[The Montana Professor 24.1, Spring 2014 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]
Derek Bok
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013
496 pp., $35.00 hc
Marvin Lansverk
Professor of English Literature
MSU-Bozeman
Derek Bok's latest offering, Higher Education in America is a hefty volume. Daunting in length and ambitious in scope, it manages to succeed on many counts, both ancient and modern. By ancient standards—at least as encompassed in the Horatian dictum from the Ars Poetica, that works should both "teach and delight"—Bok's book is a success. It is a wealth of information about higher education, even to the already well-informed; and it is a pleasure, albeit an academic one, to read (I'll provide my explanation of academic pleasure below). And by modern standards, it has managed to create "buzz," garnering good reviews and attention across the spectrum, including social media—for all the best reasons. Most importantly, it promises to be useful to a variety of interested audiences, faculty, administrators, regents, legislators and parents alike. Certain to attract attention as well are the book's failures, its failure to give in to what is often an overwhelming temptation in books about academe: to overgeneralize, to take cheap shots, or purport to have all the answers. Instead, Bok is to be praised for his balance, his attention to nuance, his evidence based methodology, and his wisdom. He doesn't offer patent medicine solutions to all that ails higher education, but he does provide clear headed views of the problems and ongoing promise of the vast array of American institutions of higher education.
Bok's credentials are impressive. A lawyer by training, and an academic, he was twice president of Harvard, from 1971-1991, and then again for a year as acting president in 2006-07 while an ongoing search was completed. And in between, he has shown himself to be a prolific scholar on a variety of subjects, including higher education itself, with many previous books, notably, his 2009 Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More. Bok's new book sustains some themes developed in his previous work, but is more ambitious, attempting to consider what its title implies: the scope and variety of higher education across America. As such, it attempts to serve as a primer on the diversity, strengths, and weaknesses of our American system, encompassing undergraduate, graduate, and professional schools, addressing teaching, research, and service along the way. The result is a kind of Consumer Reports-type account, not in the sense that he is providing a Buyer's Guide to specific American colleges; rather, that the book provides a systematic overview of the various components and issues involved in addressing the complex system, helping readers know what they are looking at and what to look for, as a result. And along the way, Bok provides some history and plenty of context.
The broad scope affects all aspects of the book. Because it is broadly focused, it can't go into extreme depth on its many subjects: on any given topic, there are longer analyses to be found (many of which Bok actually uses and cites). But in not just focusing on a particular sector of higher education, or a particular set of problems lies the book's greatest strength and some of the greatest academic pleasures (referred to above) the book affords. Bok knows (as do most people who work inside it) that higher education is an interconnected web. Addressing one problem (take graduation rates, for example) can have consequences—sometimes deleterious—on other parts of the system (quality of instruction, for example). Reading the work of someone who understands this interconnectedness and can explain these connections authoritatively is part of the fun of reading the book (OK, maybe "delight" is too strong a word)—and also the source of some of its most important advice.
Because the book is so lengthy and encyclopedic, any attempt to provide a full summary would itself have to be long. Rather than a comprehensive summary, then, my aims here are to be somewhat selective, identifying the various parts covered, concentrating on a few particular sections. For those in a hurry, reading the introduction and conclusion as stand-alone essays isn't a bad strategy. In fact, the book is organized so that it can be used as a reference book. While reading the entire work is recommended—since the full import of the interconnections comes into focus in doing so—nevertheless, much can be gained just by reading particular sections one happens to be interested in. The introduction lays out some of Bok's premises and explains his intents. After musing about the paradox that American higher education is still the envy of the world yet simultaneously has spawned a cottage industry in the publishing of jeremiads about the failing state of American universities, Bok shows his cards: there are many, difficult problems but not everything is as bad as is often made out. In fact, near the end of the book, Bok scolds the authors of the jeremiads for distracting us from real problems. As he says, "The principal problem with many of the [overly general] criticisms just described is not that they are wrong but that their sweeping nature diverts attention from significant weaknesses than can and should be remedied" (385).
Bok's method is to avoid overgeneralization. And he begins with a quick overview of the diverse structure of higher education in America, surveying the multiple and sometimes conflicting functions that institutions have grown up to serve (teaching undergraduates, economic development, producing research, delivering outreach) and the various types of institutions we've developed to do so (research universities, comprehensives, four years, community colleges; privates, publics, and for-profits). Quickly comparing our system to Europe's, Bok notes that we have many more institutions and attempt to educate a wider slice of our populations (funding from all sources for our universities, including tuition, comprises 2.4% of national income, compared to half that for the European Union), and we have much more diversity as a result. An important aspect of our higher education landscape is that our institutions compete with each other: for students, for prestige, and for funds. While competition leads to many useful consequences (the explanation and analysis of which Bok effectively addresses throughout the book, in various sections), it also creates some of the problems. As Bok points out, and as all academics know, some things are easier to measure than others. And too often, a focus on (or competition on the basis of) only the things that can be measured leads to suboptimal results. Most trenchantly, Bok discusses how it has always been easier to measure incoming SAT averages of high school students, research grant production of faculty, publications, and even graduation rates than to measure the quality and effectiveness of various types of instruction. One danger is that the "fuzzy and uneven knowledge about the performance of universities could easily lead academic leaders to make unwise decisions about the goals and priorities of the institution" (23). Bok's point, in starting here, is not to take issue with using data to drive decision making, or to criticize any particular constituency (regents, legislatures, faculty), but to argue for the need for education, when talking about education, for both good data and a good understanding of how it all works. And Bok's president's eye view, supplemented by years of additional study, provides both.
The organization of Bok's book that follows, true to his comprehensive intent, intersperses discussions of various issues (from shared governance, to the future of tenure, to the role of research across the various types of universities, to whether faculty are too liberal, to online learning, to for-profit universities), with discussions of trends and critiques of higher ed (including attempts to increase enrollment and accessibility, rising costs, and graduation rates), with a subsequent systematic treatment of undergraduate education, graduate education, and the professional schools, in sequence. His early discussion of governance is a good example of his methodology.
He begins with it in part to telegraph that his main purpose is to address what universities themselves can and should do in response to modern challenges, rather than concentrating solely on the level of government policy—though he well knows that these, too, are interconnected. In short, in spite of recent critiques from various sources, including one Association of Governing Boards commission report from 1996 that longstanding procedures of shared governance now too often lead to stalemate and an inability to change, Bok turns to the peer reviewed evidence. And after a succinct discussion he concludes that "in the end, it is difficult to accept the view of trustees and former presidents who claim that the system is dysfunctional and faculty participation should diminish" (61-62). In most places, it continues to work fairly well—with most of the large scale debacles more the fault of too much executive authority, rather than the reverse.
On the related issue of state oversight, Bok traces the familiar numbers and the current situation: that at the very time that state funding for public institutions continues to shrink (by 2009, state revenues for public universities had fallen to 18% of their budgets), most states have nevertheless made serious efforts to make universities more accountable, leading to various experiments, some extremely intrusive. As Bok relates, among these were attempts by legislatures in the 1990s to implement so-called "performance based budgeting," many of which faded when it became clear that developing reliable outcome measures proved more difficult than had been anticipated and often had unforeseen negative consequences. Some states (including Montana), are nevertheless trying to get on the performance based funding bandwagon (perhaps more accurately called target based budgeting), still trying to leverage dwindling state appropriations to achieve specific ends, now focusing especially on graduation rates and to a lesser degree on access. The trouble is, again, that such measures tend to reduce complex systems with multiple and competing goals to single targets. Bok's point is that new experiments should continue to be informed by the failures of previous ones and by an understanding of the complexities involved. Important goals need nuanced solutions, not just slogans or reductive targets.
A few other quick takes (of what are actually long sections of the book): Is there any truth to the occasional charge that too much focus on research necessarily competes with teaching, negatively affecting undergraduate education? Answer: the evidence says no. In fact, Bok cites statistics that 70% of faculty overall—including faculty at research universities such as Montana State University—indicate they are nevertheless more oriented toward teaching than research. Does "mission creep" negatively affect universities, where institutions in one classification attempt to improve their prestige and possibly their funding sources by trying to move up, say from a four year comprehensive to a research university? Answer: yes. The evidence shows that developing Ph.D. programs as part of a goal of "moving up," is expensive and rarely works. Do some universities pay too much attention to prestige lists such as the US News and World Reports annual rankings? Answer: yes, most definitely. In continuing to compete for a dwindling pool of students, universities public and private (but especially private) engage in many suboptimal behaviors, such as using merit scholarships to raise their incoming SAT averages, instead of using this money for increasing diversity or making more funding available to needy students. Are universities too expensive? Answer: yes, but there also isn't a simple, single answer to this question. Of course they are expensive, and the cost of education has exceeded the inflation rate for years, but so have many other sectors of the economy that get less attention. Still, all universities need to continue to work on accessibility. Does administrative bloat drive up the cost of college? Answer: yes, and you should read the section about this. Is it really true that Bok suggests that some universities should seriously consider giving up their sports programs as an unnecessary expense? Answer: yes, but he's not holding his breath that many more institutions than already have will do this, and it's not a major part of his discussion. Is tenure the only way to guarantee academic freedom? Answer: no, and alternative models should be explored—beyond the current de facto ones of relying more and more on adjunct faculty—though tenure isn't the cause of many ills of higher education, as some critics would have it and probably saves institutions money by offering job security instead of higher salaries. Finally, does Bok spend some time discussing admissions policies of the Ivys and other elites? Answer: yes, but most of the book really is not primarily concerned with these schools, since by percentage, they affect such a small number of the undergraduate student population (though our news media remains obsessively preoccupied with them).
By far the largest focus on the book, spread across several different sections, is what Bok identifies as the two biggest challenges facing higher education at this time, overshadowing all others: the two "q's," quantity and quality; in other words, graduation rates and the effectiveness of undergraduate education. While Bok's discussion of these two is sobering, it is also one of the most interesting parts of the book, again, because Bok doesn't treat these as separate problems (or separate silos, to use a favorite metaphor of the day—though thankfully a metaphor Bok doesn't use). Bok knows, as too many commentators on these two problems don't, that they can be inversely related. But they don't have to be, if we are careful, which is why this section of the book deserves a careful reading, including by everyone wrestling with these problems in Montana. Beginning with the quantity side, Bok rehearses some of the well-known facts, including the Obama administration goals for regaining America's lead. Alarmingly, degree production now puts us near the bottom of 27 advanced countries, in the percentage of students who graduate. One third of students entering four year institutions don't graduate within 8.5 years. 70% of high school graduates continue on to some higher education, but only 50% currently have the preparation to make them capable of succeeding. And once in college, students nowadays do far less work: from 1961 to 2000, the amount of time spent in class and on homework went from 40 hours a week to 27. And on and on. Many readers will already be familiar with the gloomy statistics. But what to do about it? Unfortunately, many of the root causes and therefore adequate solutions are beyond the control of higher education institutions themselves, so that expecting them to solve the problem has many risks. Nevertheless, there are many appropriate responses, and Bok usefully summarizes and assesses many of the ongoing experiments, including attempts to increase accessibility and to improve financial aid, remediation, and the two-year sector. Breaking down the problem, he also discusses the different obligations of each type of institution. But he also knows that simply pressuring institutions to increase degree production isn't by itself an answer. In fact, as he says, "if colleges are pushed too hard to increase graduation rates, they may respond by lowering their requirements and accepting less effort from their students, thus dimming the prospects for improving the quality of education" (220). In fact, given the current state of the discussion, Bok calls this result the "likely" one. And it is exacerbated by the aforementioned "quantification problem," that it is easier to measure number of degrees than quality of instruction: "If America is to regain a significant edge, educators and public officials will have to concern themselves not only with the quantity of higher education, but with its quality as well" (223).
Which leads to one of Bok's passions, and his most important challenge to our institutions: a re-examination of the undergraduate curriculum and of teaching methods used to deliver it. Much of this isn't new and is ongoing in many, many places already, including Montana, but Bok's discussion is powerful nevertheless. Institutions and especially faculty need to continue the drive towards outcomes assessment, recognizing at the same time that not all outcomes are easy to assess. Yet even where it is hard, it must be done, for just as decision making about higher education policy needs to be data driven, so should teaching itself. Further, curricula should be continually reexamined by faculty, including scrutiny of the total credits needed for a degree, the relative proportions of credits needed for that degree (divided between one's major, electives, and general education—which Bok defends, if done well), and more instruction should take advantage of active, experiential learning techniques. Bok is eloquent about the possibilities here because it is one place, perhaps the best place, for institutions to make progress on both quality and quantity at the same time. Importantly, within this discussion of quality and quantity, Bok also reminds readers of another set of interconnections, of the tripartite mission of higher education, as it has emerged over the years in this country. It is part of our American fabric that our colleges and universities do not just one but three (interconnected!) things: 1) they equip students for careers by providing skills and training—what is so often called "workforce development"; 2) they prepare students to become enlightened citizens of our democracy; and 3) they prepare students to live full, satisfying lives capable of reflection and self knowledge (166-67). Government officials and policymakers do a disservice when they only speak of the first—as they too often do—and only in the context of increasing our global competitiveness. And reformers and other critics miss the mark if their solutions only concentrate on vocational preparation. Part of what has made the American system the envy of the world is embedded in its multiple goals and its determination to make progress on these goals available to as wide a swath of the population as has ever been attempted.
The strength of his book lies in Bok's sifting evidence, clear analysis, and examination of possible solutions—though he resists one-size-fits-all conclusions. And most importantly, his commentary is relevant for Montana, and timely, since our system contains each of the types of institutions Bok addresses (except an Ivy, though it does grow here). And our campus leaders, faculty, administrators, regents, commissioner, and legislators are wrestling with these same issues every day. So why not do it with even more information, and nuanced guidance, of the kind Bok provides? After all, wouldn't it be great if the Horatian dictum applied not just to books that can "teach and delight," but to our discussions about Montana's future as well? Now that's a conversation I'd like to keep having.
[The Montana Professor 24.1, Spring 2014 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]