[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Page 5567]
[From the U.S. 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     yet offer an education style that is out of date and not even 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 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.




                          ____________________