Notes on Some Challenges and Trends in Higher Education

After returning from the CIC annual Institute for Chief Academic Officers earlier this month I prepared some comments related to a few sessions I attended and shared these at our monthly college meeting. They touch on issues of innovation in higher education, changing trends in faculty work, and the challenging issues of race and inclusive excellence on college campuses.

The conference opened with an address by Jeffrey Selingo author of There is Life After College. His research finds that expectations for what should happen at college have grown to the extent that the current model is being overworked- doing more than it was ever intended to do. In a time of unprecedented change, this has become increasingly problematic. Looking specifically at employment prospects for college graduates, Selingo noted that 50% of current jobs may be threatened by automation (and a quick Google search confirms that it is not just factory jobs but things like accounting, insurance, paralegals, marketing and other jobs where software can be utilized to analyze enormous amounts of data). Selingo asked a very pertinent question: Given the changing nature of the workforce, what kind of college is needed now? His answer was college as a platform for lifelong learning--a hallmark of the liberal arts. As others are suggesting, Selingo recommends an emphasis on the soft skills that employers are seeking:

Curiosity; Creativity (to navigate ambiguity); Digital Awareness (“every job is a tech job in some way”); Contextual Thinking; and Humility. He also noted the importance of experiential learning and internships as one of the top three factors that determines how well students “launch” after college (the other two factors were debt and the credential they received). He believes colleges should make greater allowance for space for students to explore careers as well as their passion.

A session on Faculty Workforce Trends sponsored by the TIAA Institute was very enlightening and provided the data for what has been the experience of many faculty: a dramatic shift in faculty life over the last two decades. Among the major findings: IPEDS data from 1993-2013 show a reversal in the percentage of full-time (tenure, tenure track, non-tenure track) to part time faculty: from 60/40 in 1993 to 40/60 in 2013. The impact of the recession in 2008 began to be noticeable in 2009 and 2010. For example, the percent of faculty spending more than four hours per week in committee work jumped in 2007-08, and has been climbing since. Fewer full-time faculty are having to do more of the work. Another finding was that there is now a drop in percentage of faculty who agree that they are involved in campus decision making. From a high mark in 2010 this has trended down and is continuing to trend down. At the same time there is a marked jump in perception that faculty are at odds with their administration, a perception that is trending up at four year private colleges. Adjunct faculty demographics were also quite interesting: 79% only teach at one school and only 4% teach at 3 or more schools. How satisfied are faculty with their academic careers? Among full-time faculty 69% were very satisfied; among adjunct faculty 41% were very satisfied. The session made a strong case for intentionality about where these trends go based on university policy decisions. There is a need to have the conversation on campuses: What is the national data saying about faculty work and trends? Where are we at? Where do we want to be? How can we get there?

A highlight for me was the presentation by Beverly Daniel Tatum, president emerita of Spelman College. Her session was “‘Why are all theBlack Kids Still Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?’ and Other Campus Conversations about Race.”  She is working on a twentieth anniversary edition of her 1997 book of similar title. Of particular note was her comments that our demography has changed (current k-12 students are more than 50% students of color), but school segregation is worse now than in 1980. She discussed a number of societal factors and reasons for this and then offered the pointed question: Is diversity a core value or just a selling point? She also discussed ways of hiring for diversity, as well as some positive examples that give some hope amidst the otherwise gloomy state of affairs in the area of race on college campuses.

For my part, while each of these talks were challenging in many ways (and what I’ve noted above is just a subset of their many insights), each talk enabled me to see some of Carlow University’s campus initiatives in a broader context.

• The Carlow Compass is our newly designed and launched general education curriculum: its forward-thinking design grounded in the liberal arts is designed to strengthen students’ abilities in just the ways Selingo was calling for. We are still building the curriculum as students are advancing through it. Selingo’s talk was an encouragement to continue to strive to fulfill the design intent of the curriculum even as implantation challenges arise.
• Faculty trends: this is an ongoing point of discussion at Carlow, as at many institutions. Currently, faculty are reviewing a draft of a workload document that has potential to be a focal point for having this kind of candid conversation with faculty and administration.
• Diversity and Racial Climate: I am pleased to note that this issue is being addressed proactively by Carlow University’s president in a number of tangible ways including a President’s Task Force on Diversity and Inclusive Excellence, the use of “search advocates” on search committees, and by a number of other means.

I’m grateful to the CIC and these colleagues at other institutions who shared their insights and expertise. And grateful for my colleagues at Carlow University who are open to trying new ways to adapt to our changing educational context.

Is More Theological Research Really Needed?

Do we really need more research in Bible and theology?

This is a question that those of us in the academic world find ourselves asking from time to time. Well, at least I know that I ask it of myself. Our students (or families or churches) may ask it as well when they hear about the kind of research and writing we biblical studies faculty do. I found a good angle from which to approach this question in Avery Dulles, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1992). Dulles provides a compelling case for the ongoing need for more theological research and development, giving both a theological answer and a practical one. He writes,

“Systematization in theology can never be complete, for the true object of theology is the unfathomable mystery of God, attained by tacit rather than explicit awareness. Every theological system is deficient, but some systems are superior to others, especially for making the faith intelligible to a given cultural group at a given period of history.” (10)

Dulles’ comment is an important reminder to me of two important ideas. First, further theological research is a theological necessity: our theology can never exhaust the depths of God, and therefore the subject matter of our discipline is one which is inexhaustible. As a result, theology will always be a work in progress; we will never fully arrive at the final word on God, God’s world, and God’s work in the world.

Second, a practical consideration: time and history never stand still, and new times and new cultural contexts raise new questions that call for fresh and compelling formulations—formulations which of necessity must go beyond the explanations and theological formulae of earlier generations. Thus, Dulles reminds us of the importance of ongoing, careful, and critical work in the field of theology, and, for me, in the sub-discipline of biblical studies. Rather than simply forwarding on the systematized answers of the past, there is a pressing need for a continual process of revisiting and revising our theology, to strive toward a theological system that is (if not complete) at least well-suited for our own particular place and time.

Dulles elaborates on this second point about the need for fresh theology in changing times:

“The questions confronting the present-day theologian arise from apparent gaps or contradictions in the normative sources, or from the deficiencies perceived in past theological syntheses, or from objections arising out of contemporary experience or knowledge. Theology, then, can never be static. It must deal with new questions put to the Church by the course of events and by the circumstances of life in the world. Continual creativity is needed to implant the faith in new cultures and to keep the teaching of the Church abreast of the growth of secular knowledge. New questions demand new answers, but the answers of theology must always grow out of the Church’s heritage of faith.” (11)

With that last sentence Dulles thus brings into view the dynamic tension that exists between tradition and faithful innovation—a tension that Jewish and Christian people of faith have wrestled with for centuries. And of course, this "dynamic tension" would make a great research topic in its own right.