The Debate About Undergraduate Education

On Friday, at the 2011 Commencement ceremony, I handed out the Pinanski Prizes for Excellence in Teaching to three faculty honorees this year. As I read excerpts of their citations, I was inspired to think about an obvious fact we too often lose sight of: good education can not exist without good teachers.

The Pinanski Prizes at Wellesley are a significant honor to the few who are chosen.  I think they are also an important symbol to everyone in our community.  They signal the College’s understanding that good teachers and inspired teaching is, and has been throughout our 136-year history, the single most important factor in making Wellesley the great institution that it is.

Certainly, Commencement is a day to celebrate our graduating seniors. And they absolutely deserve that.  But an important undertone to the day is about the faculty, and the role they play in the lives of students.  The faculty’s effect on the Class of 2011 became quite evident as I watched our graduating seniors rise to give a standing ovation of appreciation to the faculty they had come to know in the previous four years.

The power of teaching should not be a revelation to anyone. We all know that good teachers and good teaching are the bedrock upon which our educational system rests, the sine qua non of a good undergraduate education.  But this seems often to be forgotten.  As I watch the current debate about and politicization of higher education spinning around me, I see little evidence that this basic truth is recognized in arguments about higher education.  The public’s frustration with our economy and our politicians’ defensive reaction to that frustration has led, among other things, to an attempt to discredit the effectiveness of higher education in our country.  Our higher education system has served the country and the public very well over the past century, and, in large part, it explains the U.S. preeminence in the world.  The impetus of the current attacks on higher education seem to derive from those looking for instances of failure and then generalizing that failure even to the large segment of higher education who is doing it right.  To those who truly understand the purpose and function of undergraduate education, it really comes down to good teaching, which is something that is not subject to meaningful cost-benefit analysis.  My fear is that the political climate will lead to actions that will diminish—rather than improve—the effectiveness of our colleges and universities.  I fear many want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or whichever analogy you prefer.

I think we—and other institutions, as well as lawmakers and the general public—don’t celebrate our faculty enough, nor do we sufficiently appreciate the job they do.  I am proud that last Friday, at least for a few moments on the Academic Quad, we recognized the important work of three of our esteemed colleagues, and the faculty at large.

Everything That Counts Cannot Necessarily be Counted

I indicated in my April 4 post that I was worried.  I keep finding more reasons to worry about higher education in this country.  Recently the University of Texas System Board of Regents has focused on measuring faculty productivity.  They want to measure faculty productivity in a way that is similar to a numerical cost-benefit analysis.  This focus on measurement follows a growing belief in our country that colleges should be thought of as businesses whose customers are students.  As an offshoot, the regents of Texas A&M University have created a faculty rating system that measures how much money each faculty member brings in through teaching and then subtracts the salary and benefits costs of that faculty member.  Each faculty member can then be classified as “red” or  “black” depending on whether they are an individual profit center or a net financial loss.  Some have argued that they should add faculty grants received to the “profit” side, but to my mind this makes it even worse by artificially separating two essential components of scholarly activity—components that are entangled, and should be. The attitude that generated this naïve cost-benefit analysis is not Texas-specific.  It is a growing national attitude, and that is what worries me.

Faculty productivity cannot be measured by the number of students that pass through the classroom.  Higher education is so much more than that.  Students learn and continue to learn when motivated by good faculty; students don’t just learn in the classroom.  Good faculty create motivated learners and lifelong learners, exactly what we need for a productive society.  We do not need “Shovel-ready Students.” The business model assumes that everything that counts can be counted.  This is not true, as the title of this blog—a quote usually attributed to Albert Einstein—asserts.  The problem is not the insistence on measuring, but the assumption that if it can’t be measured it isn’t worth anything.  Of course, we need to assess how good a job our faculty are doing and how well we are educating our students, but simplistic cost-benefit analysis is not the way to do this.  If carried to an extreme, it would lead to a degradation of our educational system.  Higher education in this country—by any measure—has been enormously successful.  It is not an accident that other countries have and continue to admire and emulate our model.  This is not to say that we cannot improve the process.

I know our faculty at Wellesley are “productive” because I see their immediate effect on our students and their continuing effect on our alumnae.  It is a powerful effect that can never be approximated by counting noses in a classroom.  The cost of our faculty is easily determined and measured; the benefits they bring to Wellesley and society are not so easily quantified.

There’s Only One Wellesley

Last night, I had the pleasure of attending the College’s annual Wilson Lecture—one of our most important intellectual events of the year—where Maleeha Lodhi, former Pakistani Ambassador to the United States and Britain, and Anne Patterson ’71, former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, engaged in a dialogue about diplomacy, foreign relations, and their experiences in Pakistan.  During the question and answer period, several questions came from students who identified themselves as new members of the Class of 2015.  These women were at Wellesley for our annual Spring Open Campus, where we try to convince some 800 admitted students and their families that Wellesley is the place for them.

I always wonder at what moment an admitted student decides that Wellesley is the right fit. Is it as soon as she steps on campus? Is it in conversation with a student? An alum?

In fact, earlier that afternoon, our admitted students had an opportunity to connect with alumnae during a panel held in the Diana Chapman Walsh Alumnae Hall.  I was able to drop in briefly and I heard panelist Crystal Fleming ’04 sum up her feelings for her alma mater: “There are a lot of great colleges,” she said, “but there’s only one Wellesley.”

For the students and families who attended Spring Open Campus, I hope you’ll agree.

The Bad Use of a Good Tool

I am disappointed and wondering if I should be worried.

Democratic society is enhanced when people hammer out solutions to difficult issues through discourse and compromise. Democracy is tarnished when, instead, people hammer at their opponents instead of confronting their ideas. The latter is how I see the recent Freedom of Information Act requests directed at particular faculty at the University of Wisconsin. One political party in Wisconsin filed for all the emails of a prominent historian just two days after he questioned the actions of the party on his blog. Last week, the UW Chancellor wrote an eloquent and inspiring response to the request.

My disappointment stems from the fact that because our population is far more educated now than ever before, I had hoped that the tactic of assaulting the speaker—rather than the content of the speech—would not have as much traction today as it did in the past. Yet it is educated people who are perpetrating this assault on reasoned discourse.

The Freedom of Information Act is an important democratic tool. It is always disheartening to see it used to challenge academic freedom. Academic freedom is specifically intended to allow free and wide-ranging inquiry even into topics that upset powerful people in our society. It serves an important purpose in a good society; it is worrisome to have to wonder whether academic freedom is imperiled by partisan assaults. I hope that responsible citizens will recognize the societal value of free inquiry and speak up.

I also hope that not a single member of our faculty will be dissuaded, even in the slightest, from continuing to pursue their intellectual passion wherever it leads them.

Debate: Single-Sex Institutions are Discriminatory and Illegal

The Wellesley Debates are one of my favorite events here on campus. Certainly, they are an important component of our intellectual community. It is not about who wins or loses the debate; it is about exercising the right to express and listen to diverse viewpoints, even if those views are unpopular. Judging from the Q&A after Monday night’s debate, the speakers captured the interest and attention of the audience.

Prior to the event, everyone in the audience voted by secret ballot for or against the motion that single-sex institutions are discriminatory and illegal. After the formal debates, they were asked to vote again. Pre-debate, the majority of the audience was against the motion, meaning they did not believe that single-sex institutions were discriminatory or illegal. The post-debate ballot showed that a number of those against the motion changed their minds—demonstrating the power of a persuasive argument.

Many thanks to all those who were involved in the debates: Jaimie Crumley ’12 and Samantha Flattery ’14, who argued persuasively for the motion; Hannah Allen ’12 and Sophia Mo ’14, who argued equally persuasively against it; Belgin Palaz ’12, moderator and chair of the coordinating committee, who kept everything moving efficiently and fairly; Veronica Martinez ’13 and Catherine Vatikiotis ’13, members of the coordinating committee, who organized the event; and Tom Cushman, sociology professor, who advises the debates and has done so since he first proposed the Wellesley Debates in 2008.

The Wellesley Debates are modeled after the famous Oxford-Union debates, including the well-known pre- and post-debate balloting. Previous topics for debate at Wellesley were American Hegemony is a Good Thing (Fall 2008), Institutional Multiculturalism is Detrimental to a Liberal Arts Education (Spring 2009), Profiling Practices Strengthen National Security (Spring 2010), and Affirmative Action is Detrimental to a Meritocratic Society (Fall 2010).

Science Leadership, Women’s Leadership, and Cherry Blossoms

I have just returned from a trip to Washington DC, where the cherry blossoms were bravely brightening the parks, despite temperatures that never rose above the mid-40s.

On my first night I participated in a panel on women’s leadership at the National Archives. I joined Teresa Sullivan, president of the University of Virginia, Catharine Hill, president of Vassar College, and Georgia Nugent, president of Kenyon College. The panel at the National Archives is an annual event, where they invite women leaders from different sectors—this year it focused on academic leaders. One of the several points that I emphasized that evening was the importance of having inspirational and supportive professors to build the confidence necessary for women to become leaders—a fact fully appreciated by the many Wellesley alumnae in the audience, including the Class of 2010, who was strongly represented. In fact, I was both surprised and gratified by the turnout—the William G. McGowan Theater of the National Archives was almost filled, and there was more than 45 minutes of a lively Q and A afterward. Overall, I thought it was a great event. Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education both reported on the panel discussion.

The next day, I attended a day-long meeting of ARISE (Advancing Research In Science and Engineering), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences committee on which I serve. This committee is composed of science leaders from both academia and industry. We continued to work on formulating policy recommendations that would ensure more stable funding of the science enterprise and better cooperation between the government, industry, and universities. As usual the day included much discussion and disputation; for me, the day was inspirational. I was impressed and gratified by the committee’s recognition that the social sciences and humanities often bear the brunt of funding cuts, and by their determination to avoid such cuts. We made good progress and I look forward to the next meeting.

Women leaders, good science, and cherry blossoms—a worthwhile two days.

Setting Tuition

I recently sent a letter to parents and families about Wellesley’s comprehensive fee increase for next year. I thought that readers of this blog might like to see this letter, too. I am proud of the fact that Wellesley is taking a new and strong position in this area. Despite our still severe economic problems, we decided on a tuition increase that was the lowest in 15 years.

Dear Parents,

At this time of year, I like to write to you with a report on the comprehensive fee for the next academic year. In the years following the economic crisis, and because of it, I have also used this opportunity to tell you something about our financial and budgetary issues.

I want to begin this year’s letter by assuring you that we remain firmly committed to providing an excellent liberal arts education that is also affordable. I am acutely aware that over the past several decades, the cost of college in our country has increased considerably more than inflation. Unless this trend is checked, college tuition in this country will soon outstrip the capacity of all but the most wealthy. All higher education institutions must carefully reconcile their expenses with the financial needs of the public. It is not an easy task. At Wellesley, the average net cost (allowing for financial aid) has increased at a slower, but still substantial, rate. With affordability forefront in our mind, we must also consider the yearly operating budget increases that are essential for the College to thrive and compete. Our goal, as always, is to continue to provide the exceptional opportunities that are fundamental to the Wellesley experience, while realistically understanding and considering the needs of our families. That is why we have made the deliberate decision not to allow the College’s fiscal challenges—stemming from the economic crisis—to drive the way we set tuition. This requires careful planning and consideration.

Wellesley College remains committed to continuing our investment in the key institutional priorities that define our educational model: preserving our core academic program, allowing for enhanced quality; maintaining our need-blind admission program; and continuing to support our financial aid policy of meeting the full need of students who qualify. These investments through the years have paid off handsomely, and have made us one of the best liberal arts colleges in the world. Indeed, our institutional priorities are expensive but essential tasks.

Given this context, the Board of Trustees voted at its January meeting to raise the 2011-12 comprehensive fee by the smallest percentage increase in more than 15 years: $1,300, or 2.5 percent, for a total of $53,250. In setting the fee, we carefully weighed a number of factors, including our institutional priorities, the College’s financial position, and the current economic conditions that might affect families’ ability to meet the costs. This level of tuition increase will enable Wellesley to continue to invest wisely to support our institutional priorities and simultaneously respond to the financial concerns of Wellesley students and their families.

As you know, tuition is just one source—albeit an important one—of our revenue. Like many colleges, we also fund a substantial portion of our annual operating budget from our endowment. Wellesley continues to experience some challenges from the decline of the endowment in 2008-09. The external markets have begun to show positive signs, but the College’s five-year financial planning model indicates operating budget deficits through fiscal year 2016. We have balanced next year’s budget, as we do every year, thanks to the continuing internal planning efforts to manage prudently the College’s spending and priorities.

I recognize and appreciate the important decision you and your daughter made in selecting Wellesley College and to be a part of our wonderfully vibrant and diverse community. You value the importance of an exceptional liberal arts education, and we remain committed to providing such an education for future generations of bright, talented, deserving young women, all of whom will make a needed difference in the world.

Global Women’s Leadership

I am delighted to tell you about an exciting new partnership between the State Department, Wellesley, and four other leading women’s colleges—Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, and Smith—to advance our common goal of building and nurturing a generation of female leaders in public service around the world. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made this announcement on Friday night, during her keynote speech at the Women in the World Summit.

This is a wonderful opportunity to bring together Secretary Clinton’s leadership on these issues with that of the women’s colleges. Wellesley continues to play a critical role in educating the future thought leaders who will make a difference in the world.

We are now in the early stages of planning that will include a colloquium next fall, to launch this partnership. I look forward to sharing more details of this initiative in the coming months.