Improving the Quality of Higher Education
For many young Americans, a college education is the next major step in life following the completion of high school. As a transitional phase between youth and adulthood, college serves as a time to expand intellectual abilities, to develop academic and social interests, and to begin pursuing a career that will lead them into the future. Unfortunately, inherent flaws in the educational system hinder the very goals it promises to achieve. These defects have received little significant criticism, but not only are they nuisances to the immediate studies of students, they may also have negative effects in the long run. Colleges and students must confront and remedy these problems in order to ensure the utmost productiveness of higher education and the aspiring individuals it sustains. Impediments to higher learning include the course credit system, inconsistencies in instruction, and general education requirements. Amending these problems demands individual attention to courses, the uniformity of course material, and a greater focus on practicality.
The current course credit system sacrifices efficiency for convenience. A common college course is worth three credit hours, and a bachelor’s degree requires a total of one hundred and twenty. As Carol Geary Schneider and Robert Shoenberg observe, the system overlooks the amount of time necessary for each course to be adequately covered, leading to “a stunning neglect of what a student is supposed to be able to know and do at the completion of any particular course, and of how capacities fostered in any particular course do or should prepare students for work yet to come” (33). Colleges make the mistake of viewing different courses with the same value, regardless of the effort or time a subject requires, causing students and instructors to stress over an abundance of material compressed into an insufficient period of time, or to find themselves bored with relatively little material stretched over a superfluous period of time. For example, at Georgia Perimeter College, a Psychology class hastily rushed through its coursework in order to cover all that was necessary for the final exam, while an English Composition course during the same semester finished all of its necessary material a week ahead of schedule, despite having ended class early on most occasions and sometimes skipped class entirely. The credit system may simplify the educational process, but it consequently dilutes the quality of the education itself. Instead, faculty members should carefully examine each course separately and determine the best measure to achieve reasonable efficiency. If a course would benefit from a length of time greater than the normal semester, then it should logically extend its time for instruction. Conversely, if a course already bears an excessive amount of time, then it should shorten its time for instruction. Each course needs individual consideration.
While course credits and schedules should be more flexible, the substance of courses should be more rigid. Instruction and assessment within a specific course vary from one teacher to the next. A professor may emphasize one area of the material and skim over another while a different professor teaching the same course may do the exact opposite. Students may find the exams of one professor extremely easy and the exams of a fellow professor extremely difficult. In some cases, instructors of the same course may even impart conflicting knowledge. This situation occurs particularly in English Composition courses when professors go beyond textbook guidelines and offer their own rules and restrictions of writing. As a result, discrepancies over what is acceptable may arise, forcing students to alter their writing habits from class to class in order to conform to the standards of the current instructor. Victor Davis, a student at Georgia Perimeter College, received an “A” on an English essay that lacks an introduction, contains numerous unanswered rhetorical questions, offers little evidence to support its claims, cites no sources, and is not in MLA format (Davis). Another professor teaching the same course at the same school would have undoubtedly evaluated the paper on a drastically harsher scale. These kinds of disparities may not cause significant damage to a writer’s abilities, but they are still unnecessary annoyances and may create confusion over what constitutes proper writing style. If students pay the same amount of money for the same course at the same university, then they have the right to expect the same material regardless of who the instructor is. A student’s learning experience and success or failure in a course should not depend on chance. Teachers are merely conduits for knowledge, and their personal additions or limitations to the material are unfair to students. Schneider and Shoenberg suggest that faculty members give up “the idea that they are sole owners of the courses they teach” and work together to establish common goals (35). This policy may seem threatening to the freedom of teachers, but it will mainly standardize what they teach and not so much how they teach. Homogenizing the content and assessment of a course does not mean the activities and means of conveying wisdom must be the same as well. If any individualism is lost, it is for the sake of the student.
Another issue concerns the requirements of general education. Along with many other scholars, Libby Morris believes that “we must reinstate the importance of general education and consider embedding it in the department” (72). General education, a broad set of various introductory courses required for a bachelor’s degree, aims to provide students with basic, lifelong skills and values that should, in effect, make them better citizens and participants in society. However, as well-intentioned as it sounds, the idea of general education is extremely vague, and much of it lacks practicality. Subjects like English, which exercises the essential and constantly developing skills of communication and critical thinking, should remain mandatory. On the other hand, areas such as mathematics and history, which involve studying numerous facts and concepts that have little influence on everyday life, should become optional for students uninterested in those fields. A psychology major has little use for calculus, and a physics major has little use for history. That people are unlikely to remember information that does not appeal to them or that they do not exercise regularly illustrates how pointless and dispensable general education can be. Most of these so-called fundamental abilities and values are products of elementary, secondary, and parental education, and if they are not yet part of a college student’s capacities, then four more years will unlikely instill substantial change. For most people, the primary reason for higher education and the greatest contributor to intellectual growth is the academic major, and these prerequisites are merely inconvenient obstacles in the way of important vocational pursuits. If colleges truly wish to benefit society, then they should concentrate more on preparing students for future jobs. By eliminating certain unnecessary general education requirements, students can focus on developing practical, professional knowledge. In deciding which courses should be mandatory, faculty members must determine how essential the course truly is to the field of study and to the functioning of adult life.
Higher education is a crucial institution to American society, but it suffers from several imperfections. The practice of identifying courses of different demands with the same credit hours is convenient but illogical and possibly damaging to a student’s learning. Faculties should rather consider each course separately and devise the most efficient schedule, taking into account the lengthiness and substance of the material. However, the instruction of the material and the student assessment of a particular course must stay consistent as possible from professor to professor. Again, faculty members must cooperate and compromise to set specific course goals, even if it means sacrificing individuality of teaching. Lastly, general education is more burdensome than beneficial. Its intentions are admirable, but in reality a broad education is often fruitless and unnecessary. Students should instead direct most of their efforts toward pursuing a career through specialized education. Rectifying these deeply embedded flaws will not be an easy task, but neglecting to do so will prevent students and the institution as a whole from achieving their full potential. Improving higher education means reevaluating old customs and instigating new ones.
Morris, Libby. "Assessing Quality." Defining and Assessing Quality. Ed. Cameron Fincher. Georgia: Athens, 1994. 39-47.
Schneider, Carol Geary, and Robert Shoenberg. "Habits Hard to Break." Change 31.2 (1999): 30-5.
The current course credit system sacrifices efficiency for convenience. A common college course is worth three credit hours, and a bachelor’s degree requires a total of one hundred and twenty. As Carol Geary Schneider and Robert Shoenberg observe, the system overlooks the amount of time necessary for each course to be adequately covered, leading to “a stunning neglect of what a student is supposed to be able to know and do at the completion of any particular course, and of how capacities fostered in any particular course do or should prepare students for work yet to come” (33). Colleges make the mistake of viewing different courses with the same value, regardless of the effort or time a subject requires, causing students and instructors to stress over an abundance of material compressed into an insufficient period of time, or to find themselves bored with relatively little material stretched over a superfluous period of time. For example, at Georgia Perimeter College, a Psychology class hastily rushed through its coursework in order to cover all that was necessary for the final exam, while an English Composition course during the same semester finished all of its necessary material a week ahead of schedule, despite having ended class early on most occasions and sometimes skipped class entirely. The credit system may simplify the educational process, but it consequently dilutes the quality of the education itself. Instead, faculty members should carefully examine each course separately and determine the best measure to achieve reasonable efficiency. If a course would benefit from a length of time greater than the normal semester, then it should logically extend its time for instruction. Conversely, if a course already bears an excessive amount of time, then it should shorten its time for instruction. Each course needs individual consideration.
While course credits and schedules should be more flexible, the substance of courses should be more rigid. Instruction and assessment within a specific course vary from one teacher to the next. A professor may emphasize one area of the material and skim over another while a different professor teaching the same course may do the exact opposite. Students may find the exams of one professor extremely easy and the exams of a fellow professor extremely difficult. In some cases, instructors of the same course may even impart conflicting knowledge. This situation occurs particularly in English Composition courses when professors go beyond textbook guidelines and offer their own rules and restrictions of writing. As a result, discrepancies over what is acceptable may arise, forcing students to alter their writing habits from class to class in order to conform to the standards of the current instructor. Victor Davis, a student at Georgia Perimeter College, received an “A” on an English essay that lacks an introduction, contains numerous unanswered rhetorical questions, offers little evidence to support its claims, cites no sources, and is not in MLA format (Davis). Another professor teaching the same course at the same school would have undoubtedly evaluated the paper on a drastically harsher scale. These kinds of disparities may not cause significant damage to a writer’s abilities, but they are still unnecessary annoyances and may create confusion over what constitutes proper writing style. If students pay the same amount of money for the same course at the same university, then they have the right to expect the same material regardless of who the instructor is. A student’s learning experience and success or failure in a course should not depend on chance. Teachers are merely conduits for knowledge, and their personal additions or limitations to the material are unfair to students. Schneider and Shoenberg suggest that faculty members give up “the idea that they are sole owners of the courses they teach” and work together to establish common goals (35). This policy may seem threatening to the freedom of teachers, but it will mainly standardize what they teach and not so much how they teach. Homogenizing the content and assessment of a course does not mean the activities and means of conveying wisdom must be the same as well. If any individualism is lost, it is for the sake of the student.
Another issue concerns the requirements of general education. Along with many other scholars, Libby Morris believes that “we must reinstate the importance of general education and consider embedding it in the department” (72). General education, a broad set of various introductory courses required for a bachelor’s degree, aims to provide students with basic, lifelong skills and values that should, in effect, make them better citizens and participants in society. However, as well-intentioned as it sounds, the idea of general education is extremely vague, and much of it lacks practicality. Subjects like English, which exercises the essential and constantly developing skills of communication and critical thinking, should remain mandatory. On the other hand, areas such as mathematics and history, which involve studying numerous facts and concepts that have little influence on everyday life, should become optional for students uninterested in those fields. A psychology major has little use for calculus, and a physics major has little use for history. That people are unlikely to remember information that does not appeal to them or that they do not exercise regularly illustrates how pointless and dispensable general education can be. Most of these so-called fundamental abilities and values are products of elementary, secondary, and parental education, and if they are not yet part of a college student’s capacities, then four more years will unlikely instill substantial change. For most people, the primary reason for higher education and the greatest contributor to intellectual growth is the academic major, and these prerequisites are merely inconvenient obstacles in the way of important vocational pursuits. If colleges truly wish to benefit society, then they should concentrate more on preparing students for future jobs. By eliminating certain unnecessary general education requirements, students can focus on developing practical, professional knowledge. In deciding which courses should be mandatory, faculty members must determine how essential the course truly is to the field of study and to the functioning of adult life.
Higher education is a crucial institution to American society, but it suffers from several imperfections. The practice of identifying courses of different demands with the same credit hours is convenient but illogical and possibly damaging to a student’s learning. Faculties should rather consider each course separately and devise the most efficient schedule, taking into account the lengthiness and substance of the material. However, the instruction of the material and the student assessment of a particular course must stay consistent as possible from professor to professor. Again, faculty members must cooperate and compromise to set specific course goals, even if it means sacrificing individuality of teaching. Lastly, general education is more burdensome than beneficial. Its intentions are admirable, but in reality a broad education is often fruitless and unnecessary. Students should instead direct most of their efforts toward pursuing a career through specialized education. Rectifying these deeply embedded flaws will not be an easy task, but neglecting to do so will prevent students and the institution as a whole from achieving their full potential. Improving higher education means reevaluating old customs and instigating new ones.
Works Cited
Davis, Victor. “Education.” Unpublished essay, 2005.Morris, Libby. "Assessing Quality." Defining and Assessing Quality. Ed. Cameron Fincher. Georgia: Athens, 1994. 39-47.
Schneider, Carol Geary, and Robert Shoenberg. "Habits Hard to Break." Change 31.2 (1999): 30-5.
