Author: Kelly Davis Page 2 of 4

New Year – 2020

On January 2, 2020

As I launch back into work today, I will take a moment to say just how immediately grateful I am to work at an organization where we do not work between Christmas and New Years. I have spent the last 9 days with family, friends, and a little time for myself. I am launching into the new year with a very elaborate Excel spreadsheet for my finances that I am embarrassingly excited about, seeing as there are likely several apps that could put the data together for me. I am extremely excited for some of the domestic traveling I will get to do this year for both business and leisure, and am carefully plotting my vacation days so that 2021 might see some international travel to new places.

For this blog, I will continue to write, posting consistently on Thursday mornings. In the last month I have listened and read a couple of books focused on the bridge between high school and college that I am excited to write about. Naturally, these reads have provided me with ideas on what else I can read to inform my thoughts on the education-to-career pipeline (Anyone have feedback on Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs by Lauren A. Rivera?).

Last year was a particularly strenuous year for higher ed, especially in the Admissions game. Let’s see how the rest plays out in this next decade.

Company Roles in Post-Secondary Ed, Part 2: “Guided Pathways”

By Kelly Davis

On December 18, 2019

In Education-to-Career, Uncategorized

We don’t place enough value on jobs that aren’t finance or tech related. We don’t value them, we don’t pay them well, because these positions (teachers, other educators, people running the day-to-day of our social welfare systems, artists, etc.) are not inherent money-makers. Then, we don’t advise that young people go into these positions because they aren’t paid well.

When we talk about companies providing higher education, what do we envision that to look like? Do they serve options that allow for some exploration in the liberal arts realm, or do students need to know exactly what they want to “be” and who they want to work for as they select their “undergraduate” programs? (Based on prediction number 7 of Busteed’s “Ten Predictions for the Very Near Future of Higher Education” in Forbes, “undergraduate degree” may not be the name anymore…)

In Future U’s podcast on November 18^th, 2019 (Episode 44: Community College Innovation), Michael Horn spoke to offering both guided pathways, as well as alternatives to guided pathways. “Guided pathways” better serve students who know what industry they want to jump in after completing their degree, but Horn makes a great point: not every student is like that. A lot of them have no idea what they even enjoy studying, much less what they want to do after college. Not allowing flexibility for students in this bucket is a primary criticism of European education systems, in fact.

Leaders and influencers in the United States are pushing post-secondary education in the direction of “guided pathways” and employer-approved educational systems because our higher education has become incredibly expensive. The way we value higher education is tied directly to immediate payoffs, which is difficult as we continue to expand our resources and opportunities to more and more students.

Ultimately, “guided pathways” exist in the money-maker industries. I participated in a small NACE event on Monday, and one of my colleagues from UC Berkeley mentioned that as Career Services professionals, her team was not concerned about their business students or their engineering students. It is their liberal arts students who “meander” more as they look for work after college. The straightforward pathways exist in fields such as accounting, finance, and engineering, and all of these majors are always in demand. But not everyone can be, or wants to be, an accountant or engineer, as much money as they might make, as straightforward of a path as it may be. The skeptic in me wonders who the structure of “guided pathways” really benefits, particularly with corporations at the helm. If corporations are deemed the “accreditors” of higher education and begin taking educationally-related parts of the “guided path” into their own hands, who does this system serve? The students and the people of this world – or the corporations?

Company Roles in Post-Secondary Ed, Part 1: Weariness of “Siloed Thinking”

By Kelly Davis

On December 12, 2019

In Education-to-Career, Uncategorized

What do we mean by “siloed” thinking, and what kinds of environments encourage this kind of thinking?

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary’s fourth definition of “silo” reads: “a system, process, department, etc. that operates separately or is thought of as separate from others.” The concept of “siloed mentality” in a business setting is considered one of the traps for any business controlled primarily by senior leadership. If departments don’t share information with one another, it is considered faltered communication and results in inefficient practices, such as duplicating actions and responsibilities.

Ryan Craig and Troy Markowitz wrote for Forbes in 2017 that one of the key values of providing a liberal arts education is to teach the future workforce how to “creatively synthesize information,” ultimately arguing that silos in both the academic and organizational structure of college campuses “must die in order for students to thrive.” Siloed information does not teach critical thinking, it does not exist as creative thinking, and it does not lead to thinking outside of the box. If a person falls into siloed thinking, the blame falls on a lack of information.

In a Forbes article listing ten predictions for the near future of higher ed (by Brandon Busteed – I’m noticing I need to follow more article writers in this vein to diversify my references!), I nodded along with most of them. I think all of the predictions are correct, at least in the US, but I stopped nodding when I read “Employers will become the accreditors of higher education.” Upon further reflection, I’m not too crazy about students getting the job to get a college degree – when I first read this point, I shrugged it off, assuming it meant that the company would pay for the college degree. But I think it may mean that the company provides the degree.

I would be more open to the idea of employers becoming the accreditors or even the providers of education if this country wasn’t run by Corporate America. Our social safety nets are lacking in the United States, and I can’t say I feel too crazy about for-profit entities that are required by law not to make any moves that would forgo any measure of the company’s profit controlling any piece our education system.

What is at the base of this fear? Siloed thinking – broadly speaking.

It’s not to say that certificates and programs offered by companies such as Google and Amazon aren’t valuable. They likely are, and it’s great that these companies are investing in their own employees. But I don’t think these programs can ultimately replace the liberal arts components of education that ask people to consider ethics and social systems. It’s tricky, because these courses shouldn’t be all-consuming either; I get that not everyone is drawn to the humanities, I personally am one who will begrudgingly try out some online coding course at some point in my life, I’m sure. But we can’t leave out the civics and social pieces as we consider expanding vocational education and these in-company training programs (both of which I support).

I don’t think the answer to this will be in-company ethics courses, either. This is where corporate law and siloed thinking come into play: the culture of the company classroom will be the same as the company culture. And that’s where this gets dangerous.

Companies need to do right by their employees, and they need to retain their employees, but every company goes through layoffs, and not every company (or really any company) lives forever. It will benefit people to obtain their critical thinking and problem solving skills in a different setting, with problems that expand beyond (or even completely adjacent to) their company’s work. Learning and working in different settings helps defray siloed thinking and encourages thinking outside the box, bolstering those critical thinking, creativity and problem solving skills that employers say are so often lacking these days (SHRM, 2019, p. 4).

I hope that we keep this in mind as we explore methods of changing up our post-secondary education offerings. The diversity in thought that is offered through educational institutions is not something all companies can replicate, and diversity in thought is the most important component of creative and innovative thinking.

What does “leadership” mean?

By Kelly Davis

On November 20, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

In the Spring of 2014 in Berlin, Germany, I had the opportunity to attend a small conference where Nicolas Sarkozy (former president of France), among other speakers, discussed contemporary politics.

When Sarkozy gave his speech, he broke from French into English for one word: Leadership. This struck me as odd. There are a number of ways to refer to the person in charge in French: “la direction” (“sous la direction,” or “under the direction/leadership”); “le chef” (the one in charge); “l’aptitude á diriger” (the ability to lead). Or, “le leadership.”

Why did Sarkozy use the English term to describe “leadership?” Typically, when we use the foreign word rather than a translation, the word itself encompasses more than can be adequately translated. It’s a bit different than words melding into another language – take the French word “coup” – although a linguistics expert may be able to tell us whether or not there was a similar process of language assimilation hundreds of years ago.

The real shocker for me was months later, towards the end of my stay in Berlin, when a fellow American classmate mentioned something to do with my “being a leader” (or something of that nature). I had heard this at times growing up and held a very US-centric idea of what a leader was. My own ideas about leadership have changed over the years, and my year abroad was a big turning point in this process.

When my classmate made this remark, my German professor Reinhard Isensee reacted, “Kelly doesn’t want to be a leader!” I was surprised by this, and asked, “Well, what do you think I want to be?”

I wish I could remember what Herr Isensee said – it was something along the lines of “bringing people together to cultivate collaborative engagement.” It made more sense, in part because it actually described the action rather than merely leave it at “leadership.”

In Germany, “leadership” is shied away from because it is associated with hypermasculinity and with Hitler. As part of the long recovery process after the Holocaust, most of the Germans I have met do not aspire to what we might consider excellent leadership in the United States, because where it led their country was disastrous for the world.

I taught a section of a Career Management course last week, and I asked my students what defines “leadership” here in the US. One student mentioned “charisma.” He is absolutely right: citizens of the US are particularly drawn to potential leaders who are “charismatic.”

I took a class the final semester of my undergraduate degree about Leadership Theory. Our professor questioned whether or not charisma is even exits – what is charisma, anyway? In the Spring of 2016, here is what I wrote in response to reading Max Weber’s idea of Charisma in “The Theory of Social and Economic Organization,” and Robert Solomon’s “The Myth of Charisma”:

“Solomon points out a couple of issues with charisma. The first is that it cannot be analyzed because there are so many emotions involved in the relationship between the charismatic leader and the follower.[1] The second is that by acknowledging charisma as a powerful leadership trait, we ignore analyzing the emotional relationships between leaders and followers, particularly that of trust.[2] I agree that charisma is a term that encompasses larger networks of emotions and relationships that should be observed on their own. Furthermore, I think charisma of an individual is the ability of that individual to connect with peoples’ passions and generate both trust in the charismatic leader and action according to the goals the leader puts forward. This idea of trust comes from Solomon’s definition of charisma and the idea of action is inspired by both the concept that charismatic leaders can hone in on how their followers are motivated and Weber’s point that followers are obedient to authority.”

After breaking down what charisma actually is, I later discussed in my essay how “leaders” and “followers” should consider charisma as a trait:

“The goal of leaders should not be to “be charismatic” because that doesn’t really mean anything. Important aspects of being an effective leader, rather, are the relationships between leaders and their followers that are clouded by the concept of charisma: emotional and trust based relationships. As followers, we have a more important role. It is our responsibility to question authority and to question our emotional connections with those in power. It is often rational to feel certain emotions – the problem is when we act irrationally based on those emotions. For this reason it is important to reflect on our emotional connections with people, especially those in charge, and be sure that we agree with both what those people in power are saying and with how those people are acting.”

Shampa Biswas, a professor at Whitman College, wrote an opinion article for The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Stop Trying to Cultivate Student Leaders.” I find many points of her argument compelling as she ultimately is addressing the need to stop encouraging young people to develop the same characteristics that Germans shy away from: “assertiveness, aggressiveness, hypermasculinity.”

I too question the idea of “teaching leadership” – I questioned it in high school, finding it odd that there would be a “leadership course,” although upon reflection I’m not sure I fully understood why it seemed odd. It may also be a reflection of my own upbringing, likely on raised on the “you are a special” diet that Biswas refers to.

Perhaps a leadership theory course, however, could be useful, or modeling “leadership programs” based on a curriculum designed to demonstrate the different forms of organizational structure could be compelling. In such a curriculum, analysis of leadership structures with strict hierarchy could be compared with more lateral structures. Combined with negotiation skills training and theory, and perhaps a bit of political and historical background thrown in the mix, perhaps this would be a way to mentor young people to think critically and question the systems around them – which is ultimately what I think Biswas is pushing educators to do.

Biswas is right – we need people to be compassionate and to think about the impact of their actions on the world around them. And encouraging them to reach for more power rather than to question larger systems and those already with power is detrimental to societal progress.

But let’s remember that there are other leadership structures out there. We are not confined to one leadership or organizational system, nor are we confined to one type of leader. Encouraging questioning, as Biswas encourages, is the first step towards redefining our future “leaders” and reimagining what this world might look like.

[1] Robert C. Solomon, “The Myth of Charisma,” 203.

[2] Ibid, 203 and 206.

Some Higher Ed Administrators are Priced Out of Conferences, too

By Kelly Davis

On November 13, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

Today in Higher Ed reading, Times Higher Education (THE) reports a researcher from Tokyo’s claim that conferences have become so expensive, academics are being priced out.

It is nearly the halfway point between NAFSA national conferences. At the last one, the first (hopefully) NAFSA conference I have attended, I learned a lot. I am lucky for the experience. I attended three extra workshops through which I earned certificates and I stayed for a total of 6 days.

In order to justify the length and time, I found ways to cut costs. I kept my budget low and managed to stick to it by renting an Airbnb with a mini fridge located a walkable distance from the conference, and spent a total of $40 on groceries that would constitute my breakfast and lunches for all 6 days.

The evening before the official conference begins, there are a number of networking cocktail hour events. They were all hosted in the Marriott hotel connected to the conference facility, with small bars along the sides of large rooms where people mingled. A beer cost $10, a glass of wine of course more. One of my colleagues did not see where we could serve ourselves water in plastic cups and subsequently paid $6 for a glass of water.

The NAFSA conference is among many conferences focusing on higher education, the specific realm being international education. That means that perhaps half of the conference’s 10,000+ attendees hail from higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world, most of which are not-for-profit. Many of the organizations that HEIs partner with are not-for-profit, too.

Regardless, the money originates from two places most of the time: student tuition or the government. In some cases you may have foundations, or even a few for-profit companies, funding research and educational projects related to international education. But even for-profit study abroad providers get their money from somewhere: students or the HEIs themselves, which brings us back to money from the students and the government.

Why, Marriott, are you charging education professionals $10 for a beer? Sure, we don’t have to drink during these mingling events (but for those of us who are shy, we sure would appreciate a boost of confidence from somewhere), but when we consider the costs to stay in hotels, to fly – it all adds up really quickly. And it’s all coming back to the same sources of income: the students or the government.

Christopher Pokarier (the researcher in Tokyo) makes a great point about academics being priced out of conferences, and he points to NAFSA specifically. I would argue that it’s even difficult for some of us from small, tuition-based institutions to get ourselves to networking events. NAFSA can feel inaccessible, but as my work is also in Career Services, I have the National Association for Colleges and Employers (NACE) to compare NAFSA to.

NACE is constantly hosting webinars, but they are typically $99 per hour-long webinar. Once in a long while they are free. Moreover, their national conferences are always somewhere fancy; they really seem to glam it up.

Employers, please look at the state of higher education. We are all concerned about the amount of student debt. High prices for important networking opportunities do not help. This means that conference sites may need to be humbled, and the hosts of these sites should really consider if they can cut educational institutions a break.

Why 2 Things: Education, and “His Dark Materials” theme on repeat

By Kelly Davis

On November 6, 2019

In Uncategorized

I listen to a lot of instrumental soundtracks to movies and tv shows while I work. My favorites are typically the accompaniments to stories that take place in fantasy settings, and I think it’s because they emphasize a sense of adventure and determination to solve a problem or accomplish a goal. The concept of overcoming obstacles to see the success of something you believe in, or in order to survive, is something that powers my drive and work.

The planet is one thing I have always been passionate about: I was that girl in school who would make you recycle your empty Gatorade bottle, and if you didn’t do it, I’d transfer it for you. In college this manifested in my participation in environmental activism, and in 2015 I remember talking to a friend about how this topic seemed the most urgent to me because the state of our planet impacts everyone. A year later, “intersectionality” became the key word in NYU’s activist circles, which encouraged student groups to collaborate even further – we were looking at things through a systems point of view.

This line of thinking is actually what propelled me into my Masters degree. I kept thinking about climate change being the most urgent issue, the most pressing. In my opinion at that time, social change happened at a slow pace. Saving the planet needed to happen a lot faster.

But focusing on activism didn’t satisfy something I was looking for. It’s a necessary piece of the solution, certainly, but I knew looking forward that it wasn’t something I would feel satisfied with if it were my literal job to organize.

In January of 2016, I looked back a couple of years. I had a friend who left NYU in December 2013, and we kept in touch, but certainly I didn’t see him as often as I had. While he was at NYU we talked about education, which was his passion. He wanted to design new classroom settings, new ways of learning that would better suit those students that so often are left behind early in school. I was passionate about it, too, I just had a million other things zooming around my head.

After reflecting on these conversations, I realized that was what was missing: making changes in law and financial practice were important pieces of the puzzle, but it wasn’t the root of the problem. The root of the problem, I realized, impacts every issue we have today including climate change, health care, and poverty: it’s education.

Education can be an equalizer in terms of access to building critical thinking skills. The purpose of education is not only to distribute information or to help people discern between fact and fiction: it is to teach people to question. Question your sources. Question the material. Be critical in order to come to an understanding of what is subjective, and what is truth. Be brave enough to ask what truth even means.

His Dark Materials has now started airing on HBO, and though I did not read the trilogy as a child, I am reading it now and am excited to delve into another world where there is adventure and a complicated purpose. Based on some loosely reading a few articles (I’m trying not to spoil too much of the plot for myself), the themes of the book teach us to question authority. The song I am listening to on repeat this morning is the opening credit song of the new TV show, and based on Philip Pullman’s feelings on education and this theme on questioning, perhaps this song is exactly what I should be listening to.

Education Related Podcasts

By Kelly Davis

On November 2, 2019

In Reviews, Uncategorized

The first three months of my current full-time position at Menlo were intense: It was my first time being truly full-time at any position where my schedule was consistent and I had to sit at a desk; I launched into planning the largest event that my office hosts annually to occur at the end of those first three months; and I had to learn everything I could about education abroad really fast, because my job labeled me the designated campus expert. It was a lot of pressure and I landed face-first more than once after tripping up here and there.

At some point, I stumbled across the podcast Inside Study Abroad while looking for free ways to learn more. I had never been quite the podcast listener yet, but I couldn’t get enough of Brooke Roberts’s interviews of education abroad experts. I savored every episode – which unfortunately left me in a sad position where I have seven episodes left, but they were taken down a few months ago as Brooke launched her latest business efforts, Remote Life Labs. (Which promises to be just as compelling, with a different focus!).

I have since accumulated more podcasts to my library, focused on education – primarily higher education, but I want to mix it up. I am still on the hunt for early childhood education and K-12 podcasts!

Future U Podacst: With Jeff Selingo and Michael Horn

After listening to the first episode of Future U, I blasted through half of the backlog of episodes. The introductory episode for me covered Michael Horn’s recently published book, “Choosing College: How to Make Better Learning Decisions Throughout Your Life,” and I promptly purchased it (review to come once I’ve read it). The first half of each episode typically starts with an interview between either Jeff or Michael and their guest, and guests range from university and college presidents to professors and other experts. My favorite so far is episode 26, an interview with Oregon Governor Kate Brown released on January 8th, 2019. Podcasts are released approximately every other week.

The Buzz: by Capture Higher Ed

Originally, this podcast covered college Admissions, but it has branched out this year to include all topics in Higher Ed. It’s hosts all work for Capture Higher Ed, a company that develops marketing and behavioral analysis automation software, most of whom (all?) work remotely. They produce a podcast episode about once a month – not nearly often enough, in my opinion, as I have found their conversations to be fascinating and engaging!

The Edtech Podacast

With a backlog of 150 podcasts on the Edtech industry, this podcast covers topics at all levels of education and is hosted by Sophie Bailey, based out of England. The podcast has recently become the “Voctech” podcast, focusing on technology in postsecondary education and continuing education. Sophie posts episodes weekly during the academic year with an occasional bonus episode.

Higher Ground: with John Graff

I think the most confirming moment of my passion for higher education – so far – came when I listened to a podcast episode about higher education law and felt engaged at every moment. John Graff has an extensive background in higher ed law and brings on expert guests. Unfortunately this podcast airs once every couple of months – as with most of these podcasts I am listing, I wish there was more content to listen to!

The EdSurge Podcast

EdSurge will often cover technology-related topics in education in brief, 20-25 minute episodes published on a weekly basis. “Technology” covers a broad spectrum, which make its topics and guests extremely diverse.

School Colors: by Brooklyn Deep

School Colors is a series of about 8 podcasts (the last few yet to be published as of Nov. 1st 2019) covering how race and class have influenced education in US American history. The series, at least this first round, covers communities in Brooklyn specifically. It is very well orchestrated as a podcast, and draws the connections between history and present, never hesitating to ask the hard questions.

Teaching in Higher Ed

Though specific to teaching, I find these podcast episodes can be just as useful to administrators. I am also still exploring my teaching style, and my ability to teach, and enjoy listening to the perspectives of the many guests brought to the podcast.

Have education podcast recommendations? Send them my way! I don’t have enough on the lineup and am always eager to learn more!

Considering France

By Kelly Davis

On October 30, 2019

In International Education, Uncategorized

The United States is not the only country questioning its higher education system, or even the admissions practices its higher education institutions follow. Times Higher Education reports that France has been taking a look at their own structure, particularly in response to the gilets jaunes (the yellow vests) protests that occurred almost one year ago in response to a tax levied on diesel fuel. The conversation around the protests here in the States, as I recall, was primarily focused on the violence caused by some protestors and the debate over whether the protestors were against climate action. The Atlantic reported that protestors were upset because the taxes were particularly difficult for lower income households, and that grievances were not related to opinions regarding climate change.

In the summer of 2013, I spent six weeks studying abroad in Paris, where I took two courses in French and spent most of my time with American students (while I don’t regret any study abroad experiences, there are times I wonder where my language skills and connections would be today if I had had more immersive experiences). In one of these classes, the professor showed us the rates for attending university in France – a jaw-dropping €283 a semester, or something like that. Or maybe that was the proposed number, up from €279 the previous academic year… and the French students, raised in a country where the public is much better at exercising a right to protest, were in an uproar over the raise in costs.

I can’t remember the numbers exactly of course – we are talking 6 years ago – but I do remember pointing out that the costs seemed to correlate with inflation rates.

In THE’s article, professors commented on “invisible channels” often barring students from higher education opportunities that have more to do with choice than with funding. Even in countries with significant investment in education and higher education, there are barriers. Costs are still associated with living, loan systems still exist to support students through their studies, as we see in Germany. No system that I have studied is perfect.

Last week, I discussed a number of topics, and among them I pointed out that while there is much the United States might benefit in learning from other countries, there are practices we should not adopt which we can simultaneously learn from practices overseas. France does not track its students as early as Germany, where students are tracked at age 10. In France, the year of determination is at approximately 15 years old (OECD, 2013). In THE’s article, an associate professor of sociology notes that the government will need to make “wider reforms” than merely rewarding the grandes écoles that increase the percentages of scholarship students they admit, and additionally alludes to the “choice of vocational tracks.”

Education is often seen as a means of increasing social mobility for the educated individual. With educated populations, the aspiration is that society as a whole will lift up. I personally believe that this is the case in theory, but with the cost of higher ed in the US and the general conversation around innovation, skills and technology happening globally, our educational systems at the higher ed level are being thrown into serious question.

I am not as familiar with the French system of education as I am with the US or even German systems, but as nations grapple with how to increase social mobility through education, the role of “choice” will have to be considered from a number of angles. Choice is something typically valued in the United States. Notions of freedom in opportunity is often the freedom in having options. Will the US reform in a way that preserves these values? Will other countries?

Liberal Arts & ROI: Tackling Challenges & Change in US Higher Ed

By Kelly Davis

On October 23, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

As a Career Services advisor, the debate about the direction of US higher education looms over my work: student success is determined not just by whether or not students are employed in some capacity after graduation, but how soon they are employed after graduation, how closely their first job aligns with their degree, and how much they begin earning annually.

Skills make students employable in the first place. Hard skills, soft skills, technical skills, super skills – whatever you want to call them. And many of these skills are acquired through participation in student clubs, student athletics, internships, coops, and part-time jobs.

The whole debate focuses on whether or not attending class actually contributes to students’ skill development. In an era where grade inflation has made it easier to get an “A” and the price of higher ed is all too high, it makes sense to be asking these questions.

Here’s what I don’t understand: Why is there a crusade against the liberal arts?

The story of ROI…

One reason is for return of investment. The conversation among those working on higher ed policy or within the system seems to evade the idea of changing the system we currently have, as if we can’t challenge the free market model that higher ed has been pushed into. “It’s just the way it is,” seems to be the mindset. Meanwhile, the US public is stuck in this other mindset that higher education institutions are all at fault for the price of higher ed – most people aren’t aware of the nuances. Really, our state and federal funding of higher education has decreased since the Recession recovering only slightly and, in some cases like Alaska, worsening.

Instead of tackling the problem of costs, the conversation is shifting towards something like this quote from a Business Insider article ranking the “25 Most Valuable College Majors”: “The cost of college is higher than ever, making it important to pick a major that will be valuable in the long run, with a high likelihood of post-graduation employment and a decent expected salary.”

From the perspective of a student who needs to make these decisions now, this line of thinking makes sense. But it concerns me that some of our thought leaders are encouraging this direction rather than digging deeper and looking hard at the systemic problems in place.

Forgetting to analyze systemic issues, long-term. This is what I fear happens when we devalue the humanities and social sciences.

Degrees in history, sociology, literature, etc., are not statistically likely to pay you as much as a degree in computer science or engineering (comparable to the mean for general “business”, according to the National Association for Colleges and Employers [NACE] Winter 2019 Salary Survey). The idea is that because college is so expensive, you should put your money towards an education that will properly prepare you for a job with a starting salary higher than $55 or 60k – that way, you might actually be able to pay off your student loans by the time you’re ready to start paying for your kid’s higher education.

When this argument is made in the context of ROI, I wonder who is paying attention to the cost to provide resources for teaching these highly desirable subjects: the price of tuition is partially based on what resources you provide students at your institution. It is not as expensive for institutions to teach courses in the humanities or many of the social sciences. Major-specific, academic-related expenses can be found in the physical arts and sciences (this Polish finances site found a few pretty expensive programs that sit in these categories).

Physical arts aren’t the problem, either. Because they are costly, they are generally pricier programs and are more selective to form smaller cohorts. You can compare the number of music majors in the US to the number of engineering majors in the US, and see the rate at which those numbers are declining or increasing. We don’t see a push for musicians and filmmakers in the US like we see the push for primary care physicians and engineers.

It’s not to say that we don’t need engineers or primary care physicians, because we obviously do. It’s for the higher demand that institutions such as NYU are making movements to offer medical degrees for free.

I understand the push to make med school more affordable for people, and I fully agree with it. But this model is not going to push into the liberal arts, which means that the high cost of a Bachelor’s degree in history won’t decline, causing the number of history majors to continue to decline, for example.

Meanwhile, the push for higher education to prove its delivery of skills-competent graduates is becoming muddled. There are companies seeking hard, practical skills, but these skills need to be constantly updated every 6 years, according to an article published in NACE (2018). Higher education can offer methods for students to learn some of these skills, but the focus should be the “soft skills,” competencies such as critical thinking and problem-solving. These skills are improved every day with more and more practice. They take time and reflection to develop, making 3-4 year obtaining a Bachelor degree a great time to enhance these skills, preparing students for the future workplace where AI is likely to take over more repetitive tasks.

These “soft skills” are at the core of the liberal arts, but students often get lost in the concepts of developing the ability to code or using advanced tools in an excel spreadsheet (certainly necessary, but not the only necessary thing to learn while at college!).

What else do we need to consider as we look at higher education from a systemic point of view?

Not everyone needs to, or should, go to college. Furthermore, we push college on some all too soon.

Not everyone thrives from studying all the time, or from research. But flip that around – some people do. One is not better than the other, yet we continue to think otherwise in the US. There are still plenty of parents who think that their children should only aspire to Ivy League schools (which makes our Admissions processes chaotic), and college is still seen as the most promising means of moving up in class.

Here are the challenges that face us in the US from this line of thinking:

First and foremost, this is a class issue. If we could fundamentally change our culture to recognize the value in “blue-collar” as much as we do in “white-collar,” and get rid of those definitions, we wouldn’t push college on kids at all, or at least as early.

Second, we push college on people too soon. Some students are not ready to commit to a major at the age of 19. Just last night, a friend of mine said if she could go back and do her Bachelor’s degree again, she would take a completely different path. I have met plenty of brilliant people who were not ready to continue sitting in a classroom after high school. They needed to have some work experience and travel – see other aspects of life and the world outside of school – before recognizing what their passion was.

(And this is why I am increasingly inspired and enthralled by the concept of gap years… which I hope will be a topic I write about soon enough.)

Third, this all culminates into a horrible college admissions process where we see parents cheating the system, small liberal arts colleges that can often be cheaper options for lower-income students start falling behind in enrollments, and students struggle at all class levels to afford college.

What are ways we can be more innovative when approaching these challenges?

Look internationally to learn both what to implement, and what not to implement.

Recently I have seen Brandon Busteed, President of Kaplan University Partners, publishing posts comparing the UK higher education system to ours in the US. This is a step in the right direction, this international comparison. There is a lot we can learn from systems in other countries – both what to do and what not to do.

1: The one thing I do like about the United States is the flexibility we have to make connections between our degrees and work experience. Unless you want to be an engineer, doctor, work in any lab, or be an accountant, there are millions of jobs out there that don’t require a specific kind of degree. Job descriptions might request certain qualifications, but if you can find a way to get your foot in the door through some skill you have, article you’ve written, or connection you’ve made, there are many ways to forge your own pathway in your career.

I believe this allows students the ability to explore learning while they obtain their Bachelor’s degree. Explore subjects, learn to be critical and think deeply, which is what the whole practice was supposed to be about. This is probably one of the best ways to develop those highly desirable skills, problem solving and critical thinking.

While Germany has a great system for students to be trained in vocational areas and receive employment afterwards – which I think would be a phenomenal system to replicate here in the US – this isn’t for everyone. Some people, maybe less than 50% of our population, want the time to research and explore, want the flexibility in what they end up doing right after they receive their degree. They want more time to figure it out.

And while I praise this system that Germany uses, I am not praising the education system as a whole. The students who end up pursuing the dual system often have little choice in the matter, because Germany tests their students into tracks at the age of 10 (OECD “Education Policy Outlook: Germany”, April 2014, pg. 4). In the US, tracking typically occurs in specific subjects, but it depends on the school district (OECD, “Viewing Education in the United States Through the Prism of PISA”, 2010, pg. 48).

2: Critical thinking and problem solving skills need constant reflection and teaching. It’s important to teach continuous learning, fueled by personal motivation and initiative. It’s important to have citizens who are willing to both question and collaborate. (So make sure you keep that in mind, NCAA.)

Karin Fischer wrote a great article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about the Asian University for Women and why the President of the university chose to focus on liberal arts rather than vocational practices. Reflecting on the historical context of British colonialism in India and Bangladesh and its influences on valuing a degree in medicine over something like sociology, the founder of AUW, Kamal Ahmad, is quoted in Fischer’s article: “It’s nothing but prejudice to think that poor people can’t aspire to higher education.” According to Fischer, Ahmad argues that “The Liberal Art’s impact can be more far-reaching… because it nurtures broader aptitudes.” She quotes him again: “We’re saying, Yes, you have dexterity in your hands, but you also have the capacity to imagine.”

Powerful words. Something for the US to keep in mind as we reimagine higher education: critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity in fields such as history, sociology, literature, politics, languages, the arts… these are all invaluable. And we need at least some bright minds to focus on these theories, practices, and this research now more than ever – this path, too, must be accessible.

What is “Systems Cartography”?

By Kelly Davis

On October 16, 2019

In My Writing Journey, Uncategorized

About a year ago, I was told to read a book about Systems Thinking: Systems Thinking for Social Change: A Practical Guide to Solving Complex Problems, Avoiding Unintended Consequences, and Achieving Lasting Results, by David Peter Stroh. Systems Thinking is all about looking at a problem from the perspective in which the problem exists – sometimes, there are multiple systems forming into one larger system. As you can imagine, the “system” can balloon, and systems mapping is what we do to visualize what that balloon looks like.

“Systems Cartography” is basically a fancy way of saying “Systems Mapping.” It’s figuring out how all the pieces are connected, and visualizing it in a way that helps you understand the greater context and find the connections between various elements of the problem. Systems Thinking is one way of tackling problems in order to find wholistic, sustainable solutions because this kind of thinking targets a framework or cycle in which a problem exists.

Whenever I am driving alone or spend some time organizing my desk and room, I listen to higher education podcasts that are typically geared towards people at the leadership level. Understanding the bigger system of higher education, and the challenges it faces today, is not only enthralling to me, but it helps inform the end goals of the work that I do.

After I read Stroh’s work, I started drawing my own systems maps. Some included imagery, others were more straightforward, like in the Medium article linked above. It is exactly why I have a whiteboard in my office now: to brainstorm and consider the bigger systems in place when I have time to strategize for my work.

I am a Systems Cartographer – still in training, still in development, but that is another goal for this blog: to share my systems cartography and provide a visual means of conveying what I am thinking, to supplement my writing.