The University: An Owner's Manual

Rating:
Summary: Military instruction without "verve..."
Review: In "The University---an Owner's Manual," Dean Rosovsky of Harvard states that

"The chances of having courses taught well---with verve and imagination---are greatly diminished when content and structure are imposed by "outsiders" without debate and discussion. Anyone who has attended schools run by our armed forces will have little difficulty in appreciating this point."

I beg to differ. The teaching staff at every military school that I have attended (Infantry, Airborne, Amphibious Reconnaissance, SERE, Ranger) was, in a word, outstanding. True, the curriculum was imposed from outside and taught by "teachers" largely without voice in either structure or content, but the instruction provided by the non-commissioned officers staffing the intructor's rolls could be characterized by the very words "verve" and "imagination"! These dedicated men and women took their responsibilies seriously, and went to great lengths to ensure that all students mastered the material presented. Granted, most military subjects are not rocket science, although guiding missiles from a forward observation post may arguably come close.

Perhaps the guiding force behind military education is an assumption that a single failure to learn may make or break a military operation, and very likely will cause needless casualties. This is in sharp contrast to, say, the "Harvard" model of education. At Harvard, indeed (one hopes) in the university in general, one may assume that students are independently motivated, that they are "burnin' to learn." Or if they aren't, they ought to be. Not so in the armed forces. Students may require external motivation, both positive and negative. I firmly believe that a large majority of veterans of the US armed services will agree with me when I say that, for the most part, military instruction is delivered with "verve" and "imagination!"

On a separate note, I heartily concur with the Dean's assessment that the academy loves pomp and titles nearly as much as the military! Further parallels, such as the extraordinary amount of "idle time" enjoyed by service members (growing directly in proportion to length of service...), or the intense dedication and commitment to service practiced by typical military professionals, are better left unexplored...

Rating:
Summary: Breezy style is both readable and irritating
Review: The best thing that I can say about this book is that it's highly readable. Rosovsky has written what is essentially a defense of higher education in the face of increasing impatience over everything from curriculum to tenure. He takes the reader through a Dean's eye view of higher education and he concludes that criticisms are mostly a matter of misunderstandings and that things in the academy are mostly humming along fine.

I agree with Rosovsky that much criticism of higher education is based on misinformation; however, he never really turns a critical eye on his own institution. For instance, he dismisses questions about the emphasis on publishing over teaching by blithely saying, nobody who isn't a good teacher would get tenure. This is a startling statement--one that Rosovsky never backs up, and one that, frankly, just isn't true. Nor does he examine deeper questions about publishing--like whether the pressure to publish doesn't produce a lot of garbage--articles that are driven not by the urge to say anything but by the fear that the writer won't get tenure if he doesn't find something to say. Rosovsky's complaceny on these and other issues turns what might have been a searching, intelligent book into a collection of easy reflections. The book is certainly not empty but neither is it entirely satisfying.

Rating:
Summary: Breezy style is both readable and irritating
Review: The best thing that I can say about this book is that it's highly readable. Rosovsky has written what is essentially a defense of higher education in the face of increasing impatience over everything from curriculum to tenure. He takes the reader through a Dean's eye view of higher education and he concludes that criticisms are mostly a matter of misunderstandings and that things in the academy are mostly humming along fine.

I agree with Rosovsky that much criticism of higher education is based on misinformation; however, he never really turns a critical eye on his own institution. For instance, he dismisses questions about the emphasis on publishing over teaching by blithely saying, nobody who isn't a good teacher would get tenure. This is a startling statement--one that Rosovsky never backs up, and one that, frankly, just isn't true. Nor does he examine deeper questions about publishing--like whether the pressure to publish doesn't produce a lot of garbage--articles that are driven not by the urge to say anything but by the fear that the writer won't get tenure if he doesn't find something to say. Rosovsky's complaceny on these and other issues turns what might have been a searching, intelligent book into a collection of easy reflections. The book is certainly not empty but neither is it entirely satisfying.