We already have teaching-oriented universities: They're called colleges!
The excerpt from a book entitled Academic Reform:Policy Options for Improving the Quality and Cost-effectiveness of Undergraduate Education in Ontario, found in University Affairs last month proved what I have been saying recently about the tension between universities and colleges. This tension can be reduced to two things: nomenclature and societal perception (due to the increasingly fictional cultural capital we give certain educational institutions). The excerpt can be found here.
The main concepts behind this book by Ian D. Clark, David Trick, and Richard Van Loon is to look at ways to mitigate the ideas of quality vs cost. They insists that this is just as much a matter of policy than pedagogy. However, the terminology that they use to reinforce the need for the teaching-oriented university really does nothing but reinscribe these arbitrary societal divisions that have long existed in relation to educational institutions. The authors propose the need for "a new class of institution with a distinctive mission, focused on teaching and learning at the university level, providing better value for government and students than the research university model, and with clear pathways for students who want to transfer from or to other institutions." It is the word "class" that I take exception to.
It is clear that the authors see this new university as some sort of sub-class, the research university's younger inexperienced cousin. Though they say that:
"Every effort in Ontario to create a label that resides in between colleges and universities – such as “institute of technology,” “polytechnic university,” “university college” and the like – has failed to find acceptance and has led to requests for further changes."
they never seem to question why that is. Maureen Mancuso takes up this idea of a "tiered" system in her response. As she explains the authors seem more invested in quantity than quality. You have only to look at what the authors propose as a teaching load to see that is the case. Clark, Trick, and Van Loon's 80-10-10 model for teaching, research, and service will do nothing but exhaust teachers and will actually impede instead of promote the pedagogically related research that they suggest for the research percentage.
Clark, Trick, and Van Loon seem to be removed from the actual nuts and bolts of teaching. They simply distill grading and preparation time as something that can be done in "the other 26 weeks" of the year.
To take a line from Peter Griffin, "You know what really grinds my gears?" It is that we already have teaching-oriented universities in Ontario. You know what they are called? Colleges!
Colleges in Ontario already focus on teaching. As well, college instructors and faculty perform research, research which most often keeps pedagogy as its central focus. So if that is the case, why is there this constant division between colleges and universities you ask? As I have mentioned previously, it's all in a name. That and the fact that there is sadly little to no cultural capital given to college research. Not to mention the lack of scholarships that reward said college research, as opposed to what is available to those who work in universities.
The cultural capital that universities have over colleges is all about nomenclature, especially in Ontario. In America colleges and universities do not have such stigmas attached. The stigmas are instead displaced to the "community college" (oh there is another gear grinding re: nomenclature post about this as well, probably in the new year) or "junior college."
I am actively refusing to engage with the stereotypes that colleges have in Ontario because I whole-heartedly disagree with them. Having taught at a college for the past two years and while simultaneously teaching at a university, I can honestly say, they are just that, stereotypes.
This tension between colleges and universities is something I actively explore in my pedagogical research. Expect more posts about this topic in the new year. The UA article and subsequent response necessitated an intervention into the topic. Those who advocate for university education as the sole goal of education only reinforce hierarchies which in turn demonstrate why university education can never be the sole goal of education.
The main concepts behind this book by Ian D. Clark, David Trick, and Richard Van Loon is to look at ways to mitigate the ideas of quality vs cost. They insists that this is just as much a matter of policy than pedagogy. However, the terminology that they use to reinforce the need for the teaching-oriented university really does nothing but reinscribe these arbitrary societal divisions that have long existed in relation to educational institutions. The authors propose the need for "a new class of institution with a distinctive mission, focused on teaching and learning at the university level, providing better value for government and students than the research university model, and with clear pathways for students who want to transfer from or to other institutions." It is the word "class" that I take exception to.
It is clear that the authors see this new university as some sort of sub-class, the research university's younger inexperienced cousin. Though they say that:
"Every effort in Ontario to create a label that resides in between colleges and universities – such as “institute of technology,” “polytechnic university,” “university college” and the like – has failed to find acceptance and has led to requests for further changes."
they never seem to question why that is. Maureen Mancuso takes up this idea of a "tiered" system in her response. As she explains the authors seem more invested in quantity than quality. You have only to look at what the authors propose as a teaching load to see that is the case. Clark, Trick, and Van Loon's 80-10-10 model for teaching, research, and service will do nothing but exhaust teachers and will actually impede instead of promote the pedagogically related research that they suggest for the research percentage.
Clark, Trick, and Van Loon seem to be removed from the actual nuts and bolts of teaching. They simply distill grading and preparation time as something that can be done in "the other 26 weeks" of the year.
To take a line from Peter Griffin, "You know what really grinds my gears?" It is that we already have teaching-oriented universities in Ontario. You know what they are called? Colleges!
Colleges in Ontario already focus on teaching. As well, college instructors and faculty perform research, research which most often keeps pedagogy as its central focus. So if that is the case, why is there this constant division between colleges and universities you ask? As I have mentioned previously, it's all in a name. That and the fact that there is sadly little to no cultural capital given to college research. Not to mention the lack of scholarships that reward said college research, as opposed to what is available to those who work in universities.
The cultural capital that universities have over colleges is all about nomenclature, especially in Ontario. In America colleges and universities do not have such stigmas attached. The stigmas are instead displaced to the "community college" (oh there is another gear grinding re: nomenclature post about this as well, probably in the new year) or "junior college."
I am actively refusing to engage with the stereotypes that colleges have in Ontario because I whole-heartedly disagree with them. Having taught at a college for the past two years and while simultaneously teaching at a university, I can honestly say, they are just that, stereotypes.
This tension between colleges and universities is something I actively explore in my pedagogical research. Expect more posts about this topic in the new year. The UA article and subsequent response necessitated an intervention into the topic. Those who advocate for university education as the sole goal of education only reinforce hierarchies which in turn demonstrate why university education can never be the sole goal of education.
Comments
Post a Comment