One of the greatest presumptions in U.S. higher education is that a traditional undergraduate degree, earned in four years while living on or near campus, is a good way to prepare young people to get a job and become well-rounded thinkers, at least according to Mitchell Stevens.
Stevens, a Stanford University education professor, argues that large, prestigious universities like his are too slow to adjust to changing times.
He lists the problems he sees: undergraduates who don't learn much, according to some studies; costs that can be astronomical; and increasing evidence that colleges struggle to deal with sexual assaults.
"It's not a pretty picture," he said.
"We are in a golden age for U.S. higher education, but it is only for a very small number of highly endowed and internationally visible research universities," Stevens said. "In terms of prestige, academic selectivity, and endowments, we are moving ever closer to a winner-take-all system."
Although many upper-middle-class Americans still think that dropping off their children at a dorm freshman year is the best way for them to learn, fewer and fewer students actually go to school full time and live on campus, Stevens said.
About 57% of all first-year undergraduates attended two-year colleges in 2008, according to a book co-edited by Stevens. In fall 1988, about 39% of students attended community colleges, according to U.S. Department of Education statistics.
Remaking College: The Changing Ecology of Higher Education, which Stevens edited with fellow Stanford professor Michael Kirst, questions the four-year college path that evolved after World War II. The authors advocate for a more flexible model that is based less on the Ivy League and more on for-profit colleges.
Those schools "offer new versions of college that fit more comfortably into people's lives" by delivering courses online at convenient times, Stevens writes in the book's introduction. He acknowledges, however, that some for-profit schools are "bad players" for their predatory lending tactics and poor financial management.
It's also difficult to judge whether colleges are doing a good job educating students because they haven't faced the scrutiny that K-12 schools have, Kirst said. He pointed out that schools, and sometimes teachers themselves, are judged by test scores and attendance.
"Higher education is Teflon compared to that," said Kirst, president of the state Board of Education.
Read the full story in the Los Angeles Times. There is also a Q&A about the book, with short video.
Michael Kirst is a professor emeritus at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the president of the California State Board of Education.
Mitchell Stevens is an associate professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the director of the Scandinavian Consortium for Organizational Research at Stanford.
© Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
