American Higher Education’s Intentional Outcomes for Student Success Post-College and The Employer Effect
Krista M. Kelly
Chapman University
American Higher Education’s Intentional Outcomes for Student Success Post-College and A Look at the Benefits of a Individualized Curriculum
American higher education institutions frequently receive criticism from academic communities, industry and the general American public regarding their ability to lead students toward the student’s professional and developmental success and society’s economic success. With this acknowledgment, it may seem obvious that there are many parties involved in the determination of what institutions should be aiming to achieve in regards to learning outcomes and how they do it. “The Shaping of American Higher Education” (Cohen & Kisker, 2010) provides historical context on the institutions throughout the eras of American higher education and the difficulties that they faced to answer to the ever-changing needs of students as the consumer and society.
Cohen and Kisker (2010) also discussed how the needs of faculty, student consumers, employers and society contributed to the struggles institutions faced and continue to face when responding to and what they hope to see in the classroom. This leadership topic is of great excitement as I see the effects it has on each of the players involved. As a student, I understand the pressure to create a prosperous future out of a college degree. I also understand the pressure to ensure that the investment I made in my education was well worth it. The desire to gain a “return on investment” constantly lingers in the back of my mind. With a more focused or specialized academic goal, there might be less ambiguity over what students will do once they graduate. An increased time focusing on one or two areas may allow for better research, better experience, and a higher chance of getting a job than coming out with a degree that did not allow them to dive deep into their desired subjects. With that said, it is crucial to not forget how faculty members may also benefit from a more narrow scoped educational focus. Faculty continuously face the struggle to balance research and teaching as there are benefits to both (Thelin, 2017, p. 55). Continued research puts faculty on a path to personal success with hopes of tenure and research grants. With more students able to focus their attention on research, faculty may, in turn, have more opportunities to simultaneously achieve both goals while also benefitting the development of the student (Chepp, 2017).
As a member of my community and American society, I also see the impact student success and career preparation may have on our country. I see, from the lens of a community member, a supervisor, and a student, how students who obtain a more narrow focus and understanding of their specific educational pursuits will help them to contribute to their community in the long run. Students who are not required or who do not feel obligated to spread themselves so thin that they do not develop personally or civically might be less able to enter their communities as contributing citizens after graduation.
I look to examine two up-and-coming approaches: the implementation of “Living-Learning Programs” which are considered “high-impact practices” (Kuh, 2008) and Michigan State University’s T-Professional model for students in higher education (Gardner & Estry, 2017), to take learning in a direction that may result in an increased number of prepared students for life and a career beyond college. In addition to the faculty who must incorporate these approaches and the students who must learn them, these take employers outside of the institutions into consideration as they have a significant voice in what they desire to see in college graduates entering the workforce and have a more developed understanding of the skills most needed in specific fields.
History of Outcomes
History reflects American higher education’s evolution of what student success looks like and methods of reaching that success. Cohen and Kisker (2010) demonstrate how the changes in American higher education’s outcomes reflected the social context of the eras of United States history. The history dates back to the Colonial Era, before the U.S. established its democracy, and runs through the Contemporary Era.
Religion was the biggest reason for the creation of colonial colleges. The main purpose of the colleges was “to prepare a select group of young men for the ministry or gentlemanly status” (Harper & Jackson, 2011, p. 95). These colonial colleges typically educated white Christian men who were well off and interested in membership in the clergy. Each of the colleges were recognized by their religious affiliation and were modeled on European higher education. Cohen and Kisker (2010) frequently refer back to European roots of higher education to best explain the development of American higher education. Toward the end of the Colonial Era, the focus of the colleges turned to educating “youth for the purpose of supplying qualified men who would serve the public with honor” (p. 24) with the “idea of a civil community centered on principles of morality and public service, apart from an established church, grew” (p. 24) as the new focus. During this time, there were not many careers that depended on a college education and, for this reason, college was not solidified as a possibility for career preparation. Much of the needed skills for a career such as farming, crafting, business, law and medicine were typically learned through apprenticeships or simply learning from someone who has mastered the trade already. (Cohen & Kisker, 2010)
The Emergent Nation Era (1790-1869) saw an increase the number of students and institutions. The institution count grew from 11 to 240 while the number of students grew to 63,00 from 1,000 (Cohen & Kisker, 2010, p. 71). This increase in faculty and students eventually evolved the roles of the Higher Education institutions started to diversify. The cost of attendance was “modest” and the majority of attendees were of the middle or lower class (p.72). The beginning of the era saw the addition of learning to coincide with apprenticeships, vocational programs, and increased student discipline as “students were rebellious at every turn” (p. 74).
It was not until later in the era that “higher education became an essential component of professional preparation” (Cohen & Kisker, p. 99) as it was an option for men who did no inherit land, and most graduates found employment in schools or churches. The Morrill Land Act of 1862 focused on agriculture and the mechanics and played a significant role in redirecting the focus of education from the classics to the preparation of students to tackle societal needs. Similar to the current view that “the individual economic benefits of higher education are increasingly the leading measure for students, parents and policy makers” (Selingo, 2016), “the number of young people going to college to advance their personal wealth and movement in society grew, and the notion of that college was a good personal investment overtook the idea of college as a social investment” (Cohen & Kisker, p. 100). The Morrill Land Act of 1862 set the stage for the Nation Industrializes Era.
The University Transformation era (1870-1944) prepared students for professional life and accessing upward mobility. During this era, education was perceived as “a means of ascending from lower to middle class and from middle to upper class” (Cohen and Kisker, p. 123). Graduation signified a token for students to seek “entry into the respectability and rewards of a profession” (p.123). Higher education became a necessity for progressing individuals in regards to personal status and profession. During this era, the opportunity for employment increased with a degree and students became driven to pursue education in specific careers. (Cohen & Kisker, 2010)
The Era of American Hegemony and Mass Higher Education (1945-1975) saw many incredible societal events in its thirty years that paved the way for students to take their place in the workforce upon graduation. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act, or GI Bill of 1944 led to about half of the 15 million U.S. veterans in the U.S. entering into some sort of collegiate program (Cohen & Kisker, 2010, p. 194), significantly increasing college enrollment. The era also saw the Brown v. Board of Education, which made desegregation unconstitutional (p. 196) and the Civil Rights Act, which pushed desegregation further than education to areas of society like voting, public facilities, and employment, come to life (p. 196). The National Organization for Women was founded in 1966 (p. 198), winning the fight for equal pay for equal work for women and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibited discriminated against people with disabilities in the workplace and education (p.212).
These events also strengthened the belief that college was for everyone and the role of higher education transitioned with increased accessibility to providing a public good and advantage to Americans and driving home the movements toward equity in society for all people through student activism (Cohen & Kisker, 2010, p. 215). The era was one that illustrated much congruence between society and higher education; building on the trend that society has a large impact on the intentional outcomes for students, but also reinforces an idea that, maybe, higher education gives students a unique opportunity to participate in current societal issues in a safer, mock version of society.
American life changed significantly during the Consolidation Era (1976-1993). The effects of increased military spending from the Cold War left a growing debt (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). The labor force was affected by deregulation: full-time employees saw job loss and replacement by cheaper, part-time workers and the socioeconomic gap grew. In higher education, the focus to maintain and create greater equal access persisted with affirmative action and enrollment numbers grew with a more diverse student population representing a greater variety of age groups, ethnicity, and needs (p. 332). Alternative teaching and learning styles began to come into play with an attempt at distance learning through television (p. 374).
The students of this era also saw a shift in graduation requirements away from the traditional needs for courses in mathematics, english, foreign languages, and history. Curriculum reform brought about a debate regarding the movement away from the “research that had become the hallmark of higher education” toward a concentration on “multicultural studies” that would potentially hurt their employability possibilities (p. 371). Critics of the changes and growths during this era specifically call institutions out for not being blatant about their intentional goals for students claiming that their ultimate goal was to “team them to be good citizens and more productive workers” all while claiming that they would “ameliorate social problems, cure diseases, enhance the economy, relieve unemployment and show people how to be nice to one another” (p. 413). Problems seemed to arise here when Derek Bok and Ernest Boyer, both respected critics of higher education, claimed that higher education needed to give more to society than what was happening in the Era of Consolidation (p. 415).
The Contemporary Era of higher education (1994-2009) is known by multiple historical events in American History. America saw the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, major disorder amidst financial institutions, and unemployment rates at a high (Cohen & Kisker, 2010, p. 438). Within higher education, a new GI Bill (p. 439) came about and colleges began to see veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the most important events during this era, the establishment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, happened in 2009. This created large investments in services and in education to assist unemployed Americans get back into the workforce (p. 545). This is an example of higher education playing a role in bettering society through the betterment of individuals’ income and lifestyle and the economy in general. This era caught back onto the trend of increased jobs requiring “advanced training” which led more degrees granted and higher enrollment.
Considerations from Historical Findings
Much of what happened in the history of higher education coincided with the societal context of each era. As much as some critics may disagree with the direction of student outcomes paralleling with the state of American society, it might be hard to avoid. It might be a concept so grounded in institutional history that it might need to be taken advantage of at this point. How can higher education administrators and faculty adapt the history and potential future of higher education as a route for career success and look at it in a positive light in regards to concepts such as civic responsibility, national financial security and quality of lifestyle? Can we supplement this systemic way of higher education with civic engagement and learning to balance what they feel is lacking in higher education? The history shows a constant growth in a direction away from traditional curriculum, but there must be a way to capitalize on this consistency, understanding that this might be a concept to count on when experimenting with new methods and approaches. New approaches may seem risky, but maybe it could be beneficial to know that higher education trends could continue to align with societal needs.
Examining the T-Shaped Student
The topic of preparedness of recently graduated college students and dissatisfaction from employers brought about the incorporation of the T-shaped professional into Michigan State University’s (MSU) curriculum. MSU works with the proposed idea that the goals of higher education may not need to stray for career preparedness, but embrace it and what type of development it can bring to the students. With constant feedback that employers want graduates who have extensive knowledge in both their specialized area of education and skills that are applicable in all areas of work and life, the T-shaped professional seemed worth the exploration (Hart, 2015, p.1). The vertical length of the “T” holds the place of the focused area of education and the horizontal width represents, what business professionals call, “soft skills.” The “T” would ideally incorporate a student’s skills with working with others, time management, project management, critical thinking and communication.
MSU provides multiple of high-impact learning practices, practices that “make a claim on student time and energy in ways that channel student effort toward productive activities and deepen learning” (Harper & Jackson, 2017, p. 194), that may develop knowledge revolving around a chosen discipline in addition to professional skills the student will need when entering the workforce and maintaining a successful career (Gardner & Estry, 2016), but MSU’s program proposes a missing element to the high-impact learning practices, which is the student’s ability to connect their educational endeavors to their professional skills. Asking students to be more active in undergraduate research and creative projects only pushes them to cultivate the desired knowledge and skills of future employers (Gardner & Estry, 2016). With the added direction from faculty, research associates and post-graduate students, MSU’s students should be more able to relate their projects and research to what their career opportunities or continued education may be. MSU supplies their undergraduate students with possible “creative work projects” and research opportunities. Gardner & Estry (2016) suggest that faculty, student mentors, and even academic advisors touch on multiple discussion points regarding the research or projects they are about to engage in.
Understanding the “What”
Before students can successfully take on the title of a “t-shaped” student, they must understand what they are researching, especially because the curriculum is designed to have them work on it for at least two to three semesters. This extended research works to compliment the coursework they are already doing (Gardner & Estry, 2016). The theory says that this extensive research helps to develop a vertical side of the “T” with the increased knowledge in their specific area of focus. Faculty and mentors play a vital role in this portion of the development of the student by ensuring that students are grasping the concept well enough to regurgitate it back to someone unknowledgeable in the discipline (Gardner & Estry, 2016). The student should have this practiced to the point where it could be turned into a presentation or a short summary of their work. If a student can break their research down into easy-to-understand language, then it is more likely that they have grasped the type of comprehension MSU aims to achieve (Gardner & Estry, 2016). This ability is also a skill that employers may want to see in the workplace.
Understanding the “Why”
The second focus of faculty or mentors should be for students to understand why they are researching what they are researching and how it impacts not only the discipline, but society overall (Gardner & Estry, 2016). Understanding the greater purpose behind their work engages the student mind with an outcome that is much more than educational. This brings the student into the realm their potential societal impact and begins the work on the horizontal bar of the “T” (Gardner & Estry, 2016). As mentioned at the T-Summit in 2014 (cited by Gardner & Estry, 2016), mentors should encourage them to distinguish how their work affects the systems around them, such as future educational development, environmental impacts, health care, democracy, nutrition and many other systems. A grasp on the significance of the research the student does should get them thinking more about society and how they may continue to influence the systems, especially the ones they engage with often (Gardner & Estry, 2016).
Reflection
Gardner and Estry (2016) find that often times, students underestimate the influence and importance of the research they spent countless hours on. Mentors and faculty can play an important role in backing the student’s hard work and encouraging them to use that work for their future in education or the work force. The student should give an accurate account of the work she did on a daily basis and skills that extend beyond that of what she learned prior to her research experience. This will help them develop additional research skills such as developing databases, creating surveys, designing interview questions and even resume building skills (Gardner & Estry, 2016). Mentors can probe recognition of their abilities by directing dialogue that makes them talk about them anyways.
MSU’s development of the T-shaped student focuses on developing skills that employers desire most. These include teamwork, communication, ethical decision-making, critical thinking and application of knowledge (Hart Research Associates, 2015). The work students do in research and with mentors is geared to assist in the development of these skills. It occurred to me that each of these skills are transferrable to settings outside of higher education, but the ability to apply them outside of the research work they have done takes a well-developed set of skills, not just a practiced set.
The work done in the development of this curriculum to develop the T-Professional or T-shaped student is an encouraging approach that may bridge critics of current widely-practiced educational approaches and curriculum to something more along the lines of the traditional learning styles critics hope to see institutions return to.
Living Learning Programs
In addition to examining the function of a curriculum based approach, I would like to take a critical look at a highly investigated high-impact practice, “Living Learning Programs” (LLPs). The National Study of Living Learning Programs (NSLLP) (as cited in Soldner & Szelenyi, 2008) recognizes them as “programs in which undergraduate students live together in a discrete portion of a residence hall (or the entire hall) and participate in academic and/or extracurricular programming designed especially for them.” Levine and Shapiro (1999) claim that these programs can range from a small number of students who live together because of similar disciplinary interests to the entirety of a college or program at an institution (as cited in Brower & Inkelas, 2010).
LLPs first appeared in the 1950s and 1960s when higher education went through a mass expansion. took hold during the expansion of higher education in the 1950s and 1960s (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). There were instances of implementation without evidence of effectiveness, but today’s LLPs usually associate with student affairs and academic affairs with intended learning outcomes (Brower & Inkelas, 2010). Brower and Inkelas have hands on experience with LLPs and desired to learn more, creating the NSLLP. The study utilized a longitudinal design incorporating numerous universities across the nation.
The 2007 NSLLP examined 613 universities with LLPs and determined that the structure of these programs varied significantly throughout the nation (Soldner & Szelenyi, 2008). Soldner and Szelenyi (2008) voice the difficulties they had in defining what characteristics make a living learning program a true and effective one (2008). Is there a specific number of courses or sessions that need to be held? Should there be a number of faculty who must participate in programming? Their research found that the structure ranged from having one particular faculty member engaging with a program all year long with no activities to multiple faculty members consistently engaged with activities going on frequently (2008).
Regardless of the structure of the program, I plan to examine the known effectiveness of this high-impact practice with hopes that more guidance on a proper structure arises soon. The NSLLP looked at LLP and non-LLP students from the same college with similar interests, academic goals and demographics to determine essential learning outcomes facilitated by the LLPs (Brower & Inkelas, 2010). Research shows that no pre-college dispositions did not pose a significant difference in their populations of students. The observed outcomes of the LLPs included “more critical-thinking skills” and application of their knowledge to new areas in their life and education. Students also expressed more desire to be civically engaged and took action on their commitments by participating in volunteer work or voluntarily taking service-learning courses (Brower & Inkelas, 2010). LLP students also felt that their transition from high school to college was relatively smooth and easy, both academically and socially. No differences were evident in appreciation of diversity, cognitive complexity development, liberal learning development and development of personal philosophies (Brower & Inkelas, 2010). Brower also found that there were less alcohol related incidents in LLP students (as cited in Brower & Inkelas, 2010).
Brower and Inkelas (2010) also noted practices of LLP that resulted in positive student outcomes. Living in a close-knit community with students who share the same academic interests with you increases the likelihood that students will engage in study groups, academic dialogues, and faculty interactions regarding relevant academic topics. Brower and Inkelas tie back to Kuh’s explanation of the importance of high-impact practices with the conclusion that “the more often students interacted with peers and faculty, and the more strongly they felt supported academically and socially by their residence hall environment, the stronger was the likelihood that they achieved the learning outcomes” (Brower & Inkelas, 2008).
Research also indicates that length of time a student participates in an LLP can change the lasting effects of the program in general. First-year college students in LLPs consistently showed “higher levels of self-confidence, were more likely to be the mentor for other students, and remained more committed to civic engagement three years later” (Brower & Inkelas, 2008). This finding considered both students who really grasped the content and purpose of the LLPs and those who did not and left after a year. The NSLLP recommends that student affairs and academic affairs work together to implement this program to its fullest and most impactful ability. The LLPs who performed best had impressive communication amongst all players in the program and designed explicit and well-thought-out learning outcomes that were more attainable than those that did not. Successful LLPs also actively participated in the local community, which most likely had an impact on the transition for first-year students into the new college experience.
Most of these outcomes are not necessarily directly related to the potential success of students in the workforce, but I think that they do show positive personal developments that could help them develop holistically in the long run. In addition to the outcomes and and effective practices, more successful and developed LLCs had intentions of holding other high-impact activities within their communities, like research with faculty, and study abroad, all of which become more developed the longer they are engaged with an LLP (Brower & Inkelas, 2008).
Reflection and Conclusion
After critically looking at the history of this challenge, my opinion on the matter actually evolved into a more optimistic point of view. I originally felt pessimistic about the ability to continue on with outcomes focused on career development, advancement and purposes outside of civic engagement. It took really looking at how closely societal implications paralleled events and developments in higher education for me to realize that a redirection or better operationalized plan for career development can obtain some of the impacts I hope to see if the focus on civic learning ever comes back to the core desired outcomes for students.
Another aspect of these approaches to student development and explicit outcomes is that they are attainable. Attainable does not mean easy, but I can see approaches like these making an impact in the near future, rather than a very distant future. If I want to look at this in regards to civic learning, I must consider this challenge with a democratic mindset and realize that not all problems can be instantly solved, but progress in a positive direction can solve smaller problems as we go. I must hope that critics can open their minds and hearts to the idea that positive outcomes can come from the current state of higher education with some small improvements along the way. I am optimistic and I am hopeful that small gains will inspire others to continue to make their own small gains in the work they do in higher education. References
Brower, A., & Inkelas, K. (2010). Living-Learning Programs: One High-Impact Educational
Practice We Now Know a Lot About. LIBERAL EDUCATION -WASHINGTON DC-, (2). 36.
Chepp, Valerie. (2017). Equity-Minded High-Impact Learning: A Short-Term Approach to
Student-Faculty Collaborative Research. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39,
163-175. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.chapman.edu/stable/90007878
Gardner, P., & Estry, D. (2017). A Primer on the T-professional. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from
http://www.ceri.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Primer-on-the-T-professional.pdf
Harper, S. R., & Jackson, J. F. (2011). Introduction to American higher education (A. E. Austin,
C. F. Conrad, L. I. Rendon, E. P. St. John, & A. J. Kezar, Eds.). New York: Routledge.
Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Kuh, G. D. (2012). High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to
Them, and Why They Matter. Peer Review, (3), 29.
Soldner, M., & Szelenyi, K. (2008). A National Portrait of Today's Living-Learning Programs. Journal Of College & University Student Housing, 35(1), 14-31.
Thelin, J. R. (2017). American higher education an introduction to issues and institutions. New
York: Routledge.