From the Desk of the Dean: The History and Future of Arts and Sciences Education

INTRODUCTION

This collection of essays celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences (CCAS), the largest association of arts and sciences deans in the United States. The association was founded in protest in 1965 after the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (now the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities [APLU]) voted to include the concerns of engineering and agricultural deans, but not arts and sciences deans, in their legislative advocacy programs. Arts and sciences deans withdrew and formed a new organization dedicated to political advocacy. For fifty years CCAS has provided networking and training opportunities for deans of arts and science colleges and served as a forum for discussions of contemporary challenges in higher education.

Both of the editors of this book have served on the board of directors of the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences, and both have recently had the honor of serving the association as president. Mary Anne Fitzpatrick (CCAS president 2012–13) is a social scientist and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science who has spent her career as a faculty member, a chair, a dean, a vice provost, and a vice president at two flagship research universities, the University of Wisconsin and the University of South Carolina. Elizabeth Say (CCAS president 2014–15) is a humanities scholar with broad interdisciplinary training who has spent her career as a faculty member, chair, and dean in a college of humanities at one of California’s great public comprehensive universities, California State University, Northridge.

When the CCAS board realized that we were approaching the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the association, we decided that the appropriate way to honor that milestone was to work together on a book collecting the observations and insights of arts and science deans on the history and future of arts and science education. Our shared commitment to advocacy and leadership in the arts and sciences has made working together on this project an enjoyable and enlightening experience. And our different backgrounds as scholars and as administrators in universities with different missions and foci have helped to bring different points of view to this work.

This volume draws together the voices of current and past deans and administrators of arts and science colleges and also academic leaders with strong liberal arts backgrounds. We have collected the reflections of thoughtful administrators and scholars who have led important institutions of higher learning. Although written by deans and often addressing the challenges facing arts and sciences, this book is for all who are interested in postsecondary education, especially an education that aims for more than simply preparing students to play a specific role in the economy. In advocating for the importance of the liberal arts, the authors do not shy away from discussing the serious issues facing all of higher education today.

But why a book by deans? Academic deans sit at the perfect position in the educational system. In large universities, whether public or private, arts and sciences deans are usually the head of the largest school or college in their institution in terms of credit hours, numbers of courses offered, and numbers of students served. Deans are the chief academic and operating officers of their colleges, whose primary responsibilities include: strategic planning and policy development; faculty, staff, and student recruitment, retention, and support; resource development, budget development, management, and allocation; academic program development and review; and external relations. These deans are dedicated to the advancement of basic disciplines that are distinct from technical or professional ones.

Given the breadth of the fields represented in the colleges, deans of arts and sciences collaborate broadly across the university to provide basic undergraduate courses for all students, develop interdisciplinary centers and institutes involving faculty across the university, and raise external research dollars and philanthropy funds to support the core research and academic mission. In addition to being scholars in a particular field, deans have a role within their institutions that demands not only that they have an understanding of many fields of study but also that they follow the general movements and trends in the disciplines of the liberal arts and sciences as well as the changing entrance requirements of professional schools as these impact the design of courses in arts and sciences. Moreover, as arts and science colleges provide most of the first- and second-year courses for students, it is these deans and colleges that have the responsibility of helping students to transition to the academic norms of the university.

Where can these deans be found? In general professional schools have fairly consistent names from university to university. Schools of business or medicine or public health or colleges of engineering are easily identified by name. Deans who lead arts and science colleges may actually head units with names that are somewhat idiosyncratic to their institutions. Table 1 lists the names, institutions, and college names of the past seventeen presidents of CCAS.

TABLE 1. Sixteen Years of CCAS Presidents

Six of the recent presidents headed colleges of arts and sciences that included all the major humanities (for example, English, philosophy), social sciences (for example, political science, psychology), art (for example, art, theater, music) natural science (for example, chemistry, physics), and mathematical sciences (for example, mathematics, statistics) disciplines. Two more deans on the list also headed colleges of this breadth (Certain and Gutierrez) although their colleges had slightly different names (Letters and Science; Liberal Arts and Sciences). The remaining seven college names represent the fact that at some point in the history of the university where they are located, a large college of arts and sciences split into two or even three smaller colleges (for example, fine arts, humanities, social and behavioral sciences, natural and health sciences).

Although written by deans, this book is for all who are interested in postsecondary education, especially an education that aims for more than simply preparing students to play a specific role in the workforce. The authors of this book have been leaders at a variety of different types of colleges and universities—research universities to community colleges, public and private, old and new, in this country and abroad. The range of diversity of their experiences brings a variety of points of view not covered in other volumes.

As we write this introduction, we are in the midst of a series of debates about the role and purpose of postsecondary education in the United States. Popular books question whether college is worth the investment of time and money. Critics complain that universities are not providing education in the core competencies needed for success in the twenty-first century. The public has lost faith in universities.

Various solutions are offered to the high cost of a college education. Perhaps more students should attend technical schools rather than four-year colleges so that they can develop job-related skills. Distance education may be an inexpensive way to increase the number of students who attain college degrees. Such degrees are developed without the cost of brick-and-mortar buildings and face-to-face interaction with professors and other students. Many of these degrees are offered by for-profit educational institutions that have low entry barriers into a variety of graduate and undergraduate programs. Some institutions are allowing students to demonstrate competency and receive college credit based on life experiences.

Not all these solutions can be summarily dismissed as we need a variety of types and kinds of solutions to increase college attainment in the United States. Some of these programs are necessary, creative, and of high quality, and some are not. Some of the programs, even when carefully designed and of high quality, are not suitable or effective for particular types of students. Graduation rates are low as are pass rates for certification tests. Analyzing the impact of various programs, discovering which programs work for which students, and analyzing the quality of these emerging alternatives to the traditional models of delivery and credentialing is a key responsibility of the educational establishment. Cutting costs while maintaining program quality is not easy and in some disciplines and with some types of students may be impossible.

More established educational institutions can also learn from these innovations by examining what works when with what group of students. Using technology wisely to facilitate learning, for example, is important for all our educational institutions at all levels. Developing more flexibility in the timing of our programs and giving students the ability to finish college earlier than the canonical four years (or five or six) is becoming a national movement as universities try to develop summer school as a new semester. With the On Your Time program, the University of South Carolina has become an early innovator in this movement.

All the authors in this volume share three basic assumptions, and these undergird many of the key arguments of the book.

First, no university or college can be considered great without great programs in the arts, humanities, and social and natural sciences. This statement does not mean that all the programs in each area need to be great, as few universities have the resources for such a commitment. But we owe our students and our communities the chance to experience excellence in these basic fields. A university may invest heavily in theater or dance and less so in art or music, but it maintains a commitment to funding and supporting the arts. In maintaining that commitment, we demonstrate the larger enduring value of creative work for society.

Second, understanding basic processes, principles, and approaches in depth is vital to solving the problems that confront society. Fifty years ago APLU was shortsighted in its move to represent only engineering and agriculture. Technology cannot solve the problems of society without the basic research that leads to its development and application. For example, without the development of new materials that takes place in chemistry labs, it is impossible to engineer them for applied uses; and without theoretical mathematics, it is not possible to solve many practical problems. Even when new technologies and solutions are discovered, the adoption of these innovations can be problematic. Science and medicine have shown us how to develop clean water systems, how to limit unwanted pregnancies, and how to stop the spread of AIDS. But without the work of those who understand cultures, mores, social institutions, languages, and ethical systems of people we would hope to serve, we will not solve the grand challenges that face our world.

The third assumption undergirding many of the arguments in the book is that a college degree or beyond is the key to long-term success not only for an individual but for American society. The current popular focus on evaluating the value of a college degree based on the individual’s starting salary in his or her first job is myopic at best.

The book is divided into three parts. Each part begins with an introduction by the editors to the general issues in the area facing higher education today and highlights of the essays. The first part of this book is The Liberal Arts Agenda, Deans, and Deaning. This part begins with the history of CCAS. Included in this part are observations about the meaning and purpose of higher education by two deans who have led colleges of arts and sciences at large, well-respected institutions.

The second part of the book is Calls to Action and is focused on advocacy. One of the key roles for college and university administrators that has crystallized in the past twenty years is that of advocate for higher education in general and their own universities and colleges in particular. In this part we advocate for various points of view on arts and sciences education as well as higher education in general, propose strategies for making the case to the public for the value of what we do, and bring into the conversation some important allies in the community college system.

The third part of the book is Predicting the Future: The Next Fifty Years for Education in the Arts and Sciences. In particular the authors grapple with the long-term value of the humanities, the changing nature of graduate education, and the role that American universities need to play on the world stage.

Our epilogue is focused on the future as well and brings to the fore two key questions for all of us: How do we learn, and what should we learn? And these questions are even more important than the particular answer we may give to either of them at any time.

PART 1

THE LIBERAL ARTS AGENDA, DEANS, AND \ DEANING

Founded in 1965, CCAS began the same year that Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). The law was intended to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education. It increased federal money given to universities, created scholarships, gave low-interest loans for students, and established a National Teachers Corps. Johnson’s goal was to keep the doors to higher education open for all academically qualified students, regardless of their financial circumstances. Around the same time, the administration and Congress also opened and funded the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). These agencies joined the National Science Foundation founded fifteen years before as federal agencies authorized to fund research in the fields represented in arts and science disciplines (see Yu’s discussion, this volume).

During this time many deans of arts and sciences belonged to and attended the annual meetings of the National Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges (NASULGC), renamed the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) in 2009. During the annual meeting in 1965, the leadership of NASLGU announced that the organization would focus its advocacy efforts on funding for applied areas in agriculture and engineering and not for the basic work done in arts and sciences. This action troubled the deans of arts and sciences, who walked out of the meeting and decided to form their own association to advocate for the liberal arts (see Weiner and Abrahamse’s essay this volume).

But what did they want to champion? As Paul Bell in his essay reminds us, a liberal arts education asks students to incorporate into their worldview knowledge from a variety of fields in order for them to function as free men and women. Although the term liberal arts is often colloquially taken to mean studies in the humanities or social sciences, when we use the term liberal arts, we include mathematics and the basic sciences housed within our colleges. Indeed in the earliest meaning of the term, grammar, rhetoric, and logic were the core liberal arts, but during the Middle Ages, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy were added to the list.

Unpacking the term liberal arts does not simply mean discussing the mathematical and natural sciences, humanities and arts, and social science fields and the majors these fields have developed. In American higher education liberal arts has been come to mean not only the major programs of study but specifically what has come to be known as general education. Students in American universities are exposed to introductory courses in the humanities and the social sciences as well as in the natural and mathematical sciences. Many universities implicitly—if not explicitly—adopt a one-third / one-third / one-third model of undergraduate education. One-third of the courses required are general education courses, one-third of the courses are those dedicated to concentrated study in a major, and the final third are left to the student to work on areas of their own choosing. Many believe that this approach to undergraduate education helps to develop in the students more flexible and creative habits of mind. The ability to explore different fields and areas of study enriches a student’s personal and professional life.

One of the major innovations of the American higher educational system that supported this approach was the development of the introductory course. That is, scholars attempted to organize knowledge in a given field to provide a sense of the broad themes, approaches, and organizing principles of a discipline. These first courses analyze and synthesize fields of study to give students a broad overview and approach to the subject. Along with courses to develop a student’s particular writing, communication, and quantitative skills, these introductory courses form the backbone of a general education program.

The tension exhibited between the founding deans of this association and the leadership of NASULGC has long existed in American higher education, even in its earliest days. That is, should we focus our advocacy and our energy on applied fields of knowledge like those in the fields of agriculture and engineering or continue to support, argue, and defend the basic work conducted in the arts and science disciplines? But even those who support the arts and sciences may not line up neatly on one side of this argument.

In his groundbreaking historical treatment, Kimball argued that the history of higher education is the tension and the accommodation between two competing views of the nature and definition of the liberal arts.¹ The oratorical tradition celebrates liberal education for its practical value in a broad range of areas because it prepares the student for public life, leadership, and service. In contrast the philosophical tradition focuses on the development of specialized knowledge in the basic disciplines for its own sake and without any concern for its utility. Kimball argued that the terms have been used too casually and have begun to mean whatever the writer is proposing. Although one cannot argue with Kimball’s historical analysis, the present day allows for both views in our understanding of the purpose of liberal education. Liberal education and the design of our institutions now allows the term to encompass basic skills and broad knowledge as represented in our general education or core requirements as well as the in depth and specialized knowledge in our major programs of study, which are the building blocks of intellectual creativity and the civil society. We are orators and philosophers.

Even as the new CCAS was being founded to support and to advocate for the liberal arts, the case for higher education was being made in economic terms. Since the late 1960s, higher education has been making the case for a college education to the larger public based on the lifetime salary earnings of college graduates. That is, the basic justification for securing a college degree being social mobility and a clear return on investment (ROI) became a staple in our dialogue with the public. For decades academic leaders have argued that higher education is the key to jobs and success in the knowledge economy. Lifetime earnings are indeed significantly higher for those holding college or advanced degrees compared to those with high school or some college.²

In the first decades of this argumentative strategy, the return on investment for a college education was considered across the lifetime of an individual. Unfortunately, in the twenty-first century, in the current political and social climate, the time line for calculating a return on the investment in college has become shorter. Rather than consider the return of lifetime earnings for investing time and money into a college education, a college education is evaluated based on the starting salary in the first job that a student holds upon graduation. This approach devalues any major not directly tied to a particular job category. When only starting salaries matter, a degree in chemical engineering is more valuable than a degree in teaching STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) because the starting salary is higher. Of course, from a societal point, we will not produce college graduates in engineering if the K–12 or the college system has no qualified teachers.

Corporate leaders consistently tell us that they need broadly educated workers who have communicative, quantitative, and problem-solving skills. In addition they are looking for individuals who can work in teams and with individuals from a variety of different backgrounds in order to accomplish tasks. And they need workers who can analyze complex information (often incomplete) and think critically and creatively about problems and their solutions.³ Indeed they need graduates of liberal arts colleges.

Majors in a liberal arts curriculum do not map clearly into a particular job. A student who majors in chemical engineering has a clear, obvious path to the first job whereas students with a major in chemistry need to be able to make a case for the knowledge, skills, and approaches that they have learned by majoring in chemistry and how this background translates into being a productive member of a work group. As educators we have a responsibility to help students see these connections. Indeed, as Paul Bell details in his essay, many colleges of arts and sciences now offer career counseling, internships, and a variety of out-of-classroom learning experiences to help students to see how the theories, approaches, and skills they have learned can help to solve practical problems.

It follows that much of the research conducted by faculty in our colleges may not be immediately relevant to solving our environmental problems, our public health concerns, or our fiscal crises. And society does depend on the applied work done by researchers in the disciplines outside the liberal arts domain to solve real problems right now. But what is lost in these immediate payoff arguments is that applied disciplines need and depend on the work done in the basic fields. There is no advertising without art; no journalism without English; no chemical engineering without chemistry; no medicine without the biological sciences; no marketing without psychology; no popular culture without literature; no public relations without political science; and no finance without economics. And much of the work that we do within our colleges goes on without any obvious immediate short-term payout. This is true in all branches of knowledge. But our scholarly community is engaged in a long-term conversation with others in the solving of problems and the creation of knowledge. And no one of us can decide right now, or know with certainty, what will be important thirty to fifty years from now.

With the collapse of our economy in 2008, the rising costs of a college education, and the difficulty of college graduates in securing employment, our argument for a college education needs to be broadened. The return for a college education continues to be high over time based on current data, which tracks those who graduated twenty-plus years ago. We may, however, be experiencing a serious shift in our economy, and the ROI may not hold over time. Our current graduates may not fare as well economically twenty years from now as those now represented in the current data. And that is the grave anxiety for