Preparing future faculty for future universities. (Featured Topic).

THE CURRENT HIGHLY SPECIALIZED FORM of research-dominated graduate education may no longer respond to the needs both of our students and our society. The attrition in many graduate programs has risen to unacceptable levels, with more than 50 percent of those who enroll in Ph.D. programs failing to graduate (compared to attrition rates in law and medicine of less than 5 percent). The increasing trend toward unionization of graduate student assistants on many of our larger university campuses suggests we may need to reconsider their broader role in supporting our university teaching and research.

A recent Pew Foundation study suggests that most graduate students believe that the training they receive is not what they sought nor does it prepare them for the careers they will eventually pursue. Yet, ironically, nearly half of those surveyed were satisfied both with their decision to attend graduate school and with their dissertation topic and advisor. Apparently they find graduate study interesting--just not particularly relevant to their career objectives.

During the past decade we have seen a number of important efforts to better prepare graduate students for the reality of academic careers. Both the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools are to be commended for their Preparing Future Faculty programs aimed at providing doctoral students with an opportunity to experience faculty roles in a variety of academic settings. There is a growing effort to approach pedagogy as scholarship and to develop graduate programs better aligned with faculty roles in academic institutions that stress teaching over research.

My own perspective on these issues has been shaped by several recent experiences. As a member of the National Science Board and the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (1995 and 2000), I have been involved in a series of studies concerning issues such as graduate education, postdoctoral studies, and the transition to permanent academic positions. More recently, I have chaired a commission exploring how the University of Michigan might build strategic relationships with leading liberal arts colleges (in particular, Oberlin College and Kalamazoo College) linking our faculty, students, and academic programs in mutually beneficial ways. A program analogous to Preparing Future Faculty efforts is an important component of these alliances. Finally, this past term, I joined with Edie Goldenberg, the former dean of our College of Literature, Science, and Arts, to develop a graduate course for Ph.D. candidates interested in academic careers. This course, which we tentativel y titled "Everything you should know before becoming a college professor... but which no one is likely to tell you until it is too late!" was so successful that we are now planning to develop a summer institute capable of handling far larger numbers of interested students.

Here I will touch upon several familiar issues including the mismatch between the way we prepare doctoral students and the nature of the contemporary academic career. I wish to add yet another theme. It is my belief that higher education has entered a period of very rapid change. While current efforts such as the Preparing Future Faculty program are valuable, we must take care not to prepare graduate students for the world of higher education as we understand it today (or, in some cases, remember it nostalgically from the past). The real challenge is to prepare future faculty for the future colleges and universities that will characterize their careers.

Current paradigm of graduate education

There is general agreement that graduate education in America's research universities represents the world's leading effort for producing the next generation of researchers. For decades, the conventional wisdom has been that research and teaching were mutually reinforcing and should be conducted together, at the same institutions by the same people (Peliken 1992). For example,the National Science Board (1996) recommended in a major policy statement that "the integration of research and education is in the national interest and should be a national objective." By conducting graduate education in the same institutions where a large portion of the nation's basic research is done, our research universities have created a research and training system that is one of the nation's great strengths--and the envy of the rest of the world.

Our current paradigm of graduate education is based on an important, yet fragile, relationship between the graduate student and the faculty that evolves from mentorship into collegiality. Graduate students are expected to attach themselves early and tightly to individual professors. In fact, since many are supported by research grants, they are required to work on problems relevant to their faculty advisor's research grant with little opportunity to broaden their studies or their interests. As a result, graduate education is almost entirely one-dimensional, focused on producing the next generation of researchers largely as clones of their dissertation advisors. We really don't "teach" graduate students how to teach but rather expect them to learn the trade from their own experience as students. Furthermore, our current approach to preparing students for the academic careers is unique among professional programs in the absence of formal training in ethics and values. Physicians, engineers, and lawyers all must understand and commit themselves to following well-prescribed codes of ethics and behavior to be a member of their profession. Yet university professors, responsible not only for the education of the young but as well for the integrity of one of civilization's most important and enduring social institutions, the university, have no such preparation or ethical code of conduct.

Of course, graduate education does not end with the Ph.D. In many fields, an appointment as a postdoctoral fellow has become not only commonplace but also effectively a requirement for a later academic position. Unlike graduate students, postdocs have the sophistication to be highly productive in the laboratory or in a research group of senior scientists. They are highly motivated and work extremely hard, since they realize that their performance as a postdoc may be critical in attaining the faculty references necessary for further employment. And they are cheap, typically working at only a small fraction (20 to 30 percent) of the salary of a faculty member or research scientist.

Hence, it is not surprising that in many fields, the postdoctoral student has become the backbone of the research enterprise. In fact, one might even cynically regard postdocs as the migrant workers of the research industry, since they are sometimes forced to shift from project to project, postdoc to postdoc appointment, even institution to institution, before they find a permanent position (National Academy of Sciences 2000).

Some realities of today's academy

Many tend to think of the faculty as a homogeneous group, all engaged in similar activities of teaching and research, and all experiencing similar stresses of publish or perish, tenure or out. Yet, there is as much diversity among faculty and their roles as across any other aspect of contemporary society. All are valued members of the university faculty, but their activities, their perspectives, their needs, and their concerns are remarkably diverse.

So, too, the role and activities of a faculty member change considerably over the course of a career. Most faculty members concentrate early in their careers on building scholarly momentum and reputation and developing teaching skills. Once the early hurdles of tenure and promotion have been achieved, professors become more involved in service both within and external to the university. Some become involved in deeper games where they use their intellectual power to shape their field of scholarship. Others assume important roles as advisors or consultants to government or industry. Still others become campus politicians, representing their colleagues in faculty governance. Still others take on administrative roles as chairs, deans, or perhaps even university presidents. Yet, despite this extraordinary diversity of faculty across fields and careers, there is a tendency both in perception and in policy to regard all faculty members the same, as if all were assistant professors in history or economics.

Perhaps the greatest source of variation in the academy is due to the great diversity in the nature of colleges and universities. The majority of faculty members work in two-year or four-year public colleges and universities where teaching is the primary role. In sharp contrast, faculty members in research universities enjoy the opportunity to participate in teaching, research, service, and administrative activities on a far more balanced basis. Yet, with the freedom and opportunity to undertake broader roles than simply classroom teaching comes an additional responsibility: Research university faculty members are expected to generate a significant fraction of the resources necessary to support their activities. That is, most faculty members at research universities are expected to be entrepreneurs as well as teachers and scholars.

Although many colleges and universities operate with unionized faculties and negotiated compensation systems, the very best institutions function as meritocracies. The academy is usually both rigorous and demanding in its evaluation of the abilities of its members, not only in promotion and tenure decisions, but also in determining compensation. The promotion ladder is relatively short, consisting primarily of the three levels of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. The faculty reward culture is unusually one-dimensional, based primarily upon salary. Hence that faculty reward structure creates a highly competitive environment that extends beyond a single institution as a national or even global marketplace for the very best faculty talent.

Increasingly, the entry-level academic positions in a university available to recent graduates are part-time in nature. New Ph.D.s serve in a variety of roles, from postdoctoral fellowships to clinical faculty, lecturers, instructors, research scientists or even as technical staff. None of these roles is "tenure-track," in the sense that they lead to permanent faculty positions. There are also an increasing number of affiliated faculty positions such as adjunct professors or professors of practice, accommodating individuals whose full-time position is outside the university, for example, in industry or government, but who provide instructional or research services to the institution.

In theory, policies, procedures, and practices characterizing the appointment, role, reward, and responsibilities of the faculty should be consistent with the overall goals of the institution and the changing environment in which it finds itself. In practice, these decisions tend to be made at the level of individual disciplinary departments with relatively little consideration given to broader institutional concerns or long-range implications. Most departments will tend to replace departing or retiring faculty members with similar colleagues if not identical clones. And in so doing, the academy, just as our doctoral programs, tends to cling tightly to the practices and perspectives of the past rather than recognizing the extraordinary challenge of change that will characterize higher education in the future.

Preparing for the university of the future

A century ago, a high school diploma was viewed as a ticket to a well-paying job and a meaningful life. Today, a college degree has become a necessity for most careers, and graduate education desirable for an increasing number. A growing population will necessitate some growth in higher education to accommodate the projected increases in the number of traditional college age students. But even more growth and adaptation will be needed to respond to the educational needs of adults as they seek to adapt to the needs of the high performance workplace. Some (Dolence and Norris 1997) estimate this adult need for higher education will become far larger than that represented by traditional eighteen to twenty-two year old students. Furthermore, such educational needs will be magnified many times on a global scale, posing both a significant opportunity and major responsibility to American higher education (Daniel 1996). There is growing concern about whether our existing institutions have the capacity to serve these c hanging and growing social needs--indeed, even whether they will be able to survive in the face of the extraordinary changes occurring in our world.

Both young, digital-media savvy students and adult learners will likely demand a major shift in educational methods, away from passive classroom courses packaged into well-defined degree programs, and toward interactive, collaborative learning experiences, provided when and where the student needs the knowledge and skills. The increased blurring of the various stages of learning throughout one's lifetime-K--12, undergraduate, graduate, professional, job training, career shifting, lifelong enrichment--will require a far greater coordination and perhaps even a merger of various elements of our national educational infrastructure.

The weakening influence of traditional regulations and the emergence of new competitive forces, driven by changing societal needs, economic realities, and technology, are likely to drive a massive restructuring of the higher education enterprise. From our experience with other restructured sectors of the economy such as health care, transportation, communications, and energy, we could expect to see a significant reorganization of higher education, complete with the mergers, acquisitions, new competitors, and new products and services that have characterized other economic transformations. More generally, we may well be seeing the early stages of the appearance of a global knowledge and learning industry, in which the activities of traditional academic institutions converge with other knowledge-intensive organizations such as telecommunications, entertainment, and information service companies (Peterson and Dill 1997).

Today, educational market constraints are being challenged. The growth in the size and complexity of the postsecondary enterprise is creating an expanding array of students and educational providers. Information technology eliminates the barriers of space and time and new competitive forces such as virtual universities and for-profit education providers enter the marketplace to challenge credentialling.

This perspective of a market-driven restructuring of higher education as an industry, while perhaps both alien and distasteful to the academy, is nevertheless an important framework for considering the future of the university. While the postsecondary education market may have complex cross-subsidies and numerous public misconceptions, it is nevertheless very real and demanding, with the capacity to reward those who can respond to rapid change and punish those who cannot. Universities will have to learn to cope with the competitive pressures of this marketplace while preserving the most important of their traditional values and character. Yet, if markets are allowed to dominate and reshape the higher education enterprise, we could well find ourselves facing a brave, new world in which some of the most important values and traditions of the university fall by the wayside.

A contrasting and far brighter future is provided by the concept of a society of learning, in which universal or ubiquitous educational opportunities are provided to meet the broad and growing learning needs of our society. Today, educated people and the knowledge they produce and utilize have become the keys to the economic prosperity and well-being of our society. Furthermore, one's education, knowledge, and skills have become primary determinants of one's personal standard of living, the quality of one's life (Kellogg Commission 2000; Duderstadt 2000). Today it has become the responsibility of democratic societies to provide their citizens with the education and training they need, throughout their lives, whenever, wherever, and however they desire it, of high quality and at an affordable cost.

So what would be the nature of a university of the twenty-first century capable of creating and sustaining a society of learning? It would be impractical and foolhardy to suggest one particular model. The great and ever-increasing diversity characterizing higher education in America makes it clear that there will be many forms, many types of institutions serving our society. But there are a number of themes that will almost certainly factor into at least some part of the higher education enterprise.

University of the Future

Just as other social institutions, our universities must become more focused on those we serve. We must transform ourselves from faculty-centered to learner-centered institutions, becoming more responsive to what our students need to learn rather than simply what our faculties wish to teach. Society will also demand that we become far more affordable, providing educational opportunities within the resources of all citizens.

In an age of knowledge, the need for advanced education and skills will require both a personal willingness to continue to learn throughout life and a commitment on the part of our institutions to provide opportunities for lifelong learning. The concept of student and alumnus will merge. Our highly partitioned system of education will blend increasingly into a seamless web, in which primary and secondary education; undergraduate, graduate, and professional education; on-the-job training and continuing education; and lifelong enrichment become a continuum.

Already we see new forms of pedagogy: asynchronous (anytime, anyplace) learning that utilizes emerging information technology to break the constraints of time and space, making learning opportunities more compatible with lifestyles and career needs; and interactive and collaborative learning appropriate for the digital age, the plug-and-play generation. The great diversity characterizing higher education in America will continue, as it must, to serve an increasingly diverse population with diverse needs and goals.

In a society of learning, people would be continually surrounded by, immersed in, and absorbed in learning experiences. Information technology has now provided us with a means to create learning environments throughout one's life. These environments are able not only to transcend the constraints of space and time, but using artificial intelligence and genetic algorithms they, like us, are capable as well of learning and evolving to serve our changing educational needs.

Conclusion

The principal academic resource of a university is its faculty. The quality and commitment of the faculty determine the excellence of the academic programs of a university, the quality of its student body, the excellence of its teaching and scholarship, its capacity to serve broader society through public service, and the resources it is able to attract from public and private sources. During the next decade, most colleges and universities will experience significant faculty turnover. They will face the challenge and opportunity to use these appointments to sustain and enhance the quality of their academic programs and their institutions more broadly. And they will do so during a period of unprecedented change, as powerful economic, technological, and social forces reshape our society during an age of knowledge.

Is today's form of graduate education preparing the future faculty for this vision of a twenty-first century "society of learning"? I think not. The mismatch between the one-dimensional goal of preparing the next generation of researchers and the broader needs of higher education tend to moor graduate education rigidly to the past rather than addressing the future needs of our colleges and universities.

At last year's Centennial Meeting of the Association of American Universities, it was suggested that what we need is a Flexner Report (1910) for graduate education, akin to the Carnegie Foundation report which transformed medical education a century ago. Clearly we need to rethink the graduate experience, recognizing that the current paradigm is ill-suited to prepare the faculty of the future university.

Efforts such as the Preparing Future Faculty program are steps in the right direction. But, these important programs by themselves are not enough. We need a more concerted effort to restructure the education for academic careers as that for a true learned profession, based firmly on an accepted set of values, ethics, and practices currently absent or at least unstated in academic life.

With change comes not only challenge but also opportunity, the opportunity to reshape the process we use for preparing the faculty of the twenty-first century university.

WORKS CITED

Daniel, John S. 1996. Mega-universities and knowledge media. London: Kogan Page.

Dolence, Michael G. and Donald M. Norris. 1997. Transforming higher education: A vision for learning in the 21st century. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning.

Duderstadt, James J. 2000. New roles for the 21st century university. Issues in Science and Technology. XVI:2, 37-44.

Flexner, Abraham. 1910. Medical education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New York: Carnegie Foundation.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of the State and Land-Grant Universities. 2000. Renewing the covenant: Learning, discovery and engagement in a new age and a different world. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 1995. Reshaping the graduate education of scientists and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (Http://bob.nap.edu/html/grad/).

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 2000. Enhancing the postdoctoral experience for scientists and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/pd/postdoc.nsf).

National Science Board. 1996. Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Peliken, Jaroslav. 1992. The idea of the university: A reexamination. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Peterson, Marvin W. and David D. Dill. 1997. Understanding the competitive environment of the postseconsary knowledge industry. In Marvin W. Peterson, David D. Dill, and Lisa A. Mets, eds. Planning and management for a changing environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 3-29.

RELATED ARTICLE: VOICES FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING

Robert Weisbuch on The Takeover of America by the Humanities: An Antidote to the Liberal Arts Deathwish.

Presented at the American Council of Academic Deans luncheon at AAC&U's Annual Meeting, January 19, 2001.

"There will be no fundamental improvement for the health and resources of English and the other disciplines of the humanities in the academy until powerfully attractive career options exist beyond the academy. Everyone understands the wisom of diversifying one's financial investments, but few in the humanities seem to apply the law to diversifying their own life prospects. Literature, language, and history do not belong solely to us in the academy but exist at large in the world. This fact is a cause for celebration and a logic for opportunity.

"Too many of our doctoral graduates--and their faculty mentors--believe that their prospects are bleak or none. But on the day when a superb graduate refuses the mediocre adjunct job or even the gleaming assistant professorship to rake a position of potential leadership at Amazon.com or with the cultural unit of the National Park Service or at Merrill Lynch or at the Washington Post or to teach in a secondary school, the world will change. The change is available to us now, if we want it.

"We should strive to develop a doctoral cohort beset by the dilemma of too many options for the application of their learning and abilities, with academic careers chief among the options but also the worlds of new technology, journalism and news media, business, government, nonprofit organizations, cultural institutions, and entertainment media. Nor any job but positions of significance, and the application, if not of specific knowledge, of deep abilities.... The goal is not alternative careers, as if a university job is the only nonaltemative. The goal is range and possibility."

"The Humanities at Work" is the title of an initiative at the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation that locates alternative positions, supports postdoctoral career exploration, and provides innovation awards to graduate programs that expand student professional development.

(Reprinted with permission of the Modern Language Association.)

JAMES J. DUDERSTADT is president emeritus arid University Professor of Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan Adapted from a paper presented at AAC&U's Annual Meeting in New Orleans, January 2001.