Priorities

This screenshot snippet, taken from a job listings page at a community college, captures pretty succinctly much of what’s wrong with higher education priorities today.

Screen shot 2013-04-25 at 7.25.50 PM

The job description for the “faculty internship” explicitly states the position is intended to groom people for (those crazy high-paying) adjunct jobs.

I wonder if the position is akin to Boise State’s Foundational Studies program, which pays grad students and professional staff a whopping $1,000 to teach class sections all semester.

Compare that teaching salary to these figures (already a year old).  I had no idea the Boise State football coach gets a quarter million dollars annually just for letting the university license his image. Clearly, I need to renegotiate my contract.

A troubling constellation

Anyone who has read The Clutter Museum for a while knows I’m not a Luddite.  I like to play with technology, and I encourage my students to be curious about digital media, and particularly about how they might use it to build thoughtful public history projects and programs.

However, there’s a constellation of higher ed “innovations” that has me worried. A couple of these innovations, taken alone, might not be cause for concern, but because they’re emerging at the same moment, they’re troubling.

First, there’s the university’s adoption of minimum viable product development strategies, and all the tech-marketing rhetoric and thinking such strategies seem to require.

Second, there are MOOCs, the massively open online courses being peddled by universities and start-ups alike. (If you’re unfamiliar with the phenomenon, Jonathan Rees consistently writes the hardest-hitting posts about both the academic labor implications of MOOCs and their (utter lack of) impact on student learning.)

Third, there are badges, alternative forms of assessment that circumvent traditional academic accreditation.

Fourth, we have the New University of California, where there are no classes—only high-stakes exams.

Fifth, we have companies that students can hire to take tests, write assignments, or even complete entire classes on their behalf.  Students don’t have to take the courses for which they’re “earning” credit.

Finally, we have automated essay-grading software from EdX.  Faculty no longer need to grade the “work” of the “students” “enrolled” in their “classes.”

Anyone want to call the tech-induced time of death on faculty governance and authentic student learning?

 

[Update: Jonathan Rees has already called it, and he points out faculty autonomy and student learning aren't the only casualties.]

The University as Minimum Viable Product

I have a couple new pieces up at The Blue Review blog.  The first is on impostor syndrome in academia.  The second, meatier piece draws on my observation that universities are drawing on software development principles–and not necessarily the best ones–in creating and refining programs.  Here’s the beginning of it:

In this age of slashed higher ed budgets that demand new efficiencies, it’s not surprising that universities seek technological solutions to their challenges. However, university leaders aren’t looking to tech entrepreneurs solely for course management systems or MOOC platforms; they’re also adopting the rhetoric and thinking of Silicon Valley.

In keeping with this tech fetishism, universities are developing new offerings in ways that mirror software launches more than they do traditional higher ed marketing. One popular approach to software development calls on programmers to create a “minimum viable product,” or MVP, which Eric Ries defines as:

That product which has just those features (and no more) that allows you to ship a product that resonates with early adopters, some of whom will pay you money or give you feedback.

What, then, constitutes a university’s minimum viable product?

It depends, I suppose, on whom the university sees as its customer.

I’d love to see a discussion about this in the comments of that post (and elsewhere, of course). Read more at The Blue Review blog.

A brief note on an ongoing struggle regarding race and ethnicity

One of the anxieties I had about moving to Idaho was raising a white boy in such a white state.  I’ve written before about how, perhaps because I was raised in one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse places on the planet, I feel my whiteness most acutely when I’m in a crowd of white people.  My worry was, and continues to be, that if Lucas grows up in a very white state, whiteness will become invisible to him, the norm.

Three anecdotes:

  • Last spring break, we visited Disneyland for the first time.  As we drove into the parking structure, Lucas asked, “Can anyone come to Disneyland?” (Anyone who can afford it, my mother replied.)  ”Even black kids?” he asked.
  • Recently, Lucas pointed out he had “a black kid” in his class.  I’m guessing she’s of Asian or Pacific Islander descent.
  • Today, Lucas saw some black and Latino men setting up the fencing for the upcoming Long Beach Grand Prix, and he asked why some people decided to “become workers.”  Well, I explained, there are all kinds of workers in the world, and some people are skilled at building, while others prefer to work outside. “But if they work outside for a long time,” Lucas said, “they become black.”

That sound you hear is me beating my forehead with the copy of Colonize This sitting on my desk. (Mercifully, it’s a paperback.)

At home, we watch documentaries on human evolution and civil rights.  We talk all the time about race, ethnicity, and culture.  We read multicultural literature.  We listen to all kinds of music. I even have written—and, soon, I hope, will return to writing—plenty of blog posts on multicultural books and toys.  I think about this stuff a lot. Short of hauling my seven-year-old back to California, I’m not sure what to do, as I’m loathe to intrude on the few safe spaces people of color do have in Idaho (e.g. churches).  Nor do I want introduce Lucas primarily to people of color who are refugees (perhaps Boise’s most visible people of color), as I don’t want him thinking that all people of color have come to rely on the generosity of white communities for their livelihoods.

What to do?  What to do?  (Gentle) advice welcome.

 

Image by PavanGpd, and used under a Creative Commons license.

Venturing

It’s not every day I learn from a local TV station’s website that my university has launched a new college:

Boise State University announced Monday that it is building a “business garden” in the form of a new college in the capital city in hopes of “growing” a better business community in Idaho.

President Bob Kustra made the announcement of BSU’s new Venture College Monday afternoon in front of business leaders and students who are hoping to be accepted.

The idea is to allow students an opportunity to compete for start-up funds for their business idea, and then have local business executives help them get that idea off that ground and into the market.

The goal is to launch a new business from a non-traditional college model.

You’d think the university administration might have mentioned this development to, you know, faculty.  And yet I spoke with a passel of humanities and social sciences faculty today, and no one had heard of it prior to this morning.

The website for the new “college” offers a little more information:

Venture College prepares students to launch businesses. This new, non-credit program is open to all full-time students in any major. Students who successfully complete the program receive the Boise State University Venture College Badge. [...]

Is Venture College for you?  Led by business executives, Venture College offers students a customized education plan, individual coaching by experts, internships and invaluable experience to launch their own businesses or nonprofits. Be a part of like-minded, focused group of friends making a difference!

What will you receive? You will be eligible to compete for limited start-up funding.  You will get real world experience. Some students will actually launch their businesses while still students.  All will gain skills valuable to employers.

What’s the commitment? Venture College is a two-semester program. It’s flexible and self-paced, but you must be able to participate in a colloquium each Friday from noon to 2 p.m. Students should plan on about spending 10-15 hours a week on Venture College pursuits.

The leadership of Venture College—an entrepreneur, a former CEO, and a former venture capitalist—will, we are told, report to the VP of Research and Economic Development, who reports directly to the university’s president.  The college “has the highest level of university commitment.” Venture College is free to students enrolled full-time at Boise State.

I might not have the exact same objections to this new, erm, venture that some of my readers have. Indeed, I find parts of the “Why Venture College?” page quite persuasive, its use of buzzwords aside.  (I was surprised not to see “strategic dynamism” appear on that page.)

Other parts are not so persuasive, in part because much of the “why” page is vague, or it outright contradicts other efforts of the university:

  • “Boise State is. . .challenging traditional educational strategies and piloting new methods for superior, relevant education.” Then why is the college offering lecture capture and Blackboard to the rest of the university?
  • “Venture College will provide self-paced, on demand access to knowledge, intensive mentoring and an opportunity to compete for resources needed to start a business.”  Self-paced and on demand suggest the program will be largely online, aside from two-hour colloquia on Friday afternoons.  Who is developing and delivering the online content?  (I also am concerned that students who are working to put themselves through school or who have family to care for won’t be able to commit to 10-15 extracurricular hours each week for two semesters.  This seems like an opportunity only relatively young, unburdened, privileged students might be able to pursue.)
  • A badge is not, to put it mildly, a college.

I appreciate that the university is trying new models and is acknowledging, albeit indirectly, that there aren’t jobs in Idaho for many of our graduates—at least not well-paying ones, as Idaho has the highest percentage of minimum-wage workers of any state. (Three-quarters of the jobs created in Idaho last year were service-sector jobs, which are more likely than most to pay the minimum wage.)  Students do indeed need to develop what the university terms the “4 Cs” of 21st-century skills: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity.

My question is this: Doesn’t a liberal arts education promote the development of exactly these characteristics? I know I emphasize all four of these in my humanities classroom.  And I’m not just emphasizing these in an abstract way.  In fact, the assignment I handed out to my Master of Applied Historical Research (public history) students last night asks students to demonstrate they possess all these skills.  I’m asking students to write a proposal for the development of a mobile app that would be of use to public history professionals.  (You can download the assignment if you’re curious.)  Following this assignment, students will draft a grant application or—perhaps, I haven’t decided—create a slide-deck and pitch for venture capitalists or a foundation to fund the development of the app.

Undoubtedly this assignment will horrify some of you.  And it’s a far cry from the advice I heard at my first NCPH conference a few years ago that the introductory graduate course in public history should cover the basics of museum exhibition development, archival management, and historic preservation practice.  Museum stuff is close to my heart, so I do introduce current issues in the field, and I also provide students with an overview of challenges in historic preservation, but from there, my curriculum deviates sharply from the traditional seminar. If you view the syllabus for the course, you’ll see I have recommended Grantwriting for Dummies and I require students to read The $100 Startup because, regardless of whether they want to start their own consulting firms (and some students do indeed have that goal), students need to think creatively, resourcefully, and entrepreneurially, even if they’re employed by state agency or a nonprofit.

Why has my teaching and mentoring taken this turn? There aren’t many good jobs for public historians in Idaho; the best places to work are already populated by young, bright people who plan to stick around for a while, and many of the state’s museums and historical organizations are atrophying rather than moving forward; my first-year students already have figured out they don’t want to work for them.  My students want to be freelance grantwriters, historical consultants, documentary filmmakers, and museum technologists, and it’s my job to help them along on their individual journeys. Hence my interest in introducing them to MVPs rather than the MRM5.

Frankly, I also am not certain for how long I can tolerate living on a faculty salary that is lower than average, and I’m increasingly aware my spouse labors in a dying industry. Some might argue that traditional higher ed and tenure-line jobs are also going the way of hoop skirt makers. So I’ve spent the past several years studying entrepreneurship, keeping abreast of advances in technology, staying informed about developments in a couple of industries that interest me and in which I suspect I could consult successfully, and generally trying to be ready to “innovate” myself into an entirely new venture on very short notice. (Do I love my job and do I want tenure? Yes. Do I think my current career track is sustainable for the 25-30 years until my retirement? Nope!)

My main objection to Venture College, then, is that my university’s leadership doesn’t acknowledge, and perhaps doesn’t even realize, that faculty are already innovating, already teaching students to be innovative, creative, collaborative, and entrepreneurial—and not just through very “real-world” projects like the one I assigned, but through a carefully crafted combination of readings, viewings, discussions, activities, writing assignments, and presentations.  You know: a liberal arts education with an eye toward 21st-century ways of engaging with the world.

Elsewhere

Just wanted to highlight a couple of things that have been keeping me busy.

First, there’s a post for the Western Museums Association blog on developing museum professionals in the Intermountain West.

Second, I’m soft-launching the Boise Wiki next week by giving a talk about it. I’ll post more about the wiki once I’ve figured out what I’m going to say at the presentation.  :)

 

Hey, look over there

I have a piece up at The Blue Review on Wikipedia, Ancestry.com, and the gendering of digital public history.  Here’s an excerpt:

Engendering Online History

Wikipedia vs. Ancestry.com: Historianship at a crossroads

Businessweek reports that “genealogy ranks second only to porn as the most searched topic online.” It’s no wonder, then, that Ancestry.com, which for a monthly fee lets anyone search and browse its more than 10 million digitized records of births, marriages, censuses, ships’ passenger lists and more has become a destination for anyone interested in trying her hand at historical research.  I say “her” intentionally, as the majority of users—typically around 65 percent—of genealogical sites are women. Ancestry.com is the world’s most-trafficked genealogical site.

Wikipedia, the highly popular online encyclopedia, on the other hand, has a paltry percentage of women actively editing articles—just 8.5 percent by one measure. The sites allow for two different, and sometimes competing, versions of historical practice to emerge. In particular, Wikipedia’s community ethos, although it embraces collaboration and consensus, may actually discourage participation, especially by women—reflecting a problem that also exists in the historical profession.

Read more at The Blue Review.

The dark heart

I promised a series of posts on gun violence, and so far I’ve only written two: one on the intersection of guns and whiteness and another on Christian responses to the Sandy Hook massacre.  There will likely be more posts coming, as I’m still reading pretty extensively on gun ownership and gun violence in the U.S.  A big part of why I haven’t written more, however, is that I find myself continuously circling back to what I see as the dark heart of gun ownership in the U.S.:

When people say they own a gun for “self-defense,” they are saying they are willing to kill another human being.

I honestly can’t imagine taking a human life.  Fighting tooth and nail to protect myself or my family, and temporarily disabling an attacker?  Sure.  But taking another human life to preserve my own?  Even if I or others might see that life as belonging to an “evil” or ill-willed person?  That I cannot imagine.

It’s profoundly disturbing to me that others can imagine killing another human–so much so that they arm themselves and train to be ready for that moment.

And even if a gun owner claims she’s only going to “maim” an attacker. . .  I suggest you look at Google images for “gunshot wound” and scroll past the Halloween make-up.  How could anyone imagine inflicting that kind of pain on another human?

In the end, it’s this dark heart that makes it so difficult for me to write about this subject.  Any data I might present, any cultural biases or logical inconsistencies I might try to highlight can’t pierce a darkness that dense.

A small Wikipedia discovery

I’ve spent much of the past several days working on my piece on Ancestry.com and Wikipedia.org.  (Many thanks to those of you who commented on my last post.)

I’ve been asked to target that article to an Idaho audience, which means I find myself searching Wikipedia and Ancestry for topics related to Idaho history.  Although I have learned quite a bit about Idaho in my two and a half years here, my knowledge is still patchy at best, so my discoveries have been hit and miss.  I find the draft littered with such phrases as “potato magnate” and other keywords I’d rather not share here as they would attract the wrong crowd.

Because I’m more interested in process than product on each of the sites, I’m exploring the sites’ user guides, Ancestry’s message boards, and the “History” and “Talk” pages for individual articles on Wikipedia.  I’m particularly enjoying the parade o’ semiliteracy that is the Aryan Nations talk page.  Especially pleasing is the Aryan Nations guys suggesting the Wikipedians call the FBI to confirm the true leadership of the hate group.  When the Aryan Nations guys are saying you need to use more reputable, government sources, well. . . there’s some kind of lesson in there.  I’m just not sure what it is.

Regardless, I may need to make their discussion required reading in my public history courses.

 

First thoughts: Wikipedia and Ancestry.com

Since I had to take Lucas to school anyway this morning, I decided to stop by the office for some focused time, pneumonia be damned.  Unfortunately, 90 minutes into my productive e-mail session, Fang texted to warn me about the newly falling snow and to suggest I get on the roads sooner rather than later.

Fang clears snow from the car

 Every once in a while, I feel really bad for dragging Fang to Boise.  To be honest, this was not one of those moments.

The result was another day on the couch with the laptop, TV playing in the background.  Despite the distracted recuperation, I made some progress on a piece I promised to write.  It’s another reflection on how the public does history, in line with the chapter I wrote last year, only this time I’m looking at how the historical sausage gets made at Wikipedia and Ancestry.com. As you might imagine, I’m observing that each site’s process and product is inflected by gender. My research into women’s contributions to Wikipedia has uncovered a trove of misogynistic comments about how more extensive participation by women would ruin Wikipedia.  As much as they unsettle me, such sources also warm the cockles of my dark academic heart.

Mostly, I’m interested in how Wikipedians and Ancestry users (Ancestryans?) collaborate or come to consensus, how they perceive and use primary and secondary sources, and how they view and establish expertise within their respective digital communities.

Have you ever contributed to Wikipedia or Ancestry?  If so, I’d love to hear your thoughts on your experience.  If not, I’m curious as to why you haven’t participated on these sites, as they are incredibly popular in the U.S.  (Businessweek reports that “genealogy ranks second only to porn as the most searched topic online.”)