Stepping in by Looking Back: Using History to Introduce the Study of Higher Education

31 Henderson, Algo D. Policies and Practices in Higher Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1960. Henderson, Algo D. and J. G. Henderson. Higher Education in America: Problems , Priorities and Prospects. San Francisco: Jossev-Bass, 1974. Hutchins, Robert. The Higher Learning in America. New Haven: Yale Univer­ sity Press, 1936. Jencks, Christopher and David Riesman. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1968. Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Harvard University Press, 1963. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University. New York: Knopf, 1962. Veblen, Thorstein. The Higher Learning in America. New York: Sagamore Press, 1956 (originally published 1918). Veysey, Laurence R. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. STEPPING IN BY LOOKING BACK: USING HISTORY TO INTRODUCE THE STUDY OF HIGHER EDUCATION John R. Thelin Claremont Graduate School and Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities The Problem and An Approach The field of higher education has inherited the mixed blessings of suc­ cess: Expansion and proliferation of specialties and positions erode the common set of experiences held by those within the profession. To provide partial counter to this syndrome, the Claremont Graduate School program ad­ vances the proposition that the base of graduate professional study in higher education ought include familiarity with historical and philosophical issues associated with colleges and universities. Entering students are introduced to the field of higher education via a required course in the "Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Higher Education," regardless of a student's particular professional specialty. Whether one's long-range goal is exper­ tise in student personnel, finance, business affairs, institutional research, management, planning, or teaching, we think that such an introduction is per­ tinent to professional esprit, development, and problem-solving. How is this potentially vague, albeit laudable, goal translated into practice? First, the purpose of the course demands strict clarification. Our pri­ mary concern is not with the education of historians or philosophers. Rather, we present historical methods and historical issues as active concerns which contribute to intelligent confrontations with the myriad of complex and ambi­ guous problems and situations our students will face in higher education's present and future. Second, we have found that a team-teaching format stimu­ lates peint-counterpoint interdisciplinary examination of themes in higher education. The two instructors, whose common ground has been graduate study in higher education, complement one another in the diverse academic affilia­ tions and administrative experiences each brings, respectively, to lectures, discussions, readings, and student consultations. One presents background in law, political science, labor arbitration, management, and government rela­ tions; the other instructor offers experience in statewide research and poli­ cy planning, social-intellectual history, foundations of education, admis­ sions, and research and development. Both instructors attend all class meet­ ings; responsibilities for lectures and formal presentations have been alter­ nated. Student papers and presentations are evaluated, compared, and discus­ sed by both instructors. The course and format were offered in the Fall semesters of 1978 and 1979; after two years of experimentation with this 32 approach, we think that this strategy promotes renewal and re-evaluation among the faculty and desirable breadth and debate within the classroom. Case Studies and Chronology The course is historical in that we do follow a chronological presenta­ tion of events, documents, and characters— starting with European and medi­ eval antecedents, continuing through the 1970's, and concluding with an his­ torian's analysis of "futurology" as a tool in the higher education workshop. Each semester we attempt to identify a unifying theme around which to orga­ nize our survey. For example, one semester our proposition was that the cur­ riculum constituted the heart of the college and university— the core around which other actions and events in the higher education cosmos revolved. An important note is that we presented this theme as a modest proposal; i.e . , we asked students to entertain that contention, not necessarily to accept it. As a result, both students and instructors repeatedly examined and re-exam­ ined our own working hypothesis. Weekly units, presented as historical case studies, were juxtaposed against recent developments in order to suggest those trends which were perennial and enduring in higher education. We think that...