Less Choice

With much of high education in a constrained situation, there are more and more discussions regarding how to operate in an ongoing environment of greater than historical constraints for much of higher education. I have talked about a number of possible alternatives to deal with these constraints in a relatively recent blog including larger class size, more adjuncts, etc. Another important part of this equation are the choices that are provided and how extensive those choices are. And here, I am writing about the choice of courses within a major as well as areas of major.

Earlier today, I had a discussion with a department chair from a well- run department that has for many years laid out a grid so that a student could plan ahead and help make sure they will graduate at the appropriate time. Included in the grid was a provision for all key courses for the major to be offered every semester. This is clearly a great convenience. However, student enrollment needs could certainly be satisfied with the majority of these courses being offered on a once a year basis and ultimately this is not, in my opinion, a difficult decision to make.

A much more difficult decision for an institution to make is whether to continue offering every major, every program both graduate and undergraduate, the institution presently provides. I, for one, appreciate a breadth of offerings especially on the undergraduate level so that students can choose or change a major—without leaving their present institution—from a wide array of alternatives. But here too, if there is not a critical mass of students, the decision to continue offering that particular major or majors or programs should be reexamined. I am not talking here about service courses but only about majors where the enrollment just isn’t there.

Two important caveats must be factored in. First, there are a significant number of courses that are pivotal to more than one major or more than one graduate program. In those cases where there is this commonality, it is important to look at the combined enrollments when determining whether a critical mass exists. On the other hand there are certain courses, statistics courses and research courses being prime example, where a department would like to have their own individual course though the methodology studied cuts across a number of distinct disciplines. On one level, I understand it. I would prefer that all the examples in these courses focus on economics. But on a more important level , since the methodology of the social sciences and business, or education, or in the sciences are virtually identical within these categories, this should be seen as an area where meaningful savings can be realized without a diminution of statistical and research sophistication.

In confronting economic constraints, everything should be on the table with the goal of meaningful savings with the least adverse impact on the education we provide.

Resonating Requirements

At this time of year, I spend a lot of time with accepted students and their families.  My primary goal is to convince our accepted students to attend Hofstra.  But inextricably interwoven into this goal is the corresponding desire for these students to make the best informed decision possible, the decision that best fits their needs, goals and aspirations.

It always resonates well with potential students to talk about the wide range of available majors.  Most new students will tell you that they have made up their mind regarding a major and perhaps even a career path.  But the reality is that some students change their mind and change their major and I am fully supportive of students doing so.  A good college education provides the opportunity to explore new fields. If one of these fields interests you enough to make that your major, higher education is clearly facilitating your growth and development.

It also always resonates well with potential students and their families to talk about the high quality of the faculty and their commitment to teaching excellence.  For me this has always been a pivotal point.  Thinking back to my own education, the courses I liked and those I didn’t like were highly correlated with the quality of teaching.  The more dynamic, knowledgeable, and articulate the faculty member, the more I enjoyed the course, and, in my opinion, the more I learned.

For families, at times even more than for accepted students, advisement, counseling, public safety, internship opportunities and placement all matter a great deal and all resonate well.

But what sometimes doesn’t resonate well are the degree requirements other than the major.  By degree requirements I don’t mean the minimum number of credits or the minimum GPA.  No one questions these requirements and everyone understands.  The requirements that are sometimes questioned are the distribution requirements that ensure a student receives a well rounded education.  The faculty, and this is true throughout higher education, carefully structure a foundation that any educated person should have and build in the curricular structure that provides that foundation. As we know, there is not one universally agreed upon foundation covering all of higher education, and there are often great discussions – and these typically include disagreements followed by compromises – on what should and should not be in the curricular structure.  But if our goal is to educate a well rounded person, requirements that include exposure to a critical body of knowledge, are the necessary means to this end.  Within this framework, in my opinion, we should provide for as much choice as possible.

I still remember my undergraduate experience that included passing a mandatory course in swimming as a graduation requirement.  In those days, if you didn’t swim, you didn’t graduate.  I am a recreational swimmer but a swimming graduation requirement (and there were no alternatives) made no sense.  Today’s challenge in developing distribution/graduation requirements is still to make sure we include what is essential and stop there.