Globalization and the emergence of
online technologies have created an increasingly competitive environment for
today’s higher education institutions.
And yet, institutions of higher education are tending to look more and
more alike. Reporting in the
August 11, 2015, issue of Gallup’s online Business Journal,
Nate Dvorak and Brandon Busteed noted:
In a recent study, Gallup
found that the mission, purpose or vision statements of more than 50 higher
education institutions share striking similarities, regardless of institution
size, public or private status, land-grant status or religious affiliation, or
for-profit or not-for-profit status.
The authors note that, while statements such as “We prepare
the leaders of tomorrow” and “We nurture lifelong learners” may represent the
broad aspirations of an institution, they “offer little guidance to current and
future students who are trying to select one institution over another.”
Dvorak
and Busteed recommend three steps through which “leaders can create clear and
compelling statements that distinguish their institution from all others.” First, establish a distinct statement
of purpose that affirms “the
institution's reason for existing from a historical, ethical, emotional and
practical perspective.”
Second, define the institution’s brand
identity in a way “that distinctly states what the institution offers, why
it's different and why it's worthy of students' consideration.” And, third, engage the culture—including the student experience, as well as the
institutional and academic cultures—in a way that reinforces the purpose and
identity.
In
short, the purpose, brand, and culture of the institution should reflect the
outcomes of the institution’s work:
its research and outreach efforts and, most importantly, the
competencies and pre-dispositions that graduates take with them into the
community.
There
was a time in American higher education when institutions were differentiated
by purpose and mission. At the
height of the industrial revolution, for instance, state land grant universities
had a clear purpose of improving agriculture and preparing professionals for
the new industries and social agencies arising from industrialization; state
colleges—founded as “normal schools”—were created to prepare teachers for
public schools to help the children of immigrants become full participants in
the American society and economy; and private colleges and universities were
focused on graduating future leaders in religion, business, and politics.
Of
course, those purposes have evolved dramatically over the past 150 years;
today, it is difficult to distinguish among these institutions, especially if
one looks only at their curricula.
Ultimately, the curriculum itself must embody the purpose and advance
the identity of the institution.
In The Next American Revolution,
Grace Lee Boggs cites John Dewey’s adage that education is “a process of living
and not a preparation for future living.”
She notes that, in a post-industrial society, “more learning needs to
occur outside the classroom. Education should involve real problem
solving.” A commitment to
active and collaborative, research-based, problem-centered learning
environments is critical.
If,
as the post-industrial era matures, colleges and universities are to be vital
parts of the social and economic health of the communities they serve, colleges
and universities should, as Dvorak and Busteed suggest, engage their
institutional cultures to re-articulate their curricula based on a fresh
statement of their unique purposes and their brand identities. In the process, they will be more able
to reconnect with their communities and with the emerging global culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment