This commentary is by John Bramley, former acting and interim president of the University of Vermont, a UVM provost and senior vice president. He was a professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and in the College of Medicine, where he also served as chair and dean.
In my previous two contributions, I commented largely on the University of Vermont and the Vermont State Colleges System and their specific challenges. The problems faced by higher education in Vermont are not unique and there are some general lessons to be learned that are nationally relevant.
Higher education has to adapt to technology, the changing expectations of students, unpredictable global challenges, and increased pressure from both nonprofit and for-profit competitors. However, the “traditional” nonprofit providers of higher education have significant advantages and, with some bold steps, can increase affordability, competitiveness and flexibility.
Firstly, it is time for colleges and universities to discard the nonsensical model of being in session for only half the year (typically two 13-week-long semesters). This model originated in an agrarian society when most families worked the land and students were needed back on the family farm for summer work. That is no longer relevant when agriculture and food production have been extensively mechanized and less than 2 percent of the U.S. population “work the land.”
It increases overhead costs because buildings are underutilized for long periods of time and, in effect, creates an in-built overcapacity. It disadvantages student learning because of the long gaps, which create a need to relearn and limit the curricular flexibility that longer sessions allow.
In K-12, it also leaves working families struggling practically and financially to provide child care or supervision over long summer breaks. Because of this archaic model, U.S. students are academically less well prepared and take longer to complete their studies than many of our global competitors.
Secondly, the advent of asynchronous learning presents higher education with an opportunity to embrace technology to the great benefit of students, educators, and institutions.
Using lecture halls in which dozens of students listen to professors present material from the front of the room at a point in time does not make the best use of professors, nor is it well-suited to the learning patterns of digital-age students. Both students and professors can benefit from more innovative approaches.
For example, modern equivalents of the traditional “Oxbridge” model could be adopted. Students are expected to gather and study material themselves from extensive sources asynchronously under the direction of the professor. In this model, the professor is no longer the “sage on the stage” but a guide/tutor who challenges students to explore and tests their grasp of the material through small group seminars.
Of course, no single model applies to all topics or subjects, but there are numerous examples combining the best of both the digital world and the high-touch personal guidance of a professor.
Many students crave and learn most effectively through “hands-on” experiences. The University of Vermont has an enviable reputation in this regard, with many students undertaking internships, studying abroad, engaging in research projects and so on. No matter how good the instruction provided in “formal settings,” these “extramural” experiences change and shape student lives and careers and should be an integral part of the student experience. Many high schools already require “graduation projects” and higher education would increase its attractiveness and relevance and their graduates’ employment competitiveness by embracing this approach.
An obvious consequence of the digital revolution and worldwide access to courses and material is that institutions need not provide an encyclopedic range of courses and majors “in house.” Institutions (including high schools) could easily contract with others to provide access to courses that they lack the resources to do well themselves.
This suggestion immediately raises the hackles of faculty members and unions, seeing it as a potential threat to their job security. In fact, done correctly, this approach can offer a much broader range of learning opportunities to students while allowing the institution to focus on, and perhaps expand, its own areas of strength and excellence and generate additional revenue by marketing this expertise to other institutions.
Finally, in this fast-paced environment, flexibility and responsiveness to challenges prove critical. Colleges and universities are not exempt from this.
Certainly, the centuries-long tradition of universities and colleges as independent voices of reason is something to applaud and preserve. Indeed, ensuring that academics were protected from persecution or political influence because of their views or writings was the rationale for faculty tenure.
The political independence of institutions is a cornerstone of society, as the last four years illustrate. Speaking out and protecting free speech can be uncomfortable and controversial. That protective role of tenure should be preserved and valued. However, with the advent of collective bargaining agreements, tenure should not be used to essentially guarantee lifelong faculty employment and hamper institutions’ ability to adapt.
Revolving five-year employment contracts and effective performance reviews can provide adequate guarantee of employment security while creating the necessary institutional flexibility and accountability.
I suspect that by now I have irritated many readers of this piece and my friends and colleagues in higher education. I apologize — that is not my intent. Rather, my goal in these three pieces has been to raise issues and ideas to stimulate debate on how best to make our institutions serving Vermont even better.
