Tag Archives: institutional diversity

Posted on

The Decline of the American Dream: Higher Education and Social Mobility

Higher education is the path for economic and social mobility. This has been the mantra used to call for additional public support to arguments regarding the centrality of higher education to American society. While we all know that higher education often falls short of these goals, higher education is consistently held up as the best path for mobility in this country. However, new data published by the New York Times holds up a mirror on higher education and it isn’t pretty. In today’s post, I will share my reaction to this new data and suggest it is time to acknowledge the inherent privilege built into higher education.

Photo credit: Miguel Virkkunen Carvalho
Posted on

Understanding the Benefits of Institutional Diversity for U.S. Higher Education

Institutional diversity represents one of the great and exceptional features (Trow, 1979) of the American higher education system and serves as an influential foundation of the system’s historical success. Indeed, many scholars argue that institutional diversity embodies a “major ideological pillar” (Birnbaum, 1983, p. ix) and represents one of the most significant strengths of the U.S. higher education system (Morphew, 2009). However, a steady homogenization of higher education over the past 40 years both in the United States and around the world threatens this asset (Birnbaum, 1983; Huisman, Meek, & Wood, 2007; Meek, 1991; Morphew, 2009).

Photo credit: Huffington Post

The benefits of institutional diversity enable the American higher education system to achieve a variety of student, institutional, and societal goals.

Meeting the Needs of all Types of Students

The sheer range of educational aims that higher education attempts to address is vast. While some common indicators of student success are quite well-known (Braxton, 2000; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2010; Tinto, 1994), the reality that students thrive in many different settings places great strain on our system to attempt to provide for all of the desires, goals, and achieve the “best fit” for students in American higher education.

The example of community colleges highlights the challenge and inability of any single institutional type to meet the goals for all students. Community colleges offer programs for transferring to four-year institutions as well as career and technical programs.

Without even mentioning the other functions of the community college, most institutions struggle to even meet these two academic goals and in practice tend to focus on one or the other (Bahr, 2011).

The success of historically black colleges and universities highlights how an institutional type can serve one specific population well. Historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) provide open and welcoming environments for African-American students (Allen, 1992; Kim, 2004) with examples of mentoring and increased postgraduate success (Kim & Conrad, 2006).

Similarly, female students thrive in the single-sex colleges, many of which boast a similar track record of student success as HBCUs (Riordan, 1994). These examples are just two of institutional types that demonstrate achievement with their target population.

Organizational Development

As noted in organizational theory, higher education exhibits ambiguous goals and technologies as an institutional organization. As a result, colleges and universities look to other organizations within the organizational field in an effort to evaluate the potential success of new or changing processes.

The diversity within the higher education system provides examples for institutions to benchmark and consider when making their own decisions about creating new academic programs or changing administrative structures.

The ability to conduct this environmental scanning increases the likelihood of successful decision-making and changes. For example, colleges facing financial pressure can explore the strategies used by institutions confronted by the same issues to help ascertain the best course of action.

Institutional diversity in American higher education increases the range of activities and models of teaching and research performed by colleges and universities. The diversity present within the system of higher education in the United States supports the ability of colleges and universities to serve a role in providing both elite and mass higher education (Trow, 2005).

Serving both of these, at times, competing values within a single institutional type would prove almost impossible. However with a diverse array of colleges within a single national system, both access and quality can be achieved.

Within a standardized system lacking sufficient diversity, the ability to serve multiple functions proves difficult. As Clark (1976) contends, “mass systems must be more differentiated than elite ones as they absorb a more heterogeneous clientele, respond to new demands from the labor market, and attempt to cover a wider range of knowledge” (p. 33).

The U.S. system of higher education supports the dual goals of elite and mass higher education primarily through a level of sustained institutional diversity.

Protecting Academic Freedom and Autonomy

The preservation of academic freedom and safeguards for free inquiry and discourse prove one of the most sacred values in all of American higher education. The university’s role in conducting research and creating knowledge without undue influence is a cornerstone not only of higher education, but the country generally.

To foster this, colleges and universities develop a variety of structures and processes—most notably the awarding of tenure to faculty. American society relies on higher education to pursue teaching and research for the common good essential for a free society.

In a diverse system of higher education, the pressures on institutions vary in such a way that no single trend or influence impacts all or even the majority of institutions simultaneously (Birnbaum, 1983).

Government policy makers, interests groups, and the public may pursue, intentionally or not, institutions to take action contrary to the values of academic freedom.

The strength of a diverse higher education system is that colleges and universities are impacted differentially allowing the opportunity to identify and argue against inappropriate influence.

The system’s level of diversity fosters the capacity to mitigate threats to the unobstructed pursuit of truth and free expression and ultimately protects students, faculty, institutions, and the nation.

Although less noticed, institutional diversity presents a significant benefit to higher education by providing stability to the system. As open systems, colleges and universities acquire goals and purposes in part from external stimuli (Daft & Weick, 1984).

Diversity shields the system by limiting the ability of a single external influence to drive all or even a majority of institutions toward identical and potentially unproductive actions. This helps protect key institutional and system values from damaging external trends.

The Ability to Foster Special-Interest Institutions

The establishment of minority-serving institutions (MSIs) illustrates one of the strong benefits of institutional diversity in American higher education. MSIs serve a key role in providing access and supporting the public good notion of higher education through their commitment to historically underrepresented groups in higher education (Gasman, Baez, & Turner, 2008).

As minority-serving institutions, these colleges and universities as a group enroll a high proportion of African-American, American Indian, and Hispanic students. Three types of institutions are formally designated as minority-serving institutions: historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), tribal colleges (TCUs), and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs).

In light of the changing demographics of the nation, minority-serving institutions will continue to play a critical function within the higher education system by providing access to the growing minority student population.

Minority-serving colleges and universities demonstrate success in achieving engagement with students (Bridges, Kinzie, Nelson Laird, & Kuh, 2008) and improving graduation rates. Institutions that recognize the unique educational challenges of minority students are best prepared to help meet the needs of this population to facilitate postsecondary success.

Conclusion

A clearly defined mission supports both institutional aspiration as well as systemic necessities. For higher education to fulfill time-honored societal functions, colleges and universities must serve a variety of learning, research, and service goals.

Expanding our understanding of institutional diversity particularly given the challenges facing all types of colleges better prepares researchers and practitioners to support this important historical mission.

Institutional diversity dates to the beginning of American higher education, yet the contemporary context requires an understanding of the concept in light of the changing political, demographic, and economic realities of colleges and universities.

Posted on

Growth of institutional diversity during the colonial period

I am traveling in Europe with students from SMU’s higher education program. As an American history major from my undergraduate days and now as a scholar of higher education, I can’t help but think about the connections between our two higher education systems from that period. In today’s post, I want to share from my institutional diversity monograph on the growth of institutional diversity during the colonial period.

Oxford University Photo credit: Angel Xavier Viera-Vargas

At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, nine colleges served the American colonies, while England had only Oxford and Cambridge, despite the mother country’s much larger population.

The creation of denominational colleges served religious and political interests.

James Axtell (1974) contends that the colonists sought to create a school upon the hill to mirror their other lofty colonial ideals.

The 1600s and early 1700s saw colonial development largely along Protestant denominational lines.

With the notable exception of Rhode Island, the various denominations played a central role in the development of the colonies and their colleges.

The proliferation of Christian denominations created a substantial diversity even among the relatively small population.

While religious freedom is an oft-cited motivation for the colonists to move to America, limited tolerance even among other Protestant groups led to disputes among the colonies and ultimately expansion for higher education.

The breakdown of tolerance between the various Protestant denominations fostered the college growth movement, with each denomination seeking to found an institution (Herbst, 1976).

Several important notions from the founding of early colonial colleges, particularly in terms of faculty control, proved foundational in developing the internal dynamics that influence the level of institutional diversity.

The colonists chose not to adapt the British model of a self-perpetuating faculty, preferring instead the Scottish model of an external board of trustees to maintain accountability.

In an attempt to limit faculty control so dominant at Oxford and Cambridge, the colonial leaders developed a structure that not only allowed external involvement in campus affairs but also institutionalized this role.

As external stakeholders grew later in the development of American colleges and universities, the limits on faculty power and external boards provided an entry point for outside stimuli to influence internal activity.

While religion played a substantial role in the founding of early colonial colleges, even prior to the Revolutionary War, “the collegiate mission had already undergone a discernible shift away from religious orthodoxy toward secular learning and leadership” (Thelin, 2004, p. 28).

For example, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson suggested plans for higher education fundamentally different from proponents of the importance of religion in higher education would design.

Franklin’s plan for the academy that would become the University of Pennsylvania is particularly noteworthy for its support of a variety of academic pursuits that he contends are “most useful and most ornamental, regard being had to the several professions for which they are intended” (Franklin, 1958, p. 41).

The religious focus and favoritism towards the status quo among established Protestant denominations helped create an opening for institutions more broadly conceived.

Thomas Jefferson famously attempted to reform his alma mater, the College of William and Mary, to expand the college’s curricular offerings and transform the college generally. The reform attempts were “a struggle to shape an inherited institution into a form able to serve peculiarly American interests without destroying the institution’s capacity to transmit values important to the survival of the western heritage” ( Thomson, 1971, p. 188).

As with many reform efforts, Jefferson’s failed and he would not realize his ideals of a college embracing new fields of study until establishing the University of Virginia years later.

While falling short of modern ideals of religious tolerance, the colonial colleges nevertheless established a foundation of diversity and a concern for public service.

The significant contribution of colonial college graduates in shaping the American Revolution suggests the importance of the colleges in creating gentlemen-scholars.

The achievement of these institutions placed higher education in a prominent position in colonial society while institutional deficiencies created an opening for the expansion that occurs following the British surrender at Yorktown.

Higher education played a significant role in supporting larger societal goals since the earliest days of the first colleges.

As American identity expanded, leaders looked to colleges and universities to increasingly provide social and educational training for future generations.

Posted on

It really is time to shut up about Harvard

Over the last several weeks, I’ve seen a story by FiveThirtyEight, the site started by stats guru Nate Silver, provocatively titled “Shut Up About Harvard” making the higher education social media rounds. I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments in the article. Namely, the article suggests the national media’s focus on elite higher education gives a distorted picture of the way most people experience higher education. In today’s post, I will share the key points from the story that I think those of us in higher education should consider because I do believe it really is time to shut up about Harvard.

Photo credit: Abi Skipp

The national media is obsessed with elite universities— especially private ones. 

Posted on

Campus leaders can support institutional diversity

With the causes and challenges related to increased homogenization likely to continue influencing higher education, institutional diversity will likely continue to decline, which will threaten historical institutional missions. In today’s post, I want to share an excerpt from my monograph, Understanding Institutional Diversity in American Higher Education, with recommendations and future research to show campus leaders can support institutional diversity.