The problem with honors colleges

In Sunday’s New York Times, op-ed columnist Frank Bruni highlights the story of Ronald Nelson who spurned the Ivy League in favor of the University of Alabama’s Honors College. The title of Bruni’s piece, A Prudent College Path, sums up his argument that students and parents should consider the more cost effective and still high quality path of Nelson. While pursuing public university honors programs may make sense for individual students, the problem with honors colleges is the impact of the trend on our higher education system more generally.

Photo credit: University of Alabama

I taught two classes in the Honors College during my time on the faculty at UA. I found the students quite capable and I appreciated the small class size (class sections were limited to 15 students). 

Congress is at it again: Attacking Social Science Research

In what is quickly becoming an annual Congressional tradition, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas introduced legislation designed to force the NSF to fund projects that support the national interest (see InsideHigherEd’s coverage for more details). Last year, Senator Coburn pushed a proposal to restrict the funding of NSF’s political science program despite the obvious need for political science research. Previous efforts to restrict what the NSF funds have often relied on the underpinning of stopping the waste of taxpayer funds. Smith mentions this concern too, but reveals the true intention behind his proposal: an ideological litmus test for grants.

Photo credit: Sarah Price

The National Science Foundation is one of the premier research granting agencies in the world. Each grant proposal goes through extensive review by leading experts on the subject of the grant proposal. 

Faculty are the core of the university

Faculty are lazy. Faculty are self-centered. They only care about their projects and only want to work with students if it benefits them. Why is tenure needed? No other profession gets that kind of job security. For over a generation, these criticisms of faculty could be heard from trustee meetings to the state house. Let’s be honest: faculty are easy targets. But I worry that with all of these attacks on faculty that we’ve forgotten a fundamental truth: Faculty are the core of the university.

Photo credit: Michael Bentley

Universities have different missions, but each is typically a variation on the phrase: teaching, research, and service.

What group does the work of all three areas?  Not students. Not administrators. The faculty.

What are academic versus administrative decisions?

The gap between faculty and administration continues to grow. The fight over tenure and academic freedom in Wisconsin has only continued to demonstrate the challenges in thinking about the role of faculty and shared governance in higher education. I have been thinking about the divide between academic and administrative lately. In today’s post, I want to argue why I think we need to acknowledge that the divide between administrative and academic is far more gray than many people admit.

Photo credit: Patrick Feller

Before discussing the proper role of faculty and administrators in institutional decision-making, we have to accept one of the problems facing university administrators. Too often, administrative leaders have been asked to make short term decisions in an attempt to respond to the funding crisis of the moment or some other external demand.

Are we sacrificing effectiveness for efficiency in higher ed?

Higher education finds itself facing many challenges. In particular, questions about college costs, student debt, and public funding remain at the top of the higher education public policy agenda. I’ve been thinking a great deal about the issue of effectiveness versus efficiency. I’m increasingly concerned that in the push to lower costs, reduce public subsidies and improve internal operations that we are approaching a dangerous line: Are we sacrificing effectiveness for efficiency in higher education?

Photo credit: Ben Sutherland