EDHP 642 Seminar in Postsecondary Education Critical Issues in Higher Education Summer Session 2003 Section 28709 WPH, room 202 T,TH 4pm-7:10pm James T. Minor, Ph.D. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis Rossier School of Education Waite Phillips Hall, rm.701E Office Hours: by appointment Phone: 213.821.2131 jminor@usc.edu Course aim: The aim of this course is to review, analyze, and discuss critical issues currently impacting American institutions of higher education. The objective for the course is to focus on a small set of issues with the goal of looking forward and development of improvement strategies for higher education. While exploring plausible approaches for improvement, the course will assess how such issues currently impact higher education and are likely to do so in the near future. The course is organized around three general themes: 1) The context of teaching and learning 2) Diversity and the use of race in admissions 3) Leadership and governance Under each theme lies the more detailed content for the course. Course work: Participants in this course will be required to write three 5-page critical assessments; one for each theme of the course. Each assessment should (with the objective of the course in mind) resemble a scholarly review essay that focuses on a particular issue discussed within a section. Review essays found in higher education journals (i.e, The Review of Higher Education) should serve as models. The due dates for each essay are noted in the course schedule. Participants are also required to develop a 5-page detailed outline that will be presented as a proposed study. The proposal, with a clear research question, should outline the sections normally found in research papers and supply 1 sufficient text that indicates the direction of each section, and the paper itself. Each participant will present their proposal. Course Evaluation: It is my goal to have evaluation serve as an enriching activity that helps us learn about what we do well and what we might improve upon. Consequently, students will be expected to constructively critique the work of others throughout the course. While using a subjective frame, the objective and determining assessment for the course will be according to the following criteria: Critical essays- 20 points (each) Detailed outline and presentation- 25 points Contribution to discussion- 15 points With a total of 100 points (100%), grading will be based on a traditional distribution. Required Text: The only required text for the course is the reader, available at the University bookstore. Additional note: I wish to fully include persons with disabilities in this course. Please let me know at the outset of class if you need any special accommodations. Course Schedule and Readings July 3 Thur. 1) Introduction of the course and participants, 2) review of the syllabus 3) establishment of a course roster and 4) opening discussion on critical issues in higher education. Berdahl, R. (2000). A view from the bridge: Higher education at the macro-management level. The Review of Higher Education 24 (1), 103112. Smart, J. (2002). Attributes of an exemplary research manuscript: Employing a qualitative analysis. A paper presented at the 27th annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Available from the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/pdf/ASHE_smart.doc 2 The Context of Teaching and Learning July 8 Tue. Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., & Van Houweling D. (2002). Higher education faces a brave new world. In Higher education in the digital age: Tecnology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities (pp. 3-22). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers. Cohen, A. (1998). Trends and issues for the future. In The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth of the contemporary system. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mingle, J. (1998). Responding to the New Market for Higher Education. AGB Priorities, 11. July 10 Thur. Gumport, P., & Chun, M. (1999). Technology and higher education: Opportunities and challenges for the new era. In P.G. Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, & P.J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the Twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 370395). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Dey, E., & Hurtado, S. (1994). College students in changing contexts. In P.G. Altbach, P.J. Gumport & R.O. Berdahl (Ed.), Higher education in American society (pp. 249-267). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Mumper, M. (1996). Why college matters. In Removing college price barriers : What government has done and why it hasn't worked (pp. 122). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. July 15 Tue. Finn, C. (1997). The campus: “An island of repression in a sea of freedom”. In E.J. Whitt (Ed.), ASHE Reader Series: College students affairs administration. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing. Levine, A., & Cureton, J. (1998). Generation without a name. In When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today’s college student (pp. 1-17). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Levine, A., & Cureton, J. (1998). A transitional generation. In When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today’s college student (pp. 145-167). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. 3 Diversity and the Use of Race in Admissions July 17 Thur. First essay due. Student e-mail Hopwood, et al. v. State of Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996). Bowen, W.G., & Bok, D. (1998). The admission process and “raceneutrality”. In The shape of the river: Long term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions (pp. 15-52). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Golden, D. (2002, July 12). Extra credit: To get into UCLA it helps to face ‘life challenges’. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1. Are legacy college admissions racist?. CNN Student News. Retrieved March 5, 2003 form http://cnnfyi.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=04%2F04 %2F2003&urlID.html July 22 Tue. Gratz, et. al. vs. Bollinger, et. al. An amici curiae brief submitted in support of defendants. Gurin, P. Expert Report. The Mission of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/opinion.html Gurin, P. Expert Report. The Effect of Structural Diversity on Classroom and Informal Interactional Diversity. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/empir.html Steele, C. Expert Report. The Significance of Standardized Test Scores. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/steele.html *Mid-term evaluation of the course 4 July 24 Thur. Mohs, Frederic (2000). Why the University of Wisconsin should abandon racial preferences in admissions. Article by University of Wisconsin Regent. (To be handed out) Schmidt, P. (2003). Behind the fight over race-conscious admissions: Advocacy groups working together helped shape the legal and political debate. Chronicle of Higher Education, vXLIX, (30). Anderson, E. (2001). Alternatives to race-based admissions in higher education: Examining the x-percent plans in California, Texas, and Florida. In L. Jones (Ed), Retaining African Americans in higher education (pp. 59-76). Sterling, VA, Stylus Publishing. July 29 Tue. Perna, L., & Swail, W. (2002). Pre-college outreach and early intervention programs. In D.E. Heller (Ed.), Conditions of access: Higher education for lower income students (pp. 97-112). Westport, CT: ACE & Praeger Publishers. Cole, S., & Barber, E. (2003). Chapter 1—The Problem. Increasing faculty diversity: The occupational choices of high achieving minority students (pp. 1-38). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caldwell, L.D., & Stewart, J.B. (2001). Rethinking W.E.B. Dubois “Double Consciousness” Implications for Retention and Self-Preservation in the Academy. In L. Jones (Ed.), Retaining African Americans in higher education (pp. 225-234). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Higher Education Leadership and Governance July 31 Thur. Second essay due. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (1996). Renewing the academic presidency: Stronger leadership for tougher times. Washington, DC: Commission on the Academic Presidency: Association of governing boards of universities and colleges. Birnbaum, R. (1999). The Dilemma of Presidential Leadership. In P.G. Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, & P.J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 323-346). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 5 Shapiro, H.T. (1998). University presidents-then and now. In W.G. Bowen & H.T. Shapiro (Eds.), Universities and their leadership (pp. 6598). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Aug. 5 Tue. Worth, M.J. (2002). Defining institutional advancement, development, and fund raising. In M.J. Worth (Ed.), New strategies for educational fund raising (pp. 3-10). Westport, CT: ACE and Praeger Publishers. Trani, E.P. (1997 January 10). Creating a broader model of shared governance. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 73 (18), A72. Lazerson, M. (1997). Who Owns Higher Education? The Changing Face for Governance. Change, 29 March/April. Presentation of outlines. Aug. 7 Thur. Minor, J.T. (2003). Assessing the senate: Critical issues considered. American Behavioral Scientist, 46 (7), 960-977. Trow, M. (1990). The academic senate as a school for university leadership. Liberal Education, 76 (1), 23-27. Scott, J.V. (1996). The strange death of faculty governance. PS: Political Science and Politics, 29, 724-726. Hirsch, W.Z. (2001). Initiatives for improving shared governance. In W.Z. Hirsch & L.E. Weber (Eds.), Governance in higher education: The university in a state of flux (pp. 143-154). London: Economica Ltd. Presentation of outlines. Aug. 12 Tue. 1)Third essay due. 2) Presentation of outlines 3) Course wrap-up 4) Evaluations 6