Hamid Shirvani, chancellor, North Dakota University System, Bismarck, column: ‘Educating for change’ is our universities’ challenge
November 25, 2012 at 12:10 am in Grand Forks Herald
Simply put, we want to create free minds, not ideological ones. The free mind thrives on the world of experiences with all of its contradictions, ambiguities, ironies and paradoxes. Continue Reading
Shirvani wrote:
“Simply put, we want to create free minds, not ideological ones.”
…and this is exactly why ideologues — both political and religious — hate education.
Don’t agree? Then remember Rick Santorum blathering about it: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-09-17/news/33907028_1_rick-santorum-values-voter-summit-mitt-romney
Some religious groups are even less restrained. For example, I found a copy of the “Watchtower” (September 1, 2008) that gave some “likely scenarios” of temptations young people should resist — and one was “A well-intentioned teacher urges you to pursue higher education at a university.”
Conservatives — you’d better fight this — or colleges will overwhelm you with godless liberals!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
I’ve always felt that it should be mandatory that all administrators return to the classroom at least once a year, from which with such alacrity they escaped for big salaries and perqs, in order to witness the reality of the undergraduate mindset. Had Shirvani done so, he would have written a very different op/ed. Most students have no concept of the university as academy of learning. There is no association of final grade to mastery of material, nor of degree to mastery of a discipline. College is a path to a job; that’s it. Much of this is due to the elimination admission standards in order to raise enrollment and revenue. There is no “higher” in higher education.
Like or Dislike:
13 
16
If what you have written is true Gene, then you are guilty of aiding and abetting a scam!
Of course, your comments could just be hyperbole?
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Teachers are the last group left standing in maintaining the mission of education. We have no control over any policies established by the SBHE nor university administrators. Faculty governance is a quaint anachronism which was eliminated many years ago. Nor do we control student mindsets. They have been convinced that a college degree is the ticket to employment. We present the material which we feel legitimizes the title of a course. That students don’t bother to learn it, or place it in short term memory for the test, is a legacy of their K-12 experience. In short, I feel I comply with what I was hired to do.
Like or Dislike:
11 
15
While I can see why you feel that way, I do not buy your helpless claim. You assign the grade. You design the syllabus. You set the standards.
You most definitely cannot control the institution, but you can maintain your integrity within it.
You cannot change the world, but you can influence it.
As long as you give an A when it is earned, and flunk a colleagues kid when they deserve it, you can go home and know you did your part.
Like or Dislike:
20 
6
I believe that is what I have said on more than one occasion. Teachers do control the class at UND, for now. How long that will last, who knows? Other universities have policies where you cannot give a grade less than a C. Or that 50% of the final grade must be based on “effort.” These were unilateral decisions by administrators in order that students do not flunk out. My point is, there is no way UND faculty could control those sorts of decisions, since they have no say in how the place is run.
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
I agree with you. A friend of mine turned down a tenure track position at a well known university because of a disagreement over how grades are assigned.
Professors may not control UND, but they do influence it.
When that changes, you will have to decide whether or not it is time to retire.
I work for University of Phoenix. The only requirement I have is that 30% of the grade must be based on classroom participation and involvement in their learning team. I am the one who decides what that grade is. They have mandated the percentage, not how it is graded. I can live with that.
I also found out I own the grade. I gave an F, the student complained (he was in danger of losing part of his GI bill because of it), and the university simply said, “sorry.”
There is much I do not agree with in today’s higher education system. That is not the same as saying it is beyond repair.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
I believe one of the core tenets of Shirvani’s “Pathways…” plan is raising admission standards at UND and other “top-tier” universities in ND. Do you think this will help to achieve the goal of producing more well-rounded, liberally-educated adults?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
No chance. Shirvani is the lamb to the slaughter. He has no idea how higher ed works in ND. His series of pronouncements reflect that. First, there is no system of higher ed in ND; there are 11 independent campuses, at least 7 of which should have been closed years ago. The Chancellor is a figurehead. This was proved when the conman at NDSU got the Chancellor to resign. Legislators cannot keep their hands off the subject; they see each institution as economic impact for each community. Presidents know that, and go running to them. As for real admission standards, no way. That would cut revenues enormously to each campus. There wouldn’t be 15K students at UND if standards existed. If you don’t make the grade, you are admitted anyway. As I said a while back, I see Shirnavi resigning out of frustration in 3 years.
Like or Dislike:
14 
7
Shirvani is the lamb to the slaughter. He has no idea how higher ed works in ND.
The learned ‘lamb,’ prior to taking the job, had access (still does) to the media available that would have allowed him to research higher ed in ND. And, once again, slamming ND for what is prevalent in many other places just points to bitterness, not objectivity about the topic. But, by now, we are used to expecting such.
There’s a lot about Shirvani’s comments that, IMO, is spot on. BUT what he fails to mention is that for some time now, the universities have not been very connected with what is happening in the “real” world. Moreover, how many times does a person hear in reference to their professors, “S/He’d never make it in the real world.” It seems that universities are a place for many ‘workers’ to hang out telling others what ‘should’ be happening, but not connecting the learner to what really is. You can teach technical skills all day long, but it’s the soft skills that rule the day. Universities do a very poor job of teaching ‘soft skills’ (conflict resolution, collaboration, civility, etc.) – primarily because they are so poor at it themselves. In that way, they are very much like the ‘real’ world. Oh, sure, there is an emphasis on ‘teamwork’ now, but that concept is being like an infant, with very little real understanding of how it fits in with everything else we understand about individuality, group psychology, etc. “Teamwork” – as it’s played out now in many corners of the work world – is no mecca for transformation.
Higher ed will likely never again be the primary ‘seat’ of learning in our civilizations. At least not the universities we have now. Not unless they figure out how to change in such a way that addresses societies’ needs – one of which is getting people to understand ‘why’ we need [to survive, using 'soft skills'] what the universities have to offer. Conflict resolution that begins and ends with who has the mightiest sword is NEVER going to fix much of anything – just perpetuate more of the same.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Clarification: It’s not so much that it critical [right now] that universities need to know how to address societies’ needs (they can’t at this time anyway), but FIRST they must convince a good part of society of the need to change. Shirvani’s writing is – in a way – attempting such. BUT he’s NOT meeting the majority of people where they are at. Get OUT of the pulpit, Shirvani. And that doesn’t mean getting back into the classroom. It doesn’t mean finding your way into the pockets of wealthy companies or businessmen. It does mean making education accessible to everyone and responding to a variety of learning needs. Seems to me, Shirvani is heading in the opposite, elitist thinking direction. Not good.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
What has he said that leads you to believe he doesn’t believe everyone should have an education. What he has stated is that the Universities such as UND and NDSU should set their bar higher and let the local schools educate those that are not capable of meeting the criteria. I don’t see an issue with that philosophy. I can’t say for certain that I would meet whatever the bar is that he intends to set. However I can tell you it would have made me work even harder to try reach it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I re-read what I’d written and I can see how you interpreted my statement as suggesting Shirvani doesn’t want education accessible to everyone. That meaning was not my intent. I believe he should make a university education accessible to anyone who wants to attempt it.
I’ve cited the lack of research that shows a ACT or SAT score as predicting much of anything when it comes to whether or not someone will be successful in a college setting. There are many variables that play into success in college. Shirvani’s plan insofar as culling applicants will cut the access to a university education by those individuals who may, in fact, do very well in college. Or do ‘just average’ in college. BUT they may excel in their contributions to society once out of college. One could argue that some of these individuals, in Shirvani’s plan, could ‘prove’ themselves in other college settings and then be allowed to transfer to UND or NDSU, etc . It’s just not that easy for some people to do that. Besides, who is to say that one or more experiences (as a freshman) on a university campus would not be responsible for steering this person in a career direction that would not have happened had they started at another college.
People deserve a chance to try. Too bad if university ‘professors’ don’t think they should be bothered by what they view as “less than.” I had many “less than” university professors at UND and I’ve known exceptional professors at colleges other than UND or NDSU. And vice versa. Shirvani’s approach to culling is two steps back when it comes to transforming post-secondary education in the way it needs to be transformed.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I have been listening to Gene for the better part of two years, and while much of what he said is true, much is like listening to Fox News talk about the Big O.
Higher Education in ND is in sad shape. We are not meeting our responsibilities. No one is arguing that.
Are we on death’s door and is the state wasting 10% – 20% of its budget on a boondoggle? I think not.
We have a lot of problems. I am ambivalent towards many of this guy’s solutions, but he is proposing a plan. That is more than I have seen from the State Board before his arrival so I am willing to give him a shot.
Gene is absolutely correct. The definition and value of a liberal arts education (my BA is as a Scholar in the Honors Program – you can’t get any more liberal arts than that) has changed. That is to be expected. We do not ride horses and 10% of our children do not die of childhood diseases anymore either.
Expecting education to stay the same is foolhardy. Socrates was the bomb but I don’t think he could program a computer. Hippocrates influences what I do every single day, but I would not want him as a physician.
Education must change in order to stay relevant. If it does not it is not worth the cost of admission. It is still possible to turn out people who know how to think in a modern, economically oriented world. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I reject Genes notion that higher education has lost its soul. Given the power educated people carry in today’s world, he would have a hard time objectively proving his argument.
Remember: Silicon Valley has more millionaires per capita than anywhere else in the US. It also has more PhD per capita than anywhere else also. That is not a coincidence.
Gene might like to poo poo those PhD as being simply technocrats, but I doubt they would agree. From all objective criteria they can think themselves out of a paper bag just fine.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
Name the institutions Jobs and Gates received their PhDs. What’s that you say, they didn’t? Yet they made Silicon Valley. As did numeroues people before them without college educations…Ford, Edison, Carnegie…. I have nothing against a college education; it would be pretty hypocritical if i did. I am against what college has become: a glorified technical school. FN, you love to extol your expertise in higher ed; you sit with an MA. But I bet you have never sat in on a department, college, or university committee in which planning and policies were discussed. Nor, I daresay, do you have a clue on what bases decisions were made. Most had nothing to do with academic considerations. I suggest you stick to championing nickname removals. You can start with PETA’s attempt to get rid of the South Carolina Gamecocks. It offends them. And since you have on many occasions maintained that that is a valid reason to act, it is right up your alley.
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Gene: in my mind the purpose of getting an education is to learn how to think; preferably critically. Even the great thinkers of antiquity – something you know far more about than me – never viewed education as an end in itself. They viewed it as a means to an end. You learned to think so you could either understand God’s design of the world or barring any religious connotations, make the world a better, more just place to live.
The point being education has always had a practical underpinning. What you learn must be put to use.
You mean higher education has become corrupted by money? Shocking. Now tell us something we don’t already know.
Education must serve a purpose greater than itself or it is simply vanity. Agreed?
Your assistance that there is a delineation between technical/practical and the more esoteric is a false dichotomy. The world needs thinkers. That has not changed. What we think about & how we understand the world has changed.
Binary was not a concept our forefathers would understand. That does not mean they do not have something to teach us. Similarly, a curricula that ignores binary thought would be of very little value in the 21 century.
Education must have a practical application. That is usually teaching the student how to think. What they think about is largely secondary, especially since they will completely change careers at least once during their working lives.
Like or Dislike:
9 
7
As for your other points Gene, remember I chose to come back to UND to finish my MS from the University of AZ because of the problems you cite.
We called it UA, Inc. the history department (where I was at) was short 3 professors with none budgeted. I was a grad student so I missed most of the major abuses, but freshmen were in 300 people survey classes with 6-8 TA that held weekly breakout sessions to go over the material in more intimate surroundings (40 people instead of 300).
That is why I am very comfortable saying higher Ed in ND is in trouble, but we are far from being on life support.
If you disagree with the Chancellor’s plans, what would you suggest? You are not going to get more money so any plan would have to be budget neutral.
You know me, I want only 2 four year schools (maybe 3 with the growth out west). & everything else community colleges.
Your ideas?
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
I never said I disagreed with his plans. I said they will never come to fruition for the reasons I stated above and elsewhere.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Hey I got a degree just like that, too. I don’t think it’s been exceptionally valuable (the degree), but I like to think I at least learned how to conduct research and form logical and concise arguments during the four years I spent pursuing it.
Although Gene decries it, I’m goin’ back now just for the classes I’d need to get an engineering degree so I can secure well-paid work designing pipelines or roads or buildings around here.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
23
FN wrote: “…in my mind the purpose of getting an education is to learn how to think; preferably critically.”
Well, I would have written “a major purpose” — but basically, FN nailed it.
Learning is easy these days — after all we have “The University of Google!” The problem is how to critically evaluate what is learned — including how to understand the implications of what is learned.
Content matters of course! For example, half the population of the USA question the theory of evolution because they have been indoctrinated with religious ideology (which is reinforced by politicians who seek their votes). Those people even think that defending their faith by denying objective evidence is a virtue! They don’t even comprehend that their chosen ignorance is an impediment to the progress of modern medicine and related biology-based sciences.
Yes, modern universities need to teach students HOW to think. As I mentioned at the start of this thread, many folks will resist this because they fear it will lead students to question WHAT they have been told to think. Reactionaries hate that — but future success depends upon it.
Good luck to you Shirvani!
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
” half the population of the USA question the theory of evolution because they have been indoctrinated with religious ideology ”
Much is this is due to the fact most people don’t understand the scientific method nor what scientists mean when they use the word “theory.” They see it as simply some crackpot idea. Thus they counter it with their “theory”: ID. Suffice it to say, they fail to see it cannot be tested by the scientific method.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Maybe, but their ideological indoctrination tells them that critical thinking is undesirable because it undermines their faith.
Either way, you should be rallying support for Shirvani instead of waving a white flag!
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Facing the reality of North Dakota is not waving a white flag. His proposal consists of two principle ideas:
1. Develop a three-tiered system much like that of CA: a. a remedial group of colleges. b. a group for mediocre students. c. two elite schools: UND and NDSU.
This hits up against the wall of the ND obsession with egalitarianism. 20 years ago, Baker was told by the SBHE to cease referring to UND as the Flagship University of ND. It might hurt the feelings of the other 10 campuses. “Elite” is heresy in ND.
2. Establish admission standards, particularly at UND and NDSU, to insure they are elite. Kelly and Bresciani will be the first to run to legislators to get them to put the kibosh on that. They want the tuition revenue open admissions assures. And the legislature would never make up the difference.
Shirvani has good ideas. They just will never be enacted in North Dakota.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Education at the collegiate level in North Dakota is going to become a moot point if SLND continues to go back on their agreements and not allow students to apply for financial aid. After they went back on their agreement with me, I contacted the Omnibudsman Group, what a waste taxpayer money that is! They said they could log my complaint but would not do anything. I thought the whole reason behind the Omnibudsman Group was to stop any bad practices. Very sad, going to find a consumer watchdog group to expose this so maybe people are not afraid to deal with SLND anymore.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Gene Dubois said,”Teachers are the last group left standing in maintaining the mission of education. We have no control over any policies established by the SBHE nor university administrators. Faculty governance is a quaint anachronism which was eliminated many years ago. Nor do we control student mindsets. They have been convinced that a college degree is the ticket to employment. We present the material which we feel legitimizes the title of a course. That students don’t bother to learn it, or place it in short term memory for the test, is a legacy of their K-12 experience. In short, I feel I comply with what I was hired to do”.
So we should blame K-12 for students that don’t want to learn? In another place you say some colleges already req. profs. to give nothing less than a C. A friend went to Harvard. His experience was that once you got in you couldn’t get less than a C. What’s up with that if UND et al are ethically bankrupt about admission req.
Since a public k-12 education costs as much as an elite private k-12 education the reasons for our higher ed. dilemma must lie elsewhere. How about seeing the issue framed by a class structure reinforced by a pop. that buys into “social Darwinist” claims for the creation of that class structure. IOW we have a libertarian based culture view that results in a system that has to do damage control to right the fallout caused by that very attitude, i.e. open admissions are used to conceal the class structure our culture bias creates as a result of our laizze faire economy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
BTW, the contention that a K-12 ed. costs as much as a private elite k-12 ed. might be contested just as one might contest the notion that a public college ed. costs as much as a Harvard ed. Why this equal cost is true is because when you include the capital expenditures of a public school, i.e., bldings & grounds, maintenance etc. the costs are equal to a private school’s costs. IOW a students bill @ a private school include those capital costs thus creating the illusion the ed. is better. It may be better when consideration is given to the extraneous factors as higher admission standards @ the private K-12 & its possible smaller class sizes. All of this is all about the capitalist created class structured system we want to call democracy but is the opposite.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Speaman, using the amount of funding as a measuring stick is precisely why poor and minority students find it difficult to break out of the cycle of poverty. It is a charade to assert that equal funding creates equal educational opportunities. If equal funding created equal educational opportunities inner city schools and schools with high minority populations would have performance results equal to schools in more affluent neighborhoods; most states use a per pupil funding mechanism to assure that each school has “equal funding”. There is no support for the notion that more funding equates to better results. As it currently stands, we go through a dance every legislative session about how much funding should be provided and everyone releases a great cheer when funding is increased regardless of the fact that the results being achieved with that funding decrease year after year. Everyone pats themselves on the back because increased funding for education has been secured while at the same time students in poor school districts continue to be processed through a system that cheats them of a basic education.
Each school should be evaluated on the results being obtained to insure that every child is provided with an opportunity to succeed. That is one of the ideas behind basic math and reading skill tests in Minnesota; this was the subject of a recent Herald opinion piece. There are schools, primarily in poor school districts, that go through the motions of education but are failing to provide basic skills to their students. Those failures cheat poor and minority students out of the basic education promised to everyone in this country. Teachers’ unions consistently fight the use of any objective graduation standards for measuring the performance of schools. Given the make-up of the next State Senate, State House and Governor’s office in Minnesota you can be assured that the desire of the teachers’ union will be implemented and basic skill requirements for graduation from high school will be eliminated. Unfortunately, until individual schools are held accountable for failing to provide basic skills to their students poor students will be left powerless to break the cycle of poverty. Secure more money; let out a cheer; pat ourselves on the back; close our eyes to the fact that some students will graduate without basic math and reading skills. You can try and predict what result will be achieved by increased funding but you can confirm the result only through a review of the end product. It will be a sad day for students in poor performing schools when Minnesota eliminates the ability to measure the end product through graduation testing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
More right wing propaganda. Blame the teachers instead of a class structure that perpetuates poverty & then blames the teachers. Hilarious. The unions are fighting for the kind of equality that matters. Pay families living wages so they have the time to parent instead of working 2-3 jobs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0