Summary:

American research universities have a unique opportunity to engage students through interactions with world-renowned research faculty.  The plenary session presented by Dr. Donna Shalala helped provide a framework to address the educational expectations of a research university.  The session not only provided recommendations to enhance the public perception of research institutions, but also addressed the challenges of cost, openness, interdisciplinary perspective, student anonymity, and intellectual diversity.

Presentation:

What the American Research University Represents

Thank you, Wendy, for the introduction and the invitation to be with you all today.  
The Reinvention Center is a unique consortium, an exercise in collective university initiative that addresses a key and vital issue in American higher education.  Due in part to the networks of the Reinvention Center, its members will discover new and better ways to educate American undergraduates. The University of Miami is pleased to have been able to support the Reinvention Center during its period of transition to a member-driven organization.  While we host the Center, we do not own it.  The Center belongs to its members, and we understand that the Center’s home may well move to other universities in the future.

Discovering, collecting, and dispersing new knowledge is the quintessence and culmination of the most powerful system of advanced learning in the world: the American research university.  Through education, research universities contribute to society’s advancement and improvement, whether private or public.  Research universities are stewards of the public good.  The fusion of research and education at these institutions should not focus solely on the medical, biological, or chemical sciences but also should provide a greater connection between discovery and teaching in the social sciences, such as economics, geography, psychology, and sociology.  The concepts of discovery and teaching should reinforce one another and provide a collaborative model of learning.  This model stands in strict opposition to one that limits education to universities and research to institutes, corporations, or foundations.

Let me try to describe some distinctions of the American research university with the following story.  My friend, David Ward, is with us this morning.  He recently retired as President of the American Council of Education.  David is Chancellor Emeritus of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and I invited him to be Provost when I was appointed President of Wisconsin.   David and I began to think about how to transform the educational experience at the institution.  In 1989, we conducted a statewide survey in Wisconsin to learn about people’s attitudes towards the university.  The survey showed that, in general, the public’s perception of the institution was that it a.) was much too liberal in terms of politics and personal behavior, b.) didn’t care about its undergraduates, and c.) needed to do something about the football team.

The prevailing sentiment held that the state of Wisconsin sends its best and brightest students to its university, but those students were still deprived of a world-class education. The public perception was that faculty did not hold the same political views or ethical morals as those of the residents of Wisconsin’s small towns.  More important, the courses at the university were taught by teaching assistants, and the students did not interact with the faculty until much later in their education.  Students also found it difficult to graduate on time.  Basically, at a school that depended on legislative financial support, the University seemed to care more about the graduate school than it did about undergraduates and their parents who pay taxes.

While we could do something about the first two issues, all of them related to the issue of institutional pride. We had to change the perception of the institution, and to do that, we had to change the undergraduate experience.  This change had to be apparent from the first time students stepped foot on campus.  Prior to this study, the first item discussed during orientation at Wisconsin was security and date rape, which did not bode well for a great research university.  Therefore, we enhanced the experience symbolically by reinventing orientation.   When asked the question, “Why should my child attend a large research institution when they could just as easily attend a smaller and excellent campus,” the answer was not readily apparent.  Therefore, our first change was to invite the most widely acclaimed faculty members on campus during the summer to speak at the first orientation session to both the students and their parents. 

For the students, access to research faculty was key.  John Hall, a kicker for the New York Jets and the Kansas City Redskins, chose the University of Wisconsin at Madison over scholarship offers from both Northwestern and Boston College because he believed it offered him the best opportunity for a world-class education.  A Sports Illustrated reporter later told me that it was because I had told Mr. Hall that he would be enrolled at a school “in which the faculty members produced the research that went into the text books that his friends would study at other institutions.”  It really did not make a difference whether the University of Wisconsin at Madison was recruiting a brilliant football player or a brilliant young scientist—faculty involvement was the key and the major commodity of the institution.

The Japanese Garden – Change Needs Time

Certainly, the faculty are an integral part of the educational experience within American research universities.  But time is also a fundamental requirement when addressing change.  On a trip to Asia a few years ago, I visited the home of a Japanese dignitary.  We walked through his garden and I was impressed with its beauty and elegance.  I asked if I could borrow his gardener for my own yard back home.  He responded wisely, “To get a garden this beautiful, you need my gardener and 50 years.” To change the undergraduate experience, both a competent leader and the effects of time are required.  Progress will not be observed overnight. 

Nowhere on earth can one find the scale and breadth of the great American Research University.  Many countries have one or two institutions.  England has a fair number more, but 30% of the students in the United States choose an undergraduate education at a research-based institution.   Therefore, isolation of the undergraduate student from the benefits of a unique mix including great researchers, culture, and opportunities must be avoided.  The educational process should be shaped by the values and practices of research, which should add value to each student’s learning process.  The common sentiment is, “We educate the public that will support the research enterprise,” so it is imperative that when transforming the educational process, the benefits of a research enterprise be understood and utilized.

Much like a Japanese garden, the American research university is fragile.  Changes in funding, administration, and goals threaten the timeframes necessary for sustained achievement and nurturing of culture.   A new administration nationally exposes this fragility.

Let me tell you about a brief personal conversation I had with President Bill Clinton concerning his nomination for the National Institute of Health director.  Mr. Clinton was deciding between two candidates, neither of which had bench research experience.   He argued that both had sweeping support from their own congressional delegations, however he didn’t understand the relationship between the National Institute of Health and America’s research universities, or even the main mission of the Institute.  As you might imagine, a person as busy as Mr. Clinton does not respond well to drawn out conversations, but he did appreciate the “grander point.”  I suggested to the President that both the director of the National Institute of Health and the investments that were made through the Institute would influence the President’s legacy possibly more than any other program he created.  I suggested that by making a well-advised choice for NIH director, Mr. Clinton’s legacy could usher in the “golden age of biomedical research” that was already beginning.

When the President asked me who I would recommend, I suggested someone with whom Mr. Clinton was not familiar: the Nobel laureate, Dr. Harold Varmus.  When the President asked me what others would think about Dr. Varmus, I said that he would be welcomed by researchers across the country and that presidents of research institutions would call Mr. Clinton to thank him for his selection.  I then called those university presidents to be sure they were informed not only about Dr. Varmus’s biography but also to suggest that they call Mr. Clinton to support Dr. Varmus. 

Mr. Clinton came to understand that he must appoint some high-powered health and science policy advisors, such as university presidents and chancellors, who understood the needs of a research university, and were willing to guide policy towards this direction.  As director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Varmus was influential in doubling the Institute’s budget during a Republican congress.   Mr. Clinton also appointed to his administration numerous highly educated economists, such as Larry Summers, who served as Undersecretary for International Affairs and later Secretary of the Treasury.  He appointed economist Laura Tyson to chair his Council of Economic Advisers.  Both of these scholars came from world class research institutions and were advocates of the special needs of those institutions.  Both also became economic advisors to President-Elect Barack Obama, who himself received an undergraduate degree from Columbia, and went on to earn a law degree from Harvard Law School.  Even Ezekiel Emanuel, the older brother of Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s Chief of Staff and closest advisor, is an oncologist and bioethicist at the NIH.  All this suggests that research institutions will be well-represented in the future White House.

In the long term, there should be an opportunity for an outstanding presidential cabinet to make the case for different kinds of changes in the country under Mr. Obama.  However, in the current economic climate, most of the high-powered health policy advisors will be economists appointed by congress.  If proposed investments from the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Energy, and Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, or the Department of Education do not provide immediate returns or are written in the language of economists, they may not be addressed.  Therefore, it is important that those economists also understand the special role that research universities provide to undergraduate education.

Current Challenges that face the American Research University

I would like to propose six main challenges to reinventing undergraduate education at the American research institute. Over the next five years, it will become increasingly important to manage the path financially while maintaining intellectual excellence.

1) Cost, both in facilities and tuition. 

Intellectual and educational excellence is not cheap, and the challenge remains how to maintain quality for researchers and students alike during economic instability. The reinvention process cannot be sold as cheaper.  While it may be easier for university presidents and chancellors to maintain what they have rather than to propose new ideas, stagnation breeds irrelevance.  They should be convinced to not stand still but to move forward on the reinvention process.

2) Access and openness. 

If research universities serve society, they must reflect the society they serve.  Excellence and exclusion are natural enemies.  Institutions must remain accessible to everyone by promoting both diversity and advancement.

3) Interdisciplinary and global perspective.

Research universities exhibit unique intellectual breadth and depth at the highest level of inquiry.  They must break the intellectual, geographic, and cultural barriers of the past to maximize possibilities of new discoveries.  By encouraging the development of natural linkages between and among established fields, students can apply what they have learned.

4) Students maintain individual anonymity.

Students don’t care if they are in a department.  They have reinvented their own education, and therefore, giving them ownership of the education is fundamental to what they do in our institutions.  Disciplinary boundaries can block fresh thinking and originality.  When they do, the disciplines risk irrelevance.   Our institutions must create comprehensive opportunities for students to discover, develop, and manifest individual responsibility.  The courses, curricula, and campus life should enable students to take charge of their education.  Research universities should teach students both how to learn and how to use what they’ve learned.  The test won’t be how good their first job is, but how they adapt to their third and fourth job.   Private learning cannot ultimately benefit the common good.

5) Intellectual diversity and pluralism.

While diversity is often thought of in terms of social or economic differences, each university should also strive to become intellectually diverse by considering many views.  The greatest threat to a university is the perceived lack of pluralism.  The power of reason is especially apparent when there are conflicting perspectives and irreconcilable differences.  Conformity and excellence are natural adversaries.

6) Open Access and Diversity

The American research university should also never discriminate on cultural, gender, or historical divides.  High schools have done a terrific job of closing the gap between women and men in science.  At the undergraduate level, women make up half of the student population.  Yet PhD and postdoctoral programs show a rapid decline in the representation of women.  The ratio is even lower during academic hiring.  If given the opportunity to interview, however, women are usually offered the job. There must be a cultural reinvention for both women and minorities in faculty. Japan has figured out how to use all its talent.  There is a unique opportunity as a whole generation in this country retires to implement diversity within academia.

 As Barack Obama learned in this presidential election, there will not be broad-based political support unless everyone is included.  The American research university cannot achieve intellectual or educational excellence if they are all the same and the doors are open to some but not all.

Discussion:

Where should support go in the humanities, social sciences, and other professions in the future in terms of budgets or limitations, not just for bench research but in the broad sense of scholarly inquiry?
Dr. Shalala responded that major private foundations, such as the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation no longer invest in the individual because the return is risky.  It is much more common for national institutes to provide investments for the individual.  There should be a realignment to community rather than national investment.  Within the Academy, both the individual researcher and how they integrate the student is the likely key to advance knowledge.  In addition, Dr. Shalala believes there are too many people who did not finish their PhD, yet are in powerful positions in congress or foundations.  Based on their negative experience, they adversely influence policy and money allocation. 

Everyone wants a numerical number for education.  How should the research university assess its progress and effectiveness?
Dr. Shalala suggested that assessment should express the outcome.  She reasoned that metrics were unable to tell stories, yet stories uniquely demonstrate effectiveness.  There must also be real integrity in the assessment.

How should the research university handle the constant limitation on resources such as money and faculty time?
Dr. Shalala suggested there is no easy way to overcome these limitations.  She has previously tried to reform courses with new technologies such as blogs and chat rooms in addition to interesting guest speakers.  The learning process should be useful and not just a transfer of knowledge.  These modifications often require very little additional resources, yet the educational experience is enhanced.  Educators must find a way to make interesting changes without necessitating monetary resources.  One way could be to give faculty release time for reinventing their lectures.  It was suggested they should stop using old notes and review the syllabus of experts in their field.  There could also be teaching modules on major policy issues for teachers to keep syllabi up to date.

Recommendations:

For Individual campuses

• Increase faculty interaction with students and parents.
• Require time for the reinvention process to matriculate.
• Enforce constant dialogue with policymakers in Washington to effectively support the needs of a research university.
• Confront the challenges of cost, openness, interdisciplinary perspective, student anonymity, and intellectual diversity.
• Create an unlimited support base that includes everyone.