Sorry for the long silence, but I've been busy with the Committee putting the final touches to the discussion draft of the Academic Plan. Radical Recovery: The First Academic Plan for Trent University (2012-2015) was posted this morning on the Trent homepage and can be accessed at:
http://www.trentu.ca/vpacademic/documents/Trent%20Academic%20Plan%202012-2015.pdf.
This version of the draft has been created by the Academic Planning Committee which first met in June 2011 at the start of the planning process. Members of the Committee were elected by the Provost's Planning Group from a slate of nominees put together by the Chairs and Deans during the Spring of 2011. The Committee needed to be representative of the Collegium, but also small enough to meet and act with the maximum of efficiency. Members of the Committee are Gary Boire (Chair); Cathy Bruce (Education); Craig Brunetti (Biology); Jim Buttle (Geography); Sally Chivers (English & Canadian Studies); James Conolly (Anthropology); Doug Evans (Environmental Resource Science); Moira Howes (Philosophy); Joe Muldoon (Secretary); David Newhouse (Business & Indigenous Studies); and Colleen O'Manique (Political Studies).
Since the late summer there have been over thirty-five consultations with as many members of our community as possible. This draft is very much a distillation and articulation of what the Committee has heard since late August until now. But this document is still very much a draft, merely the first stab at charting what directions we wish Trent University to follow over the next three years.
As a first draft, this document also constitutes an invitation of sorts to all members of the Trent community. Nothing herein is written in stone; everything written is necessarily open to debate and further discussion. Our final draft will be presented for approval at Senate and at the Board of Governors, in January and February 2012 respectively. Between now and then we invite you to read, reflect, critique, and to send your recommendations for improvement to apfeedback@trentu.ca. The Committee will then reconsider and revise our draft in light of the feedback received over the next couple of months.
The Committee will continue to engage the Collegium on revisions and recommendations through Faculty Board, Senate, and divisional meetings within the Faculty of Arts and Science, as well as the Schools of Education, Nursing, and Graduate Studies. Dates of meetings will be provided shortly via internal email to Chairs and Deans.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and critiques as we work as a Collegium to refine and improve our University.
Monday, 21 November 2011
Monday, 7 November 2011
What experiment?
Have you heard the one about the prof who walks into a classroom and engages with students face to face? Apparently this innovative experiment is a smash hit out west. Indeed, universities across the land are thinking about equally radical interventions in the post-secondary classroom.
Thanks to Bill Atkinson (Physics and Astronomy) who flipped me the link, you too can read all about it at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/universitynews/experiment-giving-undergrads-more-face-time-with-profs-a-hit/article2218337/
Now, I am delighted that students in Calgary are gaining access to profs and that profs across Canada are experimenting to create face time (as best they can) within the constraints of large lectures. But I'm also feeling slightly smug knowing that this is exactly what Trent has been doing for over forty years. The academic plan will have to recommend some hard choices, but sacrificing an interactive pedagogy is not an option. It's one of our differentiating practices and one, that for my money, makes this place so very special.
Thanks to Bill Atkinson (Physics and Astronomy) who flipped me the link, you too can read all about it at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/universitynews/experiment-giving-undergrads-more-face-time-with-profs-a-hit/article2218337/
Now, I am delighted that students in Calgary are gaining access to profs and that profs across Canada are experimenting to create face time (as best they can) within the constraints of large lectures. But I'm also feeling slightly smug knowing that this is exactly what Trent has been doing for over forty years. The academic plan will have to recommend some hard choices, but sacrificing an interactive pedagogy is not an option. It's one of our differentiating practices and one, that for my money, makes this place so very special.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Outing the Elephant (on commuters)
One of the more vexatious issues confronting small 21st century universities, ones that happen to be located close to a metropolitan centre, is the issue of commuters. Certainly "commuting" is an elephant in the room for many universities just outside the GTA--one thinks of WLU, Guelph, Waterloo, Brock, and Trent--and it's time to out the elephant before putting it to rest once and for all.
On one hand there are clearly good reasons to live in the same city as your place of University employment. You can easily attend guest lectures, run back to the office if you've forgotten your notes, regularly enjoy college food (!), save on gas, and participate in the politics of everyday life around the coffee maker more than once a week. Most importantly you can have spontaneous face time with students and colleagues and actually be a part of a culture of presence. I reckon these are some of the reasons that some European universities (like Zurich) actually have residency requirements for employees.
On the other hand there are also sound reasons why some individuals choose to live in a different city than where they are employed. They may well have family obligations, may need proximity to research intensive libraries like the Robarts, or may well simply prefer, in our case, Toronto or Ottawa or Kingston (or somewhere else) to Peterborough. As one colleague remarked to me last week, gone are the days of a family packing up the house to follow the main breadwinner to wherever the job may be. And of course there is always Skype, telephones, email, WebCT, and so on. We live in a global village and there's no need to insist on an old-fashioned physical presence. Moreover, many so-called commuters actually show up regularly for everything; many absentee colleagues live around the corner and/or have darn good reasons for staying at home in the evenings and on weekends.
I've thought a lot about these two options and have heard arguments on both sides. I've been taken to task for using the word "commuter" as short hand for absenteeism; I've also been reminded that where one lives is irrelevant so long as one fulfills the terms of ones employment. Fair enough. If the shoe fits and so on.
In the end I reckon the real issue is not really about physical face time or spontaneity or the politics of hallway presence. The real issues, I think, are about the quality of education provided, about the accessibility of professors to their students in ways that both parties are satisfied, and finally about workload equity, fairness, and collegiality. So long as every student is educated well, every professor provides access to students and has access to what she or he needs to do the job, and so long as no one member consistently gets the peach teaching times or meetings are not consistently and tediously scheduled around one individual's timetable, then what we need to do is think about, not what constitutes a "culture of presence," but rather about what we need to do to cultivate and foster a Collegium of engagement, be it physical or virtual.
On one hand there are clearly good reasons to live in the same city as your place of University employment. You can easily attend guest lectures, run back to the office if you've forgotten your notes, regularly enjoy college food (!), save on gas, and participate in the politics of everyday life around the coffee maker more than once a week. Most importantly you can have spontaneous face time with students and colleagues and actually be a part of a culture of presence. I reckon these are some of the reasons that some European universities (like Zurich) actually have residency requirements for employees.
On the other hand there are also sound reasons why some individuals choose to live in a different city than where they are employed. They may well have family obligations, may need proximity to research intensive libraries like the Robarts, or may well simply prefer, in our case, Toronto or Ottawa or Kingston (or somewhere else) to Peterborough. As one colleague remarked to me last week, gone are the days of a family packing up the house to follow the main breadwinner to wherever the job may be. And of course there is always Skype, telephones, email, WebCT, and so on. We live in a global village and there's no need to insist on an old-fashioned physical presence. Moreover, many so-called commuters actually show up regularly for everything; many absentee colleagues live around the corner and/or have darn good reasons for staying at home in the evenings and on weekends.
I've thought a lot about these two options and have heard arguments on both sides. I've been taken to task for using the word "commuter" as short hand for absenteeism; I've also been reminded that where one lives is irrelevant so long as one fulfills the terms of ones employment. Fair enough. If the shoe fits and so on.
In the end I reckon the real issue is not really about physical face time or spontaneity or the politics of hallway presence. The real issues, I think, are about the quality of education provided, about the accessibility of professors to their students in ways that both parties are satisfied, and finally about workload equity, fairness, and collegiality. So long as every student is educated well, every professor provides access to students and has access to what she or he needs to do the job, and so long as no one member consistently gets the peach teaching times or meetings are not consistently and tediously scheduled around one individual's timetable, then what we need to do is think about, not what constitutes a "culture of presence," but rather about what we need to do to cultivate and foster a Collegium of engagement, be it physical or virtual.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
This and That
Two new press releases are of great interest to all of us involved in postsecondary education. The first, from the Council of Ontario Universities, deals with "learner outcomes;" the second, from Harvey Weingarten at HEQCO, deals more extensively with the issues associated with these learner outcomes: quality assurance, differentiation, and mandate meetings with the government.
Happy Reading.
New COU report focuses on defining what students gain from their university degrees
Toronto, November 1, 2011 – Ontario universities are at the forefront of Canadian efforts to ensure that students, employers and universities in other jurisdictions know what skills, knowledge and understanding students have gained from their programs, according to a recent report about the new approach to quality assurance at the province’s universities.
Ensuring the Value of University Degrees in Ontario explains how universities define degree level expectations – the intellectual and creative development that students will acquire from a particular degree, and how these expectations are integrated into curriculum and the learning outcomes of specific courses.
Degree level expectations and learning outcomes are at the heart of Ontario’s new Quality Assurance Framework, which sets out requirements for approval of new programs by the independent Quality Council, for cyclical reviews by the universities, and for periodic auditing by the Quality Council.
“Across all academic programs, our faculty and staff are actively engaged in defining what students acquire at every degree level,” says Alastair Summerlee, Chair of the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) and President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guelph. “Our students are the beneficiaries of this commitment to quality assurance, which ensures that Ontario university degrees are respected locally and internationally by graduate schools and employers.”
Ontario’s degree level expectations and quality assurance framework were developed in the context of international efforts to create more comparable, compatible and coherent higher education systems. They are also aligned with a directive from the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), which called for the provinces to develop more detailed frameworks that describe degree credentials.
“Ontario’s quality assurance system is one of the strongest in the world. We have been quick to evolve in response to international trends and internal demands for mechanisms that protect the quality of our degrees and set out clearly the learning outcomes students will have achieved at graduation,” says Bonnie Patterson, COU President and CEO.
And for a slightly different tweak, check the following link to Harvey Weingarten's most recent blog on the HEQCO site:
http://www.heqco.ca/en-CA/blog/archive/2011/10/31/the-diminishing-quality-of-ontario’s-universities-can-the-system-be-fixed.aspx
Happy Reading.
New COU report focuses on defining what students gain from their university degrees
Toronto, November 1, 2011 – Ontario universities are at the forefront of Canadian efforts to ensure that students, employers and universities in other jurisdictions know what skills, knowledge and understanding students have gained from their programs, according to a recent report about the new approach to quality assurance at the province’s universities.
Ensuring the Value of University Degrees in Ontario explains how universities define degree level expectations – the intellectual and creative development that students will acquire from a particular degree, and how these expectations are integrated into curriculum and the learning outcomes of specific courses.
Degree level expectations and learning outcomes are at the heart of Ontario’s new Quality Assurance Framework, which sets out requirements for approval of new programs by the independent Quality Council, for cyclical reviews by the universities, and for periodic auditing by the Quality Council.
“Across all academic programs, our faculty and staff are actively engaged in defining what students acquire at every degree level,” says Alastair Summerlee, Chair of the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) and President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guelph. “Our students are the beneficiaries of this commitment to quality assurance, which ensures that Ontario university degrees are respected locally and internationally by graduate schools and employers.”
Ontario’s degree level expectations and quality assurance framework were developed in the context of international efforts to create more comparable, compatible and coherent higher education systems. They are also aligned with a directive from the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), which called for the provinces to develop more detailed frameworks that describe degree credentials.
“Ontario’s quality assurance system is one of the strongest in the world. We have been quick to evolve in response to international trends and internal demands for mechanisms that protect the quality of our degrees and set out clearly the learning outcomes students will have achieved at graduation,” says Bonnie Patterson, COU President and CEO.
And for a slightly different tweak, check the following link to Harvey Weingarten's most recent blog on the HEQCO site:
http://www.heqco.ca/en-CA/blog/archive/2011/10/31/the-diminishing-quality-of-ontario’s-universities-can-the-system-be-fixed.aspx
Friday, 21 October 2011
$Teaching or Research$
I spent Thursday at Wilfrid Laurier University where there was a one day symposium entitled "Re-imagining the University in a Changing World". It was better than most gatherings of this type because speakers were asked to speak for only 5-10 minutes and then engage with the audience for an extended period. This engagement was most intense after Ian Clark's presentation on the cost effectiveness of universities.
Clark is one of the authors of both Academic Transformations and the upcoming Academic Reform, the former emanating from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). One of Clark's startling arguments is that teaching only undergraduate universities as envisaged by the current government would cost less than research focused universities and would produce surpluses which could then be reinvested into the hiring and training of more "teaching stream faculty".
Another iconoclastic argument was that there is no reliable research that shows any correlation between excellence in teaching and research productivity. Once the audience regained its collective breath he then delivered the coup de grace: there is some indication in his own research, he remarked, that excellent teaching and excellent research are actually independent of each other and bear no relation whatsoever. Check out the following link to another source: http://www.heqco.ca/en-CA/Pages/Home.aspx.
Talk about deconstructing an academic gospel.
Personally I find the arguments a challenge; even moreso when I realize that this separation of two activities which have long been assumed to be inter-relational is driving both the media coverage of undergraduate education in Ontario and government thinking about the postsecondary sector. Not to mention the shift of enrolments from universities to college training programs Have a happy weekend.
Clark is one of the authors of both Academic Transformations and the upcoming Academic Reform, the former emanating from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). One of Clark's startling arguments is that teaching only undergraduate universities as envisaged by the current government would cost less than research focused universities and would produce surpluses which could then be reinvested into the hiring and training of more "teaching stream faculty".
Another iconoclastic argument was that there is no reliable research that shows any correlation between excellence in teaching and research productivity. Once the audience regained its collective breath he then delivered the coup de grace: there is some indication in his own research, he remarked, that excellent teaching and excellent research are actually independent of each other and bear no relation whatsoever. Check out the following link to another source: http://www.heqco.ca/en-CA/Pages/Home.aspx.
Talk about deconstructing an academic gospel.
Personally I find the arguments a challenge; even moreso when I realize that this separation of two activities which have long been assumed to be inter-relational is driving both the media coverage of undergraduate education in Ontario and government thinking about the postsecondary sector. Not to mention the shift of enrolments from universities to college training programs Have a happy weekend.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Navigating
Sorry for the long hiatus. It's been a busy month what with the start up of the new term and the need to navigate our way through the various drafts of the Academic Plan. A quick update:
All 26 academic units have been visited; we've also consulted with the library, TCSA and college cabinet members, the exec committees of CUPE and OPSEU, as well as the TIP Office. Still to come are the various other stakeholder groups--grad students, student affairs (including the Registrar's Office), TUFA exec, a town hall for all and sundry, and the SEM Committee. The Provost's Planning Group has begun discussing intersecting issues such as the upcoming mandate meetings with government, new program proposals, and the staffing plans for 2012-2013. Kudos to all the colleagues who provided candid and honest input. I especially enjoyed the thoughtful recommendation to abolish all administrators at Trent. Really.
I started drafting the plan from the first day of meetings and as each consultation ended the draft would undergo a variety of revisions. At 35 pages I decided it was time to test the waters with the committee who are now, at my request, critiquing the draft. Once we have a draft that we're comfortable with I hope to post it as a discussion paper on the intranet so that all members of the community can wade into the discussions. We're aiming to have a version ready for initial discussion at Faculty Board in November and/or December, an advanced draft for the Board in early December, Senate (which has exclusive authority over the academic parts) in January. with a final version ready for the Board to approve the fiduciary/financial parts in February.
The title, "Navigating," has been chosen deliberately. The plan is developing in an environment of incredibly radical changes on the horizon. We have government talking of three new "teaching only" undergraduate campuses being built in Ontario; HEQCO is just about to release its second volume on restructuring the post-secondary sector, entitled Academic Reform, and both MTCU and the Council of Ontario Universities are struggling with the complex issue of "learner outcomes". Not to mention mandate meetings between MTCU and the Universities to discuss "differentiation" and possible new funding formulae not based on growth; and being beaten up in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star for not providing a good "return on investment" in the marketplace. Writing our plan in this environment has hardly been a cakewalk; au contraire, it's beena difficult navigation amongst competing interests, colliding expectations, and impinging external and internal pressures. But I digress.
Short version: we have a fantastic community who cares deeply about this beautiful little quirky gem of a university. We have brilliant committee members who are working extremely hard on developing the best plan possible; we have students who are unabated in their passion for this place; and colleagues across the board who really do want this thing to work. As someone very wise remarked today, "I'm beginning to feel optimistic again. Sort of." Stay tuned.
All 26 academic units have been visited; we've also consulted with the library, TCSA and college cabinet members, the exec committees of CUPE and OPSEU, as well as the TIP Office. Still to come are the various other stakeholder groups--grad students, student affairs (including the Registrar's Office), TUFA exec, a town hall for all and sundry, and the SEM Committee. The Provost's Planning Group has begun discussing intersecting issues such as the upcoming mandate meetings with government, new program proposals, and the staffing plans for 2012-2013. Kudos to all the colleagues who provided candid and honest input. I especially enjoyed the thoughtful recommendation to abolish all administrators at Trent. Really.
I started drafting the plan from the first day of meetings and as each consultation ended the draft would undergo a variety of revisions. At 35 pages I decided it was time to test the waters with the committee who are now, at my request, critiquing the draft. Once we have a draft that we're comfortable with I hope to post it as a discussion paper on the intranet so that all members of the community can wade into the discussions. We're aiming to have a version ready for initial discussion at Faculty Board in November and/or December, an advanced draft for the Board in early December, Senate (which has exclusive authority over the academic parts) in January. with a final version ready for the Board to approve the fiduciary/financial parts in February.
The title, "Navigating," has been chosen deliberately. The plan is developing in an environment of incredibly radical changes on the horizon. We have government talking of three new "teaching only" undergraduate campuses being built in Ontario; HEQCO is just about to release its second volume on restructuring the post-secondary sector, entitled Academic Reform, and both MTCU and the Council of Ontario Universities are struggling with the complex issue of "learner outcomes". Not to mention mandate meetings between MTCU and the Universities to discuss "differentiation" and possible new funding formulae not based on growth; and being beaten up in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star for not providing a good "return on investment" in the marketplace. Writing our plan in this environment has hardly been a cakewalk; au contraire, it's beena difficult navigation amongst competing interests, colliding expectations, and impinging external and internal pressures. But I digress.
Short version: we have a fantastic community who cares deeply about this beautiful little quirky gem of a university. We have brilliant committee members who are working extremely hard on developing the best plan possible; we have students who are unabated in their passion for this place; and colleagues across the board who really do want this thing to work. As someone very wise remarked today, "I'm beginning to feel optimistic again. Sort of." Stay tuned.
Friday, 23 September 2011
Fetishes
I am fascinated with the concept of the fetish. According to Dictionary.com, the word has, in its simplest forms, three definitions; a fetish is either (a) “an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency; or (b) any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades; or (c) any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.”
What fascinates me is that the fetish is a nexus point, an intersection of desire, separation, and obsessive compulsive attention. A fetish is often a small part of a larger whole and that part is invested with a disproportionate significance of something else. This “something else” then becomes the object of either a distorted desire or an unhealthy fixation.
Those who make a fetish out of money, for example, often confuse monetary value with an overall self-image of “worth” or successful living. Acquisition of the money-object, in effect, becomes a horribly unhealthy pursuit of one small part of a whole (the entire economic realm) and this desired “part” comes to signify something else altogether: selfhood. I am rich therefore I am “worth” something. The fetishist thus devolves into an abject subject caught within a grotesque cycle of desire and anxiety. Norman Bates from Hitchcock’s Psycho is perhaps one of the more well known sad fetishists.
But I digress. The question that prompts this little meditation on grotesque desire is this: to what extent has the North American academy become abject? To what extent does it fetishize either research or teaching or service? These three traditional pillars of academic labour seem to have drifted apart over the past few decades and now, in some quarters, only one of the three becomes the object of desire. In an odd mimicry the academy has become a marketplace of individualistic acquisition where members of the Collegium are positioned EITHER to overvalue research (or more specifically research income); OR good teaching is deemed good teaching only if it receives an award; OR service is fixated upon to the exclusion of the other two pillars.
I exaggerate, of course. But my point, I think, is solid. The North American academy has strayed from its original path of educating responsible citizens and in some cases the academy has been transformed into an acquisitive economy of pathetic desires. Only one part of the job has become invested with a disproportionate meaning which is then overvalued or fixated upon. This is not a good thing.
At Trent Canada
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Sobriety
I once travelled to Wuhan where I visited one of the many wondrous universities of China. I was given a tour of a relatively spartan residence where the rooms were very small and amenities were of the minimalist kind. I joked that one wouldn't want to have a party in such a tiny room. My host, with great restraint, looked me dead in the eye and said courteously, "But students don't come here to have fun. They come here to work". A sobering moment.
I once read Maclean's magazine (in May 2011) where the current Ontario Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities, John Milloy, is quoted as saying: "Putting Students First, is a response to a single goal of Ontario families that can be summarized as: “I want my kids to go on in school and get a good job.”. Another sobering moment.
I once asked a Trent alumna (who is very well employed) to tell me what she valued most about her time at Trent. Her answer was the transformational experiences she had while living and learning in one of the Colleges. She recalled particularly one professor who regularly met with students outside of class hours, usually over food and beverages, and would argue, discuss and debate long into the wee hours of the night. Sobering in its way.
Ah. But am I beginning to indulge myself in the very nostalgia I decry? Or am I articulating one of the critical pivots of the academic planning exercise?
One of the many challenges we face in developing an academic plan for Trent is the imperative of addressing exactly what kind of institution we want to be. Equally important is the necessity to examine how feasible our desires may be in the contexts of the 21st century university and the realpolitik of offering a postsecondary education--and a postsecondary venue--that is both transformational and marketable. Fun as well as "useful". To do this we need change.
Certainly we have seen a shift in the kinds of graduate degrees being offered south of the border. Now one can opt for the "professional doctorate" or the "professional Masters" which are essentially course based graduate degrees without the necessity to produce an original contribution to knowledge known as the dissertation. Likewise, we have seen a shift toward more job-oriented universities such as UOIT here in Ontario whose Act clearly states their responsibility to offer market driven programming. Recent stats have similarly shown a marked increase in applications to applied science programs. Even the Council of Ontario Universities has launched a website devoted to the pragmatic: myeducationhasvalue.ca (which folks should check out).
But whither curiosity based research? Whither critical inquiry that may not always be politically popular?
All of which is a preamble to the burning question: is Trent's original mandate--to provide a solid education in the liberal arts and sciences--still viable? Or have we reached a turning point where we must change our mandate? Do we wish to resist curricular change, programming change, pedagogical change, or do we wish to embrace change? Are we in fact wedded to the past (to our detriment) as some colleagues feel? Must "a view to the future" categorically exclude the past? Is the choice so clearly either/or?
These are the questions we are asking ourselves. The challenges are enormous. But the consequences of not asking them are unthinkable. A very sobering moment indeed.
I once read Maclean's magazine (in May 2011) where the current Ontario Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities, John Milloy, is quoted as saying: "Putting Students First, is a response to a single goal of Ontario families that can be summarized as: “I want my kids to go on in school and get a good job.”. Another sobering moment.
I once asked a Trent alumna (who is very well employed) to tell me what she valued most about her time at Trent. Her answer was the transformational experiences she had while living and learning in one of the Colleges. She recalled particularly one professor who regularly met with students outside of class hours, usually over food and beverages, and would argue, discuss and debate long into the wee hours of the night. Sobering in its way.
Ah. But am I beginning to indulge myself in the very nostalgia I decry? Or am I articulating one of the critical pivots of the academic planning exercise?
One of the many challenges we face in developing an academic plan for Trent is the imperative of addressing exactly what kind of institution we want to be. Equally important is the necessity to examine how feasible our desires may be in the contexts of the 21st century university and the realpolitik of offering a postsecondary education--and a postsecondary venue--that is both transformational and marketable. Fun as well as "useful". To do this we need change.
Certainly we have seen a shift in the kinds of graduate degrees being offered south of the border. Now one can opt for the "professional doctorate" or the "professional Masters" which are essentially course based graduate degrees without the necessity to produce an original contribution to knowledge known as the dissertation. Likewise, we have seen a shift toward more job-oriented universities such as UOIT here in Ontario whose Act clearly states their responsibility to offer market driven programming. Recent stats have similarly shown a marked increase in applications to applied science programs. Even the Council of Ontario Universities has launched a website devoted to the pragmatic: myeducationhasvalue.ca (which folks should check out).
But whither curiosity based research? Whither critical inquiry that may not always be politically popular?
All of which is a preamble to the burning question: is Trent's original mandate--to provide a solid education in the liberal arts and sciences--still viable? Or have we reached a turning point where we must change our mandate? Do we wish to resist curricular change, programming change, pedagogical change, or do we wish to embrace change? Are we in fact wedded to the past (to our detriment) as some colleagues feel? Must "a view to the future" categorically exclude the past? Is the choice so clearly either/or?
These are the questions we are asking ourselves. The challenges are enormous. But the consequences of not asking them are unthinkable. A very sobering moment indeed.
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
(Re) Signing the liberal arts and sciences
It's a sobering moment when the world changes around you and you suddenly realize you hadn't even noticed. Suddenly you are passé. I still remember my Dad's face when I played Hendrix on volume 500 for the first time; bye bye blackbird. I'm sure my oldest son remembers my face when he played Motörhead for me at volume 1000. Bye bye Stones. Suddenly one's cherished harmonies seem irrelevant or, at best, strangely quaint. Passé.
As the Provost of a brilliant University renowned for its liberal arts and science programs, its commitment to social justice, its proud traditions of activism and engagement, it's been a sobering few days. We've read announcements that York has a first year cohort of 6100 students, due to more applications in the university's health, science, and applied science programs; that Nipissing has experienced a 26% increase in part time studies and in new programs in science, math, technology and commerce. In addition, both federal and provincial governments have provided material support for the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math), as well as Business and commerce.
Have we suddenly become quaint, mildly outdated, strangely cute, like a bewildered old uncle, in our insistence on the value of a liberal university education? Have we become passé? I think NOT.
The apparent "change" in the post-secondary landscape has elicited an intriguing dialectic between those who trumpet the arrival of a new pragmatism amongst students (can I get a job with that?) and those who traipse out the by-now tired arguments about safeguarding civilization against the barbarian hordes. What interests me in this binarism is (a) the seductive allure of a utilitarian defence of the liberal arts and sciences (these are critical disciplines, we bleat, that teach students how to think critically, analyze, make connections and so on); (b) the risible assumption that today's students are totally market driven; and finally, (c) the bovine notion that science, technology, engineering, math, health sciences, professional programs, business, and commerce are somehow devoid of imagination, elegance, and wonder. These rigorous disciplines are, apparently, merely pragmatic preparations for an interview. Right. Tell that to Asaf Zohar.
What intrigues me in all of this discourse is the official desire for purity, the unspoken authoritarian need for disciplinary tidiness. Somehow the "hard" subjects seem better because they are pragmatic and utilitarian; the "soft" subjects seem useless and irrelevant to the real world of the marketplace. What a paltry vision of both the world and the human mind.
What interests me (and buoys me up) is the fact that the liberal arts and sciences were long ago re-signed (i.e.,"re-signatured") at Trent. Whether it's Chemistry or Philosophy, Business or International Development Studies, Indigenous Studies or Physics, these disciplines at Trent all embody a creative messiness, a delicious ragged-edginess of interdisciplinarity, of critical inquiry that crosses lines and troubles pundits. Maybe it's time we point this out in our advertising; maybe we need to be less shy about blowing our own horns. But the simple fact is that at Trent the liberal arts and sciences, as well as the professional programs, educate our people, not only in order to get jobs, but more importantly n order to wonder and to ask "why?". We're not an either/or sort of institution. We're more the both/and type.
Whatever shape our academic plan takes it will need to respect these qualities of a Trent education; the plan will have to be messy, interdisciplinary, and utterly devoted to creativity, imagination, and wonder.
Thoughts?
As the Provost of a brilliant University renowned for its liberal arts and science programs, its commitment to social justice, its proud traditions of activism and engagement, it's been a sobering few days. We've read announcements that York has a first year cohort of 6100 students, due to more applications in the university's health, science, and applied science programs; that Nipissing has experienced a 26% increase in part time studies and in new programs in science, math, technology and commerce. In addition, both federal and provincial governments have provided material support for the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math), as well as Business and commerce.
Have we suddenly become quaint, mildly outdated, strangely cute, like a bewildered old uncle, in our insistence on the value of a liberal university education? Have we become passé? I think NOT.
The apparent "change" in the post-secondary landscape has elicited an intriguing dialectic between those who trumpet the arrival of a new pragmatism amongst students (can I get a job with that?) and those who traipse out the by-now tired arguments about safeguarding civilization against the barbarian hordes. What interests me in this binarism is (a) the seductive allure of a utilitarian defence of the liberal arts and sciences (these are critical disciplines, we bleat, that teach students how to think critically, analyze, make connections and so on); (b) the risible assumption that today's students are totally market driven; and finally, (c) the bovine notion that science, technology, engineering, math, health sciences, professional programs, business, and commerce are somehow devoid of imagination, elegance, and wonder. These rigorous disciplines are, apparently, merely pragmatic preparations for an interview. Right. Tell that to Asaf Zohar.
What intrigues me in all of this discourse is the official desire for purity, the unspoken authoritarian need for disciplinary tidiness. Somehow the "hard" subjects seem better because they are pragmatic and utilitarian; the "soft" subjects seem useless and irrelevant to the real world of the marketplace. What a paltry vision of both the world and the human mind.
What interests me (and buoys me up) is the fact that the liberal arts and sciences were long ago re-signed (i.e.,"re-signatured") at Trent. Whether it's Chemistry or Philosophy, Business or International Development Studies, Indigenous Studies or Physics, these disciplines at Trent all embody a creative messiness, a delicious ragged-edginess of interdisciplinarity, of critical inquiry that crosses lines and troubles pundits. Maybe it's time we point this out in our advertising; maybe we need to be less shy about blowing our own horns. But the simple fact is that at Trent the liberal arts and sciences, as well as the professional programs, educate our people, not only in order to get jobs, but more importantly n order to wonder and to ask "why?". We're not an either/or sort of institution. We're more the both/and type.
Whatever shape our academic plan takes it will need to respect these qualities of a Trent education; the plan will have to be messy, interdisciplinary, and utterly devoted to creativity, imagination, and wonder.
Thoughts?
Friday, 2 September 2011
Short & Sweet
Labour Day Parade, Toronto c. 1900s
Labour Day Parades. The Last Long Weekend of the Summer. A Canadian tradition. A Worker’s tradition to celebrate the accomplishments of working people everywhere--as well as the trade union movement responsible for the eight hour workday amongst other achievements. Here’s wishing all readers a happy labour day weekend.
And here's also a small plug to check out the new comments on various postings below. Some red hot peppers there. Definitely to be enjoyed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)