Is it for Education or Business?
In the early 1990’s as I was preparing to wrap up my MBA I was informed by my advisor that I still needed to take a basic statistics course. Now, that would seem a reasonable expectation were it not for the fact that I had already completed two advanced statistics courses. Being a bit obstinate, I asked why it was necessary for me to take a course designed to prepare me for courses that I had already taken and passed (quite well, I might add.) The response – not surprisingly – was that it was a necessary part of the degree and, therefore, could not be waived. That introductory statistics course, the one designed to prepare me for higher level courses, was the last course I took before graduating.
It seems reasonable to me that educated, rational people would recognize how ludicrous it is to demand strict adherence to a course of study designed to teach me something, that I have clearly already mastered. It seems reasonable to me that highly educated, rational people would recognize that the purpose of education is not to check off boxes on a list to provide an educational experience. It seems reasonable to me that highly educated, rational people would recognize that the purpose of a class has been fulfilled when a student has succeeded in a higher level course. Alas, what seems reasonable to me is, apparently, not reasonable to those highly educated, rational people called University Administrators.
And it Continues …
I had hoped that with the passage of twenty years, the continuous evolution of the educational environment, and pressure from various sources to look carefully at the products of today’s higher educational systems, changes would have come. I had hoped that blind adherence to a “course of study” would have given way to a more rational view of the learning experience. With an increasing number of “non-traditional” student (meaning, among other things, second career students) I would have expected a bit more acknowledgement of prior experience in the educational sphere. Certainly a twenty year career in management provides knowledge and experience that exceeds anything likely to be presented in a classroom! But, alas, it appears I am wrong.
As I move into my spring term, I am preparing to begin a “practicum” experience designed to introduce me to the faculty role. For a young student, for a student who lacks experience in the field, these practica can be immensely instructive. But, how will the 240 hours of practicum contribute to the more than 18,000 hours of experience I have in the role? To be frank, I’m doubtful I’ll get much out of it. Like the introductory statistics course from twenty years ago, this course is designed to provide with the foundational skills necessary for success in subsequent experiences. The problem is – as it was twenty years ago – I have already mastered the role that the course is designed to prepare me for.
And the Alternative?
I taught secondary ed for a couple of years. For students who quickly mastered the basic content of the course we had enrichment activities that built on their basic knowledge. These activities allowed the brighter student to extend and deepen their knowledge about the topic while allowing their classmates time to master material with which they may be struggling. This makes sense. Repeating material already learned is wasted effort. Building on that material is not only good time utilization, but good use of effort. And, in the end the student is all the more successful. This concept apparently hasn’t made it to the collegiate level.
So, those of us who share significant experience as faculty at the undergraduate level sought to pursue that practicum at the graduate level. We wanted to gain experience in a role that was different from our histories. But, no. That is not possible, for it is not the goal of the course. So, I’ll be working 64+ hours a week between my full-time job and the practicum experience (not to mention the study time for the two other courses I’ll be taking) and will get to pay $1000 more for the privilege of being “introduced” into a role I’ve held for nine years. So, Why?
The obvious answer to this question is rooted in the very same issues that have grabbed so many headlines in recent years. Money. By allowing a student to bypass a course that they clearly do not need, the university is missing out on the revenue that course would generate. And this simply will not do! Yet, it seems to me that helping students to manage costs should be part of the university’s mission. I wonder how this may change as MOOCs make inroads in the educational landscape.
In the meantime, I can only hope that as I continue to add to my academic resume that I won’t lose the common sense that tells me something is decidedly wrong with this picture.
*\* End of Rant *\