What were some of the stories you were told when you were in college? I remember at my alma mater, Gonzaga University, everyone knew of our most famous alumnus (who actually never finished his program). Bing Crosby, who later received an honorary degree from the university, and who donated the money to build a library which was later converted into the student center but still bears his name, had grown up in Spokane, WA, and attended both Gonzaga High School and Gonzaga University. In reality, his passion for acting and music was inversely related to his interest in education and led to his departure, but in the stories we told on campus, his departure was initiated by a number of glamorous reasons, including unsuccessfully trying to hoist a piano through the fifth-floor window of one of the residence halls and dropping said piano to the ground instead. This is one of the many stories alumni of Gonzaga know upon commencement, an example of what I've come learn is called a "saga."
Clark (1972) introduced higher education to the concept of the organizational saga. A saga, as he wrote, refers to how members of an organization, such as a college or university, develop a collective understanding of some unique accomplishment in the organization's history that has significant meaning for the members. This collective understanding develops into a saga as organizational members retell the tale of that particular accomplishment but tend to add affect and embellishment in the retelling. It is through the added feeling organizational members give a particular story that the relative coldness and rationality of the organization melts away, inspiring strong feelings of loyalty to and pride in the organization among established and new members. Gonzaga alumni take some pride in the fact that they share an alma mater with Bing Crosby (though I will disclose there are aspects of the entertainer's life, like his history of abuse, which problematize this legacy).
Clark defined an organizational saga as an expression of a unified set of beliefs about an organization by its members that emerges from the organization's history about some unique accomplishment, characteristic, or circumstance and is held with conviction. Learning the sagas of a particular college or university is a way to understand its culture and values (not simply its history). I focused much of my final for my Organizational Analysis of Higher Education course on organizational saga, and found myself extremely fascinated with the whole idea of institutional "saga."
In doing a little outside research for my final, I came across an excellent example of a higher education organizational saga. President Emeritus of the University of Michigan Dr. James Duderstadt wrote an excellent overview of The Michigan Saga covering the university's history, symbols, and succession of leadership. The whole read was intriguing, but most surprising to me was how Dr. Duderstadt highlighted how the university's trend toward privatization could be linked to aspects of its history. It made me wonder whether the story would have been written in the same way at a different point in Michigan's history.
Sagas also emerge out of the multitude of experiences students and alumni have with their alma maters. Michigan State University started a project called "Spartan Sagas," collecting stories from current students and alumni describing how MSU played a pivotal role in their lives. The collective experiences we have with our alma maters shapes our values and our lives in ways that shape our loyalty to our institutions, the pride we take in having attended, and thus the overall legacy each institution has in our world. Reading through a few of these demonstrated for me much of MSU's legacy.
Think back to your own experience in college. What were some of the "great stories" that were told about your institution? What are some great stories from your time in college that have shaped your values and goals? If you were to write the organizational saga of your college or university, what story would you tell?
**Edit: Forgot to include my reference!
Clark, B.R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 178-184.
Bryce
Follow me on Twitter: @BryceEHughes
Monday, March 26, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Please indicate your sexual orientation (unless you prefer not to answer)
According to this news story later tweeted by Big Q Ethics, incoming University of California students will be provided the opportunity to indicate sexual orientation in addition to the demographics UC already collects on race/ethnicity, gender, and other characteristics. One significant difference is the UC campuses will collect this data after admission to prevent students from concerns over whether this could impact their admission to one of the 10 UC campuses.
Considering so far only one college (Elmhurst) invites students to indicate sexual orientation on their college applications, this marks a bold step forward toward collecting better data on LGBTQ students in American colleges and universities. The UC system includes over 220,000 students, making it one of the largest systems of higher education in the United States, possibly even the world. If we accept that approximately one in ten Americans identifies as LGBTQ, for the first time ever we could track the progress and retention of around 22,000 students to understand how (if at all) sexual orientation and/or gender identity impact college outcomes. There currently is no systematic way to understand this relationship on such a large scale.
What surprised me was how both the article and Big Q Ethics framed the issue. Both pointed to the fact that yes, making such a change is controversial, but that the greater concern is whether or not collecting such information is an invasion of privacy. Yet the CBS article specifically highlighted how collecting demographic data on sexual orientation and/or gender identity is supported by LGBTQ students and professional staff, and that as long as providing this information is voluntary, most people have no problem with it. So where's the controversy?
To me, there was once a time in American history when asking someone their sexual orientation or their gender identity was invasive and threatening. Of course, then, neither sexual orientation nor gender identity were seen as demographic characteristics--they were (and gender identity still is) considered personality disorders. And colleges were not interested at all in knowing whether their students identified as LGBTQ. Our institutions have changed. And it's about time we started collecting demographic data on sexual orientation and gender identity just as we collect demographic data on several other dimensions of identity.
I am a graduate student representative to UCLA's Committee on LGBT Affairs, and we had a conversation about this very topic in one of our recent meetings. The argument that asking students their sexual orientation is an invasion of privacy is simply a stalling tactic to avoid taking the bold risk of finding out how better we can enhance what we know about our students by expanding our list of demographics. In fact, faculty from UCLA's Williams Institute, the leading research center on LGBTQ affairs in the United States (with the U.S. Census they pioneered studying same-sex couples and families for the first time with the 2010 Census), presented to our committee several ways to ask about sexual orientation and gender identity appropriately. It's tough to be the first, or among the early innovators, but without those willing to step first how do we within the field of higher education move forward?
To me, it comes down to one very important question: What risk are we taking by not collecting adequate information about our students' identities and experiences which could provide more genuine insight into factors impacting their persistence and ways we can better serve them?
Bryce
Follow me on Twitter: @BryceEHughes
Considering so far only one college (Elmhurst) invites students to indicate sexual orientation on their college applications, this marks a bold step forward toward collecting better data on LGBTQ students in American colleges and universities. The UC system includes over 220,000 students, making it one of the largest systems of higher education in the United States, possibly even the world. If we accept that approximately one in ten Americans identifies as LGBTQ, for the first time ever we could track the progress and retention of around 22,000 students to understand how (if at all) sexual orientation and/or gender identity impact college outcomes. There currently is no systematic way to understand this relationship on such a large scale.
What surprised me was how both the article and Big Q Ethics framed the issue. Both pointed to the fact that yes, making such a change is controversial, but that the greater concern is whether or not collecting such information is an invasion of privacy. Yet the CBS article specifically highlighted how collecting demographic data on sexual orientation and/or gender identity is supported by LGBTQ students and professional staff, and that as long as providing this information is voluntary, most people have no problem with it. So where's the controversy?
To me, there was once a time in American history when asking someone their sexual orientation or their gender identity was invasive and threatening. Of course, then, neither sexual orientation nor gender identity were seen as demographic characteristics--they were (and gender identity still is) considered personality disorders. And colleges were not interested at all in knowing whether their students identified as LGBTQ. Our institutions have changed. And it's about time we started collecting demographic data on sexual orientation and gender identity just as we collect demographic data on several other dimensions of identity.
I am a graduate student representative to UCLA's Committee on LGBT Affairs, and we had a conversation about this very topic in one of our recent meetings. The argument that asking students their sexual orientation is an invasion of privacy is simply a stalling tactic to avoid taking the bold risk of finding out how better we can enhance what we know about our students by expanding our list of demographics. In fact, faculty from UCLA's Williams Institute, the leading research center on LGBTQ affairs in the United States (with the U.S. Census they pioneered studying same-sex couples and families for the first time with the 2010 Census), presented to our committee several ways to ask about sexual orientation and gender identity appropriately. It's tough to be the first, or among the early innovators, but without those willing to step first how do we within the field of higher education move forward?
To me, it comes down to one very important question: What risk are we taking by not collecting adequate information about our students' identities and experiences which could provide more genuine insight into factors impacting their persistence and ways we can better serve them?
Bryce
Follow me on Twitter: @BryceEHughes
Saturday, March 10, 2012
My College Completion Agenda
What defines the social value of higher education? Is it its ability to turn degrees into economic returns, or does it provide other benefits to society unrelated to money? A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education ("Tuning in to Dropping Out") attempted to address this question.
Economic development is clearly a social benefit of higher education. And with financial conditions like those we see today, this benefit has become a highly valued commodity. But where I disagree with the article is how it not only stops at describing higher education's value to society solely by its ability to drive the economy, but how it also devalues degree programs outside the science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) fields. Higher education provides value to society in more ways than fiscal returns.
I do agree that the STEM fields have an important place in society. I myself have a Bachelor's degree in engineering, and I currently work with the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA examining factors that contribute to underrepresented minority student success in STEM fields. These fields contribute much by way of technological innovation and economic growth, and far too few students are completing degrees in these fields.
There are other benefits higher education provides to society as well though. A major one is how college enables more effective civic participation. A liberal arts education (literally, education suited for a free person) emphasizes study in philosophy, ethics, morals, and other subjects required by people participating in activities like voting or serving the community. We live in a nation that since its founding has been led by college-educated individuals. This is a social benefit that cannot be measured within our gross domestic product.
Another benefit higher education provides is its role in solving social problems. The social sciences, other sciences, and other disciplines engage in teaching, research, and service directly aimed at understanding and solving social problems. Colleges also strive to equip individuals with the skills, knowledge, and behavior needed to personally contribute to enacting these solutions. Student affairs professionals are very familiar with this outcome as it impacts both students cognitive and affective development. How is this not of value to our nation?
Finally, and most pertinent to the examples (performing and visual arts) provided in the article, are the multitude of contributions colleges and universities make to the nation's arts and culture on an ongoing basis. We not only teach students about humanity's past contributions to culture, but we also create space for them to contribute to the perpetuation and progress of culture into the future. Universities have also provided much of the space for critique of our very understanding of what constitutes "culture" and "art." These contributions will provide unperceivable value as they benefit not only us today but also future generations on into perpetuity.
But does that mean everyone should go to college?
I take umbrage with the umbrella assertion that "college is not for everyone." Issues underlying completion rates are incredibly complex, and such a reduction seems to me to be an easy out. I don't necessarily disagree with the statement that college is not for everyone, and I think the stratification of career options following degree programs as opposed to vocational programs diminishes people's ability to make the right post-secondary decisions for themselves.
But even considering who should and should not attend college can be a dangerous exercise. How do we then determine who goes? Who deserves to attend college? College is more than continued personal and professional development for those who win the game of standardized test scores and high school grade point averages. And besides its intangible individual and social value, a college degree (even in the performing arts) is a privileged credential in society, and college attendance itself is a key to access networks of power and influence. From whom would you withhold this key?
Focusing on a number like "completion rates" also obscures many deeper, systemic issues that higher education leaders should be addressing. For one, how many students interested in STEM fields are diverted away from their intended course of study either due to inadequate preparation in the K-12 system or to experiences of marginalization and discrimination within STEM programs? Research shows that even though students of color express an interest in STEM programs at rates equal to or more often higher than their White peers, students of color complete STEM programs at exceedingly lower rates. Many switch into social sciences or humanities fields where they face far less isolation and marginalization than in the STEM programs they intended to complete. The author actually nails this on the head with, "Sit down, stay quiet, and absorb. Do this for 12 to 16 years...and all will be well." The dominant pedagogy in STEM can create a very "chilly" environment for students in these programs, and there are many STEM educators working on innovative pedagogies to retain these students.
A second problem this argument sweeps under the rug is the problem with systemic "tracking" of underrepresented minority and low SES (socioeconomic status) students into vocational programs, despite their true aspirations. The article actually trivializes this pattern by referring to vocational programs as "programs for at-risk students" in and of themselves. Students who attend underresourced high schools get nowhere near the level of college counseling as their more privileged peers, and most often are first generation students who cannot count on receiving crucial information about college choice at home either. These students end up choosing a "default" option, either being advised to consider their "best option" or having known peers and relatives who attended their local college. The article compares our system to that of German and other European systems of higher education, which tend to rely on more formal systems of tracking for placement of students. This tracking begins much earlier in a students' career, and potentially results in students making decisions about their futures very early in life. In this sense, I don't think the comparison is appropriate--although one can argue that our system functions in this way as well, just in more covert and systemic ways.
Overall, the issue is not the completion rate, nor is it deciding which fields of study hold more or less value for society. The issue is empowering students to make the best decisions for themselves--valuing their choices, ensuring access to adequate information, and providing ample support along the way. Our success is measured through their success--we know we've done well when our students reach their goals. This is what a true college completion agenda should be.
What would be on your college completion agenda?
Bryce
Follow me on Twitter: @BryceEHughes
Economic development is clearly a social benefit of higher education. And with financial conditions like those we see today, this benefit has become a highly valued commodity. But where I disagree with the article is how it not only stops at describing higher education's value to society solely by its ability to drive the economy, but how it also devalues degree programs outside the science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) fields. Higher education provides value to society in more ways than fiscal returns.
I do agree that the STEM fields have an important place in society. I myself have a Bachelor's degree in engineering, and I currently work with the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA examining factors that contribute to underrepresented minority student success in STEM fields. These fields contribute much by way of technological innovation and economic growth, and far too few students are completing degrees in these fields.
There are other benefits higher education provides to society as well though. A major one is how college enables more effective civic participation. A liberal arts education (literally, education suited for a free person) emphasizes study in philosophy, ethics, morals, and other subjects required by people participating in activities like voting or serving the community. We live in a nation that since its founding has been led by college-educated individuals. This is a social benefit that cannot be measured within our gross domestic product.
Another benefit higher education provides is its role in solving social problems. The social sciences, other sciences, and other disciplines engage in teaching, research, and service directly aimed at understanding and solving social problems. Colleges also strive to equip individuals with the skills, knowledge, and behavior needed to personally contribute to enacting these solutions. Student affairs professionals are very familiar with this outcome as it impacts both students cognitive and affective development. How is this not of value to our nation?
Finally, and most pertinent to the examples (performing and visual arts) provided in the article, are the multitude of contributions colleges and universities make to the nation's arts and culture on an ongoing basis. We not only teach students about humanity's past contributions to culture, but we also create space for them to contribute to the perpetuation and progress of culture into the future. Universities have also provided much of the space for critique of our very understanding of what constitutes "culture" and "art." These contributions will provide unperceivable value as they benefit not only us today but also future generations on into perpetuity.
But does that mean everyone should go to college?
I take umbrage with the umbrella assertion that "college is not for everyone." Issues underlying completion rates are incredibly complex, and such a reduction seems to me to be an easy out. I don't necessarily disagree with the statement that college is not for everyone, and I think the stratification of career options following degree programs as opposed to vocational programs diminishes people's ability to make the right post-secondary decisions for themselves.
But even considering who should and should not attend college can be a dangerous exercise. How do we then determine who goes? Who deserves to attend college? College is more than continued personal and professional development for those who win the game of standardized test scores and high school grade point averages. And besides its intangible individual and social value, a college degree (even in the performing arts) is a privileged credential in society, and college attendance itself is a key to access networks of power and influence. From whom would you withhold this key?
Focusing on a number like "completion rates" also obscures many deeper, systemic issues that higher education leaders should be addressing. For one, how many students interested in STEM fields are diverted away from their intended course of study either due to inadequate preparation in the K-12 system or to experiences of marginalization and discrimination within STEM programs? Research shows that even though students of color express an interest in STEM programs at rates equal to or more often higher than their White peers, students of color complete STEM programs at exceedingly lower rates. Many switch into social sciences or humanities fields where they face far less isolation and marginalization than in the STEM programs they intended to complete. The author actually nails this on the head with, "Sit down, stay quiet, and absorb. Do this for 12 to 16 years...and all will be well." The dominant pedagogy in STEM can create a very "chilly" environment for students in these programs, and there are many STEM educators working on innovative pedagogies to retain these students.
A second problem this argument sweeps under the rug is the problem with systemic "tracking" of underrepresented minority and low SES (socioeconomic status) students into vocational programs, despite their true aspirations. The article actually trivializes this pattern by referring to vocational programs as "programs for at-risk students" in and of themselves. Students who attend underresourced high schools get nowhere near the level of college counseling as their more privileged peers, and most often are first generation students who cannot count on receiving crucial information about college choice at home either. These students end up choosing a "default" option, either being advised to consider their "best option" or having known peers and relatives who attended their local college. The article compares our system to that of German and other European systems of higher education, which tend to rely on more formal systems of tracking for placement of students. This tracking begins much earlier in a students' career, and potentially results in students making decisions about their futures very early in life. In this sense, I don't think the comparison is appropriate--although one can argue that our system functions in this way as well, just in more covert and systemic ways.
Overall, the issue is not the completion rate, nor is it deciding which fields of study hold more or less value for society. The issue is empowering students to make the best decisions for themselves--valuing their choices, ensuring access to adequate information, and providing ample support along the way. Our success is measured through their success--we know we've done well when our students reach their goals. This is what a true college completion agenda should be.
What would be on your college completion agenda?
Bryce
Follow me on Twitter: @BryceEHughes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)