Hi Stephen,
I have been interested in this topic for a long time. There are many "strange" things happening in contemporary academia. Contemporary university is becoming a very tangled and disfuntional institution mostly because of societal changes and trends. With democratization and commercialization we are getting into a new phase of the development of the university.
The major problem is that the society at large doesn't understand the nature and the function of the university. Everybody wants something quick, cheap, and to their specifications here and now. Because of the democratization (which is good) and the commercialization there are new drivers that shape the university. The first generation students and their families are an overwhelming majority. They come with particular expectations, desires, and demands. The businessmen become more interested in using the university as a way to make money. Most of these people are eager to get quick results with minimal resources. I can understand them. Student families want a degree and a job. Businessmen want quick return on their money. As a result, we have competing pressures, understandings, and visions about the university. On the other hand, the university administrations are very quick to respond to these pressures, for a number of reasons.
There is a lot of talk that the academics are conservative (in the sense of trying to keep the status quo). However, academics have a long-term perspective on education because of their own long-lasting education, long-terms plans, and long-term visions about society. Some academics experience very painfully the new pressures. They perceive the new changes as blasphemy rather than progress. Academics are more likely to have strategic thinking and to see the society-university relationship in a long term perspective, with all desired benefits and unintended consequences.
Part of the problem is the conflict between the individual and the society. I mean the conflict between individual needs and goals and societal (society as a whole) needs and goals. Individuals treat university education as a commodity. They want to buy (a degree) and sell (to an employer) quickly and cheaply. Of course, investors are even more eager. This pressure conflicts with the nature of science, research, and development.
The quick approach with minimal resources is palliative, at best. It satisfies the needs of the major constituents, but might not be the best option for the society at large.
History of science and technology indicate that the biggest breakthroughs had happen when the society has invested huge resources in research and development. One example are the developments around World War 2. Between 1939 and 1945 we have an incredible development of science and technology, in very short terms. It was a spike. The reason -- society invested a lot of human power (I mean human effort in all forms) in science and technology, unlike the present day approach. Society treated science and technology as a vital social infrastructure, actually as a means for survival. Just like we treat healthcare today. In the U.S.A., the healthcare industry is 18-20% of GDP, about 3-3.5 trillion dollars of a 18 trillion dollar GDP. Imagine a similar amount of resources poured in research and development. And of course, in teaching, because without a critical mass of new researchers and engineers, we cannot have breakthroughs.
Contemporary university might repeat previous successes only when society realizes and start treating it as a vital social infrastructure, not as a business for making money. If this happen, we might have many social problems resolved. We might have a radically new solutions to global warming and the contamination of the planet. We might alleviate even some social problems that a product of human nature. I say might because changing technology is much easier and faster than changing people. But in the long run, new technologies might bring to life new realities and these realities might change the humankind in the span of several generations. Human nature is a hard nut to crack. It takes generations. Well, I might have gone a bit technocratic here:)
Just a few thoughts.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen B Allard
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 8:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Who does the University serve in 2017?
Hello Design Scholars...
The topic of why the university exists and who it is to serve in 2017 recently came up among some colleagues. In light of the rapid and radical changes in global higher education, I am wondering if this list has any views or opinions on the subject.
A brief perusal of wikipedia will tell us that the west has distinguished itself from the east in terms of academic freedom and the ability of the church to grant degrees and provide qualified government administrators to princely and/or otherwise royal families of Europe. Similarly, in the Islamic world that includes Asia and Africa, the university existed to train and qualify those who would serve the government.
With the university now in 2017 which is increasingly being converted into a profits generating corporation that monetizes the future of the workforce, and applies pressure to generate knowledge that can be economically weaponized Is the university now structured to deliver knowledge that can only serve investors and financial benefactors, or is there pockets of resistance out there that aim to develop the next generation into enlightened productive citizens apart from this new financial futures market aspect of 21st century higher education?
This is uniquely fitting for design education as I see more and more design educators reaching for the research PhD in order to sustain their career at the expense of a career designing or teaching the next generation in a focused and devoted manner. In the process there is growing revolt, as the divide between student and professor, and professor and administrator grows wider because there is no clear picture as to who the university is there to serve. Is it the wealth of administrators, careers of scholars, or indebted students who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the 21st century university?
Stephen B Allard
Seoul, Korea
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|