Advertisement
Articles

Shades of Profscam | From the Bell Tower

A new book looks at what's wrong with higher ed, and it might just make a difference.

E-Mail This Link


Enter recipient's e-mail:


Close
Email
Print |
RSS |
Share | |
Steven Bell, Associate University Librarian, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA Aug 19, 2010

Steven_Bell(Thumbnail)

When I was taking courses in higher education administration in the 1990s one of the required readings of the day was Profscam. Have you read it? If not, look it up in your library catalog. It's probably on the shelf. Charles Sykes, the author, basically predicted the collapse of higher education owing to the shenanigans of conman faculty who cared more about getting ahead in their own discipline—or simply milking the tenure system—than the betterment of their own institution or their students. In other words, it was an extremely unflattering portrayal of faculty. Put simply, he argued that they were pulling off one of the biggest scams this country has ever seen and someone or some government had to put it to a stop by making faculty accountable to their institutions and for their students' academic success.

While it was outrageously controversial at the time and frequently despised on college campuses, Syke's book ultimately did little to create the change he hoped it would. My professor for that course, George Keller—who always told us that to really understand any book you had to know something about the author and his or her background—shared that Sykes was a disgruntled journalist with an axe to grind against higher education. Many in the academy discounted what Sykes had to say. But now a new pair of authors is picking up where Sykes left off. Will they be more successful?

This time it's from insiders
Although it's not yet available for purchase, Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids and What We Can Do About It (Holt/Times Bks., August) is already creating a buzz in and beyond the Ivory Tower [See LJ's review here, under Nonfiction—Ed.]. Unlike Sykes, the authors are higher education insiders. Andrew Hacker is a professor emeritus in Sociology at Queens College, and his co-author, Claudia Dreifus, is an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.

That's likely to make quite a difference because this time the argument's critics will find it difficult to portray it as a sensationalistic effort to sell books based on an outsider's dubious claims—which is exactly what faculty claimed about Profscam. Hacker and Dreifus appear motivated by something else entirely: a desire to see a broken system get fixed. So what is it they'd like the general public to know about the failure of the higher education system, and what can be done to set things right?

Old wine in a new bottle
In an interview in Atlantic magazine
, Hacker spoke about the motivation behind the book, and some of the major concerns he and Dreifus share about the decline of higher education. I think that if Sykes were to read them he'd say, "That's exactly the point I was trying to make in my book." For example, Hacker says that students are being shortchanged by professors who:

...are identifying with their arcane disciplines, the minutiae, the esoteric research. Schools get status by bringing on professors who are star researchers, star scholars. That's all we really know about Caltech or MIT or Stanford. We don't really know about the quality of undergraduate teaching at any of these places. And it's the students who suffer.

He points out that the students know it, and those at elite institutions care not a whit. All that matters to them is the brand and the leverage it will bring for status and career success.

Based on what Hacker has to say, you can expect the book to offer a fairly strong argument for doing away with or seriously rethinking tenure. Since it emphasizes research and publication over teaching—and also serves as a dominant system for creating star professors who create another set of problems—the tenure system destabilizes higher education. You can probably guess what they have to say about college sports.

The book also takes on the ratcheting up of the academic administrative layer at the expense of faculty, along with the amenities arms race in which institutions compete to see who can add the best rock climbing walls and luxury dorms. While there are a fair number of commonalities between Profscam and Higher Education?, the new offering is less rabid and sensationalistic, and promises to offer practical solutions. I'll be most interested to see how the professoriate reacts to it. Will they take it seriously or dismiss it, as they did Profscam, as more claptrap from detractors?

Part of the problem or the solution
As I was writing this column a friend tweeted about the book and raised this question: "I'm curious to see if it mentions libraries?" Great question. My guess is that it won't (and the Table of Contents agrees). Higher education has a whole boatload of problems to confront, and this book seems to stick to the biggest elephants in the room. Libraries, I imagine, are less likely to make the list of crushing, overwhelmingly challenging, wickedly serious problems bringing higher education to its knees. But it makes an interesting challenge to think what if...what if the authors did choose to include even just a few paragraphs about the academic library. What would they say?

The good news is that as a profession, we are not waiting for someone to do a Profscam treatment of the library. Multiple initiatives are underway to gather evidence that the academic library is a highly productive unit that contributes to both the economic and scholarly health of the institution. There is a reason for the question mark after the term "higher education" in the title of this new book. The authors question if there is anything "higher" or "educational" about the current system. We may have our own biases, but I think we are on safe ground to make the claim that our academic libraries continue to put the "higher" into higher education. That said, let's not pat ourselves on the back too hard. A new threat to our sustainable future is always just around the corner.


Steven Bell is Associate University Librarian, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. For more from Steven visit his blogs, Kept-Up Academic Librarian, ACRLog and Designing Better Libraries or visit his website.




Reader Comments (2)


Much of the Hacker/Dreifus tome is indeed old wine-and not good wine either-in a new bottle. Furthermore, they pretty much ignore, execpt in passing, the most important subject in higher education today-the fact that most undergraduate courses are being taught by an exploited caste of adjunct and contingent faculty, as qualified and dedicated as "regular" faculty but unable to provide optimal service to student. Librarianas as well, I gather are suffering similarly. This thirty year trend if unchecked will soon lead us to a place where no one in the faculty can enjoy such traditional things as tenure and/or support for research—and then most of Hacker and Dreifus's arguments will become entirely irrelevant. The real problems in higher education are always underplayed or entirely ignored by conventional university pundits, such as Hacker and Dreifus-the latter is, by the way, contrary to what is implied perhaps in the article, not at all a representative [url]adjunct. [http://www.cringingliberalelite.com/p/fading-faculties.html]—

Posted by Dr. Alan Trevithick on August 22, 2010 10:15:28AM

In response to Dr. Trevithick's post, as a former physics student, who had received a business degree many years prior to returning to college, I was infuriated at how abysmally the undergrad course were taught. That was totally at odds with my initial experience with my accounting professors, who were remarkably well prepared and knowledgeable. I kept asking, why the vast difference? These guys/gals are scientists after all, the smartest people in the room, I had been told. But time and again, I found that not only were they poor teachers, they many times were flat wrong. So what was the problem? Most of the professors who taught the series courses weren't tenured nor classroom experienced. Young and fighting to gain tenure, they had to spend most of their time chasing NIH/NSF grant money or administering the money they had already received. Both of those granting organizations were cutting their funding, meaning that many more scientists were chasing far fewer dollars, making the situation a lot more desperate. Undergrad teaching gets left behind.

Posted by charlie ross on December 19, 2011 02:47:48PM

Previous | Next

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or antisocial behavior such as "spamming", "trolling", or any other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our terms of use. You are fully responsible for the content you post. All comments must comply with the Terms and Conditions of this site and by submitting comments you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Your name: *

Your email address: * (We won't publish this.)



* = Required information


 

Welcome the LJ Archives.

This archive site is the home to all LJ articles published prior to January 2012;
Advertisement

LJ Reviews Database

LJ Reviews Center

Latest Stories



From the Blogs



Advertisement

Advertisement

Connect with Library Journal


Follow on Twitter








About Us | Advertising Information | Submissions | Site Map | Contact Us | RSS | Subscriptions
©2011 Media Source, Inc., All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc. Media Source Inc.