether they neuer studied or always wo¡ked hørd on their courses, almost all of the undergraduat+s reeeiued high grades. Dið, these GPÄs, averaging 3.3 (out of 4), indicate that thc students et thc big-dme college sports schools were smarter than thosc at thc morc academically oriented institutions, and therefore had to study less to lcarn as much? No. The answcr is what the Chronicle of Higher Educatioa tcrmcð, Edscation's Dirty Secret: Grcde Inþtiott, Nor only docs it rule public universities, but it also exists at many excellent private schools-except, at the latter, some undergraduates learn somcthhg on their way to high grades, whercas at beer-and-circus universities, the inllated grades tend to be handed out as part of the tuition deal, a key elemcnt of the "mutual nonaggrcssion pact."

Thc uub of thc problcm sccms to me to be the customer-supplier modcl that bas becn adoptcd by acadcmia , . . [bccausc ofl relatively

high tuidon, thcre is co¡sidc¡¿ble inccotive to give thc customcr wbat

he or shc wants, with no hasslc. If a substantial majority of studcnts want good gradcs without corrunensu¡ete effort and preparation, rhcn it's casicst to give thcm what they want-after all, they'rc payìng fo¡ it, Ncvc¡ mi¡d rlnt thc r¡nivcrsities becomc credentialing agcncies ¡at}c¡ than institutions of lcarning.

-F¡edc¡ic A, Lyman, Syracuse University professor

Bcfore tle consumerist qrodcl overrook higher educaúon, faculry at large u¡ivcrsitici did not regard ordinary srudents as customers; they mainly tolcratcd them as necessary guests in t-he "groves of academe." Hence,

i:'

t:

THÊ FÀcuLTy/sruDENT NoN^ccRE.ssroN pÀcr f 119

professors awarded À's only to academically talented undergreduates, usu- ally their "professional childrcn',; drey doled our B's ro students who com- pleted course work competently; and they gave C's and lower grades to all others in thei¡ classes. In the 1970s and 1980s, as higher education adopted the student-consumer model, grade inflation accelerated, continuing full throttle into rhe 1990s.

In that decade, the topic also moved from anecdotal report to researched phenomena. In a comprehensive survey of thousands of transcripts for se- Iected years Írom 1969 to 1993, Arthur Levine discovc¡ed thar "the gcn- tleman's C has become the gcntleman's A as the percentage of C,s and A's given to students in college has reversed iself. - In L969, o y 7 pcrcent of undergraduates in Levine's sample earned A range GpAs, whereas 25 per- cent þossessed C range averages; in 1993, only 9 pcrccnt had C rangc GPAs, versus 26 percent with .4, range averages. The number of B range averages-the majority o{ GPAs-also grcw because, by the 1990s, very few D's and F's were awarded; thus, the 1960s C srudents had become B or berter studenrs, replaced in the C cohort by formcrly D and F srudents.

Within academia, sciends* tend ro blame humanities faculty for this "lowering of standards," but a biology professor info¡med the Chronicle of Higber Educ¿tion rhar "grade inflation is not limired to the humaniries but is very prevalenr in thc scicnccs as well,? especially at schools and within departmenrs rhat pressure faculty to 6ll rheir classes with as many students as.possible ro generare as many tuition dollars as possible. Vhat better way to please studenrs.rhân by giving them high grades for little wo¡k?

But pressure on faculty to inlate grades is generally more subtle than direcr orde¡s from college administ¡ators or department heads. The pro- motion, tenure, and salary sysrcm of the ¡esearch universiry exens the max- imum amount of pressure (see pages 76-771. Marry faculry belicve that every hour spenr on undergraduate teaching is an hour stolen from re- search, and they become skilled at curting corners in all phases of their teaching, especially grading. Even in upper-division classes, rhey move quickly when grading papers or exams, often only putting a brief comment o¡ a lener grade on each srudcnt's work. (In lecture courses, most profes- sors never see student papers or exams; the TAs or the sca¡tron machines do all the grading.)

In determining speci6c grades, faculry frequently take the path of lcast resistance, and also di¡ect rhcir TAs to rhis route-l,zfct¿, No stu¿icnf ever complained after receiving an A+ or an A, although some now whine about an á,-. Many students object to B's, most protest C's and become

120 I DEER AND crRcus

ângry et D's. If a profcssor actually flunks a student, or allows a TA ro so, that faculry mernber must have documentetion ro justify lhe F, not that student's papers and exams tfuoughout the cou¡se-all ca¡efu marked, with each grade fully cxpleined-but, for comparison, samples of the work of other students in thc course who earncd similar and higher grades, also thoroughly marked.

A professor \ryho wants to grade hard embarks upon a very time- consuming and labor-intensive course of actionr throughou¡ rhe semester, he or she must respond accurately and at lcngth to the work of ev€ry $udeft in tle class. Moreover, to fight grede inflation, a faculry member must be prepared to ansrÄ/er complâints from studen¡s and their parents, inquirics from deþartrnent heads and deans, requests to appeâr before va¡- ious student commimees, and cven lawsuits. Predictably, few faculry mcm- bers et ¡esearch uniyersides choose to go dorvn this lonesome road or, as â cinimâ studies professor called it, The River of No Return.

(One exceprion to grade inflation exists: those faculry who teâch subjects in which many students rf,ant to maior, for example, in this era, business. As a result of this demand, these professors can grade "on a [statistical] curve" and determine beforchand how many A's, B's, et c€tera, they ,,ð/ill dispense. In addition, because they mainly use scanton exams requiring no writing from students-or reading by instructors-rhey can arrive at nu- merica.l point totals that underg¡aduates canoot easily challenge. However, for faculty using this pedagogical model to condemn professors in other disciplines lor inflating grades is absurd.. Designing a multiple-choice busi- ness exam is an efficient process; creadng a multiple-choice exam for an Ënglish composition class is impossible because it cânnot lest a student's \'riting abilit), and progress.)

Conservative critics of grade inflation like !Øilliam Cole argue rhar on this issue faculty must act individually, and that "solving the problem of grade inflation . . . requires simply [to] acknowledge the problem and acr respon- sibly. " O that academic life wcre so simple! Because grade inflation con- nects to the ñna¡ces of ¡esearch universities and their bortomless hunger fo¡ tuition dolla-ts, as well as thei¡ p¡ivileging research over undergraduate educâdon, asking each professor at thes€ schools to "act responsibly" is a myopic request. These schools would have to rransform their inte¡nal cul- rurc and values to truly fight gradc infladon. Moreover, the administrators of Big-tirirc U's, as well as thc rescarch faculty, have far too much invesred in thc 'nonaggression pact" with student-consumers to changc ir.

Only a major shift in the missions of ¡esearch universities-en earth-

'. TnE FÀcuLTy/STUDENT NoNÂGGREssloN p^cr I 121

quake in higher education equaling the end of the Cold War-could halt glade inflation. The dismandement of the Soviet ernpire terminated the nuclear arms concept of mutual nonaggressioq however, it is hard to imag- ine a simila¡ event occurring in Ame¡ican highcr cducation. Thcrefore, the faculty/student nonaggression pact will remain in place for the foreseeable futurc and, along with it, grade inflation. Evcntually, every student will receive et Â+ in almost every coursc.

17: The FaculrylSadent Notaggression Pact

Annc M¿tthð¡rs's comment on thc 'muu¿l non¡88¡cssion pact" is in 8ñ8h¡ Collegefca¡s \oP. cit.), p. 206; Anhur Lcviact ".âc¡! ¿g¡¿€mcnt" is iîhis hook vhcn HoPe a¡à Fcat Collid¿: A Poúeit o{ Today's Colleg¿ St'a¿øi lszt Francisco, 1998); and Dororhy Puch's rcmark camc íi thc Ch¡.ago TÌibLi¿s scrics on hithe¡ cducåtìon (oP, cit'),6n3t92 Thc Boyer Coniñistion rcpo.Ì R¿iñv¿nting Uãdeßû&tat E¿aca,ioa ourlined many of rhc maladics discusscd in this chaprcr, end also provided rhe quores beginning, "Ironically, thc 6rst ycars of univcrsity stud- ics," p.29.

In doing rascarch for this book oû thc topic of cless sizc for inlroductory and./or freshmen cours'cs, I wes zmazcd ea how schools, p¡rúcularly public univcrsiúcs, stoncw¿llcd on thú sub_ jccr, Psychology dcparrnenrs sccrncd cepccially scnsirive, and cvcn thc onc at my univcrsity was

rclucrent ro divuþ clzìs sizcs Hos,cyêr, for thc spring s.mcsrc! 2000, thc numbcrs eppcer to bc 255 sodcnts cnrollcd in thc smallesr lcctr¡¡c class anò 377 in tbc largesc; also depanrncnt chair Joscph F- Stcinmce acknowlcdgcd that thc dcPanmcn¡ cmPloys ân adiuoct lecturcr-not a rê8ulâr f¿culty Ecmbc¡-¡o Éech "onc scction of P101 in thc fall [scmcstcr] and onc section of P1O2 n t¡c spriûg to abour 450 srudcnts lfor câch sccriotr) usìnt â L.tù.c h.ll," 11129J99 To bc f.i¡ ro rhc IU peychology dcparuncot, nationally rankcd for irs rcscarch, its largc inuo' ductory lcclurc coursts ¡rc thc no¡m ¡ctoss tlrc country, not an IU abcrration. In addirion, this d€pÍrm.nt,lik€ ¿n ¡ncrcasing numbcr of othcrs, uscs unpâid utdert¡âdr¡alc sNdcnts â¡ lc¡chint

".ri",*o ¡o lc¡d discussion s!.!ion¡; Iús. Holly Velkct, a srudcnc at lndiana Univcrsity, dc'

scribcd her cxpcricnccs as e UTÀ (undcrgraduatc t âchin8 âssisBnl) in so(¡olo8y, ând rh' êx_ pcricnccs of somc of hcr fricndr as psychology UTAs, 3/23100. Thc psychoJogy profcgot who

rcmarkcd, "That's thc wholc idc¡,' cxPlâiocd: "Co,ing public wirh rny commcnrs woùld do mc zcro good. I bcncft from thc curcnt system end do not want it chaagcd."

Thc Univcrsiry of Mfusou¡i (Columbi¿) undc¡t¡adr¡arc 6llcd in Éc P.S. sccúon of thc ques-

tionnaire on thc wcb {op, cit.),9/17t99. Th..2OOO Êdit¡on of thc It íiJtt's Gøid¿ to th. Colhg.s h¿d thc comrncns on ól' Mizzou quotcd in thc æxt hcrc, es wcll as tie 90 pcrctnt 6gurc for rhjs school's acccpt¡ncc râtc. Chris¡oPh.r J. Lucas tvrotc ¡bout "Git¿ntism" h AflÚican HiShd E¿uøtto,t (op. cir.), p.2t9; Annc Manùcws (o9 cit.) q'rorcd th. ".nr¡-'Cbccß'" rÊ- maìk, p. 51; ând thc Ohio St¡tc fÊmâlc Ìvrotc hcr commcnts on a ha¡d copy ofthc qucstionnairc

ñllcd out on thc OSU campus, 1ll17l98

NorEs I 293

Th¿ Indiane Universiry suncy of srudcnr ertjtudes, 'Sen¡or S¡risfection Srudy,,' was pub, Iishcd by rhc IU Of6cc of Insr¡rution¡l RÊsa¡ch, 1110199;t zm iadebted to Dcb Otson of tha¡ oflcc fo! a copy of rhc survcy. Ernily Cbui, e co¡umîisr for rlc &¿¡¿r¿ Daíly S*dcat, wrotc

.ebout sraying awakc in clas,3/6/9t. Folklorist Simon B¡onn€r (op. cir.) srudiêd thc dcskrop €ervings, p. 203. Amy Vêbb publishcd her colurnn on srùdênt âErend¿ncc in r\. India,¿ Døity Si¿deñt, 1120197. U Magazbv's anicle, "VHAT ME STUDY?" eppca'cd 9/94 (no ¡uthor gi\eî)t end rhê Chi.ago Tzlir¡¡¿ discus¡cd ¡hc scu¿y gùidcs, 6121/92. S$¿cnt ncwspapcre oftcn discuss tc¡t 6lcs and rêt b¿nls; Christophcr Smith wrorc a rcvealìng aniclc ebout thc subjcct for thc Tcxas Chrisri¡n Univcrciry pzpcr,Thc Shiff,10/1/07; rnd Paulinc Vu oÍ.\¿UCÌ.,l.Da¡ty Bruin cxplzincÀ ho¡¡ cxams arc stolcn from cx¡mi¡r¡rion rooms, 1/14/99. The Purduê und¿r- greduarc pr:t his commcnrs on thc wcb qucsrionnai¡c for this book (op, cir.), 6/6/99j ¡he qu¿l, rionnaiÍe áskcd respondêntr to sr¡rc rhêi! cumul¡dvc GPÀs, end ùcc avcragcd 3.3 {out of4)- thìs nurnber is slìghdy abovc lhc n¿rion¡l ayc¡¡8c.

the Chrcñìcle of Hìghd Ed$at¡o¡t llr.adli,tlad. e long lcßcr-ro-ùc-edhor from Syrecuse Un! vcrsity profêssor Frcd€ric À. Lyme¡r, "Educårio¡r's Dirry Sccrcr: Gradc Inflarion," 2JtOl93, p. 83. Christophcr J. Lucas in Amaìøn High¿r Educatíon (op, cit,), chaptcr 6, u,rotc about fzc'rlty arrirudcs row¿rd mosr ìrndcrgrâdu¿rca; Joscph C, Goulden t Th¿ Bcst Y.ars (op. cii.) com- m¿ntcd on rh¿ GI veu'scorí for tradirionei f¡culry ¡trirudcs, onc cx-GI seyi[g rhâ!ifrhc srudcna vcls could gredc rhc âvcra8¿ prof.sso¡, thcy "¡voutd givc him e big r¿d 'F arld r¡¡c him es inrip¡d, anriquar€d and incffcctual," p. 79f. À.rthur Lcvinc dis.ussêd r¡c r¿rul¿s of bis rcs.erch on gredc inllârion in an op-cd piccc, 'To Dcllaic Gradc Inllacion, Simplify rhc Systlm," Crror. i.le of Highd E¿'a..ation, 1i 19/94, 83; and biology profcssor Rosc Morgan inforrncd thc Cå¡oz. i¿le af Highet Edu¿atior âbour gr¿dê iDfhdon rn thc scic¡c¿e iñ a lcrtcr, 1¿293.

. In addjrion ro rhc c¡uses of gr¡de inll¡rior¡ discusscd ir lhc rcxr, orhcr Jac¡ors conüibùr€ ro_ ir. ,q.r çomc s.hooh, instrucrors do nor havc å plusrDrnus opr¡on for g¡edcs, ànd ccâchcrs rênd

i. to bump high C srudcnrs inro.rh¿ B ran8€, and hi8h B's into Às. ln 1999, thc fecuhy at thc 1" Universiry of Maryland ar Collcgc Park-a school üúoùr ptuJmìnus grades--icbzted ths

rssuc, ìr,rth somc prolcssols arguing rhâr pluJminus grad$ would cneblc f¡cuhy to m¿-k. ErËârer dìsrincrions among shd¿nß id â coursc, and dcfletc grades. John Hcnde-rso$ ¡ rcpo¡rcr for lhe student newspapcr, The Dia/ñon¿ba¿k, cov€r¿d rhc debârc, 4/27199, Unforrunat.ly, ât many schools wirh a plus/minus oprion, gradÊ iD{Udon hes never abelcd.

Somc cr¡rici of gadc lnflarion aìso arguc that fc¡¡ ol bad srudcnt cv¡luqrions motivarc faculry ro give high gradcs. Possibly this occurs at sornc schaols; hov¡cve¡, as A¡nc M¡nhcws poinrs out, paSc 88 in thc ccn here, few ofñcials lvcr rêad rÀcs¿ €velu¿rioß, ând cver f.wer ec( upon Ì5eû¡. Morcovcr, studcnr cvaluarion-egood, bad, or indiffcrcnr-rcnd to bc ncr¡Úel itcrûs iî promo¿ion, tcnurc, snd sâlâry dccisions. A f¡cuLry ñcmbêr'5 !êscerch is rhe kcy fector in thc¡¿ dccLsions, and srudcflr cvalu¿rio[s årc uscd to con6rur aLrcady-dccidcd-upon judgmenrc; for exanrple, good cve¡uarioß Ior a good rcscarchcr adds to rhar pc¡son's sìlcccss, ând bâd cy¡luauons for a bad ¡esca¡chc¡ scals failurc; howcvcr, bad cv¡luadons fo¡ a good rcicarchcr tend ro bc ignorcd, as do good t¿áching êleluâtions for ¡ b¡d ¡csta¡chcr.

Indiane Univc¡sity, BIoomingon, inlroduccd an inrcr¿sln8 :nrì{¡âdc inflarion plan in 1998 callcd "Expandcd Gradc Conrcxr." Srudcnr tr¿nscripts now rcveal, in addition to thc gradc for eåch cou¡sc, ùc "corDplctc distribution of all grâdês awâ¡dcd in rhe class" (how m.ny A's, B's, ctc.), and various orbcr irems placing thc studcnt's spccifc gradc witlin conæxr. This rêrds ro reve¿l whcthêr rhc coulsc wes â "mickcy" or not, Srudcnrr dccida whcthcI to hayclhc univc¡siry s¿nd ¡h€ rxpânded trânscript or thc standard, gredcs.only one to prospccrivc cmploycrs, crc. Sarah Rupel of thc Iødøña Ddily Sda¿.rt rlponcd on thc ¡rlaq 3/10/98; in thc ycars sincc its inccption, thc avcrat¿ GPA of (hc scudcnt bod)' h¡s not dèclir¡cd.

Thc la¡c Dcnnis Turne¡, â cinÊrna ¡rudica prof¿sso¡ ¡r ¡Y¿yrc Srerc UÂivc¡sit], often uscd thc erprcssion "Th¿ Riv.r ol No R¿tu¡n" in rhc conrc¡¡ of gr¡ding herd, rcfcrr¡ng to onc of M¿rilyn Monroc's ñl¡ns ahd hcr suicid¿. \Pilli¡m Colc wrorc an op-cd pic-cc,'The Pe¡ils of C¡adc Infl¡¡ìon," Íor ¡hc Chronicl¿ of Htgbd Edu.atioí, 1/6/93, 81. Undc¡gredu.¡æ opÍnion on gr¡dc inflâdon is vcry mixcd. For cx¿mplc, Baylor Univcrsiry str:dcnr Paul Grbson w¡ore in his srudcnt ncwspapcr, "Looking ar try GPÂ and Lnowing how êâsy somc of my clæses wcrc..,I'm ioclincd" to complain âbour gradc inlladon. "Nor chat I didn'r like gctting rhc gred€s. So-cal¡cd b¡ov,,-off courscs hclp rcvivc some low gradcs . . , [from] more scrìor:s courscs" (The l^atiar, 3/31/99). GornS into ¡hc l¿xis-N¿xis database wi¡h ¡hc U-Vir¿ 6lc (a collcction of collegc ncrvsprpcrs) rcvcek rhis :¡n b igû ir)' from coasr ro coâsr.

.,, CHEAP BEER: ..

THE oXYGEN oF THE GREEK SYsTÉú

"./ /

'.. i A cultural icon $4t connccrcd 199..ds undergraduares ro rheir colle-

.L -I- imagination of mâny srudcnts, especially fraterniry men. rcmair_ Lng undiminished during tli'e final daådc of thc century. ni film also pro- vldes a way inro an examination ofthc conremporary collegiare subculture, particularly the infaruation with alcohol and r¡e escalarion of the drinking phenomcnoq known as binge drinking.

My fathcr would always ger very,çxcitcd whcn W?IX [Ncw york TVI would show Aùmal House, an¿l.would mâkc su¡c tlat I would sec i!, cven thorrgh [I was a child] . . . Now that I'm hcrc [in college it 19971, I rci¡.Iìzc rhar fratcrnitics, insicad of consisring of d¡unk, rudc womanÍzing morons in a decrcpit, shôddy house, in facr, consisr of d-rulk, rudc, womanizing morons in cookje-cutte¡, antiscptic cor- ners of udaclsiry do¡mito¡ics [whcrc this school hao placed thcml. . . .

Luckily this 6[m can be appreciared for its dcpiction of frccwhcel- ing, Iarc-'SOs collcgc lifc. . . whcn you could go through lifc "fat, drunk, arrd stupid," and nail random pasrcd-outwomcn whcn_wcll, I gucss some things ncvcr changc.

-.4, srudcnr 6l¡n ¡cvicwe¡,¡ cont¡ibution

to an Aninol House wcb page

Throughour rhe 1990s, as binge drinking by collcgc studenrs b€cåme a nadorìal issuc, many cor¡rmcntators ¡cfc¡rcd ro t¡c late l97ls,film Animat

ffi

CONCLUSION

WHAT SHOUTD HAPPEN

VERSUS

WHAT PROBABLY WILL HAPPEN

his book has presented a detailed critique of current conditions at

i"rg", poUti" iesea¡ch unive¡sities and in big-time college spons'

n'i"'f"*.¡ questions arise: Can the neglect of general under- gr"-du.*

"Jo""r;" "oá, "od Cao genuine reform.co-" t" :lÍ--tÏlÏ

ioll"giate athletics? The answer to both quesrions is yes, but rhar fesponse

--i¿ì"i* promPts two other questioos' fue Big-time U's willing to alter

il;;d"* ;J inteinal cultu¡"s-in order to change' and Is college- Spons ;"t"t".. capable of downsÞing and allowing the majority of athletes

to

;"ï;;;;-tf"t "ducations? rherefore"h: b:"f. ":::,t'ltlude

on two

lr".kr' wh"t:Sho,rld Happen versus What Probably will Happen'

\pHÄT sHouLD HAtpEN vERsus wH^T , . , vILL H,AppEN I 263

Let's face ir; the¡c's only one reason: moncy. If these schools didn't take in kids f¡om rhe bonom of the academic bar¡el, many [schools] would haye to fire half thei¡ faculty and administrators; a fcw would have to shut down.

-Patrick Welsh, an Alexandria, Virginia, high school æache¡

first ProÞosal: Large, public reseøch aniuersities must slim dortn, losing millions of studetrts and, in a triñ ,nrode, offer quelity undergraduate ed- tlcdtiott to all students utho legititnately qualify for eúrance.

Diet experts consanrly point out that going on a diet does not produce permanent weight loss-changing one's diet does. Pat¡ick Welsh indic¿ted that many colleges and universities accept applicants who nced remcdial wo¡k in basic gubjects and who do not belong in higher education at this point in their academic careers, One suwey ascertained that, in 1995, al- most 30 percent of all incoming college students required remedial cou¡ses in Ë,nglish and math; more recent studics indicate rhat rhe number of f¡esh- men in need of rernediadon has increased. College professors complain about having to "dumb down' many courses to accommodate these stu- denæ, but faculry never insist that their schools admir only those applicants who demonstrate in SAT/ACT and college placcment rests that rhey caR do university work

The aim of the

sum;tion on .Amcrican campuses ts an

al

bc to transform

No matter what proposals are made, the one celtainty is that current con-

ñ;;;;tl1;;;eril undergraduate education and big-time college sports

"." ,o-on*"Ut"-rfr"t maior changes will happen in the

next decade whethe¡

Big-time U's want them or not'

sn¡dent

and to

What I would like to ask. ' ' the colleges and their professors is this:

i yì,, "r"

.o upsct about the nurnbe¡ of studen¡s who need ¡emedial

.oL".., lohy did you acccpt these kids in the fust place?

le objective; the_g9gþþld to Low Binge ones. This can

the col.=|- ^¡lfltt ^

al

sub-

con-

persuade

rof

years spent in improving academic skills will not only prepare thcm for

rffi

Æ iriiå

tñ iiil

ï ï

u4iversity work but also permit them to maÈre and to value higher edu- cation. At present, too many unprcpâred and immatu¡e studenß enter uni- versities, and, immediately rurned off by the large lecture courses and other educadonal impedimenæ, they embrace the collegiare sukulturg never emerging from it. These students ìveste their tuition dollars and would be be$ei off if, after high school, they aüended iunior college or entered the wo¡kfo¡ce. Later in their lives, when willing to acquire university-level skills and serious about earning a degree, they will benefir from higher education,

This proposal would mean a sharp reduction in enrollment at Big-time U's with residential campuscs, and it woutd ¿llow them to improve the qualiry of their undergraduate education programs. Indeed, the obiecdve of Big-time U's should be to transform general underþadueæ education into one large honors program. Crucial to this mission is the prcmise of the nexg proposal: Establish a clear distinction between resea¡chers and teachers,

who need remedial wor and

iun-

264 I BEER ,1ND crRcus

1""*d Pr"potol, tJaiversities shour¿ seþø*te ptte nesetlch from gra&øte

þtogtattts- Because corporate America is increasingly involved in univcrsiry re-

search, schools should establish their pure research programs as proñt-

making institutes, mainly fundcd by cor¡rorations (as opposed to the cu¡rent situation wherc univcrsides ofun pick up the tab while doing cor- porate work).

A corollary of the second proposal is this: Allow the market to dictate tbe size and role of each university's research institute. Undoubtedly, this would cause a massivc shake-up in highcr education' The top research institutes would thrive, but mediocrc and Poor oncs would fail, probably

most of the research programs at UPward Drift universities would be be- calmed and then sink, rvith yery linle loss to the wodd.

In this ncw system, somc currcnt graduatc srudents would bccome well-

paid rcsearch assistants at thc successful institutes, evcntually working their

way up the corporete instimte laddcr. Schools can rcward them with ad' vanced degrees, but they cannot burden thcm by also requiring them to

work as teaching assistents in undcrgraduate courses.

þ-ird koposal: Hire, promote, and reward facùty primatily for teaching untlãfiãlì-uateq and very secondarily fot research, with some of their re- search devoted ø Pedagogy.

Big-tirne U's, as pan of their massive weight loss, must shrink their grad-

rxrte programs and stop pursuing ever-elusive research presrige with them'

The money saved from rcducing enormously cxpensive graduate PÌograms shouid be shifted into undergraduate educarion' covering the shortf¿ll of

dolla¡s in thet ereâ caus€d by the loss of tuidon revenue (all those non- admined students who went to JUCOs or entc¡ed the work{orce)'

Thc seþaration of pure rcs€arch and underg¡âduaæ education will allow

thc rcmaining and slimmcd-down noninstitute graduatc programs to em-

phasize teaching above rcsearch, to have grad studenrs takc courses in ped-

agogy and, ultimately, to enable them to enter undergrâduate classrooms willing and able to do a good job.

Fourth Prcþosal: Abolish æadting mèthoù that t,aflt un¿eryrø¿øates into pãlliecep tades; emphasize ìflteîactive, ínquiry-based leaning'

Abolish almost all lecture classes; establish small classes where students

and iñãñãiìõãüñîl!1ñGiããiUndergraduatc courses should teach stu- dcnts to retrieve information by using the new technologies-insiead of pessively receiving data in lectu¡e courses. Classroom time should focus on

wHÁT sHouLD HÀP?EN vERsus I'HAT.. _ \pILL HÀppEN I 265

process-not produc-learning; in other words, leaming to think critically and processing informarion.

ln Reinuenting Underyrad,uate Educatioz, the Boyer Commission offe¡ed an exccllent plan for each year of an undergraduate's academic ca¡ecr. It began with:

Co¡struct an Inquiry-besed Freshman year

The 6rsr year of a [studcnt's] uaiversiry expericnce needs to provide new stimularion fo¡ intellectual growth and a 6n grounding in inquiry-based learning and communication of info¡mation and ideas,

The Boyer Commission suggested rhe abojirion of lectures fo¡ f¡eshmen and an emphasis on interactive learning; but it also argued that faculty members should continue their serious resea¡ch activities and teach freshmen in lâbor-int€nsive ways. Äs discussed in chapter 8, .The Great Resea¡che¡ = G¡eat Teache¡ M¡h," very few professors can conduct imponant research and teach intensively at rhe sarne time. Therefore, in desþing a system that seryes the vast mâjoriq, of undergraduates and faculty members, choiccs have to be made-in this case, on the side of teaching. Allow the great researchers to work full-time in the resea¡ch institutes, and the grear teachers to inhabit the undergraduate classrooms.

The Boyer Comrnission followed its recommendations for freshmen with:

B*ild on the Freshmen Foundation Thc freshmen experience must be consolidatcd by extending irs prin- ciples into the following years. Inquiry-based learning, collaborative experience, [highJeve[ writing and speaking expectations need to cha¡acre¡ize the whole of a resea¡ch university education.

In addition to continuing inreractive leaining for each student, the com- mission suggcsted "long-term mentorship": a faculty mcmber taking an undergraduate under his or her wing and serving as a faculry advisor and mentor. Obviously, this proposal would beneÊ¡ smdent and professor. However, few activities are more labor,intensive a¡d time-consuming for a faculty member, pefticulârly because he or she would mentor a subsen- tial number of students throughout their undergraduaæ careers. Again, the Boyer Commission has to acknowledge that for faculty members to engage in this activity, they must be teachers first and foremost, not full-time or cven half-time resea¡chers.

According to the commission, the studends undergraduete education

266 I BEER ^ND

crRcus

should "culminate with a capstone experience: The final semester(s) should focus on a maior proiect and utilize to the fullest the. . . skills learned in the previous seme$ers." Currently, honors programs require this of most of thei¡ sudents-an hono¡s thesis is a typical and valuable ¡'capstone" of the years spent in the program-but a fâculty member must spend a sig- nificant amount of time working with each undergraduate on his o¡ her major profect. The cur¡ent honors thesis system succeeds because an indi- vidual professor directs a small number of honors dissertations pet year; what would occu¡ when façulry have to direct many students in this en- deavor? Only a full-time conmitment to teaching would enable the average professor to undenake "capstone experiences" on a large scale.

Fþh Proposal Require all undergraduates to lttain a minirrrum score on the Grad-u¿te Record Exam (GRE) before they rec¿iue their bachelor's de'

gtees,

Because of the cu¡rent debasement of general undefgraduate education, the questionable nature of many college degrees, and the lack of proof that a graduating senior has actually learned anJthing in college, universities should agree to a standard 'outcomes and assessment" test. Despite the controve$ies surrounding all national tesß, many authorides accePt the Graduaie Record Exam (GRE) as the best one ir eústence, presentþ re- quired of graduating seniors for etrtrance to most gradìrate schools. In ad- dition, the GRË is {ree of the controversies about cultural aud racial biases that burden the SÀT exam.

Àlexander Astin, after testing more undergraduates than any other higher education expert has ever done, concluded that the GRE

measures at least tluee cognirive skills that undergraduate education

is supposed to facilitate: faciliry with language, scientiflc and math- ematical skills, and anal¡ic and problern+olving skills. . . ' As a con- sequence, developing the undergraduate studcnt's ability to perform

well on these tests should be an important goal of aoy under$aduare

P!q8ram.

The GRE does not test informâdon acquisition; for example, "V as Taming of tbe Shrcw written by William Shakespeare or Christopher Marlowe? The GRE assumes that students wanting to know the answe¡ to this and other factual questions can quickly retrieve t-hem from electronic databases.

The GRE attempts to test whether a person has learned how to process information, including the facts in databases; whether a studenr can make

#ï#ffiffiffiffi_ -- 6çJ.r<ral undergraduate ì

**ruNm ruåþ:îî:lïî: ï h:?ïr ;jYö:, : _::: "..or*,.,"oa._ril:Å:i.ff iï j:iå:,,,1ä,':"Jtr,j,f"î: ji

lï'å'äiiå:,;:î:tr-,:hf i j::.,:îfl":i.:,,î:::;::

îT*i::::¡:r,l p¡esiden, or cremsonuniversiry, "", ñï;i.;ï,,,, ";;:,;ä:

268 I BEER ,1ND clRcus

required reforming, but he lvas pessimistic about whether fundamental

charrges would take place Ten years later, the need for reform is greater'

but úc¿use we live in one of the most unusual eras in American history-

the longest period of prosperity on record-the current money flow and

rh" irr.i""..à enrollments mask the basic problems in higher education'

temporarily paving them ove¡ with dollars'

iã*" stg-i*. Ú's have th¡own cash at their general undergraduate ed- ucedon Prog¡ams, hiring more Pârt-time

instructors' employing more

gr"d*r"-rtuãar,, *ching assistants, sometimes even creating freshmtn semi -

i"r. t"ogh, by faculty-but then setting up large sophomore- and junior- level lecture courses to compensate for the seminars' These schools

have

"tro por rnor. money into their honors programs than.ever btfore' Many

.rni"åritv officials claim that these changes-superficial and cosmetic-

provide proof that Big-time U's are solving systemic problems'' 1¡" ..¿i", never i-nquiring déeply into higher education'-has headlined the nips and tucks as zubstantit'e reforms' Fot example' U'S'

Ne¡us began

io ZOõO .ott"g" issue with a feeture article titled' "The Big Arc Getting

Better,'aod siobhead"d, "Research universities are working to Put their

-J".gr"au"r." first.' (Thc wriærs of th'is piele should have read U'S'

Ñ"rzri, "t "a,

on the increesingly high faculty/student ¡atios at Big+ime

U's, and the growing percentage of classes with more than fifty students-

statistics ü¡at contradic¡ 'the big are gening better'")'' Th"r. d"yr, economists discuss how the "we¿lth effecr"

generates im-

pr-i¿an,Ë.ron"l spending; an analogous ærm for the current attitude of

ild;;"'.;." oi.i"t. i. ttt" 'fat, dumb, and happy effect'" During the i"i tfSO. and early 1990s, the crisis caused by economic recession and iovn .rrrott-"r,t did not produce signficant changes in general

undergrad'

uate eduetiory the cur.int "good times" have had even less effect' How-

"*t, ". p"in,.á o"t in this boãk, public funding for highcr education keeps

i""*"ring, and a futu¡e recession could hit colleges and universities much

harder than did any previous one (see page 95)'

Yet Big-timc U's pursue 'prestige maximization"- for their-research and

gr"du"te'progr"-, with a greater æal than ever before' and Upward Drift

iJt"rriti"t å tn" rtor"t off"ttd"" As one exPert noted: 'Being at the top oiÀ" t.""""t"tt] heap is the quintessential positional good for

these in-

."*J.'"t' ¡* O. ,op "it limiÀd by its very nature to a few winners-but ;ü';;;-ä';." -.\ná degrad. the qualitv of their general undergraduate education Programs in rhe process'

Fo¡ the above reasons, and alf of the orher ones snted in this book' fun-

l;-;;r"i charge Should Happen at Big-time U's' bur Probably rÙ?ill Not

vHÁT sHouLD_ HAppËN vERsus lzHAT. , rsrLL HAppEN I 269

Happen. fu a result, one possible scenario is a decline irr importance of general undergraduate education: Big-time U's are delivering such an in_ ferior product that corporate America might intervene and sripplant them. John Chambers, the hêad of Cisco Systems, one of the mori so..esrful Internet companies, recently ¡old the Ne¡z yorþ Times:

If universi¡ies don't ¡cinvcnt thci¡ cu¡riculum and how thcy dcliver them fo¡ an increasingly Net-driven economy, many studenæ . . . will "go to school" online. Many big Êrms_Cisco, G.8., I.B,M,, ,{TEcT-arc staning onJine ac¿demies co train new employees and to constandy upgrade the skills of exisring ones.

ln otìer words, many undergraduates currently receive educations of no use to them and their future employers. Therefore, unless schools radically retool, corporations will start to educate an increasing number of Ame¡i_ cans, enabling thcm to skip a university education.

Higher education has survived challenges f¡om orhcr technologies, and eccommodared to rhem. The industrial revolution in the nineæenth cenrury did nor end thc American college sysrem but fo¡ced it to change, making it stronger and more vib¡ant as a resulr. Bur this alteration iook -anydecades; the Internet ¡evolution is moving much more quickly and also leaping over national bou¡da¡ies. John Chambers of Cisco Syst.-s

"o--mented:

Unlike in rhe indusuial revoludon when you had ro bc in the right count¡y of ciry ro participatc, in this ncw cra capital will flow to whicheve¡ count¡ies and companies install the best lnternct and ed- ucadonal capabilities.

Big-time U's, with their residential campuses in college towns like Boulder, Colórado, will either adapt or experience rnassive enrollment drops, with increasing numbers of students atænding a web campus in cybcrspace but based somewhere such as Mancheste¡, England. ,qi that will ,.i.,r,

"aschools like the Universiry of Colorado and other Big-time U,s will be bee¡_ and-circus-not even the pretense, as now, of general undergraduaæ edu_ cadon. ,fnd big-time college sporrs will become even bigger at these schools.

**

lot _*"t years, critics of big-time college sports, including this writer in College Sports Inc,, have offered long lists of !flhar Sholld Happen in

270 I EEER ^ND

cIRcus

intercolle€iate athletics, only to see tüei¡ ideas crash into What k Happen-

;;;;;;; c'or*h "nd tot'""ializ:tion' along with increasing ex'

oloitationofathletes.Thefetore,itseemsbesttoconfinewhatShould il Ï;"-;";;;;,"*,

"o¿ ttt"n to focus on what Probablv vill Happen'

"ni *hy ,h" Iattcr will escelate becr'and<ircus'

lf you want to chansc collcge sports tT*idl tre* 11t:t-:1fl' ,.hol"rrhip, and briog in "need bascd only"

grans' I¡kc thc lvres

Jt.. ÁJ ,"t" thcm totatly out of the hands of thc attùetic dcpart-

i."ì. t"t ,ft" tt*cial Aid Office in chargc' like it is for evcry other

grant to a student' "----iJq,-¿ "Moosc" Krause' fo¡mcr coach and aÈ¡l¡tic dircctor

at the UniversitY of Not¡c Dame

Pfoþosal'Etdathleticsch.ol¿rsbipsandallouloyneed-basedgranæ.'jii,lo:,"î'î;;o,"'i.- t*'"tt, the te'mination of athletic scholarships ---:-'- ^..?roñì .-.1nvpr/emolovee re'would

*.t,t . ot ou"t ¡ccular srudcnrc, and it also ì oul ,ü"Ëiffi'*"t.t "d

b, "to"g"

ondergraduatesi in other words' many

iocks would become ordinary students'

'ïhffi;;;;;"v ,o *Ltl"¡v enrolled students mainlv on the basis

"f ää;i.å;il.nad 'l'ia oiá"', using the u's' governmelrlLersn

form and somedmes the private schooi PRoFILE form, ascertain oach un-

d-""ä;];;:';*gyill*,';iî";"ffiîïåîä:';tfi"j;l'fiti:i as long as the student rematns m I

il;ï"J;;"", and, most imponant' the athletic department would

;;; ;;nî;r; whethe' thev received them or not' and whether thev

were renewed or not. This ty"tt h"' long worked for. lvy League schools

;r;.1ä;ù;Ñln oi¡'ion III' In thJstudent-athlete equation' need-

based grants put the emphasis on the ltudent pan' and cancel the employer/

,rnplo!." aspect of the athlete side'

vH^T sHouLD HAppEN vERsus vH¡.T . . , wrLL HAppEN I 271

higher education authorities opposed athletic scholarships, calling them 'play for pay." The Ivy Lcague was adamantly against them, considering athletic scholarships antithedcal to the mission of a university. The Ivies argued that athletic scholarships turned athleæs into studenæ brought to college for entertainment-not academic-purposes.

With this background as contexr, the debate within the NCAA on whether to instirute athletic scholarships for all mcmbers continued through the 1940s and into the 1950s. Even important members of the spons media opposed them. Bill Stern, the radio "Voice of College Sports. in this period, wfote:

Gening a hþher education should be the primary reason for any youngster going to collegc. Athletic achicvcmcnts, howcvcr scnsa- úonal, should be secondary and should serve as a mcans ro an end, namely a legitimare college diploma, Ler's keep the record straight, when a college athlete pla¡rs for pay, receiving money through athletic scholarships, he's a professional no m¿ttc¡ what uniform he wcars,

In 1953, ironically the same year that NCA,4. executive director Walter Byers invented úte term student-athlete, the association approved athletic scholarships across the board. For many people within higher education, this marked a crucial momem i¡r the history of intercollegiate athletics: the

]to "¿aiton,

climination of athletic scholarships

^.- --^,^- ¡.-tuê;'î inrercollcciate athletes and

In the history of college spors, athletic scholarships began duringthe 1930s

whensomehave-notconferencesoftheera,particularlyth¡Sout|ryestand ;; s;;.h*tr"tt, adopted them to lure prime recruits to theù

ad¡letic Pro-

ä;il;;;-;ot ï"nttd to reach the same level as the wealthv con'

?;"¿lä.-oü;tv tr'c t"v Leasuc' Big Tcn' and Pacific coast' Manv

shift from amateu¡ism to professionelism' The Ivy League, the founde¡s of big-time college spons, responded by

refusing to g.ive athletic scholarships and contínuing their policy of need- based-only aid to all students, including athletes. They also began to deem- phasize their college ¡ports progrâms in various ways, including prohibidng thei¡ teams from playing in bowl games ând not allowing spring football practice. Their moves sharpened the line beween college sports amareurism and professionalism

On the Ivy side, and also at the schools that joined rhem and eventually fo¡med NCAA Division III, were teams with players who were aurhentic students at their colleges and universities. On the other side were all the schools awarding athletic scholarships and hoping that thei¡ athletes could pass their institution's educational requiremenß; bur if the iocks failed ac- adcmically, rhe schools would accomrnodate rhem, including with .gut" cou¡ses and "mickey" maiors, A.s a result, the higher education landscape divided between big-time college spors schools, and acadcmic colleges and universities. A minority of insdtutions maruged to straddle the line, but rhc majority did not.

272 I EE¡R ÀND clRcus

From the perspective of the twenty-fust century, it is clear that the Ivy

lr"go" presiderrÀ and Boards of Trustees came to a fork in the higher

"duã"ooo road ¿nd had to choose between big-time college sports or big-

time undergraduate education' They chose the academic path, and this de-

cision helped the Ivy League ascend to the pinnacle of American higher

cducation. Other schools selectcd the other path and began the slow but

inevitablc dcgradation of undergraduate educadon at their institutions'

If the NCA,{ decided to reve¡se its history and end athletic scholarships'

allowíng only need-based grants' many other Problems in. big-tirne collegs

sporu Jould disappear; however, so would the-qualrty of play, as well as

til. fi r.u.oo. iot lig-ai^" college basketball and football garires' for Ma¡ch Madness and the bowls. With the termination of athletic schola¡-

ships, the Division III model would prevail, but how many fans would rush

to their TV sets to rÃ'alch an Oberlin versus A¡tioch basketball game?

In an ideal world, even a logical one, the need-based-only grânt Proposal

should prevail. n úre real United States of America, it will not succeed' N"vei.l"rs, if current trends within College Sports Megalnc' contirue' more schools might accept this solution than the proponenrs of big+ime

college spons imagine. What Might Happen in intercollegiate athletics in

the next decade Presents the following scenario'

If the package of [NCAÀ] proposals is passed [by the Division I

-"-borhipl . ' hig! school ProsPects could receive pay or other compensation fo¡ athleúc participadon [while in high school]

with-

out leopardizing their [collcge] elieibiliry' ' The association's most ¡adical ¡ecommendation is di¡ecied at

prospects who choose to sign and play professionally right out of

iriglt t h""l. . . ' If they played no mo¡e than a year as a pro' they

coid opt to sign with a college, start playing irnmediately and have

a full fou¡ seasons of cligibiliry' ' Further, the NCA,A is looking at allowing athletes to seek out

loans based on futurc professional eamings'

-USA 'todaY, March 2000

College Spons Megalnc. is edghg toward paying the players' wherher

rrith -oîey di.guiscJas 'loans- or, as suggestcd by NCA'A' execudve di-

rector Cedric D"-pr"y, monthly paymenrs tetmeò stìpei¿s' In addition'

the association wants to ove¡look previous lapses in arÙaleurism' such as

earning money from sports as a high school student, o-t "Ï".911y.tc io

profesJional leagues bcfore entering college' As one NCAA.official says'

vttÀT sHouLD HÁ?pEN vERsus wHAr. , . vlLL HAppÞN I 273

^1ï::":lt* deregulation would fix many of the problems. in big-rime

coltege sports, In many wayq rhis is t¡ue: paying the players would end much of the

cant and hypocrisy currently surroundiog Coll.g. Spo.t ùf.g";.-, p"*"_ ulady the eirforcement of the amareur rcgulations, for example, ¡ænalizingplayers.when rhey accept yarious gifts, soire as trivial

"ri_;i;'H._"".r,professionalizing intercollegiate athletics would r.rrt ",

io _"ny o.* proU- lems and forever change big+ime college spons.

Most of the current NCAA plans for professionalization include specific sums.of money; for example, Cedric Dempsey h", *.rrtion.Jìzoo p", month fo¡ the stipend to athretes. probabiy tle .,loans baseJ oo io*." professional earnings" will also have a dollar ceiling. l,a'¿ãr.i.",.r-.

"fthe rules already passed include specífic sums: ".g.,

ãrhb", "r. "ilo*"a

_ work at pan-úme jobs but not earn more thrn-ie,OOO

" y"". f.orn this

employment,

.All of these fixed amounts, as well as the specific limitations on athlctic

scholarships, indicate that the NCAA is a àrtel, ,.Ulrr"rity ."i_g ,h. wages for the on-field employees of College Spons Nf.g"lnc. ¡.oìoour,, have long attacked the carrel narure of the NóAl, and"the U.S- Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision in 19g4, found tt

"t th" ."r*i"tior, -.".p"lir"athe TV revenue from college football games in a cartel _"nrr.r, ,i" .or,a

directing member schools to move to an open market in selling Áe ælecast rights of their games.

Sirnilarly in the 1990s, after the NCAA set an arbitrary saÌary scale for a group of assisrant coaches, the cou¡ts found that the associat¡on had acred unfairl¡ and rhat these men and women should be p"la

"..ordlog to rh.

market value of thei¡ services. The NCAA had to ,eiL th. ."..:p"y.g the_assisranr coaches fo¡ lost wages and damagcs_for

" _hop¡ng SS+

million dollars. What rvill occur under the new NCAÁ. "amateurism deregulation,, rulesif a college adúete sues the association, claiming that the"arbitrary sum

1h",, l. - she receives is, in fact, cartel control over his or her earnings

and^rhar market Ír*ï :h.{! prevail? Why is there an NCAA ceiting oftz,t U{_l on pârr-úme jobs? lfhy a limit on athletic scholarships? ,{ Uni- versity of Florida "full ride" in football is worth about 510,00ó for an ¡n- søte player, but why this arbitrary ceiling, panicularly when hi; ,;*rco, along with his underpaid rcanmaæs) generate millions of dolla¡s fo¡ his employer?

'Vhen an athlere sues and tries to break the NCA.{,s cartel cont¡ol over

his or her earnings, will a iury of rwelve pcople_after ,.ar. ái-*"r.friry

274 I ïEEB AND ctRcus

higbly commercial college football and basketball-decide' as undoubredly

"IÑc¡¡ will argue, ihat the ptayers are just ordinary students' rnainly

going to clâss a¡d playing sPorts as amateurs? Vhat if the atblete shows

it ",î. o. she was laid to play sports as a high school student'

and then

ni"yJ n p-i.*ørr"l ,po.t L"go"t-all of these experiences approved by

'rft"'NC¡'e u¡rder its nJw rules-before suiting up for more minor-league

;;tt;; an intensivc intercollegiate programl The jury would have to be duÀb and dumber to buy the NCA'{'s "student amateur"

ergument'

Therefore,atthetopofthe.whatlViÌlProbablyHappeninCollegeSports ItLg"i"..'ft., is prlfessionalizationr college athletes will be paid'

either

thråugh tn" NCÀA's own 'emateurism deregulation"-its stipends and

o,fr"ri"y-.no will grow-or the courts will b¡eak the associaúon's con-

trol over wages.- Vh"t Wiìi Happen Then? Most probably' rhe rich conferences and

æ.rns *ill b..o..- fotly professional, paying their athletes according to ,hã -".k., u"1,.,., "nd "ll

other members of Divisions I and II will have

todecidewhethertheywanttocomPeteinprofessionalcollege.sportsor ;;õa.t;tt;, because the athletic departmenæ of almost all. scbools will *-lU U" toring .-ey, payi-ng the athletes will cost a fortune' This economic .""utt rlir

"nd ìh" dr""-, of bi!-time college sports glory for many

*i"ilt, ¿"n"nat all those below the NCAA Division I-A level' a-od even

-*, i" O"t group- The vast maiority of institutions in Divisions I and II

will'have to fold thei¡ haods in the NCAA poker game'

'fo

"¿iaon, some schools like Rice because of their academic traditions

will probabþ choose not to play professional intercollegiate athlerics

ileiJi;;i: [ke Virginia will be o; the bubble' not wanting to leave the

;trhr:;-1.*l;il;iÇ ,po,* but also not wantins to Êeld professional teams'-l

lrorri""lly, the schools that dropped out of College Sports Megalnc'

*;H dt ú.4., ,¡* those that søyed' Probably the- droPouts would ac-

."n ',ft"

Ñiti"" ltr model-why have expensivc athletic de-Partments if roï

""noo, participate i¡ the Maich Madniss o¡ bowl game lotterv?-and

ä;äi;:;;;iiio* or ¿otl"" annuallv Most imPortant'-thev would l*"f J.n"¡1i., *e various levels of government' the private.foundations'

"íJ ornrr'¡.o.i"oors of higher tducation that they are no

longer in the

ipo* *..røn*"nt business' Hopefully, manv of these tt"ii:Ï,î::11 ,'uets ondergr.doate education' As a result' i( parents

waûted th€u sons

""Jl""gh;t to obtain deceot educations' and thei¡ children shared this

g.A, iftl *."f¿ look at the .non-Big-time U's' all those schools at the Division III levcl.

VHAT sHouLD HAP?EN vERsus .!gHÀT . . . ìrILL HApIEN I 275

On the othe¡ hand, for the.thirty to 6fty schools that ¡emain in Collcge Sports Megalnc., the future becomes more problematic, The commercialism of their professional college sports progrems will escalaùe: they will pay players openly but thosc athletes, panicularly rhe stars, will have agents (presently rhey have "srreet âgenß'), and the tawdry world of pro sporrs will dominate college ball. In addition, thc Big-time U's will so clearly op- erete pro sports f¡anchises that the public and the higher education funding agencies will becorne increasingly skeptical about ihe academic aspects of these instiotions. Inevitably, the collegiatc subcultures at these schools will expand, and soon the vast majority of applicants and undergraduates will be students in love with beer-and-ci¡cus. This is a bleak scena¡io for those faculry members and othe¡ persons er Big-time U,s who care about edu- cation, bur it is a very possible one.

*t

The prcsent and futu¡e of Emory Universiry in Atlanta, Georgia, is far different f¡om that of most Big-time U's. In thc mid-1990s, a numbe¡ of people within and outside Emory called for the school to go from Division III college sports to Division I-,4.. They argued, in addition to the New 3 R's line, that Emory, with its huge endowment from Coca-Cola, was one of the few institutions thar could easily afford to move 10 the top level of intercollegiate athletics. The president of Emory, Villia¡il M. Chace, re- sistcd the siren call of big-time college spons, and ins¡ead worked ha¡d to improve the quality of undergraduate education at his school. Chace's re- ward was Emory's first appcarance in the TopTen of U.S. Nelas'rankings of nadonal universiúes.

As College Spons Megalnc. moves toward tl¡c bleak future of professibn- alization and greater'beei-and-circus, the presidents of other rcsearch uni- ve¡sities, should follow Dr. Chace's example, particularly et a time when the U.S. economy is booming. In all probabiliry, they will not ' A decade ago, the book College Spor* Ir¡c. concluded with the line, "The subtitle of this book is The Athletic Depa¡tment VS. the llnirersity-', If College Sports Inc. succeeds in irs conquest [of Big-time U's], a future subtitle will read, The Athletic Deparbtent IS the university. That st;rbtitle now applies to many Big-time I-Ps, and college sports has evolved into Colþe Sporæ Megalnc.

Unless the rustees, administrators, and other persons in charge of large, public research universities come ro thei¡ senses, a future book title will read,: Beer anil Circus: Hout Colteþe Spo* Destroyed IJndergraàuøte Ed.- ucat¡ott at Big-tìme U's.

w i$â

]1ffi

l¡,fl

ïlr

:ii ä

intercolþatc athlctics, pp. 36344, 313-:/4; lohn Thcli¡ in Cskiuaèion of Ìyy fCamb¡idg¿, M.sr., 1976) focuscd on it, pp,30-35. John R. Gcrdy in hir aniclc, "Hold The! Line," iû Ttusuethip rlag.zirLc wún.d ebout t¡c comiÀ8 problems-in4ítcrcollcgiatc athlcrics, Scptcmbcr/ Octob.r 1998, pp. 1&-22. locidqnts of uuetcts panigi¡fting in thc corruption of collcgc sports occur rcaulzrly; U&{ Today discùcd*low a urgtfar Da¡on Univcrsity had violatcd NCÀA rulcs wiú undc¡-thc-¡¡blc loens to a baslaþ{rtcruir, 5/10/99 (ño author giv.n),

Thc prasidcnt of Emory Uaivcreiry, lrfian FfrQhect' suúmcd up aluloni dving witl his corn-úcn! ¡Alum.oi donors to Eooryrlmong the most-lt¡crous in Amcrica¡r hiShcr cduc¡tion, obvio$ly ûavc¡ coEridcr our collcgl spons program whcì making conuibutioos. If ao¡üing, rhcy arc pløscd drat wc cl*rþ cmphasizc acadcmics ovci ¿úrlctics, and i¡!¡emu¡als ovcr i¡- rcrcollcti¡t. lúlÊtic¡" (hærvicw on campus, 4/14D9).

Con¿lusion: What Should Happen uerstls Whøt Probably Vill Happet Pár¡ick ìgclsh v¡rotc h¡. coe¡¡cnts iû USá Today,7l79l99; a tegular cortriburor to dx¡t nc$,s- p¡pc¡, hc al¡o q'ro¡c ¡ vcty good aniclc on thc high pcrccntagc of high school stud¿ats who haw limitcd prcp¡raúon .nd moiivâßion for collcge work, 1218197. Christophcr Lucas in CruÀr (op. cit.) g¡vc thc pcrcc¡n¡gc ofcnæriog frtshrnm unprcpared for collcgc,ro!b pp. 204-5. Thc Boycr Commission Ecpoq Reiflueúitt U^¿¿rgrcdøu EÀ<ztiot (op. ci¿), discr¡sscd cn- rcrint frc¡h¡nên L¡nÞ¡cparcd for collcgc and thcir nccd for rcmcdiadon on p. 20; "Const¡uct an hquiry-b¿sêd Frc¡hmcn Yca¡o otr thet pete åßd tl¡c p¡cvious onq "Build on thc Freshmcn Found:tion," and "loo¿-tcrm Mentorship,' pp.21-22; eod 'cùLniner€ with e cápsronc Ex- pcriæa" pp.27-28,

-Alcx¡¡dc¡ .{stia's cor¡mcsrs otr thc GRE årc in Vhat Maú¿ts it Coll¿gei (op. cit.), p. 199; I proposcd thc GR.E for cxiting scniors, paticu.larly âthlêtcs, in e N¿¡¡/ yorå Tírr.es op'd píc.c, 1/9/95. villiam Âtcblcy's coE-ocnts came in ¡¡r intcrvic\À, (op. cit.l; Gordon C. Vinstoa wrote tbo,at'positional good" fo. Chang¿ øagaiøè lop. cit ); and John Chambc$, rhc head of Cisco Sy¡¡c¡¡¡, offcrcd hi¡ cornm¿¡rß to Thomâs L F¡ied¡E¿n of thc Neø Yoú'litnes,11117199.

Edwa¡d 'Moo¡c" IG¡u¡c coomcrrt d on ¡tfilctic scholâ¡ships in âû intêwicr¡' (op. cit.); he addcd that ãt Notr. Dã6c, 'eólctic s€holârÊhipd h¡vc alwáys bêcfr conEolled ald paid out by thc Mein Building. . . [s9cci6øl]y] by tbc Finúciâl Aid Ol6cc." li O'tladr¿ to Victory lop. cit.), saÊ úc index cntry undcr 'NCAÂ, athletic scholarship controvcrsy" for thc history of athlctic tcholerships; pp . 363-44 a¡d W. 373-74 for dre Ivy Lcaguc rcÊrsel to givc thcm; and p. 228 fo¡ Bill Stcm's quolc oo ¿lh¡ctic sclolarchips. UJi{ TodaT quot Á NCAA official Biil S¡u.E oà "A.Earcurirm dêrc8¡¡lzdon," 3,/1/00 (Ào rcportc¡ Liv.fl); Merk Âshcr, oûê of th¿ bcs! rcponcn on collcgc sporæ, {,lotc âbout C.d¡h Dcúpocy's ideas for otipcnds to ¿tltlc¡csi 1 1/20199; Mikc Mcc¡¡w, ¡ PuliE ¡ Prizê-wiûningiÂv.3tig¿tivc rtponcr, focÛscd on lhc NCAA'S biuiors ¡¡d porribli peyr¡cnts to ¿thlctcs, IG¿¡¿s Gty Sw, l1l6l97-4hi5 enìcl¿ rÀ,as pan of that p?pcr'¡ brilliânt 6cri.s on thc inucr worhngs of thc associârion. Thc C,rcnìelt of Higher E¿- ,¡ødrior dis€r¡s¡d thc NCA-{'s settlcrucot of thc âs3i¡t -ût coâchcç' i¡¡dicial t¡iumph, 4/30/99 (no eutho¡ dvctr). Eurory University brok¿ into U.S. N¿r¡/r'Top Tcn of ¡¡tion.l üniv€rsitics iû 1998.

/__ A palnoll to Meet, 26 ,, dealing with facuk'!,71,7 5-:77 ' ¡.s"rárornbi" s¿ Fitch ilothine Co:; 81-84' 87*-iïì;lïo-' - - \ Abunasser, Joe' 32 ''. / 720 ;""iJä; tubculturg/ admissioo offices' S¿¿ ¿l¡o Flutic

,t non-Bie-time U's' 108-11, 231- Factor)*;;'ä *----. i Ptototint beer-and-circus' 52-

.";:;; Ìo fâcultv, 6,7,;,n, s9,62-43' 67*;I ö'

-' '\ promodng collcgc sPorts' 58-59'

.urråi ri"nit"tr"¡on' 10Þ102' 67'47 '250-52T'ö ö-*-*- '\ scrañbling for.warm bodies' 53- definition,5,6 r {l 14s-52' 263 history,5,6 \ *rgi"tt:tú's3-55' e5-e6' versu; ;oilcs.iates, 6,20,21,80, \ 250' z9u

778,779 \ special admis {or athletes' 24Þ ¡¿"*i" äo"t, Conference (ACC), ìf allzf -^

208,277,218,219,232'242 Akels' ¡tco' ru Adande, J. ,{., 35 '{ab}E' U' of

(Tuscaloosa}' 108'

administrators 11b\ 241' 250--."ipfi.i in athletic depanment alcohol b]veragc companics"^ãrir fttt* zz tis, zzt'zs tate*ig^"î*""' 78' 40' 44' 46-

d""tiog u"i h.oil"g. tpo* 51' 173-87 protlcms,71, 1b3 Âllen, Kevin' 236

¿.åirtg *rú binge drinking, 157, Alærs' Diane' 49-1íi7 tio, tecal,7T,775, alum¡i' s¿¿ ¿l¡o student fratcrnitics'

181-83, 185-92 alumni

INDEX