[The Montana Professor 17.2, Spring 2007 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]
Derek Bok
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006
413 pp., $29.00 hc
George M. Dennison
President & Prof. of History
UM-Missoula
Following the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk, pundits launched a barrage of attacks on higher education. Derek Bok, President emeritus and now Interim President of Harvard University, notes in his "candid look" some twenty years later that the critics "did not come from the same point on the ideological spectrum" or sector of society, but they shared a narrow focus on research universities rather than all of higher education (2). Allan Bloom "deplore[d] the lack of any overarching purpose"; Secretary of Education William Bennett and Lynne Cheney of the National Endowment for the Humanities criticized the deterioration of "intellectual standards"; others targeted affirmative action in faculty hiring and race-conscious admission policies and the atrophy of the canon to make room for feminist, Black, Latino, and Third World writers; Dinesh D'Souza warned against "political correctness" and its destructive effects upon educational quality; an Assistant Secretary of Education issued a strident warning about rampant vocationalism and consumerism among students; and a caustic group, including Charles Sykes (Profscam, 1988), attacked the faculty for "neglecting their students" and teaching responsibilities (1-4). As Bok explains, several of these polemics became best-sellers because Americans understand full well that their children's and the nation's future depends upon the quality of higher education in America (6). During the same period, globalization heightened anxieties about international competition in all sectors. Why, then, did nothing happen? Students continued to flock to colleges and universities, alumni voiced strong satisfaction with their educational experiences, and the American public generally praised the quality of higher education (6-7).
Replying to the critics, Bok notes that American higher education has responded fairly well to public needs and demands (24-30, 32, 312-35). He chides the critics as too narrowly focused, "too harsh[,] and too one-sided in their judgments" (8). By and large, they served up red herrings that deflected attention away from reform (54-57). He argues specifically that "the most serious problems of our colleges...have less to do with decline and abuse than with unfulfilled promise and unrealized opportunities" (57). The historical evidence "offers weak support...for the reports of a decline in the quality of undergraduate education...[which] rest on fanciful visions of some previous golden age." He denies "neglect of teaching or the loss of...unifying purpose," and sees "the recent growth of vocationalism" as a sensible response to new developments (29). In fact, if American higher education ever had an "overarching" purpose, it dissipated in the 19th century when course electives displaced the traditional and fixed curriculum required of all students to train "the intellect and...[build] character" through "mental discipline" (12-13). No one advocates a return to that outmoded and dispiriting approach, whatever else the critics prefer (12-13).
Nonetheless, looking broadly at all of American higher education, not just at the research universities, Bok finds good cause for concern about the state of undergraduate education. In support, he cites reports of educational research specialists concerning "how much students are learning and what methods help them to learn best" (9). Ignored by the earlier critics and unknown to the students, the public, and even the faculty, these reports offer a foundation of actual learning outcomes and their effects on people's lives from which to approach reform (8-10, 58-59, 61-66). To provide direction for a reform effort, Bok identifies six "troubling" tendencies of "faculties and their academic leaders" and eight critical aims or purposes of undergraduate education (Chapters 2-3, pp. 31-81). His discussion of the tendencies and aims offers an evidence-based and trenchant critique of undergraduate education today and suggests a reform agenda elucidated in his concluding chapter (310-43).
Bok's six "troubling" tendencies hit the target squarely. First, because faculty and students do not share the same perspective, they have different goals. Faculty focus on "discovering and transmitting knowledge and ideas," while students view "knowledge and education" as the means to desired careers and other goals (34-38). These differences in perspective explain faculty resistance to skill development, moral and character education, and vocationalism, and student antipathy to academic requirements lacking explicit connections to immediate career or personal aspirations. Second, the traditional autonomy of academic departments and individual faculty members puts up barriers that prevent collaboration and cooperation in planning and delivery of the curriculum. Bok sardonically describes the typical "undergraduate program...[as] a whole...smaller than the sum of its parts" (39-40). Third, odd as it sounds, the faculty moves directly into the details of curriculum development without deciding what to accomplish and how to define success (40-45). Fourth, discussions of curricular change fixate on general education and accord no attention to the largest portion of a baccalaureate degree, the concentration or major and electives (46-48). Fifth, curricular discussions never consider pedagogy, ignoring how to structure and teach courses to achieve the objectives. (48-51) Finally, faculty and academic leaders ignore the co- or extra-curriculum and its role in undergraduate education (51-54). In this reviewer's opinion, these tendencies prevent the identification and engagement of the weaknesses of undergraduate education today.
To respond to the challenge of reform and address the weaknesses of undergraduate education, Bok urges careful attention to the purposes or aims that virtually everyone, lay person and academic alike, recognizes (66). "All undergraduates need to develop the capacity to communicate well with various audiences" (67, 82-108). Professors have always wanted the students to come to college as competent writers, but they never have and never will. Therefore, the faculty must help students to develop the capacity before they graduate. Bok argues that the failure to do so occurs because the faculty deprecates and refuses to teach skill development such as writing, speaking, language, and numeric competency. As a result, adjunct faculty and graduate assistants do more than 90 percent of basic writing instruction in American higher education. Administrators allow the practice because of the cost savings, and departments endorse it to gain support for their recent doctoral candidates and graduate students. As Bok notes, administrators and "English departments...[view] teaching introductory composition as a relatively simple task...[of showing] students how to eliminate errors and careless habits," which leads easily to the assignment of the task to adjuncts and graduate assistants (91-92). The more recent sophisticated understanding of writing as "something inseparable from thinking itself" requires a new approach to writing instruction. Writing across the curriculum, without appropriate foundation work at the beginning combined with training for the participating faculty, fails as well because of the lack of faculty expertise. Bok describes writing instruction as a "formidable pedagogical challenge involving 'a critical substantive act of thinking and invention central to all fields'" (96).
As the next neglected aim, Bok finds it ironic that "faculty members...[agree] almost unanimously that teaching students to think critically is the principal aim of undergraduate instruction," but generally fail to help them do so (109-45). College contributes significantly to critical thinking, but more because of unintended benefits than intended outcomes. Those faculty members who succeed in teaching critical thinking "begin...by concentrating on what...they want their students to learn...to deal with problems posed in the course" and in personal and professional life (119). While majors or concentrations "can deepen a student's power of inquiry and analysis," as currently structured they "impose demands...either too limited, in failing to require the substantial intellectual tasks that develop a capacity to think deeply about a subject, or too expansive, by forcing students to take more courses than...needed to accomplish the purpose." Some even undermine "other important aims of a rounded liberal education" (143). Despite the faculty inclination to focus on "which courses to offer and which to require," the research indicates that "the arrangement of courses...has little effect on the development of critical thinking," while emphases on appropriate pedagogy and active learning do (144).
Many academics (but not this reviewer) disagree with Bok's insistence that colleges must foster student moral and character development (146-71). Doing so, he argues, requires an approach similar to that used to develop critical thinking. Faculty must "do whatever they can to prepare their students to arrive at thoughtful judgments of their own" (150). However, stating the aim does not guarantee the outcome. Simply requiring students to gain "a broad exposure to the humanities, social sciences, and sciences and trusting to 'the Socratic dictum that knowledge of the good will lead to a commitment to the good'" assumes "incidental by-products of a curriculum largely designed for other purposes" (151-52). Providing students the opportunities to engage and think critically about moral issues will arm them to avoid unwitting relativism and develop the capacity to "observe that some arguments are more firmly grounded in fact and reason than others" (153). Research reports indicate that the best results occur by combining "discussions of moral dilemmas with more didactic expositions of underlying ethical theories" (154-59).
Bok discusses aims 4 and 5--preparing students for citizenship and to live with diversity--with the caveat that success requires more than one or two courses in civics and demography (172-224). He quotes with approval the comment of John Dewey that "democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife" (172). The family and the public schools have no more prospect of effectuating these two aims than to assure that students arrive at colleges and universities able to communicate effectively and think critically. Therefore, colleges and universities will have to achieve these aims in undergraduate education. However, Bok offers little guidance, urging that every undergraduate student must learn about American democracy and its institutions, political philosophy, basic economics, and American engagement in world affairs, and also become competent in interpersonal relations (187-89, 221-24).
Similarly, Bok's discussion of developing global competence, aim 6, offers little guidance on the means to the end (225-54). Study abroad, internationalizing the curriculum, and recruiting students from other countries and cultures all have merit, but lack focus. While globalization indicates many graduates will spend at least part of their careers in other countries, no one knows quite how to prepare them for it. No college or university has the resources to offer all the courses needed for global coverage. In the end, Bok recommends two required courses, one on American involvement in world affairs and the other on understanding a different culture (252).
General education programs seek to assure breadth in undergraduate education (256-80). However, Bok finds no evidentiary basis for the conclusion that they achieve that goal. Interestingly enough, passionate advocacy for any one of several general education programs varies inversely with its frequency of adoption. The simplest form, distribution requirements, has the least vocal support, but students prefer it because it allows virtually free choice. It also costs less in terms of resources and specially trained faculty to implement, and gives almost any department some turf to claim. A carefully designed program, with courses constructed purposefully to assure breadth, still suffers from inattention to pedagogy, and inevitably degenerates as basic introductory courses gain inclusion and the course lists become diluted. Bok urges retention of breadth requirements only if "good reason [exists] to believe that the goal will actually be accomplished...within the time allotted in the curriculum." (279) As he concludes, "It matters less whether...courses...[to assure breadth] are built around great texts or modes of thought than whether the instructors have a commitment...and a demonstrated capacity to arouse the interest and enthusiasm of their students."
Finally, Bok breaks new ground by urging some preparation for a career (281-309). Arts and Sciences faculty "attach too little importance to student career needs," while undergraduates and vocational faculty "neglect educational goals that serve the larger community" (308). He denies (correctly in this reviewer's opinion) that the "pressure to respond appropriately to vocational needs will diminish in the foreseeable future." Because he makes no explicit recommendation, it appears that Bok has in mind the inclusion of some vocational or professional courses within liberal arts concentrations or majors, and some liberal arts courses within the vocational or professional majors, rather than relying solely on the general education program or free electives to achieve the aim.
Bok's detailed analysis, drawing heavily on the research reports he commends, provides a comprehensive and accurate assessment of undergraduate education today. In addition, he suggests some practical and incremental reforms on the premise that a failure of "faculty and their academic leaders" to act means that the problems will get worse. Experience shows, he advises, that no institutions other than colleges and universities have the capacity, experience, and mandate to deal with this societal challenge.
In his final chapter, Bok concedes that some may find it "surprising that a former college president would write an entire book on the weaknesses of American undergraduate education" (310). "Ironic" might better capture this reader's initial reaction. Presidential polemics about intercollegiate athletics published after the authors have left their positions give rise to cynical questions about new-found insights and fortitude. Bok offers no direct explanation for writing the book, except to note the need, and leaves the readers to consider his arguments and his motives, not his record. He focuses instead on the reasons that reform failed in the past and what he thinks will make a difference today. Because of his new position as Interim President of Harvard, readers will have the opportunity to assess his determination to implement his recommendations.
Bok asserts that reform has not occurred to date because of a "lack of compelling [external] pressure to improve." In addition, "So long as professors...teach conscientiously in their accustomed way and colleges keep up with the competition in facilities, tuition, and financial aid, no one need fear any immediate consequences for failing to do their best to lift the quality of teaching and learning to the highest attainable level" (313). He doubts that known "competition from bright young people in Bangalore and Beijing" will make much difference. The absence of external pressure to reform explains the faculty's cavalier "treatment of...[the] purposes [of undergraduate education],...neglect of basic courses that develop important skills,...reluctance even to discuss pedagogy,...ignorance of research on student learning, and...unwillingness to pay attention to much of what goes on outside the classroom" (313). This unacceptable behavior results from the inadequate training of faculty, and nothing will change until an external demand exists and doctoral programs include mandatory courses on cognitive development and new pedagogies (324). Strange as it sounds, faculty who rely on research and experimentation to solve social problems and discover new knowledge rarely apply those powerful techniques to teaching and learning (317-18).
As a proactive response, Bok urges a rigorous outcomes assessment process for all institutions to inform faculty that the favored curricula, approaches, methods, and pedagogies do not produce the desired results. At present, because the suggestive work of educational researchers has gone unnoticed and unread, the faculty has no solid or even inferential evidence of any change in students because of their undergraduate education (319-22). However, even if the assessments occur and the faculty participates, Bok regards the prospects for change as "Not good" (323-25). All on campus--administrators, departments, faculty, and students--prefer what exists because of its familiar effects and will resist any substantive change. Nor does he regard the prospect good that business and industry will organize and sustain a successful reform effort. Nor will state legislatures implement meaningful accountability efforts without faculty involvement and relying as they do "on standardized test scores that do not accurately measure what a good liberal education should be trying to accomplish and cause college authorities to concentrate on excelling in the tests at the expense of other, more important educational goals." Moreover, "budget allocations are a clumsy weapon for reforming undergraduate education" (326-27). At best, they "convey a sense of official dissatisfaction...," thus perhaps motivating campus administrators "to pay more attention to undergraduate education (327).
In Bok's analysis, reform must begin with action by governing boards and accrediting commissions. They must insist that colleges and universities have and implement effective plans for outcomes assessment (330-33). In fact, however, all the regional accrediting commissions at present mandate such plans, and most governing boards have also done so, but with minimal effect. Nonetheless, renewed emphasis on periodic assessments, combined with insistence on the use of the results, will bolster campus leaders willing to attempt reform. As Bok points out, "No faculty has ever forced its leaders out for failing to act vigorously enough to improve the prevailing methods of instruction." Usually they get ousted when they attempt to change what exists (324-25). With known external support, they have a much better chance of surviving and succeeding. Even so, for long-term success, they must find ways to bring the faculty along, since the faculty implements and gives concrete meaning to any reforms. Despite his many critical comments, Bok remains confident that the faculty will respond if properly led.
In the end, Bok argues that a clear, well articulated presidential vision for undergraduate education, and the determination of the president to realize the vision, will rally the campus (336). He believes that presidents too often bow to the calls for students with better profiles and more funded research. As a result, scarce resources go toward those objectives rather than to support reform of undergraduate education. As he says, committed presidents have tested strategies they can employ. They can require rigorous program evaluations and outcomes assessments of writing, speaking, reasoning, language, and mathematical competencies on a regular, predictable basis, and insist on the use of the results in curricular planning and resource allocations. They can do this by leading curricular debates, or at least participating in them, to make certain of attention to meaningful and measurable outcomes for programs and courses and use of appropriate pedagogies. They can require that only competent, motivated, regular, and full-time faculty members teach the basic courses, as well as the advanced ones, and engage the students in active learning. They can do so by requiring the assessment of the teaching competency of all new faculty members and rigorous and periodic evaluation of the teaching competency of all continuing faculty members by students, peers, and administrators. They can require that all doctoral programs include advanced study of cognitive development and diverse pedagogies. And they can make certain that undergraduate students have the opportunity to explore career options (336-43). These recommended strategies hardly offer anything new and novel, and they depend for success upon the will to implement them. Can or will presidents, however well inclined and intentioned, succeed in making them work for reform?
Bok's analysis of the reasons for the "unfulfilled promise and unrealized opportunities" of undergraduate education makes a persuasive case for reform. He also identifies some incremental and concrete steps to address the existing deficiencies and does not minimize the magnitude of the challenge. Anyone involved in higher education will recognize the cogency of his critique. However, paralyzing differences about appropriate responses plague reform efforts. In frustration, and perhaps out of preference, as Bok suggests, most faculty members and administrators assign the origins of, and therefore the responsibility for, the problems to faulty preparation by the public schools and familial and societal failings and call for higher admission standards, the response of choice for a century or more. Left to their own devices, neither the faculty nor the academic leaders have shown the will, imagination, creativity, initiative, or determination to address these problems, often ignoring their existence. Absent external pressure, which Bok doubts will exist in the near future, nothing will change.
For this reviewer, Bok's explanation of the failure of change to date appears sound. The great curricular reforms of the past have come in response to profound or long-term social shifts that forced change--e.g., the elimination of the traditional curriculum opened new programs of study and introduced graduate education and research in response to new conditions within late 19th century America that demanded at once a more practical and more sophisticated curriculum; and the famous Harvard Red Book of 1945 was designed to assure the continuance of the "liberal and humane tradition" in a world that barely avoided a plunge into barbarism./1/ Despite Bok's failure to mention them, several recent developments augur the possible emergence of conditions favorable to change. In fairness, he completed work on the book in late 2005 or early 2006, before a number of these nascent developments matured. In any event, it appears to this reviewer that the sea-change to give impetus to reform either has or will soon come.
To provide substance to the point, Bok makes no mention in his critique of undergraduate education about the rapidly rising costs that threaten to exclude large numbers of young people from participation in college./2/ This intensifying public preoccupation with the challenges of cost and access might seem of lesser consequence to one associated with private higher education, especially with an institution boasting an endowment capable of assuring access even to the most needy. Nonetheless, deep public angst about cost and its impact on access, already widespread among various segments of American society, will ultimately bring into focus most of the problems in undergraduate education that Bok identifies.
In addition, a series of related developments, taken together, appear likely to galvanize the public. The National Academies report, available in draft in late 2005, sounded a clarion call for reform of teacher preparation and education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and language instruction./3/ Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings charged a national Commission in early 2006 to provide a report on the state of American higher education, and the Commission report in late 2006 urged outcomes assessment and accreditation reform, cost controls, better information on institutional performance, and other changes./4/ The effort in Congress in 2005 to reauthorize the Higher Education Act generated serious discussion of outcomes assessment, accreditation, and the rising costs of higher education. The regional accrediting commissions and various national higher educational organizations have considered numerous proposals for curricular reform, cost containment, and ways to inform the public about institutional performance. More recently, the National Center on Education and the Economy articulated a strident demand for educational reform--largely focused on kindergarten and the public schools, but also emphasizing teacher preparation and continuing education for adults./5/ These and other developments suggest that the external pressures Bok considers necessary for change mount with each passing month.
In this new environment, Bok's book has much to offer for reform./6/ First, he has called attention to a valuable resource currently available in the reports of education researchers. Reformers have a foundation from which to begin. Second, the recent announcement by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges of a project to develop outcomes assessment instruments and methods tested for their validity and designed to facilitate comparisons among peer institutions has moved reform from the talking to the action stage. Third, the American Council on Education's aggressive campaign, titled "Solutions for Our Future," has given rise to action-oriented initiatives aimed at cost control, outcomes assessment and quality assurance, and enhanced support for higher education to renew the "social compact" among generations of Americans./7/ Finally, Bok's specific proposals for change resonate well with the rising public demands.
In this book, Bok sounds the alarm, not in another polemic attacking the institutions, faculty, administrators, and students, but as a reminder to all of the critical importance of undergraduate education of proven high quality. The institutions that have the mandate to provide that education have for centuries enabled their supporting societies to find solutions to seemingly intractable problems. He makes the case for the renewal of undergraduate education with the focus squarely on actual conditions within society today, and dedication of resources to assure responsiveness to the identified problems.
Notwithstanding these concluding comments in praise of good work, this reviewer feels compelled to enter a cautionary note. As Harry Lewis has so aptly observed, the modern research university has succeeded beyond all expectations as a generator of new knowledge and technology that has transformed the world./8/ In a very real sense, many of today's problems in undergraduate education have grown out of that spectacular success and the single-minded pursuit of it. Experience suggests care to make certain that the effort to reform does not end by throwing out the baby with the bath. To that end, reformers must resolve the existing tensions between education and research rather than insisting on one or the other, the choice that has bedeviled and distracted higher education for nearly two centuries.
Notes
[The Montana Professor 17.2, Spring 2007 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]