[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S3432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HIGHER EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to your
attention an editorial written by Dr. Harold (Hal) Raveche, president
of Stevens Institute of Technology that appeared in the Boston Sunday
Globe on February 18, 2001. Dr. Raveche is a highly respected
academician. His recent Boston Globe editorial discusses the need to
change our higher education system to reflect the changing dynamics of
a high technology driven New Economy. Stevens is already teaching its
students in a unique, different way called ``Technogenesis.''
I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Raveche's editorial be printed in
the Record and urge my colleagues to give it thoughtful consideration.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
If High Schools can Change, Then why not Colleges? Higher Education
Largely the Same, Despite Technology Advances
(By Harold J. Raveche)
College freshmen right out of high school are discovering
an amazing contradiction once they cross the threshold into
higher education: Colleges are far more expensive to attend,
yet offer an education style that is out of date and not even
up to par with what these kids experienced in high school.
President Bush's first week in office was dubbed education
week. If this is truly the case, his administration should
see that American colleges are offering students a century-
old model of education, still powered by complacency and
resistance to change, that lost its relevance nearly 30 years
ago. If American high schools and elementary schools were as
static as our colleges, the public would demand a major
revolution. Yet, colleges continue under systems that seem
impervious to change.
What's required is the breaking down of the walls that
separate the departments in a college, and collaboration
among the faculty, instead of the fiefdoms that are the rule.
And, it requires quite a bit of capital to retool the system.
The more advanced high schools have already done this, and
now colleges find themselves in the embarrassing position of
having their freshmen become bored quickly by old systems of
teaching that lack the excitement and challenge of what the
students found in their junior and senior years of secondary
schools. (This already occurs as the computer skills of
recent high school students surpass the information
technology sophistication of their college instructors. The
teaching of core subjects such as science, mathematics, and
writing has not changed for nearly a century. Computer
technologies have festooned teaching with many new bells and
whistles, but curriculums and content have remained largely
the same. No matter what endeavor future graduates choose,
they will increasingly face challenges that are inherently
interdisciplinary, involving the overlap of people,
technology, and global commerce. Yet, we continue to teach
courses as we did in 1900, clinging to the belief that we are
giving students critical thinking skills. But we aren't.
For example, topics in chemistry and physics, such as acid-
base equilibria, electronic structure, Newton's laws, and
Einstein's photoelectric effect are important concepts for
students to learn. But, must we teach these concepts in the
same static way? Can you imagine how many more students would
be turned on by science if they studied chemistry through the
learning of autoimmune diseases and how synthetic implants
become functioning parts of our bodies? Can you imagine
learning mechanics through bone and muscle functions? How
about teaching quantum physics illustrating how
semiconductors in Internet entertainment electronics work?
Further, can you imagine requiring writing assignments for
computer science and electrical engineering majors, where
papers were graded on content, grammar, and literary style?
Can you imagine having math, literature, and marketing majors
on the same learning team where their assignments include
organizing a presentation for faculty review? Such changes
would better prepare tomorrow's graduates.
Team-based learning prepares students to apply their
knowledge and skills in context. You are a recent graduate
with an economics degree who has just taken a job with a
technology start-up company. Your CEO hired you because of
your educational background, but she expects you to challenge
the assumptions of the inventor, design engineer, production
supervisor, and sales manager. Now, what do you do, because
in college you studied only with other economics majors and
hung out with your circle of friends? Had your college made
the commitment to having you learn, in part, through teams
consisting of students from different majors, you might be
better prepared.
Faculty members also benefit through such curriculum
changes because they are better able to assess the overall
capabilities of the university's students, whereas today the
evaluation of student progress is largely limited to areas of
specialization. In this way, faculty will understand the
cumulative impact on students of the university's various
academic requirements. Graduates, after all, are the product
of their total college experience. Beyond academe, it is well
understood that organizations thrive when their component
elements create synergy. This ``best practice'' applies to
colleges.
Is such innovation a fad? Perhaps, in the view of
traditionalists, I, rather, see these changes as the outcome
of a whole new approach to undergraduate education, one that
redefines instruction and collaboration according to how the
world is evolving. Some colleges may claim that they are
attempting change by adding new requirements to existing
courses of study. That's the problem--courses have been
inserted into yesterday's programs of study because of the
tugs of technology and other factors. Instead, we must
redesign our curriculums to advance our students.
Have you looked under the hood of your car lately? The
engine is not just the old one with a few new parts. The
former engines have been redesigned and technology is
everywhere. Change was necessary to meet environmental, cost,
and marketplace issues.
Specialists can't repair newer models without extensive
training, new knowledge, and skills. To develop new
curriculums, a very difficult task, faculty need training and
ample time.
Realizing the new vision for higher education will be
expensive. Faculty need opportunities to partner with faculty
in other departments, which means paid leaves, reduced
teaching loads, and incentives, particularly to engage
research-oriented faculty. Workshops are needed for faculty
and graduate teaching assistants, where outside
professionals, who see connection between technology, social
issues, and business, help shape the new curriculums.
Partnerships should include professionals beyond academe.
Ongoing input and instruction from accomplished members of
the private and government sectors will help ensure that
students learn in the context of what they will encounter
after graduation.
Classrooms with Internet access and new equipment are
needed so that faculty can creatively utilize resources
beyond the boundaries of their universities. New laboratories
are needed that they have equipment that enables students to
perform experiments beyond the traditional, narrowly focused
exercises in chemistry, physics, and biology labs.
Collaboration and innovation must be encouraged. In the
current system, faculty are rewarded for teaching in their
areas of specialization, research, and service. Faculty
should be recognized for collaboration on new courses that go
beyond their areas of expertise. How do you reward teamwork?
Policies are needed to minimize turf wars that will
inevitably arise if academic units fear that curriculum
redesign will cause the number of courses they teach to
decrease. Perhaps the most important step in ensuring success
is for the president to nurture the campus-wide mindset that
interdisciplinary and team-based learning will be rigorous
and subject to the highest standards of faculty scholarship.
Predictably, innovation will be accompanied by opinions,
from various quarters, that departure from the tried and true
will lower standards. On the contrary, by clinging to the
status quo, academic preeminence will slowly, but inevitably,
erode because changes in the world are outpacing
undergraduate education.
Employers are investing more in training college graduates.
It takes up to two years before recent graduates are able to
contribute at the level expected by their companies.
Shortcomings cited include people skills, ability to apply
knowledge, and adjusting to projects involving professionals
from different backgrounds and with different skill sets.
Each college and university has core values upon which
their education is built. Such values do not change with
time. However, using them as the foundation, institutions
must redesign their curriculums to give students the broadest
preparation for a world where traditional boundaries are
blurred and disappearing. Without such innovation, colleges
will be squeezed at both ends--high school seniors and
employers will be disappointed.
____________________