General education as an economic driver?

 Originally posted on October 19, 2019, on LindaSuskie.com

At a recent workshop on general education in a region with low educational and income levels. I pointed out that general education can be a driver of economic development.

Generally speaking, people with more education earn more money. They spend more, pay more taxes, and other ways contribute to regional economic development.

We also know that college students are most likely to drop out of college during their first year or two—when they’re taking gen ed courses. This means gen ed courses can have a significant impact on degree completion and therefore income and regional economic development.

We also know that students are more likely to persist when they’re actively engaged in their learning and see relevance in their learning.

This means that what is taught in gen ed courses and how they’re taught can have a significant impact on degree completion and therefore income and regional and economic development. Focus on teaching transferrable thinking skills more than memorized knowledge, and use active learning strategies rather than having students sit passively to a lecture, and you may make an important contribution to your region’s economic development.

Is it time to abandon the term "liberal arts"?

 Originally published on August 20, 2017, on LindaSuskie.com

Scott Jaschick at Inside Higher Ed just wrote an article tying together two studies showing that many higher ed stakeholders don’t understand—and therefore misinterpret—the term liberal arts.

And who can blame them? It’s an obtuse term that I’d bet many in higher ed don’t understand either. When I researched my 2014 book Five Dimensions of Quality: A Common Sense Guide to Accreditation and Accountability, I learned that the term liberal comes from liber, the Latin word for free. In the Middle Ages in Europe, a liberal arts education was for the free individual, as opposed to an individual obliged to enter a particular trade or profession. That paradigm simply isn’t relevant today.

Today the liberal arts are those studies that address knowledge, skills, and competencies that cross disciplines, yielding a broadly-educated, well-rounded individual. Many people use the term liberal arts and sciences or simply arts and sciences to try to make clear that the liberal arts comprise study of the sciences as well as the arts and humanities. The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U), a leading advocate of liberal arts education, refers to liberal arts as liberal education. Given today’s political climate, that may not have been a good decision!

So what might be a good synonym for the liberal arts? I confess I don’t have a proposal. Arts and sciences is one option, but I’d bet many stakeholders don’t understand that this includes humanities and social sciences, and this term doesn’t convey the value studying these things. Some of the terms I think would resonate with the public are broad, well-rounded, transferrable, and thinking skills. But I’m not sure how to combine these terms meaningfully and succinctly.

What we need here is evidence-informed decision-making, including surveys and focus groups of various higher education stakeholders to see what resonates with them. I hope AAC&U, as a leading advocate of liberal arts education, might consider taking on a rebranding effort including stakeholder research. But if you have any ideas, let me know!

A big community college issue: Degree programs that really aren't

 Originally posted on June 20, 2016, on LindaSuskie.com

Over the years I’ve worked with myriad community colleges, large and small, in dozens of states throughout the United States. More than many other higher ed sectors, community colleges truly focus on helping students learn, making assessment a relatively easy sell and making community colleges some of my favorites to work with.

But I’m seeing an issue at community colleges throughout the United States that deeply troubles me and can make assessment of program learning outcomes almost impossible. The issue flows from the two kinds of associate degree programs that community colleges offer. One kind is what many call “career and technical education” (CTE) programs. Often A.A.S. degrees, these are designed to prepare students for immediate employment. The other kind is what many call “transfer programs”: A.A. or A.S. programs, often named something like “General Studies” or “Liberal Education,” that are designed to prepare students to transfer into baccalaureate programs at four-year colleges.

The problem I’m seeing is that many of these programs, especially on the transfer side, aren’t really programs. Here’s how the regional accreditors’ standards define programs:

• ACCJC: “Appropriate breadth, depth, rigor, sequencing, time to completion, and synthesis of learning”

• HLC: “Require levels of performance by students appropriate to the degree or certificate awarded”

• MSCHE: “Characterized by rigor and coherence… designed to foster a coherent student learning experience and to promote synthesis of learning”

• NEASC effective July 1, 2016: “Coherent design and… appropriate breadth, depth, continuity, sequential progression, and synthesis of learning”

• NWCCU: “Rigor that [is] consistent with mission… A coherent design with appropriate breadth, depth, sequencing of courses, and synthesis of learning”

• SACS: “A coherent course of study”

• WSCUC: “Appropriate in content, standards of performance, [and] rigor”

There’s a theme here: A collection of courses is not a program and, conversely, a program is more than a collection of courses. A true program has both coherence and rigor. In order for this to happen, some courses must be more advanced than others and build on what’s been learned in earlier courses. That means that some program courses should be at the 200-level and have prerequisites.

But many community college degree “programs” are in fact collections of courses, nothing more.

• Many transfer degree “programs” consist of 42 or 45 credits of general education courses—virtually all introductory 100-level courses—plus another 12-18 credits of electives, sometimes in an area of specialization, sometimes not.

• At virtually every community college I’ve visited, it’s entirely possible for students to complete an associate degree in at least one “program” by taking only 100-level courses.

• In some disciplines, “program” courses are largely cognate requirements (such as physics for an engineering program) with perhaps only one course in the program discipline itself.

• And on top of all this, any 200-level courses in the “program” are often sophomore-level in name only; they have no prerequisites and appear no more rigorous than 100-level courses.

Two years of 100-level study does not constitute an associate degree and does not prepare transfer students for the junior-level work they will face when they transfer. And a small handful of introductory courses does not constitute an associate degree program.

Turning community college associate degree programs into true programs with rigor and coherence is remarkably difficult. Among the barriers:

• Some systems and states prohibit community colleges from offering associate degrees in liberal arts or business disciplines, as Charlene Nunley, Trudy Bers, and Terri Manning note in NILOA’s Occasional Paper #10, “Learning Outcomes Assessment in Community Colleges.”
• In other systems and states, plenty of community college faculty have told me that their counterparts at local four-year colleges don’t want them to teach anything beyond introductory courses—the four-year faculty want to teach the rest themselves. (My reaction? What snobs.)
• Yet other community college faculty have told me that they have felt pressure from the Lumina Foundation’s completion agenda to eliminate all course prerequisites.

So at some community colleges nothing can be done until laws, regulations, or policies are changed, leaving thousands of students in the meanwhile with a shortchanged education. But there are plenty of other community colleges that can do something. I’m particularly impressed with Passaic County Community College’s approach. Every degree program, even those in the liberal arts, has designated one 200-level course as its program capstone. The course is open only to students who have completed at least 45 credits and have taken at least one other course in the discipline. For the English AA, for example, this course is “Topics in Literature,” and for the Psychology option in the Liberal Arts AA, this course is “Social Psychology.” It’s a creative solution to a pervasive problem.