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