D.F. Brakke and S.A. White.

 Assoc. of Women in Science Magazine  28: 24-25.

Improved (and feminist) pedagogy: inquiry-based and collaborative learning, recognizing different learning styles, hands-on research experiences, performance-based outcomes and assessment. All are part of reform in undergraduate science and mathematics education. We also hear of knowledge and skill sets, core learning goals, students as marketable products, providing a portfolio of services, improving access and availability, and designing academic programs with business and industry.  Do these things spell the end of education  as we have known it?  Does it mean the ideals of the academy are being compromised in favor of vocational training? Are calls for accountability or a business model--and accompanying language--taking over our institutions? The mere notion of seeing students as “customers” or “clients” (or as “products” when they graduate) is anathema to many.

While reform in undergraduate education has been ongoing and based on advances in the disciplines, it has rarely considered alignment and coordination with K-12 schools or articulation with community colleges to ensure student success.  Over half of all students take their first science courses in community colleges. Together with the large numbers of minority students in community colleges, far greater consideration of these issues is warranted if we hope to offer quality science education to all students and make the face of science (and scientists) more broadly representative of the general population.

At the graduate level, change is rapid.  Graduate education has long been grounded or mired in the most conservative educational practice and design, particularly before distributed education and access to the World Wide Web.  Until recently, the fundamental goal of graduate education was to provide opportunities for students to conduct basic research.  In contrast, many graduate students are now calling for training in specific applications.  Thus, today we find organizations and institutions like the University of Phoenix providing specialized programming at over 60 locations in the U.S. and Canada.  With a product (degree or certificate) and a market to target, an organization can provide educational services to a wide-ranging audience, meeting specific interests in a variety of settings. Moreover, institutions with substantial reputations are now becoming name brands in the on-line marketplace, often in partnership with for-profit organizations. Marketing of the programs is often intense, especially in competitive markets, including NYU’s School of Continuing and Professional Studies linking with The New York Times on the Web.

From a traditional bastion that also was encumbered by curricular approval processes within universities and in State systems that defied reason or patience, graduate education is rapidly transforming, leading the way in innovation and responsiveness in higher education.  It is emerging as the basis for life-long learning, ongoing professional development, training in emerging fields, and experience for “career-changers.”

Universities must respond to several factors in order to manage change in graduate education.  Some will maintain their traditions and focus on disciplinary-based knowledge, but reductions in Federal support for research are having impacts on many campuses, leading to declines in funding for graduate students in a variety of programs, especially at land grant institutions. Others will respond by becoming more applied or targeted to meet specific demands.  Second, institutions are realizing they cannot be all things to all students. Not even private universities with substantial endowments can offer programs in every discipline or in the full range of specialties within disciplines. Thus, many State institutions will face difficult decisions about whether they can continue to offer the existing array of programs in the sciences, not to mention in the humanities, where there have been many recent calls addressing the problem of oversupply of graduates. Third, while undergraduate ranks will continue to swell, the graduate student population is one of the fastest growing sectors of the higher education “market.” It is changing in a number of fundamental ways, by becoming representative of an older, more part-time and working adults as opposed to traditional, full-time students. Fourth, traditional metrics, such as GRE and grade point averages, may fail as predictors of success for highly motivated, returning adult students.  Fifth, the market itself is becoming more competitive, specialized, and technologically-based and, with many new post-baccalaureate programs and certificates, often applied.  Sixth, some fields are changing with such speed that normal curricular approval processes used by institutions are incapable of timely and effective responses to “workforce needs.” State bureaucracies appear to be loosening, while internal institutional ones often remain cumbersome. Finally, talented professionals in business and industry can help design and offer some of our applied programs. Moreover, if we do not involve and work with business and industry, we expect them to turn to more cooperative providers of educational services in order to meet their needs.

Our thesis is that no single solution will apply to all institutions.  We also suggest that regardless of the solution or ranges of options in program array and means of delivery provided for students, each decision regarding program offering has considerable implications for capital investments and allocations of resources.  Further, in responding to market pressures and a changing graduate student population that is often part-time and working, we cannot assume that universities will be the sole or even major providers of graduate or extended education.

Entrepreneurial institutions of higher education and for-profit providers have been very successful in entering new areas and markets. We see several key reasons for their success that our institutions should consider. A significant factor in the choice of a graduate program by many students is convenience.  Undergraduate students electing a private liberal arts college may favor the environment, the perceived quality of programs, and a residential experience.  A student attending most professional schools (e.g. medicine) is bound at the location of the provider. However, a part-time adult graduate student working full-time might be concerned most about the schedule of course offerings, ease of application, timeliness of admission decisions, parking, safety, and time to completion of a program.  Cost may not be as important, with employers and school districts often paying tuition costs for their employees. Access and convenience will dominate decisions made by many students.

While we do not favor a “business model,” where profit margin is paramount in determining offerings and operations, we see merit in responsive approaches that emphasize services to students.  For example, if you called Lands’ End on a Sunday, would your order be refused? Imagine some nice person in Wisconsin apologetically explaining that you could not make a purchase until thursday, when your order would be granted priority.  Surely, catalogue items sometimes are sold out and back-ordered. But, Lands’ End has gone a step further by improving its “pedagogy” (use of technology) so that you picture yourself in outfits before purchasing.  Similarly, we suggest universities must design services for specific populations. Rather than supporting institutional convenience, whim or tradition, we must address the programmatic and other needs of our students, from initial contact, acceptance, enrollment and matriculation, if our institutions wish to remain competitive in the marketplace.

Some traditional graduate programs will continue, particularly where supported by grants or endowments and faculty commitment. Such programs will remain the envy of the world.  However, we predict others will collapse or founder, even while new offerings are proposed and offered on the same campuses.  The same institution could have a series of emerging programs geared toward specific audiences, offered in a range of settings, by a variety of means and often for relatively short periods of time, until market need is satisfied. Such programs might be self-supporting and experimental, and thus should be expected to come and go.  The result may be a balance between viable, core traditional offerings and rapidly evolving interdisciplinary and applied programs of high standards, which might operate on alternative budget models.  Institutions will be challenged in responding to the changes in graduate education by their ability to make and support targeted decisions, also requiring clear definition of their overall profile and the niche(s) they serve, both undergraduate and graduate.

All of us must take charge in managing changes in graduate education.  It will require faculty and administrators working together imaginatively and collaboratively, focusing on combining student-centered needs with innovative pedagogical delivery and developing curricula for improved learning. Now is not a time for groups to be territorial or to add hurdles designed to impede program development. Collaboration among faculty, administrators and other professionals, and innovation in designing and offering graduate certificates and programs will be key ingredients in building the teams necessary for any university to be successful in what appears to be a full revolution of graduate education.

 Further reading:

Frances, C., R. Pumerantz and J. Caplan. 1999.  Planning for instructional technology: what you thought you knew could lead you astray. Change 31: 25-33.

Irby, A.J. 1999.  Postbaccalaureate certificates: higher education’s growth market. Change 31: 36-41.

Swenson, C.  1998. Customers & Markets: the cuss words of Academe.  Change 30: