Friday Five: Higher ed, the good and the bad

Note: This entry was supposed to be posted last Friday, March 11, rather than today. But due to a server upgrade by our host, eduBlogs, this blog has been offline for a week. I’m glad to be up and running again. Thanks for your patience. – AC

Reading recent headlines and cover stories might give you the impression that America’s higher education system is headed irreversibly down the tubes. For that matter, reading headlines from the past three or four years might give you that same impression.

And then there are the counterarguments that we’re not in such bad shape, maybe in better shape than we realize.

So how bad off are we, really? I don’t know. But here are five links to recent (and not-so-recent) articles that may shed some light.

1. 4 Leaders Explain Why American Higher Education Is Good but Feels Bad. This article from the Chronicle of Higher Education summarizes the viewpoint of Jonathan R. Cole, provost at Columbia University and the author of The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected. This article summarizes the points Cole and three other higher ed leaders made at the American Council on Education’s annual meeting. I haven’t read Cole’s book, but if merely amplifies his ACE talking points, I don’t think I will read it. Cole looks to rankings to support his contention that U.S. universities are still world-class. “While American universities face increasing global competition, said Mr. Cole, they still vastly outrank their foreign counterparts. ‘There is not a single German university that’s in the top 50’ worldwide, said Mr. Cole. ‘Not one Chinese university is in the top 200, and not one Indian university is in the top 300.'” I am hopeful, however, that this is true: “The values that make American higher education a hallmark, he said, include its emphasis on questioning ideas and on judging people on the basis of their work.”

2. Our Universities: How Bad? How Good? This in-depth and erudite review of four recent books about the “crisis” in higher education is definitely worth reading in full. For the purposes of this post, however, I’ll just share one quote from the review for you to consider:

On the whole, one has to say that the relative autonomy of the American university has been far more beneficial than the contrary. American higher education is a nonsystem that is messy, reduplicative, unfair — just like American society as a whole — but it has made genuine commitments to quality and to a greater degree of social justice, to the extent that is within its control, than most other institutions of the society. It has brought new blood into old elitist institutions, and indeed has thoroughly scrambled the hereditary caste it began with. You have simply to walk the paths of any reputable American university today to see that the student population looks like the range of American ethnicities—far more than many other institutions. Universities have taken seriously calls for inclusiveness and affirmative action. The large expenditures on their admissions offices that bring sneers from Hacker and Dreifus have promoted diversity in ways unimagined fifty years ago. Given the long and continuing history of American anti-intellectualism — which today takes the form of a vicious know-nothingism — I am often surprised that America has universities of the quality it does.

This piece is worth and in-depth read rather than the usual skim. Read it, ponder it and think about what it means for higher ed.

3. Degrees and Dollars. In this recent op-ed, the New York Times’ Paul Krugman offers the dim view (after all, his is an economist) that advanced education won’t equal good jobs. Globalization and technological advances have “hollowed out” the middle class, so much so that technology is now “actually reducing the demand for highly educated workers.” He concludes: “[T]he notion that putting more kids through college can restore the middle-class society we used to have is wishful thinking. It’s no longer true that having a college degree guarantees that you’ll get a good job, and it’s becoming less true with each passing decade.” Reflecting on Krugman’s piece, Inside Higher Ed’s Dean Dad worries “that as the population of underemployed graduates grows, so too will resentment towards higher education” and that “folks with very different agendas [than Krugman’s] will use that point to do once-in-a-generation damage.”

4. 5 Long-Term “Ideas That Matter” for Education. Last year, philosopher A.C. Grayling offered a dozen ideas that are likely to become the centers of political, economic and intellectual debate in the future. From that dozen, Andy Shaindlin, on his blog alumni futures, picks five from that dozen that he believes have “direct, and potentially monumental, implications for higher education.” How will education leaders respond to these themes? It’s worth thinking about.

5. Are America’s Best Days Behind Us? This question frames the context of a recent TIME magazine cover story . And while the topic is broader than higher education — the focus is more about America’s economic competitiveness — the author, Fareed Zakaria, does touch on the importance of investing in higher ed and associated areas, such as research and development. “[R]educing funds for things like education, scientific research, air-traffic control, NASA, infrastructure and alternative energy will not produce much in savings, and it will hurt the economy’s long-term growth,” he writes. “It would happen at the very moment that countries from Germany to South Korea to China are making large investments in education, science, technology and infrastructure. We are cutting investments and subsidizing consumption — exactly the opposite of what are the main drivers of economic growth.”

Bonus: The fall of U.S. higher ed and what to do about it. This is a post I wrote back in October 2009. It was partially inspired by the headlines of that month, which bear remarkable resemblance to the headlines of this month, and partially by Zakaria’s book The Post-American World. Since we’re still grappling with the same issues, maybe this post is still relevant. In it, I offer four prescriptions to our decline. But I still haven’t gotten that phone call from Arne Duncan.

In praise of open systems

Photo by Melanie Cook, http://www.flickr.com/photos/wiccked/133164205/
Photo by Melanie Cook, http://www.flickr.com/photos/wiccked/133164205/
I first started thinking seriously about open systems back in 2002, after I heard a conference speaker talk about the advantages of open-source software development versus a proprietary, closed approach. Taking an open approach in a business that has traditionally been a closed system, this speaker said, would be to our advantage in the future.

The speaker wasn’t a educational technologist or a marketing expert, and the conference wasn’t about computing, the Internet or higher ed marketing and PR. It was a ministry conference, and the speaker was theologian Leonard Sweet.

The fact that a higher ed PR/marketing guy like me got psyched about open-system theory from a theologian while sitting in on a ministry conference underscores my thoughts about the virtues of openness and, by extension, about connectivity, creativity and the genesis of good ideas. (I’m also a youth minister on the side, and that’s actually why I attended the 2002 event. But I also picked up some ideas of value to my day job and other pursuits.)

We never know when or where we’re going to find our inspiration or our next great idea, so we should try to stay open to as many possible channels as we can. Even more, I think we ought to actively seek out diverse viewpoints and perspectives in order to improve and innovate in our own narrow niche of higher ed marketing. We ought to look beyond our areas of expertise and our communities of practice in higher ed for inspiration from other disciplines — even if they seem far-fetched or irrelevant to our own.

But I’m troubled by what I see as a trend among many of us in the higher ed marketing field. We seem to prefer our closed systems, even in the wide-open ecosystem of the Internet. We tend to focus on our narrow areas of expertise — higher ed marketing and PR, for instance, or higher ed web, graphic design or whatever our field happens to be.

Inadvertently (or maybe intentionally for some?), we sometimes wall ourselves off from resources that could benefit our institutions, our faculty and staff, our marketing programs and ultimately, our students.

We do so at our peril.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for communities of practice, and I see the value in focus. I often seek guidance from experts in higher ed, and the very title of this blog — higher ed marketing — tends to pigeonhole me into a particular niche that I try hard not to stray from, much.

But I also look for inspiration and guidance from people and resources beyond the narrow straits of higher ed marketing and PR. I try to connect with a variety of viewpoints in my online interactions.

As you can see from my blogroll, I attempt to connect with a lot of people in the higher ed world and beyond. My blogroll includes links to some very good marketing, PR, news and tech sites outside of higher ed. (Admittedly, I don’t read all of those sites on a regular basis, although I should. I also list them in hopes that you might serendipitously discover a great read outside of your own field.)

The same goes for my RSS feed and my 1,200-plus Twitter connections, which includes musicians, branding and marketing people in and out of higher ed, techies, entrepreneurs, writers (fiction and non-fiction), artists, theologians (@lensweet is there) and sundry other categories of people. Also, some of my favorite higher ed tweeps post about life beyond college and university life. Some of these things are of mutual interest: music, baseball and bacon. Some post about topics that aren’t really in my wheelhouse — like NASCAR, fashion and child-rearing — but sometimes I learn from those posts, too.

* * * * *

steve-johnsonWhat really rebooted my thinking about open systems recently was Steven Johnson’s book Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation (affiliate link). I really enjoyed Johnson’s book, so much so that I included it in my list of five good reads for 2010. As I wrote in that post, I find Johnson to be “[a] master of the art of lateral and cross-disciplinary thinking” who “brilliantly threads together ideas and patterns from a variety of fields.” In other words, he has a knack for examining a lot of discrete fields and disciplines — evolutionary biology, urban planning, computer science, entrepreneurship and astronomy, to name just a few — and uncovering the patterns and commonalities in them that offer clues to what enables the creation of good ideas.

Johnson talks about seven fertile “environments” that are needed to grow good ideas. Each of these seven areas — the adjacent possible, liquid networks, the slow hunch, serendipity, error, exaptation and platforms — interconnect and overlap to form an ecosystem of sorts in which good ideas may thrive.

But at the core of each of these areas, I believe, is a reliance more on openness than on closed or walled-off systems. Openness is where good ideas can take root and grow.

Regarding liquid networks, for example, the question arises: Does the web hinder serendipitous discovery or foster it?

We can point out how the web can easily reinforce narrow thinking. It’s easy to find like-minded people online who share your perspectives, and if you choose to interact only with those who reinforce your perspectives and biases, you’re less likely to run across any new ways of thinking that will spur you to think differently about a situation or a problem. That’s the closed-system approach to using the web.

But if you view the web as an open system, you’ll find that the Internet does in fact foster serendipitous discovery. Recent favorites I’ve saved from my Twitter stream reinforce this. Without Twitter, I doubt I’d have found out these gems:

As Johnson points out, “… the web is an unrivaled medium for serendipity if you are actively seeking it out” (p. 121).

Granted, we all use filters to screen out noise. But are we in the higher ed marketing and PR field — or any other field — in danger of filtering out too much? Again, Johnson points out that along with serendipity, error and noise play a vital part in discovering good ideas. “[G]ood ideas are more likely to emerge in environments that contain a certain amount of noise and error” (p. 142).

Finally, maybe opening up your filters just a bit will help you with your career path, creativity or quest for entrepreneurial independence. Johnson cites a study of Stanford University grad students from the late 1990s that seems to support this idea. “Diverse, horizontal social networks … were three times more innovative than uniform, vertical networks. In groups united by shared values and long-term familiarity, conformity and convention tended to dampen any potential creative sparks” (p. 166).

In recent weeks, we’ve witnessed the power of open networks in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. Revolution 2.0, as it’s being called, is helping to topple regimes that were presumed secure.

Opening your network a little bit more might not lead to a revolutionary idea, but it might. And how will you know until you try?

So go ahead. Add some more diverse perspectives to your Twitter feed. Open up that blogroll beyond the usual higher ed suspects. Listen to some different music. Watch a silent movie. Read outside of your discipline. Maybe you’ll gain a new perspective.

If this post has inspired you to open your networks a bit more, please let me know how it goes.