Final Review 1

Topic 1: ART & DEFINITION OF

ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP
Class 5 Response: The Art and Definition of Academic Leadership
Eble, K[enneth]. E. (1978). Exploring the territory. In The art of administration: A

guide for academic administrators. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 1-11 [on E-Reserve
in Library].

Weingartner, R[udolph]. H. (1996). The administration and decision making. In Fitting

form to function: A primer on the organization of academic institutions. Series on

Higher Education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, pp. x-xvii [on E-Reserve in Library].

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Academic administrators guide to exemplary

leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., pp. ix-xvi, 1-32.

Small Group Discussion on the readings:

Eble reading: What is the root meaning of the word administer? Why is that important for our
course? Are the works of academic leaders contrary to service? Can you give some examples of
such activities that you have seen? What does Robert Greenleaf have to tell us about
leadership? How should theory and practice related in the education of administration? Why is
this important?

According to Kenneth Eble (Exploring the territory, 1978) the root meaning of the word
administer is “to serve.” This is important for our course because administrators are there to
serve the university community: the students, faculty, and the local community. The primary
responsibility of the administrator is to invigorate the idea of service and to handle the minute
details through which others may serve and be served. According to Robert Greenleaf (Servant
Leadership, 1977) a “great leader is seen as a servant first.”

According to Eble(1978), there are two disparate aspects of university leadership: functional
and substantive. The functional aspects are the “dirty work” (engagement with getting things
done and attending to details which others are assisted in performing their jobs) and the
substantive (important usually abstract: financial planning) – rather large every day matters.

Eble (1978) thinks many/some administrators are ill prepared for their jobs; therefore need a
“center” for university teaching and administrators to put theory into practice.

Weingartner reading: What is the function of administration? How does Weingartner define an
institutional mission? What do we mean by “multiversities”? Can you describe and discuss
what he means by Maxim 1? What are the differences and similarities between managers and
administrators? Why is Weingartner’s insistence that administrators “elicit decisions” an
 Final Review 2

important, if not critical, point in understanding administration? Discuss his three types of
decisions and then implications for various groups on campus.

In The administration and decision making (1996), Weingartner describes the function of
administration as the ability to make decisions and to ensure that they are carried out in the way
they are intended. He believes that good people make good decisions and even better if they
are organized. The institutional mission, according to Weingartner (1996) is composed of
multiplicity of goals. It may be related to others – and can be simply regarded as a means to or
conditions for or components of others.

Clark Kerr termed multiversities – they are all academic universities or institutions that form
multiple or distinct functions. Multiversities have the following goals: the teach, conduct
research (both applied and pure), and provide a rich college experience (to their student life,
alumni, etc.).

Maxim 1 is “in academic institutions the forces of nature are centrifugal, organizational, and
must be used to create coherence.” Weingartner (1996) describes the role of the student in
education. The student, even though he pays for his education (in part of the salary of the
professor) is not a business transaction – like GM. Instead, he argues that it is a more
collaborative effort – students are still working with the teacher – and have to put more into it,
because they care about the “end” goal (their degree). (Hmmmnh, I don’t know if I totally
agree with Weingarter… these days it’s becoming more and more $$$ oriented, and students
care less and less about the degree and just finishing – and it’s way more transactional, “what
can you do for me” kind of attitude.)

According to Weingarter (1996), the difference between a “manager” (in the traditional sense)
and an administrator is that the business manager is merely in charge of decision making and
managing and just worried about the “end result,” whereas the college or university
administrator has a whole host of issues to think about: decision making, collaboration,
managerial affairs, eliciting decisions from others, making GOOD decisions, and shared
governance.

His three type of decisions are consultative, co-determinitive, and all-but determinative. The
consultative is an administrative decision made when the faculty have been consulted – this is
the least determinative role in the mode of collaboration (ex., budget). The next is the co-
determinative, or when the administration gives the faculty “advice and consent” and a
considerably stronger role (ex., appointment of administrators). The final one is the all but
determinative, or when the decision is made by (appropriately selected) faculty members,
subject to administration, overruling only for strong reasons explicitly stated. In this situation,
the faculty have the most say (ex., promotion of a faculty member).

Kouzes and Posner reading: How do Kouzes and Posner define leadership? How does the
word “relationship” fit into this model? What are the 5 ways of exemplary leadership? Discuss
each. What are the major characteristics of admired leaders? In “Model the Way,” our
authors place a central role on values. What are some of the main points that had importance
 Final Review 3

for you in their presentation? Discuss how you have led by example in some leadership roles
that you have undertaken before.

Kouzes and Posner (Academic administrators guide to exemplary leadership, 2003) define
leadership as a relationship between those who aspire and those who choose to follow.
Leadership is a set of skills and practices that is available to all. Leadership, for them, means
that you have certain social skills. Their five ways of exemplary leadership include: model the
way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, encourage the heart

(Mo – iNv – Ch – A – rT)

Mo = Model the way means to be clear about your guiding priniciples, to find your own voice
and to give “voice” to your own values. To set the examples by daily action.

iNv = Inspire a shared vision

This means to know your constituency. Speak their language. Enable people to see the
purpose, to see for the common good. To be able to communicate your passion.

Ch = Challenge the process

This means be a pioneer. Listen. Recognize good ideas, be willing to take risks or if the
environment is slow and stubborn, try for little changes and small wins.

A = enable others to Act

Make it possible for others to do good work. Make people feel strong, capable, and committed.

rT = encourage the hearT

Encourage your constituency to keep on, even when they might be tempted to give up!

The key vales that people look for and admire in their leaders are honesty, forward looking,
competence, inspiration. Credibility is the foundation of leadership. The above four have
remained constant in terms of what people have wanted in their leaders, over the past 2
decades. Credibility, or how we form our reputations, or opinions of people – essentially
people must believe their leaders. Leaders must DWYSYWD: Do what they say they will do.
(practice what they preach).

Topic 1: ART & DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP

Class 6 Response: The Art and Definition of Academic Leadership Continued

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Academic administrators guide to exemplary

leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., pp. 33-78.

Block McLaughlin, J[udith], & Riesman, D[avid]. (1993). The president: A precarious
perch. In A[rthur]. Levine (Ed.), Higher Learning in America, 1980-2000. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 179-202 [on E-Reserve in Library].

Kouzes and Posner Reading:

 Final Review 4

Chapter 3. What do Kouzes and Posner mean by “vision”? Why is it important to leadership?
How does a person’s past play a part in developing a “vision”? “Teaching provides a major
technique for getting others to participate in your vision. What approaches do our authors
offer us to involve others in our visions in the rest of the chapter?

According to Kouzes and Posner (Academic administrators guide to exemplary leadership,

2003), vision is the ability to instill in others your vision. It is accomplishing something that no
one else has yet achieved. It is something that has meaning and purpose. It is the need to
clarify your own values and your own vision. It is the ability to clarify what you find
intrinsically rewarding and discover what is your own “theme?” The theme is the core
concepts around which one organizes your aspirations and actions. Leaders begin their process
by envisioning their future and by discovering their themes. Leaders HAVE to care about
something much bigger than themselves, and much bigger than ALL of us. A vision is
necessary for leaders, esp. a clear vision because if you don’t have something that you care
about then how can you get others to care!?!?!

In order to do this, it is important for leaders to look retrospectively – and leaders who do this
have longer futures (4 more years). You have to create images of the future – leaders bring the
vision to life, make the intangible tangible. Leaders discover a common purpose – most people
want a personal satisfaction for doing a good job over a high income. More people favor
interesting work over making a good living. More people value good university leaders that
elevate this human spirit – who can be inspiring, charismatic, positive, communicative, and
forward thinking.

Chapter 4. The next chapter focuses on a critical theme in leadership studies—risk taking.
How is taking the initiative critical to this leadership process? Why are “fresh ideas”
important in this process? What are the challenges of incremental change versus
comprehensive change in an organization? Which would you like better to experience in an
organizational sense? And why? Why is learning from our mistakes helpful in a leadership
role—can you give some personal examples of what you have learned in these situations?

According to Kouzes and Posner (2003), leaders foster risk taking, which encourages others to
step out into the unknown rather than play into safe territory. We need to seize the initiative
and take action to innovate and to pursue excellence – and to encourage these characteristics in
others. Leaders need to train others to build self-efficacy and to encourage risk taking. They
have to raise the bar, high enough that people will succeed but not too easy. Leaders need to
set meaningful challenges.

According to Kouzes and Posner (2003), people are going to do their best when they are
internally motivated – and this is nowhere more true than in higher education. What’s
rewarding gets done! For them, it is okay to look outward for fresh ideas – to be innovative. It
is necessary to establish relationships, even with people off-campus, who are not in academia.
It is important to initiate incremental steps – the most effective changes are processes that are
incremental – they break down big problems into small “doables” – and get people to say “yes”
numerous times not just once.
 Final Review 5

Successful ideas help others to see how progress can be made by breaking the journey down
into measurable goals and milestones. Incremental change processes can be called “small
wins.”

I think from an organizational sense I would like both the small wins and comprehensive
changes – I think sometimes you have to take what you can get.

Chapter 5. Kouzes and Posner focus on “trust” as a key factor in leadership. Give some of
your own examples where you experienced this from others and where you didn’t. Developing
cooperative goals and roles is a critical bridge in leadership development. Why is it so
important? Power is a key theme in leadership studies, how do our authors treat it differently
than the common perception of “powerful” leaders? Why does collaborative “ownership”
follow from this?

According to Kouzes and Posner (2003), people don’t stay long where there isn’t any trust.
They need face to face interaction.

Power is the ability to “empower” others.

Block McLaughlin and Riesman Reading:

What did you learn from the short history of the American college presidency? What does it
tell you about the office? How do Professors March and Birnbaum characterize the
presidency? Discuss McLaughlin and Riesman’s examples of transformational presidents.
What did this mean to you? Who is it different than March and Birnbaum? What do you
believe about the effectiveness of college presidents—do they make a difference? Have you an
experience of a college president’s role in your undergraduate institution? Does you image
follow either March or Birnbaum or McLaughlin and Riesman? Is the bottom line for the
president “a veto”? What other options do our Kouzes and Posner readings give us?

From Block McLaughlin and Riesman (The president: A precarious perch, 1993), I have
learned that his responsibilities and constituencies have grown since the first college
presidency. According to Block McLaughlin and Riesman (1993), the college president has
several constraints on his authority, including the faculty, student body and the government.
March and Birnbaum describe the college president as rather ineffectual, as a symbolic role.
According to these two, the president can neither do very much harm nor very much that is
very useful, even though Birnbaum when interviewing presidents they almost uniformly
believed they had made a greater difference in their institutions than their predecessors had
done.

Block McLaughlin and Riesman’s (1993) give examples of transformational presidents. These
individuals made a difference on their campuses. For example, at UCSD Clark Kerr expanded;
George Mason University expanded, and Emory University, too.

Topic 1: ART & DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP

 Final Review 6

Class 7 Response: The Art and Definition of Academic Leadership Continued and the
Art of Followership
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2003). Academic administrators guide to exemplary leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chaleff, Ira. (2008). Creating ways of following. In Ronald E. Riggio, Ira Chaleff, & Jean
Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and
organizations. SF: Jossey-Bass.

Required Readings (read in the order presented):

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Academic administrators guide to exemplary

leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., pp. 79-104.

Chaleff, I[ra]. (2008). Creating ways of following. In R[onald]. E Riggio, I[ra].Chaleff,

& J[ean]Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create
great leaders and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey, Bass, 67-87.

Questions for Small Group Discussion

Kouzes and Posner Reading:

Chapter 6. What is the relationship between leadership and clear standards? Our authors offer
a list of uplifting activities that enhance leaders’ abilities to motivate others. They are: (1)
clear standards, (2) be positive, (3) expect the best, (4) pay attention, (5) be a friend, (6)
personalize recognition, (7) use creative mix of rewards, (8) create a spirit of community, (9)
provide social support, and (10) set an example. Did you find any coherence among these
suggestions? Which two did you like the best? Why? What did these two have to do with
leadership? Do all of these “encourage the heart”? Which one does it the best?

Chapter 7. Kouzes and Posner contend that leadership is learned. What is their definition of
leadership here, and how does it relate to the campus? Do you agree with their “collective
task”? Are you surprised at the mention of “humility” by our authors? What is its surprising
contribution to the leadership process? In the end, leadership is claimed to be an “affair of the
heart.” Do you believe it? What are the arguments supporting this contention, and what are the
arguments against it? Where do you stand?

Chaleff Reading

How does our author define “followership”? How does “common purpose” fit within the
dynamics of leaders and followers? What is the most striking feature of the Courageous
Follower model? What are the styles of followership? Which one do you favor for yourself?
When should followers “take moral action”? How valuable was this reading on followership
to you? What did it offer you about the nature of leadership that you ma not have considered?
 Final Review 7

According to Chaleff (Creating new ways of following, 2008), followership is a new way of
thinking of leadership. According to Chaleff, sometimes we lead and sometimes we follow.
Both are honorable – they are performed with strength and accountability. The two main styles
of followership are “the courage to support” and the “courage to challenge” (the leader).
Topic 2: Understanding American
Higher Education: Patterns and
Developments
Class 2: Understanding American Higher Education: Patterns and Developments
(History)

Altbach, P[hilip]. G., Berdahl, R[obert]. O., & Gumport, P[atricia] J. (2005). American
higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic
challenges (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1-70, 91-
114.

Philip G. Altbach, “Patterns in Higher Education Development,” pp. 15-37;

Roger L. Geiger, “The Ten Generations of American Higher Education,” pp. 38-70;

Robert M. O’Neil, “Academic Freedom: Past, Present, and Future beyond September
11, pp. 91-114.

Small Group Discussions on readings. Here are some questions that cover some of the more
important issues raised by the authors. For Altbach, how do his considerations add a new
perspective on the nature of the contemporary university? What patterns of university
development emerge? How did World War II and the 1960s change these institutions? After
reading this essay, do you begin to see the complexity of American colleges and universities
and their current pressures better?

Altbach (Patterns in Higher Education Development, 2005) argues that the contemporary
university in the most important institution because it transmits knowledge worldwide. It also
trains students in their specialties. Howeever, the current universities are facing several
challenges including access, administration, accountabilitly, governance, economic disparities,
private resources and public responsiblities, and the academic profession.

Some of the major issues that Altbach addresses in his article are the (1) brain drain faced by
NICs and third world countries, which are also the areas that are experiencing the fastest
growth in higher education, regardless of political system or ideology; (2) the increased
enrollment in higher education institutions worldwide; (3) the increased enrollment of women
and other minorities in these institutions; and (4) the complex economic desire for skilled
workers which propels the need for these universities to alter curriculum or vocationalization.

In the Post WWII and after the 1960s, there was a reform movement in Europe. Universities
were rapidly expanding to accommodate the large numbers of students. The 1960s were also a
 Final Review 8

period of student unrest and social movement and this is when the universities implemented
some social reforms, most far reaching in western Europe. Swedenn completely changed its
decision making process as it decentralized and democratized the university structure. In
addition, educational access was expanded to underserved parts of the country and curriculum
was expanded to include vocational courses.

In other parts of Europe, such as France and the Netherlands, interdisciplinary studies were
stressed and democratic and academic decision making were implemented. However, in the
United States, Japan, and Germany very little structural change happened. In the 1990s, there
was a second wave of reforms that is referred to the managerial revolution. It increased the
power of the administration and decreased the authority of the faculty.

Another change in the past two decades is vocationalization, the need for universities to
provide relevant training for a variety of increasing complex jobs. This is due to our ever
changing economic and interdependent global demands (outsourcing) – so students are worried
about finding jobs that will pay, especially in third world and NICs. They are less likely to
enroll in the social sciences and humanities. This vocationalization has been stressed even
more so with the link between private industry (research) and universities. These links have
established formal partnerships (scholarships, patents, funding) and may skew the relative
autonomy of the university, professor research, etc.

After reading Altbach’s chapter, I can see that higher education is growing rapidly. Colleges
and universities have grown exponentially, especially due to the need for technical workers.
Altbach stresses the need for cultural adaptation of university life.

In reading the Geiger chapter, why is history helpful in understanding the development of
American higher education? What historical information gave you new insights? Who
attended our colleges and universities? How did universities grow after 1890? Geiger uses
the term, “Academic Revolution,” for the period of 1945 to 1975. What does that mean and
how does it compare with Altbach’s characterization of the period?

According to Geiger (The Ten Generations of American Higher Education, 2005), history is
helpful in understanding the development of American higher education because for him every
generation has had a significant role in shaping higher ed. For example, from the start of
higher education in the early 1630s when there were only 3 colleges (Yale, Harvard, William
and Mary) that existed to train its students for the seminary and to the present day of the
multiversity system.

The historical information that gave me insight was that the first college presidents were
relatively powerful; singular. The first college curriculum was liberal arts, classical, Aristotle,
Greek, Latin. In order to get admitted you had to know some latin, greek, Aristotle. These
colleges essentially lagged behind Europe in terms of curriculum. What is interesting is that in
the 300+ years since the founding of these universities, the American universities have
“eclipsed” the Europeans in terms of the ratings. Why? Is it because of research?
 Final Review 9

The people that attended the universities in the early days were mostly local folk (40%) were
from the surrounding area, others were sons of farmers, and others were destined to be
ministers or law/public life. It wasn’t until after the Morrill Land Grant (1862) when
matriculation in mechanical arts (engineering) grew by the 1880s and 1890s. This would help
“equalize the classes” – as industrial classes would study in the same institutions as those from
the professional class. (People would take “engineering” – engineering was the great equalizer)
Also, around this time there were private initiatives to change colleges: women’s colleges
(Vassar) and to change the idea of the college to a “university.”

According to Geiger, the Academic Revolution of 1945-1975 was the most tumultuous period
of time in higher education. This is around when the GI bill (1944) was introduced and when
the number of students attending college almost triple from 15 to 45%, when we registered the
largest growth in any decade yet the standards didn’t get any better!

Finally, Robert O’Neil, former presidents of the University of Wisconsin and University of
Virginia, discusses a critical dimension in American higher education: academic freedom.
What does the 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom have a major role to play in the lives of
professors and students? What happened during the McCarthy era? What happened after
9/11? What does academic freedom mean to you?

In O’Neil’s piece (Academic Freedom: Past, Present, and Future beyond September 11,
2005), he describes the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure as
being accepted as common law, almost like the U.S. Constitution (Academic Freedom: Past,
Present, and Future beyond September 11, 2005). It is a statement between the AAUP and the
Association of American Colleges (now the Assn. of American Colleges and Universities) that
states that university professors are entitled to academic freedom in three vital dimensions: (1)
freedom in research and in the publication of results; (2) freedom in the classroom in discussing
the subject matter of the course and when speaking or writing as citizens; and (3) freedom from
institutional censorship or unwarranted censorship. Each of these freedoms has responsiblities
and limitations.

The 1940s has been cited in Supreme Court cases and lower federal and state court
cases. It is the most widely accepted academic definition of tenure; both administrators and
faculty accept it as its standards emerge from practical experience. Despite its acceptance,
when there was the fear of communism in the 1940s and 1950s this “common law” was pretty
much thrown out and faculty tenure and academic freedom was tenuous. During the McCarthy
era, 170 faculty were dismissed, the UC system instituted loyalty oaths forcing many faculty to
leave (some faculty left because they could not sign out of good conscience). So then was the
1940 statement effective? Is the academic community powerful or vulnerable?

It’s been tested again in the post-9/11 world. Where research and handling of research
materials has been restricted. The availability of important data in government has also been
limited. Scientists have been barred entry into the United States and access and entry of
foreign graduate students has declined. Are we revisiting the McCarthy era?
 Final Review 10

Topic 3: Issues and Problems in Higher

Education and Doing Related Research
Class 3: Issues and Problems in Higher Education and Doing Related Research

Zusman, Ami. (2005). Challenges facing higher education in the twenty-first century. In P.G.
Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, & P.J. Gumport, American higher education in the twenty-first century:
Social, political, and economic challenges.

1) who pays for higher education? What affects have privatization of public colleges and
universities and the growing commercialization of research had on how public
education is funded?

2) Who attends American higher education? How have various changes in groups
aspiring to attend higher education created new challenges? What predictions does
Zusman offer for future doctoral studies?

3) Strong societal forces are reshaping how we understand institutional autonomy and
accountability. Discuss either idea or its effects on higher education. What does she
mean when she indicated that the social contract on higher education may be creating
a dramatic change in how higher education is offered?

Who pays

States pay approximately 1/3 for public schools. But increasingly, students are bearing the
costs of their university education, especially through loans, as colleges and universities are
awarding fewer grants and scholarship and more loans.

Privatization: seems to have been necessary to offset the budget restrains faced by many public
and private universities. However, at the same time, according to Zusman, the growing tie to
industry has made many universities has made many of them not only "commercialized" but
also politicized and perhaps biased in what they research and what they offer to students
(vocationalization – it goes back to the idea that students must be able to find a "profitable" job
upon their graduation – so Zusman argues some universities are not offering learning for
learning sake).

Who benefits

The demographics of who attends our universities has changed significantly in the past 20-30
years. We have more students of color, students who are over 25, students who go to school
part-time and students who may be the first ones in their family to go to school. Despite these
changes, Zusman argues that the degree awarding rates, particularly for blacks, Latinos
(greatest increase), and other underrepresented minorities are particularly low – esp. at elite
schools – mostly due to poverty. She argues elite schools should make active inroads to
schools to recruit and prepare these students for college.
 Final Review 11

Access implications: Zusman thinks many students, especially lower income, won't be able to
afford college because states have cut off funding to them; states have only "loans" or merit
scholarship which these students don't qualify for or don't want to take out to further their
education (the shit from "needs based" to "loans")

However, she stresses that financial aid alone will not guarantee success, as low income SES
students come from schools with less academic resources (Jon Kozol, Savage Inequalities) –
therefore universities must take it upon themselves to be more proactive and go into the
neighborhoods and advocate for the resources

Some of these students may need remedial education in college. (But then are they ready for
college?) She wants support services in college.

Ph.Ds.:

-rise in post-docs vs. PhDs getting jobs are professors

-rise in PhDs getting jobs in industry (1/3) especially those in technology and engineering

-women: conflict between work and home life

-taking longer for PhDs to get their degree and enter career

Policy options:

1) broaden the doctoral curriculum to prep for alternative careers, esp. non-academic
careers

2) shift the balance to terminal masters (but I think most schools have this option)

3) impose a moratorium (I think this is ridiculous – overly inflate the value of current
phds, etc.)

With regards to Ph.D. students, Zusman doesn't paint a very rosy picture for their future. (But
then I wonder why she got a Ph.D?) I understand the market realities for Ph.D. students, but at
the same time I think most future doctoral students know that in order to become a teaching
professor at a top research university you need to publish, gain acceptance to a top ranked
school, etc. What would have been more useful from Zusman is if she had focused on how
doctoral students could capitalize on their strengths (research, analytical).

Her ideas of making doctoral programs in natural sciences more attainable and attractive to
U.S. citizens "sounds good" – but that will take some time, because many U.S. citizens are
simply not even ready at the high school or university level. She also had the idea of
eliminating weaker doctoral programs – my question to Zusman is, "Who is going to do that?
Zusman.? With what authority?" As a proponent of higher education, I am surprised she wants
to eliminate an institution of higher education simply because people cannot find jobs. Market
 Final Review 12

forces and genuine interest will sustain those schools that are adaptable (and have
enrollment). One graduate school that merged and was shut down was Dewey and Altbach's
University of Chicago's School of Education – it had been open for more than 100 years, but in
1997 it was absorbed into the School of Social Sciences when it stopped accepting doctoral
candidates.

- talks about the faculty problems: 1960s/70s (a lot hired), too many hired to handle the
expansion in HE
- in late 90s: these old timers stay on, later retire, and instead of hiring f/t, the
universities will hire adjunct (problems that arise from hiring adjunct instead of hiring
adjuncts: tenure faculties v. adjuncts)
 Final Review 13

Topic 4: Understanding the Academic

Community and Leadership in Mission: Faculty,
Students and Presidential Leadership
Class 4: Understanding the Academic Community and Leadership in Mission: Faculty,
Students and Presidential Leadership

All in Altbach’s book:

P.G. Altbach, (2005) “Harsh Realities: The Professoriate faces a new century”
What are the “harsh realities” that the U.S. professoriate is facing in the 21st century? How
has the professoriate changed since the end of WWII? Altbach offers us 6 debates about the
“harsh realities” facing the American professor. Choose the one that you think is the most
critical to is future vitality, and be prepared to discuss why it is more important than the
others?

According to Altbach (Harsh Realities: The Professoriate faces a new century, 2005) the
“harsh realities” facing the U.S. professoriate are that they have to find the appropriate balance
between teaching and research. (Some say that much academic research produced outside the
major 100 major universities is a scam.) The paradox of higher education is that the American
higher education model is the most successful model in the world, yet due to financial cuts and
set back, enrollment uncertainties, and pressures for accountabilities and confusion about
academic goals – many colleges and universities are wasteful and inefficient and many have to
reconsider their goal. Are teaching and research their primary goal?

Altbach questions, “Is the “golden age” of higher education over?” He asserts that the golden
age was a period of strong enrollment growth, increases in the budget, and strong public
support. However, recently there has been a growth, primarily in external forces that have
applied stress on the professoriate – including budget cuts.

Since WWII, the professoriate has become a more diverse profession. 1 million full and part-
time professors in 3500 institutions of postsecondary education. 1400 of these schools grant
bachelors or higher degrees and 213 award Ph.D.s A quarter of these schools are community
colleges. ½ are part-time, which means no job security and no tenure. There is also a new
category: full time but no tenure track, which is bad for the teachers. Their major
responsibility is teaching.

Depending on the institution of higher learning (junior colleges, research institutions, liberal
arts colleges) vast differences exist between the work culture and style of these various
campuses and the professoriate (ex. Senior professors at Harvard vs. an asst. prof. at a JC).

Also after WWII, the professoriate changed in that many professors were hired after 1960s,
their salaries increased, and their consciousness was raised due to the 1960s social movements.
Many anti-war movements started on college campuses as university professors thought that
education could or should solve the upward mobility issues. However, the realities of the 21st
century are that the salaries have not kept up with the cost of living, that 2/3 of faculty surveyed
 Final Review 14

in 1990 described their morale as fair or poor. 60% had negative feelings about their sense of
community at their institutions.

A problem that some faculty have had to deal with is that the tenure system came under attack
– since the 1970s. According to tenure critics, tenure breeds “laziness,” fiscal problems
(because full-tenured professors cost a lot of money and cannot be easily fired), and it makes it
difficult for young assistant professors to be hired. Retrenchment, or the firing of academic
staff without regard to tenure started to occur. For example, the firing of professors following
programmatic reviews and analysis of enrollment trends … the AAUP and several academic
unions sued universities in the courts claiming that retrenchment was against the implied
lifetime offered through tenure, but the courts ruled consistently AGAINST professors arguing
that tenure protects academic freedom but does not prevent firings due to fiscal crisis. The fact
is that tenure does NOT fully protect lifetime employment.

The one issue I think is most critical to the “survival” of the professoriate is academic freedom.
During the McCarthy era and after 9/11 – this has been tested. I think that this is central
because of the reasons many professors become instructors, especially at the small liberal arts
colleges, to teach.

Eric L. Dey and Sylvia Hurtado, (2005) “College Students in Changing Contexts”
How do you see the role of the college student in American higher education? What do you
think is the demographic change in the characteristics of the college students that they report,
and why? What surprised you in their discussion of the college student’s educational plans?
Why to you think college student satisfaction with the college experience remains high during
the past 40 years?

According to Dey and Hurtado (College students in changing contexts, 2005), the role of the
student in American higher education is

Robert Birnbaum and Peter E. Eckel, (2005) “The Dilemma of Presidential Leadership”
What is a typical list of duties associated with the presidential role? Our authors discuss five
constraints on the presidential discretion and leadership. What do you think is the most
serious in limiting his performance? And why? Our authors conclude their article by pointing
to how presidents can be effective. Did you find any convincing? Do you sense a certain
skepticism in their overall treatment of the American college presidency?

According to Birnbaum and Eckel (The Dilemma of Presidential Leadership, 2005) the typical
list of duties associated with the presidential role are to serve at the pleasure of the public and
private board of the trustees; to be the chief academic officer of the faculty and the chief
executive officer; to be the real authority and leadership, which depends on the campus and its
willingness to accept him as a true leader; the president is an administrator, a politician, a
bureaucrat, as he works both inside and outside the institution (balancing multiple
constituencies, raising funds, building and managing board relations). The typical president
spends little time on academic matters, most of his time is spent on fundraising, public
representations, and related resource acquisitions.
 Final Review 15

Of the five constraints discussed, I believe that the budget and fiscal constraints are the most
taxing because most everything else falls under these. I don’t think that at the end of the day it
really matters if your faculty will fight for their “relative” autonomy, if the school doesn’t have
a budget to operate on.

According to Birnbaum and Eckel (2005), an effective president is someone who is more
realistic, someone who accepts the decentralized nature of a college administration and life,
someone who is not top-down, someone who is willing to work with all the constituencies and
doesn’t “bark” orders. In addition, he should be willing to focus on a few select objectives and
spend a lot of energy on them. The president should understand the culture of their institution
and avoid actions that violate that culture and the academic norms thereby diminishing their
own status. Of these strategies, I do think that they can be effective – because the university
president is not like the typical CEO – he has to realized his power is shared and decentralized
– and that the other community members, especially the faculty want their autonomy. Yes, I
definitely sense a skepticism.
 Final Review 16

Class 8: Understanding the complexity

of academic leadership in higher
education: SIMPLE & COMPLEX
THEORIES
Kezar, A.J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Higher education leadership in a
new world. In Rethinking the “L” word in higher education: The revolution in research on
leadership.

What changes in the leadership literature have occurred over the past 15 years? Why are they
important for our course? Our Kezar et al. chapter reading focuses on major groups of
leadership theory: (1) trait and behavioral theories, (2) power and influence theories, (3)
transformational and transactional leadership theories, (4) complexity and chaos theories, (5)
cognitive theory, (6) cultural and symbolic theories, as well as (7) teams and relational
theories. Of these 7 theories which attracted you the most and why?

Class 9 [11/24]: Academic Leadership of the Undergraduate and Graduate Curricula

Michael N. Bastedo, “Curriculum in Higher Education: The Historical Roots of
Contemporary Issues,” pp. 462-485. (2005)

Patricia J. Gumport, “Graduate Education and Research: Interdependence and Strain,”

pp. 425-461. (2005)

Remember from last week for the large seminar discussion (part 1)
Our Kezar et al. chapter reading focuses on major groups of leadership theory: (1) trait and
behavioral theories, (2) power and influence theories, (3) transformational and transactional
leadership theories, (4) complexity and chaos theories, (5) cognitive theory, (6) cultural and
symbolic theories, as well as (7) teams and relational theories. Of these seven groups, what
leadership theory group attracted you the most and why? Be prepared to explain it to the
entire class in three ways—give us a definition, its meaning, and how does it relate to the
Kouzes and Posner book. We will go around the room and ask individuals who were
interested in one of these groups to discuss it.

Bastedo Reading. What are the three major tensions in undergraduate curricular reform?
What was the Yale Report of 1828? What did presidents Charles Eliot and Lawrence Lowell
contribute to the development of undergraduate education? In the treatment of growth and
stability, Bastedo points to Walter Metzger’s definition of subject parturition as explaining how
new knowledge entered the curriculum. Discuss how science or the social sciences changed as
these fields of knowledge expanded. What other areas of growth occurred in the college
curriculum? In the conservation and innovation section of the chapter, the author discusses
the Great Books curriculum. What type of books do you think the author is referring to? Can
you give an example? What new innovations changed undergraduate education? Have you
 Final Review 17

experienced any of them? Our author points to three “key factor[s] in curricular change.”
What are they, and how do you think they affected the undergraduate curriculum?

Michael N. Bastedo, “Curriculum in Higher Education: The Historical Roots of

Contemporary Issues,” pp. 462-485.
According to Bastedo (Curriculum in higher education, 2005), the three major tensions in
undergraduate curriculum reform are: (1) the change to religion to secular science, (2) the
change from prescribed study of the classics to curricular pluralism, and (3) from tradition and
conservatism to experimentation and growth. The Yale Report of 1828 famously defined the
purpose of liberal education as providing the discipline and furniture of the mind, especially the
intensive study of Latin, Greek, science and logic – it was essentially a defense of classical
curriculum.
According to Bastedo (2005), the contributions of Harvard presidents Eliot and Lowell were
significant. Eliot, during the late 1800s reformed electives and abandoned classical curriculum.
Lowell (a Harvard president after Eliot), instituted a set of distribution requirements to ensure that
all students received a liberal education (idea that worked in theory, but not in practice). The
problem was that there was no common curriculum. However, this began the movement toward
common general education (GE) requirements, which were crystallized by Hutchins at the
University of Chicago.

In the treatment of growth and stability, Bastedo points to Walter Metzger’s definition of
subject parturition as explaining how new knowledge entered the curriculum. Subject
partuition is when the disciplines that we have come to understand as the foundation of the modern
university were organized into distinctive and recognizable units.

In the 19th century, there were many changes in our university education – which began in the
sciences, which began to break out from the more general and humanistic approach taught in the
colonial and antebellum colleges under natural philosophy. As scientific modes of investigation
were incorporated and Ph.D.s returned from advanced study in Germany, the study of science
seemed increasingly differentiated from other subjects. Before the widespread adoption of the
elective system, chemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, and biology were already recognized as
distinct subjects at most colleges. The social sciences soon followed, with economics emerging
from political economy and soc. Emerging from economics.

The sciences and social sciences also changed as they specialized or allowed students to further
specialize. First was the lecture mode; then the seminar mode (from graduate students). These
disciplines became increasingly specialized over the 20th c. due to changes brought on by social
movements; identity movements (women’s; black power; identity; interdisciplinarity (integration of
2 or more disciplines); segregation (in terms of admissions) – sep. admissions process for popular
academic programs.

The “Great Books of the WESTERN WORLD” represented an elitist attitude of Hutchins -- and a
desire of the American universities to “catch up” with Europe. These books were the classics: the
Greeks, Latin, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke, etc.

The new innovations that Bastedo are referring to are changes in technology: long-distance classes,
Internet, discussion groups, e-mail. I have not really used distance learning classes, but I have used the
Internet and discussion groups for my learning. He also describes the exponential growth in experiential
learning: study abroad, immersion trips, internships, volunteerism.
 Final Review 18

Bastedo points to three key factors in curricular change: social movements, knowledge
differentiation, and understanding organizational culture. I believe they affected undergraduate ed
by giving students choice (they didn’t all have to take classical ed classes); by understanding the
organizational culture – you understand when and how you can implement change; and the social
movements – if you understand those – you understand when certain changes are possible (ex – black
power movement

Gumport Reading. Graduate education has evolved from its beginnings in the late 19th
century. How did German universities shape its beginning? What role did Johns Hopkins
University play in its development in the United States? Do you think it affected master’s
education? How did philanthropic foundations and the federal government change graduate
education? What are the obstacles facing graduate education today? Have any of these
affected you personally?

Patricia J. Gumport, “Graduate Education and Research: Interdependence and Strain,”

pp. 425-461.

According to Gumport (Graduate education and research: interdependence and strain, 2005),
graduate education and evolved from its beginnings in the late 19th century. The German
universities have helped shape our American university traditions. In the late 1870s, John
Hopkins University needed to collaborate with German universities in science research, so it
sent people over to Germany.

In 1876, with the founding of JHU it is often thought of as marking the establishment of graduate
education; JHU became known as the prototype and propagator of research as a major university
function. That, coupled w/ its commitment to scientific research, JHU offered merit-based graduate
fellowships for f/t study that included state of the art research training. JHU linked science research and
graduate education and other graduate schools emerged in the late 1890s within larger universities
whose undergrad missions and the size offered a broad and stable base of support in endowment funds
and tuition – this is how it affected master’s education.

Philanthropic foundations and the federal government changed graduate education. After WWII,
foundations and industry were eclipsed by a surge in federal government sponsorship. The earliest
sources of research sponsorship were wealthy benefactors and their philanthropic foundations. In 1870,
philanthrophic contributions to HE averaged $6mn/yr (mainly to indiv scientists). By 1890, donations
were more widespread. JD Rockerfeller donated $35 mn to the U of Chicago. Early 1910s: $182 mn
given by the Rockerfeller Fdn; Carnegie Corp. gave $125 mn. 1930s: universities could no longer
depend completely on foundations as complete sponsor in sciences and university research; private
industry enters as a sponsor

In 1863: National Academy of Sciences (federal org) was founded. After WWII, the federal govt
saw the univ as precious public resources worthy of govt investments and established the National
Science Foundation.

According to Gumport (2005), the obstacles facing graduate education are

retrenchment, a tightening of the academic market, decline in federal support (fellowships,
traineeships, cuts in stipends for assistantships), decline in federal research budget.
 Final Review 19

Class 10 – Academic Leadership within a Public

Policy Context
In Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O., & Gumport, P.J. (2005). American higher education in the
twenty-first century.

Gladiuex, L., King, J., & Corrigan, M. “The Federal Government” (2005)

What is the role of the states regarding education? What areas does the federal government
heavily fund postsecondary education? Federal funding of research is invested in one group of
American universities – what? What type of federal financial aid to students was the largest in
2001-2002? Based on your reading, do you think this will change? How has policy to aid
students changed? Why? What happened in 1992?

According to Gladiuex and King (“The Federal Government, 2005), the role of the states is
whatever reserved to them (10th amendment), as education is nowhere stated in the Constitution
or mentioned by the founding fathers. However, states have taken it upon themselves to retain
the fundamental responsibility for higher education, primarily through provision through
operation support of public systems of colleges and universities (salaries and facilities).

The areas that the federal government does heavily fund are research and development and
student aid. But we need to keep in mind that federal funding is less than 15 percent of all
college and university revenues. However, research and development, which is specifically
targeted by the federal government, exceeds state funding. This is also affected by federal tax
policies, both in costs of attendance. Moreover, as a condition of federal spending and tax
support, Congress and executive agencies of the government impose a variety of rules and
mandates on postsecondary institutions and students. The federal government has primary
responsibility for setting, interpreting, and enforcing civil rights legislation that affect all
colleges and universities.

The federal funding of research is invested in one group of American universities in particular:
medical schools, graduate and research specific universities. They also fund historically black
universities and Hispanic-serving institutions (under Title III and Title V). The type of
financial aid that the federal government doled the most of its monies in 2001-2002 were R&D
(41 percent, $22 million) and direct student aid (federal loans; 23 percent, $11 mn). The
research and dev money is mostly concentrated on a relatively small number of institutions,
that receive more than 80 percent of all federal science and engineering obligations to
academia.

The federal policy to aid has changed from needs-based aid to loan-centered aid system. Much
of the grant-based aid has disappeared. In addition, many of the subsidized loans have fallen
out of favor and been replaced with unsubsidized loans. In 1992, the Higher education act
was reauthorized and expanded the borrowing capacity for students and parents at all
income levels.
 Final Review 20

McGuinness, A., Jr. (The states and higher education, 2005) – governance perspective

What 4 trends are straining the relations between states and higher education? Each person in
the group should explore this relationship regarding enrollments and financing or
accountability and performance funding aspects. States govern higher education differently.
What is the difference between governing and coordinating boards in the various states? What
was the fundamental shift that occurred regarding the state financing of higher education?

According to McGuinness (The states and higher education, 2005), the four strains are:
escalating demands, severe economic constraints, the academy’s inherent resistance to change,
and the instability of state polity leadership. The relationship between enrollments and
financing is extremely intertwined. In 1995-1996, the state and local governments provided
approximately 35% of the current revenue for higher education, both public and private,
excluding sales and services (for example, hospitals, dorms, restaurants) vs. federal government
(15%), vs. student tuition (38%), other sources (11%; endowments, private gifts, grants).

1980-1998, HE appropriations as a percentage of total state funding decreased. But in the same
period, state appropriations to public colleges and universities actually increased. Nationwide,
higher ed appropriations increased, but this was a decreasing share of an expanding pie. In
other words, overall state funding increased at a rate faster than increases in state
appropriations to higher education. The reality is that state appropriations couldn’t keep up
with the rising costs (university, esp. tuition).

By 2000, the states couldn’t keep up the pace of “subsidizing” higher education. This will
become worse with the economy worsening.

The relationship between accountability and performance funding aspects is that recently many
universities and colleges have had their funding and budgeting tied to their performance. This
is especially true for public colleges and universities. If they achieve their prescribed target or
an improvement level on defined indicators, it receives a designated amount or percent of state
funding. In performance budgeting, the possibility of additional funding due to good or
improved performance solely depends on the judgment and discretion of state, coordinating, or
system officials. And finally, performance reporting recounts statewide results and often the
institutional results of mostly public higher education on higher education on priority
indicators, similar to those found in performance funding and budgeting. These reports are
usually sent to the governors, legislators, and campus leaders.

Coordinating boards are necessarily oriented toward state government, while statewide
governing boards are oriented toward institutions. A coordinating boarch is a single agency
other than a governing board that has the responsibility for the statewide coordination of many
policy functions (e.g.planning and policy leadership, program review and approval, and budget
development and resource allocation) These two different types of boards must have
correspondingly different characteristics.

state obligation: to provide the infrastructure; educational opportunities (educated citizenry)

federal obligation: to provide $ - loans, grants
 Final Review 21

Kouzes – transactional, behavioral theory (pre-transforn)