salvo lavis education thesis

7/30/2019 Salvo Lavis education thesis

1/52

Perceptions of College & Indicators for Accountability

Essential Questions Everyone Should Ask About College

or

An Elephant In Higher Eds Living Room?

Salvo A. Lavis

TC 660HPlan II Honors Program

The University of Texas at Austin

May 7, 2004

Daniel T. Slesnick, Ph.D.Department of Economics

Supervising Professor

Michael Starbird, Ph.D.

Department of MathematicsSecond Reader


2/52

ABSTRACT

Author: Salvo Lavis

Title: Perceptions of College & Indicators for Accountability

Supervising Professor: Daniel T. Slesnick, Ph.D.

Why go to college? Because I have to. Because I want to get a good job. Becausethats what you do after college.

College is a necessary step in America today. Students and society demand higher

education, and the university and its professors supply its content. Given that college is soimportant, how does the University of Texas ensure the goals of suppliers and demanders

are met? How do faculty members view the goals of their work, and how does that relateto the students goals?

Is a college education connected to the reasons that students and faculty are in college inthe first place? And whos accountable for ensuring a connection?

Much educational research concerns best practices. My study explores the behavioralsocietal factors that bear on college experiences, and ultimately how they affect the

effectiveness of the university. In first-hand interviews with some of UTs best facultymembers and surveys of students at various stages of their college careers, I ask if we canuse perceptions of college as indicators for accountability.


3/52

Lavis 1

Introduction & background

Every year the University of Texas at Austin unleashes over ten thousand new graduates

into the real world, which for most people means the job market. But aside from a

diploma on the wall, what does the undergraduate have to show for his or her college

education?

Today, a college education is an essential tool in the arsenal of any job hunter. Common

advice regarding education goes like this: If you want to get a good job, you have to go

to college. Just as common: It used to be that you needed a high school diploma for that

job. But now you need a college degree. Some even add that soon enough, graduate

school will follow in the footsteps of college in this respect.

From the economists point of view, this demand for education is important for a couple

big reasons: First the opportunity cost of education is very high, as expected lifetime

income increases substantially with the attainment of a bachelors degree. Second, the

barriers to entry into low-to-mid level jobs (and above) are also great. College education

is now inextricably linked with eligibility for higher than base-level jobs.

What about the demand for college is related to the education the university supplies?

Does the necessity of a college degree for work lead to increased demand for education?

Or is it the other way around? Meaning, whatabout that degree is changing students into

better employees? There are two economic models that can address these issues: the

theory of human capital, proposed by Gary Becker1, and that of market signaling, for

1See http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html for a concise overview of Beckers human

capital theory and other economics work.


4/52

Lavis 2

which Michael Spence won the Nobel Prize in 1992. 2

The human capital theory stresses that knowledge and skills acquired in formal education

directly increase future productivity of the worker. School produces this productivity

increase by teaching [students] marketable skills andproductivity is later rewarded

when the graduate enters the labor market, according to economist John D. Owen. The

gain in the individuals productivity takes two forms, improvements in cognitive

achievements and socialization.3 This kind of transformation is clearly exemplified in

trade schooling: learning how to fix leaks, draw blood, or wire circuits increase the

effectiveness of plumbers, nurses, and electricians at their respective jobs.

Arguably at the University of Texass professional schools, this model holds nicely. The

Nursing, Pharmacy, Law, Engineering, Social Work, Education, Public Affairs, and

Business Schools ostensibly relay capitalizable knowledge to their graduates, who then

directly apply that knowledge in their post-college jobs.

One must question if this is the case in the College of Liberal Arts or Natural Sciences?

Given that most liberal arts grads dont pursue professions immediately related to the

content of their studies, the human capital theory seems challenged from the start.

Furthermore, while students enroll in professional schools with the expectation of future

employment in the field, this also doesnt hold for liberal artists, whose post-college

2 More information about Spences Nobel Prize is available online at the Nobel website:

http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/spence-lecture.html. For a digest of signaling theory,

Nature provides a good article: http://www.nature.com/nsu/011018/011018-7.html.

3John D. Owen, Why Our Kids Dont Study: An Economists Perspective (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1995), 33.


5/52

Lavis 3

paths are on the whole undecided.

The second theory to consider, as mentioned, is that of signaling. Since employers desire

hard-working recruits who complete duties according to company specifications, they

turn to indicators of a prospective employees work skills. More technically, in the

market for labor prospective employees have substantially more information about

possible employers than the companies have about their applicants. This asymmetric

information of the labor market leads to the need for differentiating factors among

applicants for jobs. The college diploma serves as one such signal, indicating that

someone endured the work and effort of college to attain the goal (graduation) in the end.

This demand for greater information about applicants is rational on the part of employers,

since like any actor in an economic game, they seek the most bang for their buck.

Requiring a signal about applicants abilities helps ensure more effective hiring of hard

workers. Yet it bears noting that the signal alone does not speak to the technical skills of

the worker per sejust to the fact that he or she acquired the signal, presumably through

high quality work.

But as opposed to the human capital theory of education, the signaling theory does not

require learning any particular proficiency; it may happen, but its not relevant to the

signaling theory. Conversely, one might full well possess capitalizable abilities yet not

obtain a signal required for employment.

Understanding how the human capital and signaling theories apply to the decision to

attend the university encompasses a large part of my thesis investigation. Given that

college is important to future income and viewed as a necessary step, from a behavioral

point of view we should understand choices actors make when demanding education.


6/52

Lavis 4

Furthermore, we should understand how the demand for college affects choices actors

make at the university. Shouldnt those reasons be observable, and can we devise a

method of measuring the effectiveness of the college process?

Examine elementary, middle, and high schoolswhat we can collectively label lower

educationand youll find that guidelines set by educational boards expect students and

teachers to live up to rigid standards.

At the lower level its easier to identify concrete, curricular goals of the educational

system. Functional reading, writing, and arithmetic at various grade levels are

unquestioned benefits for growing youths.

Furthermore, these skills are observable and testable. The trademark standardized tests of

accountability in primary and secondary education, for better or worse, are designed to

evaluate teacher and student performance. Even if they dont work effectively in practice,

at least in theory they evaluate learning skills.Designers of the system care about

ensuring accountability.

Even the staunchest critics of standardized testing still express interest in ensuring that

education is a useful exercise. Several faculty members at UT with whom I spoke held

disdain for standardized tests, voicing concern that testing averts attention and motivation

away from learning and toward performance for the test itself. They identify the goals of

education as something other than will this be on the test, yet they dont oppose

successful classrooms in any way. Even without tests, we desire a system that does its

job.

Though standardized testing might avert the goals of higher education for the sake of


7/52

Lavis 5

evaluation, this doesnt mean that some commitment to accountability is undesired. As

my research indicates, the ill-defined and institutionally unsupported goals at the higher

level fail to meet criticism about accountability at all.

In an economy where possession of a college degree statistically forecasts higher

expected lifetime income, and where college is so necessary, focusing on the meaning of

the degree itself seems critical. Since suppliers and demanders all want the best college

education, shouldnt there be concern for accountability in higher education? Of course,

by accountability we use a lowercase a since were not implying standardized tests.

Rather, lets ask: whos accountable for making a college education concurrent with the

goals that it is supposed to fulfill? How is a college education connected to the reasons

that college is demanded in the first place?

The Department of Education, which concurs with the importance of college, states on its

website: Today, more than ever before, education is the fault line between those who

will prosper in the new economy and those who will not.4 Deciding not to go to college

doesnt just mean lost opportunities to read Shakespeare; it means a lost opportunity for

higher wages. Given that college is so important and expensive, and given that the

classroom content of college defines academic work for four years, how can

accountability apply to university education?

Because of the non-uniformity of curriculum and observable ends of higher education,

statistical analysis seems inappropriate as a first step in evaluating the effectiveness of

4http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/thinkcollege/early/aboutus/edlite-whatistce.html


8/52

Lavis 6

higher education. Its not even clear what indicators one would start with. In this sense,

perhaps all that matters is what people thinkdoes it seem like college is effective?

This thesis aims to answer: Can we use perception as an indicator for accountability? Or,

more explicitly: Can perceptions of the college experience indicate if teachers and

students are going about their jobs at the university in a responsible and effective way?

To go about this study, I propose an indirect behavioral approach: look at the motivating

factors behind the college market. What are the stated goals and missions of the actors

involved? These actors include students, faculty, the administration, and the government.

Ultimately, we hope to understand what divergence of actors goals might indicate about

the success of college from anyones perspective. Are needs and goals being met? And is

UT accountable to different constituencies by any metric?


9/52

Lavis 7

Research Description

Research in the field of education is plentiful. While I am not an official student of

educational psychology, classroom organization, curriculum planning, or anything of the

sort, my 17 consecutive years of entrenchment in formal education do make meand all

college studentsexperts at attitudes and experiences of the schooling process.

I aim to step back from education. Hardly do students or teachers take a birds eye view

of the educational process, asking about the meaning behind it all. What do students and

teachers think about college and its significance? In browsing academic literature on

education, a surprising gap appeared in information on motivating goals. One can find

plenty about teaching methods, but almost nothing about why students and teachers

might want to get together in the first place.

After frustration from library rummaging, I realized that my best research plan involved

taking advantage of the professors and students right here at UT. Graduating without

interviewing faculty and taking advantage of their stories seemed a waste of an

opportunity. I decided that interviews and first-hand responses would make this

investigation most effective and meaningful.

For the economists reading this, I note again that statistical analysis was not the best

approach for my investigation. To conduct a statistical analysis of teacher attitudes would

have required constructing a scale with which to quantify results. I did not want to

present a list of qualities or attitudes and have people rank them, nor did I want to

assign such qualities to professors after their interviews. From the start, I felt

qualification of responses was more important then quantification. And if you think about

it for a moment, what would I quantify? Limiting myself to specific, quantifiable


10/52

Lavis 8

indicators didnt seem concurrent with my original ideas.

With no index for perceptions, no obvious dimensions for analysis, and no clear objective

indicators to quantify, statistics dont answer my question. My research is not about

whether approach A or B is more effective for teaching history, or if it fosters learning.

Rather, from a behavioral point of view, what do students and teachers perceive as

reasons for being in class (and college more generally)? Where does the burden fall for

designing the educational experience?

The bulk of my research involved getting a clear picture of what the faculty think about

higher education. As it turns out, they carry the enormous responsibility of designing the

meaning of college. I began my research interviewing faculty, since I knew conversation

would familiarize me with the concerns facing the supply side of the educational

market. In the light of professors responses to my interviews, I planned then to formulate

student questions aimed at addressing the same issues that the faculty talked about.

To draft an interview list, I selected a few professors that made good impressions on me

during my time at UT. In addition, I chose a few more faculty who received teaching

awards, student acclaim, and colleague praise. If any professors at UT think about their

goals of teaching, I assumed that my interviewees would be part of that group. My initial

list included professors that have made a difference in my career, along with those

recommended to me by other teachers and specialists in the field of education. The list

grew as I gathered references from my interviews.

In the end, my interview set included a mathematician, a physicist, an educational

psychologist, a biologist-turned-educational psychologist, a poetry professor, an English

literature expert, a philosopher, two economists, and a policy advocate. I also drew from


11/52

Lavis 9

conversation with some of my own professors and advisors. The quantity of people in

this set turned out not to matter as much as the quality of the interviews. The more

teachers I interviewed, the more I realized how in-sync their views on the goals of good

teaching wereespecially compared with the demand side of the market. Approaches to

the classroom were different, but the higher goals of teaching were remarkably similar,

even across these various disciplines.

I could have written a lot about my interview with any one of these people. They all

provided insight and aid for my research, due in no small part to their thoughtfulness as

faculty. I realize that while these specific professors are some of the crme de la crme at

UT, they are in no way an exhaustive or exclusive collection of such people.

Also, these teachers were not meant to be part of a random sample. I was not looking to

find out what the average teacher at UT thought; the notion of conducting such a

project seemed meaningless. Interviewing a random sample of professors surely would

have given me a different set of responses, likely including various faculty who didnt

think much about their classes beyond the textbook. This is a safe enough assertion to

make, based on personal involvement in college for four years.

I set out to investigate if perceptions of the college experience indicated if teachers were

going about their jobs in a responsible way. Once again, I was not looking to determine

what the average professor was thinking, or what the best and the worst had to say. The

important thing was that ostensibly, if anyone involved in teaching has thought about the

ways that education ought to be evaluated, the best professors have.

Out of necessity to get truthful, unabashed responses from the people I interviewed, and

also because of confidentiality requirements, I agreed not to reveal the identity of my


12/52

Lavis 10

participants beyond their position at the university. Departments and titles as referenced

in this paper are correct; references to gender may or may not be. Only where indicated,

as in the case of a state representative, are true identities revealed.

To record my interviews I bought a digital voice recorder, which enabled me to discreetly

record the interview without putting people on the spot. Furthermore, I could upload

the recording to my computer for easy transcription and review.

I compiled a large set of feasible questions before I started my interviews. The whole list,

with which I entered my interviews, is attached in the appendix of this paper. Some of the

most pertinent included:

How do you determine what a student should take when he/she comes to college?

How much of what a student learns should be real life applicable?

How should a student change in those four years?

Many students see class as an impediment to their livesuninteresting or not

stimulating. Why do you think this is?

How do department members coordinate what a student should retain coming out of a

course?

This list is not exhaustive, nor did I touch on all these questions with every interviewee.

Rather, they were principles behind my work. From experience in radio journalism, I find

that the best way to interview is to come prepared with a list of potential questions as

icebreakers. The conversation then directs itself toward pertinent topics in due time. But

questions on paper are very useful.

Armed with my voice recorder and a notepad, I approached my set of UT faculty to

conduct the interview part of my research. Faculty interviews, which all took place in

professors offices, lasted roughly forty-five minutes. I transcribed the audio recordings

to pull quotes for reference.

After most of my faculty interviews, I approached students with a survey. Once again,


13/52

Lavis 11

aiming for statistical significance in my answer pool was not the objective. I opted to

assemble from the horses mouth viewpoints. I find it analogous to a reporter standing

on the street looking for quotes to support or oppose certain themes. What respondents

said doesnt necessarily indicate every students opinion; they simply reflect certain

viewpoints. A copy of the full email survey is included in the appendix of the paper.

My student survey went out in a mass email to an introductory Government 310 class

which is required of all graduates of the university. Therefore, the class presumably

contains a fairly representative cross-section of UT. However, the response rate from a

class of over 450 was tremendously pooronly 20 students responded. However, the 20

responses provided me with a level of congruence about perceived goals that I expected,

as well as a variety in quotes about perspectives on education. Also, they were not

answering questions for numerical manipulation.

Further resources used in my investigation included institutional Mission Statements and

a speech given at UT by the Chairwoman of the Texas House of Representatives

Committee of Higher Education, Geanie Morrison. I also browsed a number of books and

articles pertinent to academic goals. However, the largest part of my reference comes

from synthesizing first-hand interviews.


14/52

Lavis 12

Faculty Perceptions

The only sample of people worse about understanding what goes on in the education world than

students themselves is the faculty. (--Physics professor)

Ironically, while society rates college education as a must- have, the providers of higher

education dont agree that everyone should attend. A professor of educational psychology

(EP) asserted in our interview:

EP: I personally think we have too many people in the outside world saying that a

college education is a base requirement for [positions that students easily could

have handled without college]. I think there are a lot of positions where they

require a college education where they dont need it. And thats a problem.

SL: Because it sends a lot of people to college?

EP: Yeah. Unnecessarily. Because I think youre rightthere are a lot of things

people really dont need college for. And Im not saying that those are not good

things. But why should this person spend all this money just to get this diploma,

which allegedly certifies that theyre smarter than everybody else? Excuse me, but

I dont think so!

She not only thought the expectation of attaining a university diploma was undue but

unfair as well, since to expect that everyone should go to college is a tremendous drain

on everybodys resources, including the students. But unlike economic models of

resources, teachers dont simply consider dollars per student but attention and motivation

required for learning. An English and poetry professor said, I believe philosophically

that students want to learn, but when youre in a system where theyre forced to

learn[pensive pause]. Pressure to be in college, and in class, is both an asset and a


15/52

Lavis 13

liability for teachers. On one hand they reap the benefits of a larger audience; on the

other, they face a more dilute, distracted student body.

No professor I interviewed thought college was meant to be an exclusive club, but they

all shared the sentiment that personal motivation was key to high performance. Its like

skiing, analogized a science professor. No pain no gain, but you gotta want to ski! To

professors, the desire to learn wasnt just a means to good grades but the whole reason

that students should be in college in the first place. Good professors cherish passion for

learning and value dedicated students. Enthusiasm from students fuels their want to teach,

and the faculty I interviewed expressed desire to get students thinking as they hadnt

before. However, economic consequences of a college degree were very much on the

backburner for the faculty I interviewed. Of much more importance was stressing the

drive to learn. And though learning is abstractly defined by different teachers you ask, it

always involved aspects of personal drive, enjoyment, and growth.

After sharing the observation that everyone is expected to come to college with a noted

professor of physics, he reflected and responded, Maybe the entrance exam should just

be a simple question: do you really have fun when youre learning? Do you really have

fun when you know more about something? Is that fun? If its not, dont come!

But students hardly ever view schoolwork as fun, and you dont need to survey students

to find this out. If you just ask professors, they will tell you the same thingafter all,

theyre the ones trying to elicit some kind of response from students. Professors: aside

from your top students who are obviously deeply interested in class (or perhaps just

grade-grubbers), can you say with deep conviction that theyre in class for fun? Does the


16/52

Lavis 14

fun of learning rank high among their goals for coming to collegecan you honestly say

this is the case?

Furthermore, implicit in the faculty view that college is not necessary is the idea that

students should make a conscious decision to come to college or not. Ideally, a high

school senior would sit down at the end of twelve years of lower education and question

herself, Is learning and school enjoyable? If she answers affirmatively, then the student

should come to college; if not, she should explore non-academic opportunities. As is

clear from the automatic jump to college, however, this is not the case.

In the course of reviewing my interview responses, I came to understand how faculty

view college as an opportunitywhich fits nicely with the model of college as a

conscious come/dont come decision. Along with viewing learning as fun, one should

appreciate it as an opportunityi.e. not required, but a valuable option to better oneself.

To preface his statement about the intellectual sophistication of math, one teacher

asserted, to me its a question of an opportunity. He later expounded: In the math

world, to me the real tragedy of the habits we have is that mathematics and the

experience in math classes could be so significant to the development of the intellect, and

its missed opportunity. And thats too bad. Because I think [math] could change

[students] lives. An educational psychologist wished that her students would be

willing to try things, take risks, persist in the face of failure, take an error not as a

horrible thing but as an opportunity to learn.

This opportunity refers to future payoffs from the content of class itself. The best faculty

understand long-term benefits to an individual and design classes to approach such goals.


17/52

Lavis 15

However, long-term in their case reaches beyond a diploma. The opportunity to learn

in college, for a professor, is a chance to change intangiblesways of thought and means

of appreciation.

Ideally, students would have fun learning, experience new ways of thinking about

problems, and carry the content of their educationnot just their diplomabeyond

graduation

Curriculum

Theres a tendency in math education to direct all of the lower level courses in a linear

direction toward calculus. And then its not clear what happens afterwards. And I think the fact is

most students would do better to have a different kind of experience, particularly than the pre-

calculus classes. (--Professor of Mathematics)

You dont need a Ph.D. to recognize an important but subtle quality of college professors:

they all love school. By definition, a professor thrives in the university. They were the

members of their classes who got the good grades, who found academic passions in

college, whose enthusiasm granted them entrance into doctoral programs, and whose

endurance allowed them complete a Ph.D. By the time a professor can hang her doctoral

diploma on the wall (which is almost universally a requirement for university

professorship), she has come to love her subject area. The professor couldnt have made it

that far if she didnt.

Along with lifetime investment in a particular field comes the opinion that ones

particular area of expertise is tremendously important. As the mathematician quoted

above noted, I think mathematics can contribute an incredible amount to the intellectual

sophistication of any thinker. A philosophy professor explained, My view as a

philosopher [is] that what I want to do is expose [students] to something that opens up


18/52

Lavis 16

a whole new realm of possible ends and values. This applies in the most liberal of arts,

too. I only taught things that you need for life, said a poetry professor. Thats why I

chose English. To university teachers, their proficiencies are both professions and

fundamental ways of thinking about the world. How, then, do they go about designing a

curriculum for students passing through the ivory tower?

A UT educational psychology professor asserted that each UT faculty member should ask

himself, Why am I teaching? Teachers should question the courses they teach, and

know why its important to teach them. This particular psychologist affirmed that for

required classes, faculty better know why its required. And it shouldnt be required just

because somebody says oh they need 3 hours of that. Thats a hell of a reason to require

a class.

Its worth noting that the university does not dictate to the departments whator how they

should teach. Academic freedom and professional opinions are important in this design

nonetheless, how do the departments design meaningful learning experiences, given

that love of learning is a big faculty goal?

My discussion with the educational psychologist about class requirements continued:

SL: So should the department sit down and

EP: Absolutely!

SL: Decide why

EP: Absolutely! Not only that, they should sit down and say how they all fit

together. Do they all do that?

SL: From what Ive seen they dont.

EP: And from what Ive seen they dont either.


19/52

Lavis 17

She was not the only professor who noted this. In fact, no professor didnt! This bears

repeating: of this faculty with whom I spoke, none of their departments formed consensus

about what the classes meant in terms of learning, which is what college should ideally

be about. Most often, departments didnt even meet to try! This means there was no

discussion about what classes majors or non-majors should take, what competencies

should be taken away from the classes, what skills were important to impart, or what

proficiencies were most necessary to emphasize. In fact, in most departments, there was

no discussion about what the majormeantthat is to say, aside from requiring X number

of hours in the department, the content of the major was not addressed on a departmental

level.

A professor of mathematics and I spoke about this:

SL: On a departmental level, is there good discussion about teaching methods,

about what it is that students should be taking away from classes?

Math professor (MP): No. Theres no discussion. At this departmentnow, at

colleges where the education mission is more central, then there would be those

discussions. Butthe main focus of the University of Texas at Austin is research.

[]

SL: So when someone comes to be a faculty member here, theyre brought on

because of research. And some of them just happen to be good teachers, and some

of them dont?

MP: Thats right. Thats not a criterion for being hired. But there are some people

who are very much interested. And the chair of the department is interested in

various educational issues. So there are some very excellent teachers in the


20/52

Lavis 18

department.

Upon hearing this, I wondered if this was viewed as something acceptable, or if it

bothered him. He replied:

I dont view that astheir [other professors] job at the university. And in a

large sense its not. So I guess Ive come to see it more asthat the university is a

very big place, and there are lots of people who have a variety of ideas and its

like a city: you dont expect every single person you meet to be interested in

promoting the welfare of the city. People are in this business or that business or

the other. I think thats the way to view the university.

The picture that emerges is one of each classroom standing as a bastion of learning at

best, yet possibly unlinked to other classeseven in the same department. But as

education psychology will point out, such a structure hardly promotes learning for all

undergraduates; more control is needed.

Some professors said the idea of departments and other faculty managing the content of

various professors classes goes against academic freedom. This is to say that its not for

one professor to step on the toes of another, since autonomy in the classroom is

something a teacher earned over years of study, research, and teaching. To insist upon

certain goals in a teachers classroom would be to impose upon the professors ability to

make these decisions for herself. A philosophy professor asserted that within his

department, each of us values our autonomy. And to start poking into what somebody

else is doing with their course would be to risk reciprocal poking into of ones own

courses. So theres very little of that.

At this point the discrepancy between two very big mantras of higher education becomes


21/52

Lavis 19

apparent: on one hand, faculty all value autonomy in the classroom; on the other, they

value progress of thinking skills in their students, which requires a degree of coordination

that impinges upon autonomy. A physicist shared the best example of the clash of

educational philosophy at work: in the physics department, discussion about goals is

diverted to an emphasis on subject material. Professors discuss which topics a graduating

physics major should know: thermodynamics, relativity, modern theories of gravity, and

so on. But my interviewee observed:

Whenever we talk about curriculum it ends up being a list of content items. []

We never get down to these discussions of could they teach themselves? How

do you give them the tools that they could teach themselves any physics subject

that they wanted? But we never get to that discussion.

This kind of discussion devoid of objectives works to the detriment of students, he

explained, since focusing on bits of information alone doesnt address long term learning

goals (the point of classes, according to faculty). The professors I interviewed, most

likely due to their established teaching quality, saw this as a problemand pointed to

classroom incentives as an exacerbating factor.

Grades and Incentives

Salvo: Do you think that having tests and grades are a necessary means of evaluating learning

progress?

Professor of Educational Psychology: Of course not. [pause, cringes] Man, this is just a huge

area! I mean its like enormous.

Of the faculty I interviewed, none of them held grades as indicators of the higher qualities

of learning they admire. One professor of educational psychology reminded me that

sometimes the best studentswhich he took to mean the most motivated to learn and


22/52

Lavis 20

insightful in the classwere not the recipients of the best grades. Likewise, some

students earned good grades through a kind of academic rigor devoid of affinity for

classjust knowing how to say the right things on tests and papers.

I asked a physics professor, what do you think a grade should indicate about a student

after the class is over? What does that indicate about? Do you think it has meaning?

No, not much, he replied. There are tops to the curve, and there are bottoms to the

curve. But theres this big unwashed middle that its just notthe sorting and the

ordering in there couldnt matter less. Especially when talking about a grade on one test

or paper, surrounded by external factors that have nothing to do with the class or its work,

clearly a grade couldnt mean much. An educational psychologist also shared the

irrelevance of grades in evaluating learning: The grade, and the focus on the grade, and

the illusion is that the grade is somehow an effective measureit isnt. No faculty I

interviewed expressed even remote enthusiasm about having to grade.

Even faculty not flatly critical of grades as a means of evaluation still questioned a

grades ability to indicate student learning in the abstract. A philosophy professor noted:

This is the great challenge of evaluating. This is obviously what youre supposed

to do. Anybody can come up with some sort of method that will assign a

reasonable distribution of grades to people. Of course this gets back to the

larger questioneach course youve got to think about, well, what is the most

important thing for them to learn from this course? I dont think theres a

simple answer for that question.

Though he indicated that a well-designed exam could test for targeted skills, he still

asserted that grades were weak signals of learning.


23/52

Lavis 21

As for improving grading systems, the only thing that saves [professors] is that we give

lots of [grades], so that the huge noise factors tend to cancel out, cited a physics

professor. There is in that large-scale average some information about the individual.

But it is true that since most classes are what you might call factoid-driven, that kind of

thing can start to dominate the average. More importantly than measuring, designing a

preferable grading system requires analyzing the larger question as posited: What is it

about my class that I want to impart, and therefore to test for?

Along those lines, many professors prided themselves in seeing through grades. If I tell

a class, and theyre not grade grubbing, think aboutthis

, said a poetry teacher, they

ought to be intellectually interested enough to go off and think about it. She added that

spotting the intellectually disinterested or grade grubbing may not be obvious from the

students point of view, but its just night and day from the professors. Can I get extra

points if I do X? [raising her hand and mimicking a student] The same philosophy

professor who talked about designing evaluative tests had this to say with regards to

grades and student motivations:

I certainly know the difference between students who are still just going through

the motions because they want the grade and those for whom that little light bulb

has turned on and theyve just gotten to the point where theyre interested in the

philosophical question, dont much care about the grade anymore. They just want

to learn the philosophy. You certainly see that difference, and the point of the

whole exercise is to: A) get as many of those light bulbs on as you can, and B)

once theyre on, to nurture that and develop it.

Professors hope that students begin to exhibit qualities of intrinsic motivation, which


24/52

Lavis 22

means they work for the sake of learning and personal gainnot grades or other external

rewards. Grades would somehow supplement personal drive to be in class, absorb

material, synthesize, and learn. But as a philosopher speculated, if students just went to

lectures if they felt like it and there were no tests or grades or anything to think aboutI

suspect if we did that wed become a kind of Club Med with classrooms. Nobody would

actually do much work. Certainly this doesnt reflect a model of students learning

because of intrinsic motivation.

In this light, the adverse effect that professors claim grading has on motivation is a

greater problem than grades difficulty in measuring learning. For if grades become the

sole means of evaluation, the only thing that stands on a transcript as a record of

performance, then students begin to workforthe grade. In this case, grades not only

remain imprecise measurements of learning, but they take on an importance of their own.

Grades become the motivating factor for learning, frequently supplanting higher goals

as the end of education. This is to say that if ideally grades evaluate learning and

motivate work toward that learning, their implementation turns them into an aim of their

own.

One classic example of this behavior at work is the will this be on the test

phenomenon, which anyone whos been a student or teacher will recognize all too well.

During the course of the semester, students are eager to call out a teachers deviations

from the syllabus. Topics presented in class which stray from the established contract

of material send students on edge. Teachers are, of course, acutely aware of this

phenomenon. You can see students switch off when a professor says, no this wont be

on the test but its good to think about. It irks professors. Of course, as much as hard-


25/52

Lavis 23

working faculty try to engage students with the material for the sake of interest, one must

concede that working for the grade is completely rational behavior within the incentive

system of college. Students know this, teachers know this, but it seems to get ignored like

a leaky faucet.

I asked faculty whom I interviewed why they thought giving grades was important, and

what it indicated about the student, if anything. A professor of physics related: Were

required to provide a level of differentiation that the university seems to need, but you

cant kid me into thinking that 10 years after a students out of here, whether they got a B

or an A or a C is gonna matter one epsilon of difference in their life. A poetry professor

(PP) noted:

PP: After about late 70s, early mid 80s, students got very professional about their

work. It meant grades became much more important. There used to be something

called the gentlemans Cthats no more. Students are very stressed.

SL: What do you think accounts for that?

PP: The job market.

The sentiment that grades played into the post-college job search was common. An

educational psychologist said, We have to give finals and grades and turn in our annual

reports. He later added: When you go out and find employment youre graded. If you

dont fulfill your responsibilities A through Z, youll be released from your position. So

thats your gradeyou wont take home a paycheck anymore. All of these professors

who talked about the importance of learning, of not viewing education as a means but an

end, recognized grades as pertaining more to training for job responsibilities than to

educational ends. They know students work for grades to get higher GPAs to get better


26/52

Lavis 24

placements after college, yet many still approach their classes as if they were filled with

future graduate students. Perhaps they believe that their students could become more like

them? However, if the university as an institution serves the demands of society and the

labor market, would we not expect to see some indication that academia at least

recognizes the disparity between its goals and those of demanders? For the number of

faculty who voiced concern about the effectiveness of grades, indeed their detrimental

effect on learning, its surprising theres not more discussion among faculty about

restructuring evaluative methods. But as I observed, coordination among faculty was

quite poor.

I do acknowledge professors who try hard to engage the students in material, to connect

the meaning of courses with students lives. I also recognize students who value learning

over the grade. I certainly couldnt have written this thesis if I only cared about a grade.

Professors would probably throw in the towel if a few students didnt come along who

reminded them of their own work mentality. But imagine telling a group of college

students, grades dont mean anything and 75 basically equals 95. Youd be kidding

yourself to say theyd buy it; faculty realize this, too. The importance of grades is

ingrained on the psyche of college students today. Many try to shed a work-for-the-grade

mentality, but it still lurks.

What matters most to the best faculty are the abstract thought processes and ways of

thinking that students should pick up from their classes. Certain items, nuggets of

knowledge, here and there are good-to-knows in the intellectual repertoire of college

grads, but the process of making such lists tends to distract faculty and students focusing


27/52

Lavis 25

on thinking as a goal.

I asked one science professor at UT if standardized testing might be to the detriment of

secondary education. Oh yes, he quickly affirmed, asserting that it drove the attention

of students toward memorizing bits of information for repetition. He later added that

[knowing different factoids] has so little to do with wisdom. And if anything, the best

university professors worry about wisdom.

But wisdom isnt a class; admittedly, thought processes cant be taught without subject

material. Educational psychologists agree that only through applied study can you begin

to master critical thinking. Though thinking skills are a resounding goal expressed by

faculty, such skills alone are not teachable. A professor of educational psychology

affirmed, you cannot teach critical thinking skills separate from the discipline. Jokingly

she imagined the teacher saying to the class, Were just going to practice being

skeptical. Indeed, even though skeptical thought may be a goal of history or philosophy,

you need to have material to intelligently talk about. If youre going to strengthen critical

thinking skills, it has to be with regard to particular arguments or events.

Ironically though, through fixation on the material and concrete work of classes, teachers

often lose perspective of analytic thinking skills related to the discipline and obsess over

the details that we already know wont last in the long run (minutia of information). In

this way, the goal of many classes becomes regurgitation of information for the sake of

evaluation. As is the case with many classes, the professor worries only about covering

topics to the point that learning takes the backseat to memory loading. For a professor

this process is somewhat tolerable, since the minutias of his discipline are part of his

daily work and base of need-to-know material. But no departmental check evaluates


28/52

Lavis 26

teachers who might only require repetition of factoids, without evaluation of learning.

Philosopher of education Rudolph H. Weingartner asserts that [p]rogress is achieved

through a cumulativeness that comes about when students are required to use the methods

of solving problems in different settings and contexts, with different problems and issues,

and over extended stretches of time.5 If we take this extended stretch of time to mean the

whole of an academic career (and beyond), it would only make sense that the crafters of

an education would spend much of their time ensuring consistency and quality in the

instruction they provide. Ostensibly, faculty members would plan courses collectively.

As well they would spend time devising methods of teaching and evaluation that get at

the goals they mutually set for their courses in the first place. But are these goals

effectively communicated, even among faculty?

As part of identifying these goals, one would assume that university-wide and

department-wide discussion would take place with regards to such motivations. The

resounding answer is that these discussions are non-existent, or misguided at best.

To summarize, the best faculty worry that grades, incentives for work, and pressure to

attend college divert goals away from learning in the first place. While these factors are

beyond immediate control of departments, class coordination is not. Yet class

coordination is absent at UT. Teachers need to ask if learning and intellectual growth

are really the goals of higher education, since institutional design points elsewhere.

5Rudolph H. Weingartner. Undergraduate Education: Goals and Means. New York: American Council on

Education/Macmillan Publishing, 1992. p. 94.


29/52

Lavis 27

Student Perceptions

I have a friend, has a daughter, hated school. I said, whats she gonna do when she graduates

high school? She said, go to college. I said, she hates school! My friend was so offended that

maybe her daughter shouldnt go to college. (--Professor of Educational Psychology)

Faculty like to think that students make a deliberate and zealous choice to attend college.

For professors, every Sally and John at the University of Texas ideally would sit down

and ponder their life goals. If, after deliberation, love of learning and exploration of

knowledge ranked high on their list, they would come. Thats just not the way it works.

Certainly social influence drives students to college. Aside from economic necessity,

students in high school face pressure from parents, counselors, and school systems which

expect them to go to college. Standardized tests at the secondary level focus on college-

track skills. Of the people who came to college, a scant few could truthfully admit they

were not expected to do so after high school. Almost all college students were high

schoolers with twelve years of formal education momentum behind themmomentum

which rolled them into freshman year as if it were 13th grade. It seemed like the next

logical step, wrote an English major, and I understand that in society today it's a must if

I want to be paid well and be competitive in the job market. Another student wrote, I

came to college because that's what you do after high school: you go to the best college

you can get into, and figure out what you want to do after you get in. A freshman

government major expressed similar sentiment: College seems to be the expected course

after high school for pretty much everyone, and I don't think it's right for everyone. An

engineering senior shared that she came [t]o get a degree so I could be able to provide


30/52

Lavis 28

the kind of life I want in the future -- successful, wealthy, stable. She added, I would

feel inadequate if I didn't get at least a bachelor's degree.

Yet the fact that high school graduates almost mechanically move on to higher education

shouldnt a priori vilify that transition; such an expectation may or may not be

reasonableit would be up to the university to justify why.

While the decision to come remains almost universally unquestioned, the goals posited

by students when asked why did you come to college? are divergent from faculty goals.

Some are rather straightforward: I came to college to get a degree in journalism. I want

to get a great education of it and be able to get a great job in the future, too, responded

one junior. Job motivation is universal, even among learners. One student responded

that she came [t]o get an education, and to be able to support myself on my own. When

the survey asked ,What did you want to get out of it? she replied, a degree and a

career in physical therapy. Even students with aspirations in academics sought a degree

to further their job prospects. I came to college because it is the only route I can take to

do what I want as a profession, which is Government, said a freshman. In fact, no

student that responded to my survey viewed college as an end in itselfall saw it as a

means to something else, whether more school, work, or just moving on.

Another frequently-cited goal of college students was personal growth. One student noted

she came to college for the experience and opportunity to grow as a person. The junior

who was so bent on studying government added, I wanted to get out of college a good

education, meet new people, have fun, and grow and mature. A freshman noted she

wanted to leave home and learn about new things, make new friends.

The adage that most learning takes place outside of the classroom is truly embodied in


31/52

Lavis 29

the motivations of college students. This is not to say that all students view classes as a

burden on their social lives (this isnt too far off the mark for many), but that the social

component of college is extremely important.

Given that other venues for social interaction exist beyond college, the university needs

to identify what about college goals differentiate it from all other opportunities. For

example, if students enter UTnot the Peace Corps, or a job, or an internship, or

traveling, or one of many other ways of growing as a personwhat makes college per se

such an important step?

Having been a student for 16 years, and having numerous colleagues with similar

credentials, I can confidently say that two descriptors accurately fit most college students

I know: A) College was not a go or not go decision. They just went. B) Goals of

education that have to do with abstract learning and thinking development take backseat

to social ones. Developing thinking skills lags way behind get ready for the real

world and be exposed to different viewpoints.

In casual conversation with friends who reply that theyre in college for the growth

experience, I like to ask how college is different than working for four years or

volunteering. In other words, there are various ways to live in a community environment

and grow without being in college. If indeed the college experience boils down to

personal growth and getting along, why come to a university where you have to take

classes? Why did you come to college?

The reason that people are coming is that they have to! The behavior of students in

college, behavior that on the whole college professors work to fight against, indicates that


32/52

Lavis 30

abstract learning is not the key. Students wouldnt grade-grub, push for extra credit,

and ask will this be on the test if it werent the case. All the rhetoric about valuing

learning is wholly unsupported by the way college affects life post-college. The incentive

structures involved point to the same conclusion.

One English major encapsulated a prominent view among students when he said:

[I]n a few classes like Math and Psychologythey told us that this isn't a class

where you're expected to use anything we learn in practical life, it's just a

sampling to help us figure out whether we would like to take more of that kind of

class. In other classes though like Government and especially in Spanish, I'm just

trying to make it through the class with a decent grade and am fully prepared to

forget everything I learned once I finish with the subject. Unfortunately for both

subjects I still have more levels to complete so I can't forget everything just yet.

Though curriculum material occupies most of their time while in the class, its not the

largest means by which most students I interviewed evaluated their performance. In other

words, absorption of knowledge is only a small part of digesting a class. I asked students,

How do you evaluate if a class met your expectations after the semester is over?

Formally, the only records the university retains are grades and teacher evaluations.

One student replied, I generally judge a class by how much I have retained from it, the

skill of the instructor, and whether or not I feel it was worthwhile no matter what grade I

received. Another: Sometimes I think wow, Im glad that class is over, and that Ill

never use that stuff again, and sometimes I think wow, Im proud of myself for doing so

well in that class, and I learned a lot. Grounds for evaluation included applicability of

the material to everyday life, desire to continue study in the field, knowledge of the


33/52

Lavis 31

subject material, enjoyment and stimulation of lectures, grades, quality of the professor,

quality of coursework, interaction with other students, advancement towards career goals,

and how much fun the course was. One senior said a course was good if I remember

anything afterwards and if I liked the way my prof taught the course.

Frequently students also expressed concern that teachers set different goals for their lives

than they did. Said one senior:

I believe that my goals go beyond the goals of my instructors, since they are stuck

in academia and I want to actually get out of here. I think the goals of faculty are

different, but if you want a blanket statement, I think that their goal is to make

sure that the comprehension of their material follows the normal curve.

Others were also critical of faculty not expressing enough concern for students learning.

A freshman wrote:

I sometimes feel that the faculty does not place much emphasis on the educational

needs of students. That said, I have had some wonderful instructors here who

geniunely [sic] care about their students' education, but I am aware that they are in

the minority. My goals are to learn as much as possible while putting forth my

best effort, while my instructors measure success by how well I do on tests.

While all arent so cynical, the sentiment isnt too far off the mark for many students I

know.

As I progressed with my synthesis of views, I realized that independently of student

survey results, the faculty expressed concern over the same divergent views that cropped

up among undergrads. In other words, since faculty are the ones designing education, the


34/52

Lavis 32

mere fact that they express such concern over divergent goals and diverted motivation

indicates a deep problemeven before seeking supporting evidence from students.

Students simply arent making the come/dont come decision that faculty want them to,

and the external pressure of going to college isnt providing the incentive structure that

faculty desire. Grades arent set up to be intrinsically motivating, and the flow of students

into college isnt intrinsically motivated. The learn and dump attitude of many students

certainly doesnt indicate motivation for long-term learning. In situations between

working for grades and working for personal satisfaction, grades hardly lose.

As a recap of the divergence of goals we infer:

Stated Goals

Faculty Students College not necessary College certainly necessary Opportunity to enrich thinking

skills

Necessity to enhance job market

attractiveness End in itself Means to other ends

Conscious decision to attend (ideal) 13th grade: no conscious decision

Intrinsically motivated for learning(ideal)

Incentives for external motivationand signaling


35/52

Lavis 33

Administrative View

I decided just to check the mission statement on the university webpage. And I noticedit had

been up for 6 monthsthat the word excellence was spelled wrong. So I called [university

president] Larry Faulkners office, and about half an hour later I got profuse thank yous! So it

shows that nobody had either read it or knew how to spell excellence! (--Professor/Policy

Advocate)

Mission statements serve as convenient starting blocks to inquire about institutional

goals. Since my investigation took place at UT, and all of my interviewees worked here,

The University of Texas mission statement looked like a good place to start searching for

motivations behind college. And furthermore, if the goals of the university exist

anywhere, wouldnt they be in the Mission Statement?

The UT Mission Statement reads as follows:

Mission

The mission of The University of Texas at Austin is to achieve excellence in the

interrelated areas of undergraduate education, graduate education, research and publicservice. The university provides superior and comprehensive educational opportunities at

the baccalaureate through doctoral and special professional educational levels. The

university contributes to the advancement of society through research, creative activity,

scholarly inquiry and the development of new knowledge. The university preserves and

promotes the arts, benefits the states economy, serves the citizens through public

programs and provides other public service.

Core Purpose

To transform lives for the benefit of society.Core Values

Learning - A caring community, all of us students, helping one another grow.

Discovery - Expanding knowledge and human understanding.

Freedom - To seek the truth and express it.

Leadership - The will to excel with integrity and the spirit that nothing is impossible.


36/52

Lavis 34

Individual Opportunity - Many options, diverse people and ideas; one university.

Responsibility - To serve as a catalyst for positive change in Texas and beyond.6

Transforming lives is quite a broad goal. Suffice to say the University mission sounds

idyllic, but what does the university perceive as concrete ways in which students should

change in college?

I differentiate between technical training and liberal arts education. Nobody wonders

why people go to electrician school. Students dont get mechanic certification unless they

plan on becoming mechanics. The meat and bones of the curriculum in these

environments pertain directly to post-graduate life. Same goes for nursing school,

pharmacy school, medical school, and so on. These schools train nurses, pharmacists, and

doctors as their mission. But what about the Liberal Arts?

To focus my search, I turned to the College of Liberal Arts mission statement, which

begins as follows:

The mission of the College of Liberal Arts is to make a free people wise, by educating its

students in the ways of freedom, and by providing a model for education at other

universities. The heart of a democracy is that the people must judge. Through education

in the humanities and social sciences, the College of Liberal Arts will give its students the

power and confidence to judge well.7

What does this mean? Freedom as an operational goal is almost impossible to grasp.

Never among faculty and students I surveyedindeed among anyone I queried even

casuallydid anyone ever reference freedom or democracy as a goal for going to

college. As for dedicated faculty, might we assume that thoughtfulness about

6http://www.utexas.edu/welcome/mission.html

7http://www.utexas.edu/cola/mission_statement/


37/52

Lavis 35

motivations behind education would be a top priority?

Where can we find the colleges goals in terms of teacher and student motivations, and

how they should coincideor is this even a college-level concern? If you continue down

the liberal arts mission statement, youll find more goals including:

fostering understanding among students, faculty, and administration

providing a good foundation in the humanities and social sciences

students knowing how to read critically, write cogently, and speak persuasively

understanding basic methods of the sciences and conversancy with mathematics

all classes placing emphasis on ethics, integrity, citizenship and awareness of global

issues

valuing creativity, willingness to take prudent risks, leadership, and service to

community and nation

No mention is given to why students are here. Are the bullets in the mission statement

how most students perceive college? Theres no mention of the social pressure of going

to college, or of the necessity of college in todays world. And more important to note,

theres no mention ofhow the university accomplishes this.

The mission statement also enumerates specific skills that the college desires out of its

graduates:

be able to express himself or herself clearly and correctly in writing

be capable of reasoning effectively from hypotheses to conclusions and of logically

analyzing the arguments of others

have a critical appreciation for the social framework in which we live and the ways it

has evolved through time

have experience in thinking about moral and ethical problems

have an understanding of some facets of science and the ways in which knowledge of

the universe is gained and applied

have an understanding of some aspects of mathematics and the application of


38/52

Lavis 36

quantitative skills to problem solving

have gained familiarity with a second language

have an appreciation for literature and the arts

be competent in the basic use of computers

Theses are quite specific in terms of proficiencies, but the mission statement gives no

mention of curriculum. The college places no specifications about what, in a tangible

sense, a student should know. It doesnt say a student should be able to punctuate

sentences properly, solve two equations with two unknowns, or know the history of

Watergate. Of course, we really wouldnt expect the mission statement to specify such a

thing; its not the purpose of a mission statement. However, if UT defines such skills as

goals of undergraduate education, we expect to find faculty and departments discussing

ways of promoting those ends.

Basically, the university mission doesnt tell us much of anything about how a UT

education should unfold before the student. Looking specifically at the Liberal Arts

mission, we find appreciation of subjects and disciplines. But how this gets accomplished

remains vague. Furthermore, the very accomplishment of imparting these doesnt find

institutional support on a college-wide or department-wide scale. Professors get free reign

over designing an education unchecked by other actors at the university.

The same professor who shared the anecdote about misspelled excellence posited:

Something I take seriously is the university mission. The university mission says were

supposed to prepare leaders, but it seems like no ones responsible for doing that. If hes

right, why dont faculty think its more of a priority? After all, we see that the whole of

the burden of designing classes falls on professors. They have tremendous responsibility,

but are they living up to it? How does UT measure that?


39/52

Lavis 37

Legislative view

A visit to the Department of Education website8 opened a portal of myriad information

about educationfinancing, testing, teaching credentials, legislation, etc. It also

advertised the importance of college all over the place. I hunted around for information

on motivations for collegewhy should students go? One page aimed at middle school

aged students, entitled Think College Early: Why Go, had this to say:

Why should you think about education after high school?

Because it can be the [picture of a key] to the kind of future you want.

Education gives you choices that you might not have otherwise. More and more goodjobs depend on the skills and knowledge that education after high school can provide.

Staying in school and going to college will help you:

be in a better position to help your family and your community;

get a better job and earn more money;

and get a good start in life!

Even if you're not sure what your future holds, prepare AS IF you are going to college.

Anything can happen!9

As we step away from the Ivory Tower, one thing becomes patently obvious: the rhetoric

and perception of why students should go to college becomes completely different.

Theres no talk of learning or academic motivations or funits all about jobs and labor

preparedness.

Texas State representative Geanie Morrison, chairwoman of the Texas House of

Representatives Committee on Higher Education, spoke publicly at UT in February of

8http://www.ed.gov

9http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/thinkcollege/early/students/edlite-why-go.html


40/52

Lavis 38

2004 as part of a government department speaker series. 10 During her talk, she

straightforwardly declared, the mission of higher education is an educated workforce.

Dwell on that. Think about everything the University and Liberal Arts mission statements

mentioned about goalswould you have come up with educated workforce as an

encapsulation? We already know that education feeds the workforce, but to say that

entering the labor market is the mission of college doesnt address the aspects of college

that change a student.

Mrs. Morrison also mentioned that the legislature had a vested interest in the quality of

higher education, so in the Q&A portion of her session I asked her: In what way is the

education that a student receives in his or her four years in college actually connected to

the greater goals of going to college? Her answer indicated that while the legislature

funded and mandated the importance of education, it was wholly up to the university to

determine a curriculum. Effectively, the Texas legislature preaches that a college

education is necessary for entering the workforce, the workforce requires a degree for

upward mobility, yet the meaning of that necessity is determined by the suppliers of

education! Without further researchjust from perceptions of mission statements

aloneI think we see a gaping difference between what society thinks college is about

and what academia has to say.

In her speech addressing a room full of undergraduates with respect to graduating on

time, Representative Morrison added, We need you in the workforce! Imagine looking

10Morrisons speech, entitled "Higher Education Policy Perspectives in Texas, was delivered Friday

February 20, 2004. The event was presented by Liberal Arts Instructional Technology Services (LAITS)

and the Department of Government.


41/52

Lavis 39

up the mission statement of the College of Liberal Arts and finding the first line: The

Mission of the College of Liberal Arts is to prepare our students to enter the workforce,

since thats where theyre needed! This sentiment reflects nothing of the University or

College missions.


42/52

Lavis 40

Conclusions

Universities study everything but themselves. (--Uri Treisman, UT professor)11

Everyone needs to go to college, yet ironically the factors demanding this necessity lie

outside of the university itself. Industry, social pressure, legislators, and momentum from

secondary education shuffle high school graduates into colleges each year. But aside

from requiring a college diploma, society and employers have little to say about whata

college education should change in a student over his or her four years. Its as if higher

education is demanded as a package, with content determined entirely by suppliers within

the university system.

The government provides a labor-driven goal. Students basically dont evaluate their

decision to come since they have to. The college specifies character traits and

appreciation of learning as goals. The departments at best discuss only hard-core

curriculum, or factoids as one professor called them. The faculty perceive love of

learning as the highest motivating enterprise in collegeand the faculty also carry the

responsibility of making this all come together!

It seems the quality of college in the classroom is wholly a factor of the professors a

student comes across. Yet theres a laissez-faire attitude at UT toward instructor

accountability and cross-class coordination. Faculty view long-term progress as a goal,

yet institutional support to a cohesive curriculum is nonexistent. The best faculty say that

11Uri Treisman, Keynote Address, Conference on Active Learning, Laguardia Community College, Long

Island City, NY, April 23, 1994.


43/52

Lavis 41

critical thinking skills are the true nuggets of value that students reap from college, and

educational psychology asserts that long-term coordinated curricula are the only way to

achieve this goalyet departmentally, faculty are averse to the idea of goal-coordinating.

A view of academic freedom as professor autonomy conflicts with the pedagogical goals

that faculty hope to achieve. How then do we know that the goals of college educators are

best met by the structure of college classes and curricula as they stand, which are still

reminiscent of institutions hundreds of years old?

Considering the vast responsibility that befalls the university, it seems appropriate to take

up the educational mission with utmost scrutiny. It bears consideration: freshman arrive

in college, driven in by a society that demands their being there, but the four-year life-

changing experience is totally left up to the university. Are the goals of students and

teachers aligned? This is the universitys predicamentits been given a blank check for

supplying education, but does it consider the factors that move students into college in

the first place? Are the perceptions of the goals of college congruent between the

suppliers and demanders of education?

Weve seen that the demanders of college dont specify the content of education; they

dont dictate the goals of the educational process beyond attainment of the degree and a

high GPA.

Demanders give carte blanche to the suppliersthe University. The University outlines

vague, humanistic/democratic goals of liberal education which do not bear properties of

signaling or capitalization in labor markets. Even more ironically, most of the faculty in

collegeespecially the best educatorsdont believe that everyone should go to college.


44/52

Lavis 42

For they see the university as a place for serious intellectual engagement. They desire a

conscious decision to learn. But high school seniors arrive mechanically every fall, sifted

by SATs, GPAs, and entrance essays. Professors doubt whether these tests and

requirements themselves capture the essence of why students should come to college. But

since the duty of educational design falls upon the shoulders of the university, we might

expect to find institutional support of goals for higher education within college. In other

words, pressure makes college education a necessity, while at the same time giving

colleges a blank check as to how to fulfill the education parthow, then, is the

University of Texas handling that task?

The picture that emerges is one of each professor creating his/her own class as he/she

sees fit, with little to no regard for coincidence of material or goals with other classes.

This may result in good classes from good faculty, but the university has no apparent

system for ensuring this.

Some faculty dont see a need for coincident goals. A number of teachers, outside my

formal interview set, expressed this sentiment in conversation. Academic freedom may

be important, but educational psychology says coincident goals are necessary for long-

term learning. If we dont have coincident goals, there can be no accountabilitysince

whos responsible for what? Everythings relative.

Goals of college between the demand and supply side of education are not coincident,

starting with the most basic questions of why college is necessary. We must ask then,

Why is college necessary, if both sides differ in their views? Furthermore, with

divergent goals within the university, even among faculty who dont coordinate goals,

how can any system of accountability be implemented? Is the University itself working to


45/52

Lavis 43

define and refine the operational meaning of college education?

Returning to where we beganwith economic views of collegewe note the theory of

colleges signaling power. Its true that signaling is a crucial function of college degrees.

However, the model of education-as-signal does not speak to whatthat education does. In

other words, the employer views education as a binary variableeither diploma or no

diplomawhich then affects job prospects. Assumedly the university puts the student to

work in one way or another, but a model of education as a signal doesnt require

pondering Hobbes or understand ing the concept of a limit. Since the responsibility of

designing college education falls on the shoulders of faculty, the suppliers should ask,

What about that college education aligns with the aim of entering the workplace? Or

should they state, Something about demanders goals doesnt mesh with ours, and then

act in some reconciliatory manner?

So are college degrees commensurable in significance beyond the signal itself? Maybe

the only thing we get out of college is signaling, and then there should be no further

accountability because everybody knows you dont learn anything that serves you later.

Professional schools train for capitalization of knowledge itself; what does a non-

professional college degree impart? If you want a job, why not get job training? If you

want to be a doctor, you go to med school, etc. But as far as liberal education goes, at

least at UT, my research indicates non-uniformity in what college doesnot in what

students take away (which in any system will be non-uniform), but in what the system

aims to deliver.


46/52

Lavis 44

Some academics seriously question whether higher education might face a crisis, for

discrepancy over goals is not merely a point of irony. It determines the meaning of the

four-year experience, the graduates perceptions of knowledge, and the value of degrees.

Even more importantly, it affects the social structure of the country.

If society views the experience as a necessary credential but the university doesnt

approach the situation as such, we must consider what the whole exercise means. If we

cant parallel the perceptions of suppliers and demanders, then what does the adage you

need a college degree mean for society? Furthermore, the fact that so many students and

teachers already feel that the university system is rife with problems of divergent goals

should tell us something. For this reason, I subtitled this paper An Elephant in Higher

Eds Living Room.

Observers of higher education should consider the hypothesis that college is a high-priced

signal. College is already an expensive barrier to entry into the labor market; might it be

artificial in the sense of not relating to anything beyond the degree itself? This has strong

implications for social mobility, if essentially one must pay a lot to get paid more. Would

a present system of college-as-signal not call for greater analysis of the social purpose of

college degrees? And for students and teachers especially, wouldnt the universitys

seeming lack of accountability require immediate attention?

To vindicate the university and many faculty, I note that lots of professors and

administrators express deep concern with improving the quality of a UT education. But

good professors here are there arent good enough for a successful education institution.

The university must show dedication to addressing curriculum and goals across all


47/52

Lavis 45

classes, especially with respect to curriculum expected outcomes! Philosopher of

education Weingartner writes, Because the setting for undergraduate education is a

multi-purpose institution composed of a heterogeneous collectivity of people, Adam

Smiths invisible hand cannot be relied upon to create optimal conditions for the

education of undergraduates. The need for a corporate assumption of responsibility [is

stressed] particularly with respect to curricular matters.12 For an undergraduate to take a

few classes from good professors creates of picture of an education left to chance more

than uniformity and quality.

If youre a professor and you worry enough about higher education to have read this far,

its safe to say youre in the group of those concerned about this problem. Even if Im

preaching to the choirif youre one of those professors or students who questions if

your goals for education align with those of the university and the stateyou should still

want to answer the following types of questions: Should teachers be more responsible for

crafting classes that relate to students? What support for accountability can we expect to

find at the department and college-wide level?

And perhaps most interestingly and importantly: Can we have an effective university

system when perceptions of expectations are different amongst students, faculty, and

outsiders?

12Rudolph H. Weingartner, Undergraduate Education: Goals and Means (New York: American Council on

Education/Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 140.


48/52

Lavis 46

Appendix

Faculty Interview Questions

This is the list of questions with which I prepared my teacher interviews. They are not

exhaustive of the questions I asked of professors, nor are they inclusive or many topicsthat came up. They simply represent my thoughts and ideas going into the project:

Background

How long have you taught at this university or any other?

What initially motivated you to enter the profession?

Where did you attend college? Graduate school?

Personal feedback

Do you have much say in selecting the courses you teach?

When you entered academia, did you expect to do more research or teaching?

Departments

How do you determine what classes a student should take when they come to

college? (This refers to the 4-year class plan)

How involved are you, as a faculty member, in designing the outline for a

students 4-year curriculum?

Is there agreement between members of your department regarding what should

be taught in each of the departments courses?

Is there coordination among department members and the chair regarding what astudent should retain coming out of a course?

In the classroom

Do you notice differences between students who take your class as a requirement

versus those who signed up on their own volition? Are you even aware of whichstudents are in which category?

Would your teaching style change, given that you knew a student didnt selectyour course voluntarily?

Should a teacher assume that given time, his/her students will be able to grasp thematerial? Or conversely, should you assume the student wontunderstand? Or do

you make such an assumption at all?

Can you evaluate a students progress without direct one-on-one contact?

Of all the material presented in your courses, what should the student retain afterits over? Do you consider this as planning the course?

How much time do you spend thinking about your teaching methods (not thecurricula of the classes)?

Do other faculty members evaluate or observe the way you teach? How much do


49/52

Lavis 47

their teaching methods affect you?

Educational theory

What do you think it means to have learned something? How does yourdefinition of learning change the way you teach?

salvo lavis education thesis

Documents