It’s Time for Campuses to Truly Think Outside the Box

Half a dozen years or so ago, I invited readers to think outside the box: to challenge the conventional wisdom, step beyond existing practices, view institutional problems from a different perspective and take risks.

Seven years later, I’d like to revisit that call to action.

Nonprofit higher education is organized around a series of boxes. That is, the system, structure and methods of brick-and-mortar institutions are guided by long-standing traditions, norms and standardized approaches. These boxes can be seen in various aspects of a college education, including institutional structures, curriculum design, graduation requirements, teaching methods, administrative processes and even in the broader academic culture.

Most Popular Stories

Most Popular

Some of these conventions make sense. Others are long overdue for reconsideration.

Let’s begin with institutional structures. Campuses are typically divided between academic and student affairs and into schools (or colleges), departments, programs and centers. We might ask ourselves, first, does the firm separation of student life and academic life make sense?

I’d argue that by integrating student affairs and academic affairs, colleges and universities can create a more interconnected and enriching campus environment that supports students’ academic success, personal growth and preparation for life beyond college.

• Extracurricular and co-curricular activities could be better linked to classroom learning. My university, for example, doesn’t really integrate its many archives, libraries, museums and cultural venues into undergraduates’ academic experience. Ditto for service learning projects or leadership training.
• Also, there could be greater faculty involvement in student life. Not just serving as advisers to student organizations, but playing a more integral role in dormitory events and wellness and mental health initiatives. At the same time, student affairs professionals might have greater involvement in curriculum development to ensure that courses and programs reflect students’ broader educational and developmental needs.
• Perhaps most important of all, career services might be better aligned with academic advising to provide cohesive guidance on career paths, internships and job opportunities related to students’ fields of study.

Departments are, in part, administrative conveniences, but the department structure, which dates to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, also aligns with distinct disciplines. We should ask ourselves if that organization still makes sense or whether the disadvantages still outweigh the obvious advantages (disciplinary expertise, professional identity, ease in allocating funding and space, etc.).

I, for one, am increasingly struck by how the departmental structure silos learning and research, impedes the updating of the curriculum, obstructs efforts to create a more holistic education and renders it more difficult to address issues that require a multidisciplinary approach.

If colleges were to eliminate traditional academic departments, they would need to adopt a new organizational structure. This could potentially lead to a more interdisciplinary, flexible and collaborative educational environment. Here are some possibilities for how colleges could be reorganized:

• Instead of departments, colleges could organize around broad interdisciplinary themes or current issues, with faculty members working in collectives or teams, fostering cross-pollination of ideas among experts with different training and approaches. For example, clusters might focus on sustainability, global health, digital society or social justice. These clusters would bring together faculty and courses from diverse disciplines relevant to the theme. Without departments, the curriculum could conceivably become more flexible, focusing, for instance, on research projects and problems better aligned with students’ interests and career goals, allowing for more personalized learning paths.
• Another alternative might be student-centric, career-aligned learning communities that offer a more holistic education, blending academic, social and personal development.
• Campuses might consider erasing the divide between continuing education (or general studies) and the more traditional on-campus undergraduate experience, increasing online learning options and enhancing students’ access to the broad range of programs that continuing ed programs offer.

This reorganization would certainly require a significant shift in the administrative structure, faculty roles and curriculum design. It would aim to create a more holistic, interdisciplinary and adaptable educational environment, preparing students to navigate and contribute to an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Let’s turn next to the curriculum. The typical college curriculum is divided into general education requirements (typically met through a grab bag of discipline-based introductory courses), discipline-based majors and electives.

What if we were to adopt a very different approach? We might, for example, create integrated degree and career pathways, providing a more direct connection between students’ academic studies and their career objectives. This approach might help students see the practical application of their education, understand how their academic work translates into career skills and make a smoother transition from college to the workforce.

That would be hard to do. It would require faculty to better align their courses with those offered by other departments. But if we were learning- and student-focused, that might well be worth the effort.

A curriculum designed around integrated pathways might also encourage interdisciplinary learning, reflecting the complex, interconnected nature of most modern careers and lead to a more well-rounded education that encompasses a variety of skills and perspectives. By clearly linking education to career outcomes, this approach can reduce the sense of disconnection that some students feel between their academic studies and their postgraduation ambitions.

Focused pathways might streamline the curriculum and reduce the time and cost to complete a degree. This can be especially beneficial for students who have clear career goals and want to enter the workforce quickly. Such an approach might also emphasize the development of soft skills like communication, teamwork and problem-solving, which are highly valued in the workplace but often less emphasized in traditional academic settings.

Let’s turn next to the heart of the academic enterprise: the courses students take and the ways they are taught. Classes generally take one of two forms: lectures or discussions. Why not add to the mix workshopping and studio models, field-based or outdoor education, scaled research experiences, co-ops and mentored internships, learning circles, or communities of inquiry or solver communities?

In recent years, there have been repeated calls for a greater emphasis on active, authentic and experiential learning. But the impact of such ideas as flipped classrooms, with class time devoted to applied learning and problem-solving, has been pretty limited. We clearly have a long way to go before case-based learning, gamification and service learning and field experiences are woven into the undergraduate academic experience.

One way to do that is to integrate technology-enhanced activities into the classroom. By this, I don’t mean PowerPoint presentations or online discussion groups, but the use of technology to bring a much broader range of primary sources and data into our classes and make expanded use of simulations, modeling and annotation, data analysis, text mining, and visualization software. Virtually paired classrooms; the use or development of educational apps and games; the creation of class websites, virtual encyclopedias and field trips; and new forms of digital presentations are ways to transform students into creators of knowledge.

In terms of assessment, it’s high time to supplement the traditional assignments (such as quizzes, tests and papers), with practices that promote intellectual growth, skill development and authentic learning.

An important and timely new book entitled Grading for Growth, by David Clark and Robert Talbert, two professors of mathematics, argues that current practice denies students the opportunity to revise their work, fails to give them the kinds of formative and actionable feedback that they need to improve, penalizes students who perform poorly on high-stakes exams and doesn’t encourage the kinds of self-assessment and reflection that will allow them to improve their performance in the future. Alternatives include:

• Transparent rubrics that provide students with a detailed set of criteria used to evaluate their academic work.
• Frequent low-stakes, formative assessments to identify gaps in students’ understanding and skills.
• Authentic assessments that mimic professional practice, like an environmental impact statement, a business or marketing plan, or a policy brief.
• Performance-based assessments that require students to demonstrate their mastery of skills and knowledge, such as presentations and demonstrations.
• Self-assessments and peer assessments that encourage metacognition and help students learn to give and receive constructive feedback.

There are other areas ripe for rethinking, including credentials. Shouldn’t we offer our students more opportunities to acquire credentials in areas that will enhance their attractiveness on the job market, for example, in project management, data analysis or industry-specific software? Or about leadership and social and interpersonal interactions, civics and ethics?

In my view, the areas that most needs reconsideration involve the faculty: how faculty members are trained and how they conceive of their role. Yes, we need to train disciplinary specialists. But we also need to train well-rounded intellectuals with a grounding in diverse fields. And we need to cultivate doctoral students who consider themselves learning architects and mentors.

Although higher education has been much in the news, I fear that the real issues facing the campuses that serve the bulk of the nation’s undergraduates have been largely ignored.

I, like you, worry about eroding academic standards, useless or even fraudulent research, and an excessively politicized curriculum. But the real issues aren’t plagiarism or data manipulation or diversity, equity and inclusion offices. The true challenges lie elsewhere: In unacceptably low levels of retention and graduation rates at broad access institutions. In prolonged time to degree. In majors that fail to provide a seamless entryway into the workforce. In the deepening divide between have and have-not institutions. In disparities in outcomes along lines of class, ethnicity and race. In the failure to educate students holistically.

We need to make the general education portion of an undergraduate education more meaningful and relevant—and not repetitious of what students studied in higher school.

We need to help many more students succeed in highly demanding fields of study, like computer science, data science, engineering and neuroscience.

We need to ensure that all our graduates acquire the literacies—cultural, financial, historical, legal, mathematical and statistical, scientific, and social scientific—that an educated citizenry requires.

We need to better prepare students for careers and the responsibilities and burdens of adulthood.

Great ideas are out there, begging to be appropriated. Like Guttman College’s Ethnography of Work course, which introduces students to sociological and anthropological perspectives on work as they investigate a range of careers and learn about workplaces as cultural system invested with meanings, norms, values, customs, behavioral expectations and hierarchies.

Like Hunter College’s Humanities 20100: Adventures in the Arts, in which students visit museums and attend dance, symphonic, operatic and theatrical performances followed by a seminar in which they process what they have seen and heard.

Like Alexander the Great, we need to cut the Gordian knot. We must be willing to act in bold and unconventional ways. Only by thinking outside the box can our institutions remain relevant and adapt, preparing our students for the changing workforce and societal needs.