https://caspercollege.cvlcollections.org/files/original/1e422aea71393c2a31706e7a79ddcfc6.pdf ed35e8076e91e75c0bed4cbe84a3500c PDF Text Text 2 This chapter describes some of the forces that worked to move the 2-year college away from the liberal arts and toward vocational programs. The analysis centers on agencies that made job training a priority. What Happened to the Liberal Arts? Chad Hanson In the beginning, 2-year schools were meant to act as liberal arts colleges. They served a solitary purpose. They offered the first 2 years of the bacca­ laureate. Associate degrees included courses in the arts and sciences. They provided students with a broad background, transferable to universities. The freshman and sophomore years were seen as investments in general education. University of Chicago’s first president, William Rainey Harper, coined the phrase “associate degree” to suggest that students would realize the value of the credentials when they “associated” them with in-depth study in a discipline. For all of our strengths as a nation, we struggle when it comes to our command of history. We tend to forget the early intent of the 2-year college in our current discussions of higher education. When those of us in middle age hark back to traditions, we favor those that we lived through. With regard to the 2-year school, we know the comprehensive community col­ lege, focused on transfer, outreach, and training. If the trajectory of change continues, however, the next generation of staff and faculty will think of their schools as vocational institutes, and we will have completed the shift from the liberal arts to labor force development. Before we make it around that bend, I am going to suggest that we consider why we created 2-year colleges. I am going to further suggest that we make an effort to understand why we altered the schools’ mission. I do not advocate history for its own sake, however. Through an analysis of how we came to where we are, we can assess whether the changes we have been through were improvements. Knowing where we have been is a means to 1 New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 163, Fall 2013 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinellbrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/cc.20066 11 �12 fostering THE Liberal Arts IN THE 21st-Century Community College judge our current state. In addition, the past provides insight on what it may take to steer our schools in the direction of a promising future. In what follows, I analyze the circumstances that led to the creation of a national network of 2-year colleges. From there, 1 examine some of the social forces that moved the 2-year school away from the liberal arts and toward vocational programs. In the process, 1 give thought to the agencies that worked to shift our attention toward career-related fields. The Schools’ Original Purpose In the 1800s, William Rainey Harper grew troubled by the state of teaching at the University of Chicago. At the time, the nation had become enamored with the German research university. Harper embraced the goal of knowl­ edge production, but he also took note of the way the new priority affected faculty. Harper observed a difference between the skills used to conduct research and those related to inspirational teaching. He grew concerned that students would suffer as universities began to stress research. With respect to entering freshmen, he wrote, “Not infrequently the instructors under whom they are placed ... are inferior to those with whom they have been associated,” in public high schools or private academies (1968b, p. 55). Such misgivings led Harper to divide the University of Chicago into junior and senior colleges. During the freshman and sophomore years, students took a range of classes in the arts and sciences. Courses were taught by faculty who were chosen for their ability in the classroom. After Harper’s decision to form a junior college within the university, he worked to help Joliet junior College open its doors as the nation’s first 2-year institution. Meanwhile, on the West Coast, education leaders were giving thought to the same issues. At the University of California, Alexis Lange decried poor-quality teaching. At Stanford, David Starr Jordan grew concerned about the character of lower-division courses. Like their colleague in Chicago, both men felt compelled to address the shortcomings created when universities grew biased in the direction of research. In Lange’s papers, held in special collections on the Berkeley campus, he explains, “Our imitation of Germany has not come far enough” (Gallagher, 1994, p. 10). Specifically, he pointed out that we failed to create an institution comparable to that of the German gymnasium. As opposed to the university, “In the gymnasium it is the most experienced and most suc­ cessful teachers that have charge of the work that corresponds to that of the freshman and sophomore years” (Gallagher, 1994, p. 10). Jordan agreed. When it came to new students, he wrote: There is no worse teaching done under the sun than in the lower classes of some of our most famous colleges. Cheap tutors, unpracticed and unpaid �boys are sent to lecture to classes far beyond their power to interest. We are saving our money for original research, careless of the fact that we fail to give the elementary training which makes research possible. (1910, p. 441) Lange and Jordan lobbied for the development of California’s network of 2-year colleges, and they were successful. The system became a model for other states. The intent was to send great teachers out into a range of loca­ tions, where they could introduce students to the liberal arts. Despite seemingly noble intentions, those who pressed for the creation of 2-year campuses have been accused of harboring elitist goals (Brint and Karabel, 1989). Critics charge that Harper, Lange, and Jordan wanted 2-year colleges to serve as gatekeepers, a means of routing ill-prepared stu­ dents away from universities. Harper made his plan explicit. He suggested, after enrolling in a 2-year school, “Many students will find it convenient to give up college work at the end of the sophomore year” (Harper, 1968a, p. 52). Harper’s prediction came true to a degree that he could not have imag­ ined. Despite the transfer mission of the early 2-year schools, an alarming number of students never advanced to universities (Bailey & Morest, 2006). Under the terms outlined by Harper, Lange, and Jordan, however, if students ended their education on a 2-year campus, they did so after receiv­ ing an education of the same type offered at our most storied institutions. Today, 2-year college students not only receive an education that is shorter than their peers, they also receive an education of a different type (Alfonso, Bailey, & Scott, 2005). The paths are separate and they are also unequal. We prepare university students for the long term and for leader­ ship. They ready themselves for lives spent in reflection on the major ques­ tions of the day. They immerse themselves in art, music, science, and the humanities: our finest achievements. Their 2-year counterparts, especially those in certificate or applied degree programs, focus on job training so as to learn a set of skills of temporary use to employers. In relative silence, and without much in the way of public attention, we transformed our 2-year schools and shifted them away from their origi­ nal mission. In what follows, I describe some of the forces that moved the 2-year college away from the liberal arts. In the end, I suggest the change has been harmful to the time-honored goals of human development and educational equality. External Agencies and Agendas We describe institutions of higher learning as “ivory towers,” insulated from the workings of our culture. In the case of the community college, however, historical records suggest the institution has been less than insu­ lated. Two-year schools have been influenced by agencies and groups with NEW Directions for Community Colleges • DOI: 10,1002/cc �14 Fostering the Liberal Arts in the 21st-Century Community College ideologies and agendas (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). For an examination of the process 2-year colleges went through as they came to favor job training, it is important to consider the role of the schools’ national organization, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). The AACC formed in the first part of the 20th century, when 2-year schools called themselves “junior” colleges. The group’s leaders thought of themselves as advocates. In the words of Michael Brick, “The association acted as spokesman—telling the junior college story to the government, to educational organizations, to the public, and to its administrators and fac­ ulty” (1964, p. 89). Early on, AACC members grew unhappy with their status as junior partners to schools that grant the baccalaureate. As promoters of 2-year colleges, the group began to look for ways to expand the institution. They thought the focus on 4-year programs limited their potential. Despite the original transfer intent of the 2-year curriculum, the AACC pushed for the creation of terminal certificates and applied associate degrees. They assumed the strategy would help to recruit students and give 2-year schools an incentive to grow. By midcentury, AACC members had become enthu­ siastic about job training. According to Brick, “Hardly a meeting through­ out the 1920s and 1930s failed to discuss terminal education” (1964 p. 120). The group decided they needed to forge a market niche, and a consen­ sus formed around the notion that the niche should differ from that of more academic institutions. Thus, the group worked to “temper the liberal arts attitude” of staff and faculty (Brick, 1964, p. 119). By encouraging job training, AACC leaders believed they were building a rationale for enlarg­ ing the nation’s network of 2-year colleges. But the desire for organizational growth alone cannot explain the shift in the curriculum. Schools and colleges are often pressured to expand, and over the course of history, expansion has meant growth, not only in size, but also with regard to status. For example, 2-year colleges were often founded in high schools. Community colleges were created as high school principals pursued prestige and a foothold in the postsecondary market. Four-year colleges improved their status, too. They became universities. The 2-year college is a unique case, however. We sought to expand our market by creating new programs, but those programs suffered from low esteem. The AACC’s leaders understood this aberration. They were aware that, as a nation, we have “traditionally looked down upon education that is not liberally oriented” (Brick, 1964, p. 188). Still, they sought to move the 2-year school toward occupational programs. The effort represents a reflection of ideology. In his work on the AACC, Brick sheds light on the values that the group used to guide its initiatives. In explaining the worldview of the AACC’s leaders, he outlines a set of assumptions described as “the business way” (1964, p. 6). Here, Brick captures the essence of the belief system: �Between 1865 and the present, a major element in American social thought defined itself. This element was “the business way” which held as principal ideas: (1) Material success comes as the reward of superior virtue, (2) there is an insignificant amount of social injustice in the existing society, (3) the fittest and best survive the tests of our society, and (4) wealth tends to be socially benevolent. (1964, p. 6) In an era like our own, a period where economic inequality reached new levels, AACC members aligned themselves with the ascendant class. They worked to build an institution that responded to what they thought were the wishes of business. The AACC did not make it their aim to introduce students to the humanities, scholarship, or the life of the mind. In the wellknown book. The American Community College, Cohen and Drawer echoed the sentiments that drove the schools’ expansion through the 20th century. They suggested that 2-year schools should not take up the goal of making “learned scholars of television-ridden troglodytes” (Cohen & Drawer, 1987, p. 356). Throughout its history, the AACC has accepted the notion that our citizens are not equal when it comes to their potential for success. A hier­ archical network of schools suited the group: liberal arts colleges and uni­ versities to groom leaders, low-status vocational institutes to provide employers with “a free supply of trained subordinates” (Veblen, 1957, p. 144). This belief system favors a diverse network of institutions, shep­ herding citizens toward “appropriate” but unequal stations. According to Goodwin: These educational leaders knew the kind of world they wanted—a world that would be orderly, efficient, and productive, and they knew the type of man they wished to mold—a man with the social conscience to blend harmoni­ ously into the community and with the skills to perform his proper role at his proper level. (1973, p. 13) Historically, AACC members conceived inequality as an acceptable part of social life. Through the expansion of short-term and terminal cre­ dentials aimed at an audience of women, the poor, and minorities, 2-year schools began to harden the barriers between classes (Karabel, 1972; Pincus, 1980). AACC members worried, if large segments of the lower class were liberally educated, and thus, in at least one sense, equal to their supe­ riors, they might chafe at their economic conditions. The AACC promoted job training under the assumption that such programs could “reduce possible friction between the educated elite and the masses” (Goodwin, 1973, p. 13). The group’s members pressed for a hierarchical curriculum, on par with the hierarchical nation that they saw as ideal. In the process, we put in place a double standard: vocational training for the poor and academics for the well-to-do, (Z)ver time, the arrangement had the effect of New Directions for Community Colleges • DOI: 10.1002/cc �16 Fostering the Liberal Arts in the 21st-Century Community Con fgf preserving unequal levels of educational attainment (Long & Kurlaender, 2009). As the sole national advocacy group for the community college, the AACC had a significant impact on the changing mission of the 2-year school. At the federal level, however, the AACC’s efforts have also been strengthened by government agencies. For example, the U.S. Department of Education has advocated change in the 2-year sector through the publi­ cation of white papers and proposals. One of the most widely read is The Twenty-First Century Community College: A Strategic Guide to Maximizing Labor Force Responsiveness (2004). In the report, the main suggestion is that 2-year schools should develop not-for-credit, business-oriented, train­ ing regimens and courses. When colleges take this advice, however, our students attend institutions with lower levels of prestige than their peers, and the credentials they earn hold no value, compared to those in for-credit degree programs. In the beginning, we intended 2-year schools to play a democratizing role. We meant for students from modest backgrounds to benefit from the liberal arts, in the same manner as the sons and daughters of the privileged. The associate degree was intended to have an equalizing effect on the popu­ lace. When we moved the 2-year college toward job training, however, we changed it from “the ‘great equalizer’ to the ‘great selector’ of society” (Goodwin, 1973, p. 88). Instead of using schools to ensure that students receive similar preparation for life and work, we created a two-tiered sys­ tem. Students bound for civic leadership and the upper-middle class still enroll in broad-based 4-year programs. Underprivileged students attend 2-year schools where they learn a more narrow set of skills. Conclusion Historic evidence suggests that businesses did not urge colleges to start vocational programs (Brint & Karabel, 1989). There are current indications that some companies see the 2-year college as a way to subsidize their training costs (Mangan, 2013). But thoughtful studies of this issue draw a different conclusion. Regular surveys by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) suggest that business leaders favor grad­ uates with the traits that we associate with the liberal arts: ethics, critical thought, tolerance, cooperation, and the ability to communicate (AACU, 2013). In addition, it is evident that students did not demand vocational degrees (Wolf, 2002). Early occupational programs struggled with low enrollment. To this day, it takes persistent advertising to convince students to choose short-term, technical majors (Davidson, 2012). We also failed to consult the literature on human development when we set the present course for the community college. We did not take into account what we know about the best means to ensure moral, aesthetic, and identity devel- �opment (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Thus, 2-year schools oriented toward job training defy the wishes of business, the desires of students, and the knowledge that we gained from generations of research on what it takes to create an environment where citizens become educated. According to Michael Engel, the unusual success of the movement to vocationalize is due, at least in part, to “ideological confusion among many of those who might chart a different path” (2000, p. 5). For example, with the hope of providing access to careers, many faculty conceded along with the AACC and the U.S. Department of Education, that 2-year schools exist to prepare students with a limited set of job-related skills. This trend grew out of sincere concerns, but the trend is also ironic. When we consider the actual interests of employers, we see that businesses and not-for-profit groups alike prefer broadly educated people (AACU, 2013). Society, democracy, and the American economy all benefit from a liber­ ally educated population. Even so, for the last 30 years of 2-year college history, we worked to sidestep the liberal arts. We did so by creating applied associate degrees and short-term certificates that contain little or no general education. In the process, we became invested in a pattern that President George W. Bush described as a type of “soft bigotry” that results from hav­ ing low expectations for low-income students. By reducing our focus to job training, community colleges engage in a pattern of relating to students as if they are one-dimensional; as if specific, job-related competencies are the only skills they are worthy to hold. Two-year colleges serve disadvantaged groups: women, minorities, people of low socioeconomic status, and first-generation college students (Wang, 2012). As professionals, we have a moral duty to provide those students with an education of the same nature that we find in elite institu­ tions. To offer 2-year college students anything less is to partake in bigotry. When we limit the scope of our efforts to simply inculcating job-related skills, we deny our students the broad education for leadership and public life that takes place at the top of our postsecondary system. William Harper, Alexis Lange, and David Starr Jordan set in motion a century-long community college movement. They urged for the creation of a 2-year sector, with the hope that students of modest means could enjoy the lifelong benefits of an education in the arts and sciences: pro­ vided by accomplished teachers, convenient to their locations, and acces­ sible at low rates of tuition. Their efforts were fueled by the vision of a society where intellectual equality helped to shrink the gulf between social classes. One great lesson of history is that groups committed to a cause can change the course of an institution. In the case of the community college, a government agency and a professional association worked to shift our focus away from the liberal arts. In other words, organized groups of people altered our mission and purpose, but of course, organized people can do the same again. Consider taking one or more of these steps: NEW DIRECTIONS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES • DOI: 10.1002/cc �18 Fostering the Liberal Arts in the 21st-Century Community College • Your institution is likely a member of the American Association of Community Colleges. Attend their annual meeting. Speak out. Play a leadership role. Shape the agenda. • The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers support the liberal arts. Contribute to their efforts. • Publish a flyer or brochure that states the benefits of general education. We often advertise vocational programs, but we rarely promote or adver­ tise the arts and sciences. • Write a paper. Talk to colleagues. Start an advocacy group. Since the beginning of the 2-year college movement, the institution has been shifting away from its original mission. In the next chapter, Thelma Altshuler recalls some of the changes that occurred during the course of her admirable career. References Alfonso M„ Bailey, T. & Scott, M. (2005). The educational outcomes of sub­ baccalaureate students: Evidence from the 1990s. Economics of Education Review, Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Washington, DC: Associa­ tion of American Colleges and Universities. Bailey, T., & Morest, V (2006). Introduction. In T. Bailey & V Morest (Eds ) Defending the community college equity agenda. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press Brick, M (1964). Forum and focus for the junior college movement: The American Associa­ tion oj Community Colleges. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bnnt, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise ^^educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York, NY: Oxford University Cohen, A., & Brawer, E (1987). The American community college. San Francisco CAjossey-Bass. ’ Davidson, A. (2012, November 25). Skills don’t pay the bills. New York Times Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.eom/2012/l 1/25/magazine/skills-dont-pay-the-bills htmP pagewanted=all&_r=0 Engel, M. (2000). The struggle for control in public education: Market ideology vs demo­ cratic values. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Gallagher E. (1994). Jordan and Lange: The California junior college as protector of teach­ ing. Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace Stanford University. ’ Goodwdn, G. (1973). A social panacea; A history of the community-junior college ideoloey Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Harper, W. R (1968a). The associate degree. In T. Diener (Ed.), Crowth of an American invention. A documentary history of the community college movement (pp 49-52) New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Harper W. R. (1968b). Changes affecting the small college which may be expected and which are to be desired. In T. Diener (Ed.), Growth of an American invention: A docu­ mentary history of the community college movement (pp. 53-60). New York NY Greenwood Press. ’ Jordan, D. S. (1910). The care and culture of freshmen. North American Review 191 441-442. ’ ’ �tion of Play* a tion of cation, adver- □n has 'helma : of her of sub­ Review, Karabel, J. (1972). Community colleges and social stratification. Harvard Educational Review, 42(4), 521-561. Long, B., & Kurlaender, M. (2009). Do community colleges provide a viable pathway to the baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(1), 30-53. Mangan, K. (2013, February 13). Community colleges are heeding the call to close the skills gap. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/ Community-Colleges-Are-Heeding/137309/ Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Pincus, F (1980). The false promise of the community colleges: Class conflict and voca­ tional education. Harvard Educational Review, 50(3), 332-361. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). The twenty-first century community college: A strategic guide to maximizing labor force responsiveness, Washington, DC: U.S. Depart­ ment of Education. Veblen, T. (1957). The higher learning in America. New York, NY: Hill and Wang. Wang, X. (2012). Factors contributing to the upward transfer of baccalaureate aspirants beginning at community colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 83(6), 851-875. Wolf, A. (2002). Does education matter? Myths about education and economic growth. London, England: Penguin Books. I major: vssociaf’ending y Press. Issociayromise iversity :o, CA; trieved .html? demoteachanford :ology. erican , New :d and docuireen191, Chad Hanson serves as chairman of the Department of Sociology and Social Work at Casper College in Casper, Wyoming. He is the author of The Community College and the Good Society (2010). New directions for Community Colleges • DOl: 10.1002/cc � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Print Journal Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource What Happened to the Liberal Arts? Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <div id="dublin-core-rights" class="element"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div id="dublin-core-rights" class="element"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div id="dublin-core-rights" class="element"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text"> <div class="element-text"> <div class="element-text"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text"><a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2013 Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Chad Hanson Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Chad Hanson Journal Publications, CCA 04.ii.e.2025.01 WyCaC US. Casper College Archives and Special Collections. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CCA 04.ii.e.2025.01_ChadHansonPapers_33 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Searchable PDF Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <em>New Directions for Community Colleges</em> is published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.