The image and the general reality of being a university
president are so ingrained in our cultural consciousness that it is extremely
difficult to imagine another type of higher education leadership model. It
includes a commitment to faculty and governance, research, fund-raising, alumni
, and current students, all intertwined in a 60 hour/week DNA that also
includes intercollegiate athletics and on-campus cultural and student events.
And this person is usually an educator who rose through the ranks to become an
administrator at a later stage in life.
Yet even as we look forward to the post-traditional world,
we see, if we look critically, that the role of the university president has already
changed over the last 30 years, diversifying, leaving some traditional
responsibilities behind and adding others that used to be considered irrelevant
or inappropriate. After all, it is a long way from the Swarthmore of 1955 to
the Ohio State of 2014. Today, most colleges and universities, even those that
are publicly funded, are run like businesses, with the management wolf trying
to hide in the academic sheep’s clothing.
In an article that appeared in the Princeton Alumni Weekly, Dr. Hunter Rawlings
III, president of the Association of American Universities, gives a
full-throated endorsement of their contributions:
“…(they)…have never been in so
much demand…have never been ranked more highly…have never contributed so much
to the production of vital knowledge, to national security, to national
economic growth,…and to local economies.”
He goes on to say that universities are criticized for
unsurprising reasons, such as lower public financial support, increased
pressure to attend college, the sheer size and complexity of universities, and
the resulting political and legal complications. According to Rawlings, “We
should get used to the fact that we will have to endure a lot of criticism,
much of it unwarranted and unfair.” He then admits to several areas of
justified criticism of colleges and universities, including loss of academic
rigor, failure to limit costs, over-reliance on the “high tuition,
high-financial aid” strategy, and “the monster called intercollegiate athletics.”
All of this is true. What Rawlings is missing, however,
is an analysis of the post-traditional world.
The leadership challenges faced by institutions and
organizations that do not operate like the current-day economic and academic
version of traditional universities are different in focus and substance. And
what it will take to lead those organizations in the post-traditional era is a
conversation that needs to begin.
I believe that post-traditional leadership will be
avowedly more practical and outcomes-oriented, as will be their learners and
academic support staff. Thus
- curricular content may not be owned by the institution, but assessment results will be;
- mentoring, active advising, and subject matter experts will supplement, and in some cases supplant, the traditional teaching model;
- technology will inform and undergird every aspect of the learning and administrative processes;
- career readiness will be a requirement for graduation;
- big data will improve student success rates and organizational performance continuously; and
- reflection will lie at the center of assessment, creating a new pedagogy around making meaning of the experience of learning.
While the post-traditional world may not, in many cases,
embrace the traditional liberal arts as a core “theology” of higher education,
its educational leaders will need to focus on learners and learning, research
and improved practices that promote learning, and the organization of resources
so that they promote learner-centered pathways to both economic and academic
success throughout life.
This does not herald the end of the contemporary version
of the traditional college model or the value of the liberal arts. It does, however,
portend a new, post-traditional view and sector in higher education that is
driven by a different vision and different commitments to learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment