Crisis in the Academy: Rethinking Higher Education in America

Rating:
Summary: Reactionary puff piece
Review: As a student of several of the REAL scholars in higher education, I found Lucas' trite characterizations of higher education and political correctness worthless. Like many other right wing dogmatics, Lucas fails to meet his own tests of academic quality. There is little evidence, few facts, and much hyperbole in his work. I wouldn't accept this fluff from an undergraduate. Has Lucas, like Bennett, Will, Roche, and the other conservative junta abandoned critical thinking? They have certainly abandoned fact, evidence, and rational thought. Too bad it's the old white guys who've killed education in this country.
The only saving grace is his critique of college sports; yet, it is so poorly developed that readers might be left without the thorough analysis of UNPAID PROFESSIONALS. Or, save your money and try reading Leslie and Slaughter's ACADEMIC CAPITALISM. Lucas could use a lesson on research methodology, scholarly writing, and engaged discussion.

Rating:
Summary: I¿m still looking for the crisis
Review: I once frequented an amusement park with a lengthy log flume ride. The line for the ride was always quite long, and the ride was a rather laid-back course. The final seconds of the ride contained the only thrill - a rapid drop, large splash, and wet exit. Reading this book is a similar experience. The promised "provocative analysis" really does not begin until page 157.

Most of what precedes that point is historical analysis without much punch. The overview in chapter one is suitable only for the novice, focusing as it does on the insight that postsecondary institutions and the professoriate are a diverse lot, that more people attend college today than ever before, that student demographics have changed substantially in the last 30 years, and that college campuses confront a host of recurring controversies.

If possible, the second chapter is even a more laborious experience, extending a two page document that distinguishes the historical differences between community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and research universities into a fifty page monograph. Yes, contemporary universities embrace an exceptionally broad range of goals that includes student instruction, research, and service to the greater society. Yes, there is some degree of incompatibility between vocational training, professional preparation, and the more general benefits of a liberal education. That American institutions of higher education achieve each of these goals on a level envied by the rest of the world is scarcely mentioned.

Chapter three rehashes the old debate between elitism and egalitarianism in college admissions, a debate that seems to have been rendered permanently irrelevant by pragmatic concerns with enrollment levels. Lucas seems to lament that baccalaureate degrees may serve the same function that high school diplomas once served, but fails to associate this with the extension of adolescence into the twenties and the conversion of the American economy from the manufacturing of products to the management of information. Simply because it is seldom mentioned when discussing affirmative action, I will applaud Lucas' interesting distinction between race-based policies and alternatives that give greater import to socio-economic classes (pp. 115-119).

The curriculum is the focus of the fourth chapter in which Lucas appears to prefer pursuit of a general liberal education to professional specialization on the undergraduate level. Frankly, I do not think he supports his position very well. By his own admission it is difficult to measure the higher functions anecdotally associated with a liberal education (open-mindedness, critical thinking, etc.), and he fails to discuss a particularly salient issue - what is most developmentally appropriate for traditional-aged undergraduates?

His ten-point agenda for reform is built on the presumptive superiority of a liberal education and the confusion he associates with institutional embrace of conflicting goals. To the extent that one rejects these foundations, one is likely to reject his agenda. Perhaps there is merit in his insistence that existing academic departments restructure, but he provides no guidance on how the newly structured institution might avoid incipient bureaucratization.

The fifth chapter is almost a diatribe against the "publish or perish" evaluation standards of the professoriate. Easily quantifiable assessment standards often assume disproportionate influence; however, the degree of variability within academe, the ubiquity of student evaluations, and the high incident of academic employment by the unpublished all tend to weaken Lucas' contention that publishing requirements have undermined American higher education.

As one who is only beginning his academic career, I read Lucas' critique of tenure with interest (pp. 182-186), and I found his explication of pre-tenure pressures enlightening. That he fails to even mention adjunct instructors, on whose back the financial viability of many institutions rest, seems a significant weakness.

Using Lucas' own research, it is apparent that American higher education is primarily financed by tuition, grants, and public largess. Accountability, the keynote of chapter six, fails to acknowledge the magnitude of influence that accompanies financial support. Institutions unresponsive to these forces are unlikely to survive intact. The litany of changes Lucas advocates - strategic planning, faculty involvement, curriculum modification, instructional techniques, accreditation standards, teacher training, tenure reform, and faculty evaluation - are being made and will continue to be made according to the dictates of the various constituencies served by higher education. Institutional change is always slow, but as Lucas' historical analysis reveals, institutional change is steady and sure.

Lucas has a writing style that I personally found disquieting. It often reads like a well-written undergraduate research paper that hopes to prove its point by bombarding the reader with quotations. I would have preferred more references to empirical research and more rational argument. I was left with the concluding impression that the crisis in the academy is a product of conflicting values, journalistic hyperbole, and anachronism. Almost two-thirds of high school graduates attend college. It seems quite obvious to me that there is substantially more right with higher education that Lucas' crisis would seem to indicate.