Sociology of Higher Education - Case Study Example

Sociology of Higher Education Introduction Higher education – the highest level of education, which is basically tasked to prepare to productively take part in civilisation, is believed to be the main driving force of economic growth, personal opportunity and social harmony (Keller, 2008, p. x). The better colleges and universities society has the better human resources society could expect. In turn, the higher numbers of graduates making significant contributions to society those colleges and universities produce the more successful and prominent they become. This would mean greater number of entrants and funding. However, as society expects higher education to address its needs, higher education in effect is being defined by the society to which it responds. Thus, it could be said that higher education is shaped by the society it serves; much more so that higher education’s relevance is measured hitherto its being responsive to society’s distinct character and changing needs. (Gumport, 2007, p. 25) This understanding of education is historically Weberian, as it perceives education in instrumental terms – education as an effective means to a desired end. In contrast, the Durkheimian perspective regards “schools as miniature societies that have their own particular moralities.” It sees education more on the expressive character of the system – How does the value system of colleges and universities evolve and give meaning to their participants that it can effectively create group and institutional identities? (Clark, 2007, p. 12-13) Yet as higher education is becoming more and more subject to society’s pressures of society due to its increasing crucial role to knowledge-based economies and due to the dramatic change in demographic realities (Altbach 2002), education must better be viewed in its full context, because undeniably “colleges and universities are complex, essential, and precious communities in our national life” (Bogue, 2002, p. 1). Differentiating Community College and University Higher education has developed and has differentiated in numerous ways since after World War II. Four major dynamics for change are cited reflective of international significance: (1) mass higher education became a universal phenomenon, (2) the global market has increasingly influenced national systems, (3) a wider range of obligations and responsibilities are required by the state to higher education institutions, and (4) financing higher education has increasingly shifted from public to private sources (Huisman, 2009, p. xi). Another important change is the establishment of varied higher educational institutions aside from universities such as research institutions, community colleges, polytechnics, and other academic institutions to meet diverse, specific and specialised needs (Altbach, 2002). This increasing diversity and differentiation in higher education systems can be attributed to “three related forces: the increasing variety of the student population, the growth of the labour market for academic graduates and the emergence and growth of new disciplines” (Clark 1983, as cited in Van Vught, 2009, p. 6). Specifically for this paper, differentiating a community college from the university will provide us a starting point to compare the three different higher education institutions under study: two located within the US – the Seattle Community Colleges and the University of Stanford – and one outside the US – the University of Tokyo. Dougherty (2001) characterises community college for its distinctive ‘open door’ admission policy – entrants should be 18 years old and high school graduate – making it more appealing to non-traditional students resultantly having a highly diversified enrolment, and for its commitment to occupational education producing a large bulk of graduates, specifically in the US, and equalising life opportunities (pp. 4-5) – making it “the most effective democratising agent in higher education” (p. 6). In contrast, the university is characterised by its highly selective criteria for its students based primarily on their academic record. Consequently, as university pride itself for excellence, it recruits highly qualified faculty members. Thus, university is “a community of masters and students” (Kerr, 2001, p. 1). In addition, community college is state owned, as it is primarily funded by the state, specifically the local state; whereas, the university is either state or private-owned. These differences of community college and university can be essentially summed up into what Bogue (2002) described “to constitute a system of both privilege and opportunity in which elitist and egalitarian impulses contend…a system in which the principle of autonomy, so essential in the pursuit of truth and in the nurture of democracy, is in dynamic tension with the principle of accountability, which is an antidote to professional arrogance and intellectual narrowness (p. 11). Comparing the Social Values of Seattle Community Colleges, Stanford University and the University of Tokyo Immediately, it will be observed that these three HEIs under study differ in their context, in their purpose and in their specialisation. For example, the Seattle Community Colleges which opened in 1966 as part of the public school system serving all of metropolitan Seattle and its surrounding communities is a local state project that aims to make higher education accessible to a greater number and wide-variety of students to enable local citizens to productively get involve in their communities (SCC, 2009). On the other hand, The Leland Stanford Junior University, or simply known as Stanford University – a private research university founded in 1891 in memory of the lost son to whom the university is named, provides great opportunities to excellent minds and bodies regardless of their financial capacity in order to bring about what is best in and for humanity upholds (Stanford facts, 2010, p. 7). Whereas, The University of Tokyo, the first national state university in Japan established in 1877 as its leading research university is resolute to become “the world’s University of Tokyo” that will serve the global public by committing itself in pursuit of truths and universal realities going beyond national, ethnic, and language barriers (The University Today, 2009). Each essentially carries with it its own trademark. But to study their social values require more than this general knowledge of each of them. A study on the social values of the higher education institutions requires a study on the local community – how does each part of the institutions relate with each other and how this influence the institution and its members; the demography or the population that makes-up the organisation; and the culture milieu of the institution – does the institution possess the power to effect change to its members and environment? Answering such questions requires in-depth study on these institutions as these cannot simply be understood by what the institution declares or states. However, although inadequate, what the institution claims officially, added by the prestige that it has acquired could shed some light on the matter, even in a limited sense. The mission statement generally embodies the values of the organisation, as it clearly expresses the organisation’s personality with the organisation’s values, principles and standards explicitly made (Talbot, 2003, p. 49). However, these values as declared in the mission statement find its meaning and reality in the actual operation of the higher education institutions. Thus, to satisfy the study the following aspects are to be compared: governance – this reflects the power and control; programs, faculty and campus life – this reflects the learning community; admission and enrolment – this reflects the belief in the universality or speciality of higher education; and funding – this reflects whose responsibility is higher education. Mission Statement. Comparing the mission statements of the three HEIs under study shows that all the three commonly aspire for academic excellence and all recognise the necessity of partnership and collaboration within and outside the school community; observably though the two universities – Stanford University (private) or University of Tokyo (public) – emphasise humanity, liberty, and universal truth by giving the best education and excellent research; whereas the SSC (community college) emphasises accessible educational opportunities that will make a difference in the lives of its students. Governance. University governance is described by Marginson and Considine (2000) as the “determination of values inside universities… systems of decision-making and resource allocation… mission and purposes… patterns of authority and hierarchy, and the relationship of universities as institutions to… different academic worlds within and… worlds of government, business and community without” (p. 7). Unfortunately, available data for the three HEIs under study simply centre on the organisation of power in the HEIs specifically focused on their Board of Trustees (BOT). All three HEIs are governed by a set of BOT to which the highest policy and decision making regarding the whole operation and future of the HEI reside. The difference however lies on the appointment of the BOT. In the cases of SSC and UT, since they are both public entities their BOT are appointed by the government. Specifically for the SSC, its five-member BOT to serve sequential five-year terms is appointed by the Washington State Governor to be confirmed by the State Senate. In contrary, the Stanford University’s BOT were appointed by the founder of the university and succeeding appointments after the death of the founders rest on the approval of the remaining BOT provided it does not exceed the 35-membership as stipulated in the Founding Grant. The powers of the BOT of all HEIs are almost the same; the difference however lies in their accountability. The two public HEIs (SSC and UT) are directly accountable to the government to which their creation is made possible; whereas, Stanford (private) is accountable to the founding declaration and principles of the university. Decision making however for each of them is not clearly stated. One thing that could be safely assumed though is that decision making is done democratically with each of the members of the BOT given equal voices, including the president. This also works with Stanford even if it is a private university. What made it so is the fact that the BOT is chosen based on their qualities and commitment to the universities principles. This is very much different in private corporations wherein votes are weighed based on the number of stocks the board member has in the company. Programs and Faculty. A look at the different program offerings of each of the three HEIs immediately leave a different impression on each of them. In fact, this remarkably defines their differences. For example, the SSC offers a wide-range of varied programs (Transfer programs, Professional/Technical programs, Adult Basic Education, Continuing Education programs, High School-College Programs, and Worker Retraining programs) essentially to help capacitate individuals from all walks of life, regardless of race, gender, and academic ability, with the necessary skills for immediate employment, and with the necessary academic preparation to enable them enter baccalaureate institution. Essentially, SSC programs are meant to prepare students to face life and to enable them pursue their higher dreams. On the other hand, although both the Stanford University and the University of Tokyo similarly offer Arts and Sciences undergraduate degrees and graduate school programs, their major fields of specialization vary, implying their difference in their focus of interest. Specifically, Stanford sought for multi-disciplinary excellence among its graduates and faculty. In addition, although both are committed to excellent research, investing largely in research facilities and both facilitate and encourage interfaculty collaboration and interdisciplinary research, observably though, the “University of Tokyo... strong[ly] emphasis[es] cooperation and link[age] at all levels of research and education – interfaculty, interdisciplinary, and with other universities both within Japan and abroad – and is working hard to establish strong local and global research and education networks” (The University Today, 2009). Whereas, Stanford consistently seeks new inventions and brings it to the market of which it raised more than $65.05 million in gross royalty revenue from 517 technologies in 2008-09. (Stanford Fact, 2010, p. 30) As to faculty, all claim to have the best teachers to have. However, with varied program offerings come corresponding qualifications for the faculty – the more complex the program and the higher the level of the program offered the higher qualification of faculty is required. So, obviously, universities have the best teachers in their chosen field and research. Recruitment of faculty differs depending on how attractive the university has to offer them. But with a liberal minded leadership and the capability to do so, it is unsurprising if the best among the best professors would like to be part of Stanford. With the a hundred of different student organisations, a wide-range variety of student activities, a liberal atmosphere, campus life in Stanford which allows a residential and academic life is more inspiring and self-fulfilling both for the students and their mentors, compared with that of the University of Tokyo, which student activities are mainly traditional. Whereas in SSC, although it may be assumed that compared with these two sophisticated HEIs, campus life here simple yet reflects the need of the immediate community. Admission and Enrolment. The two universities impose a rigid selection process which primary criterion is academic excellence, and in addition to the UT is English proficiency. In contrary, SSC simply requires high school diploma and birth certificate, although additional requirements are imposed in some professional/technical programs – some programs require specific scores on any of these assessment tests -- ASSET, SLEP, COMPASS. (SSC, 2009) Funding. The SSC, being a community college is primarily funded by the state. This of course if to be scrutinised would probably reveal political issues that comes with this. On the other hand, the University of Tokyo had been granted increased financial independence and autonomy since its incorporation in 2004, yet it is still partly controlled by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (University of Tokyo, 2008). And the most financially sustainable of all is Stanford with a $12.6 billion endowment, a very successful fundraising program (70, 509 donors), and other sources of income (30% sponsored research, 22% endowment income, 2% other investment income, 17% student income, 13% health care services income, 6% expendable gifts and net assets released and 10% other income). (Stanford Facts, 2010, p. 47) Conclusion Social values are markedly different between SSC and the two universities, with the SSC promoting equality and practical learning for lifelong learning and the two universities rigorously adhering to excellence and further discovery for human liberty. This also reflects the marked difference in these HEI’s demography, with the SSC having the most diversified and most stratified population and with the two universities having the elites. Thus it could be stated that SSC promotes mass higher education making campus life more communal while Stanford and UT promotes elitism making campus life more competitive. The differences between the SSC and the Stanford do not negate but rather complement the other, while the difference of the UT from Stanford defines the Japanese dream. References Altbach, Philip G. (2002). Education Encyclopaedia: Higher education in context. Encyclopaedia of Education. The Gale Group Inc. Bogue, Grady E. (2002). An agenda of common caring: The call for community in higher education. In W.M. McDonald & Associates (Eds.), Creating campus community: In search of Ernest Boyer’s Legacy (pp. 1-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clark, Burton R. (2007). Development of sociology of higher education. In P. J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts (pp. 3-16). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dougherty, Kevin James. (2001). The Contradictory College: The Conflicting Origins, Impacts, and Futures of the Community College . Albany: State University of New York Press. Gumport, Patricia J. (2007). Sociology of higher education: An evolving field. In P. J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts (pp. 17-52). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Huisman, Jeroen. (2009). In J. Huisman, International Perspectives on the Governance of Higher Education: Alternative Frameworks for Coordination (pp. xi-xii). UK: Taylor & Francis. Keller, George. (2008). Higher Education and the New Society. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kerr, Clark. (2001). The Uses of the University (5th Edition). US: The Harvard University Press. Marginson, Simon, and Considine, Mark. (2000). The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seattle Community Colleges. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.seattlecolleges.edu/DISTRICT/district/mission.aspx. Stanford Facts. (2010). Stanford University: Office of University Communications. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/pdf/StanfordFacts_2010.pdf. Talbot, Marianne. (2003). Make Your Mission Statement Work: Identify Your Organisations Values and Live Them Every day (2nd Edition). Oxford, UK: How to Books Ltd. The University Today. (2009). The University of Tokyo. General Affairs Division. Retrieved from http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/gen01/b01_00_e.html. University of Tokyo. (2009). New World Encyclopaedia. Retrieved from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/University_of_Tokyo Van Vught, Frans A. (2009). Diversity and differentiation in higher education. In F. A. van Vught (Ed.), Mapping the Higher Education Landscape: Towards a European Classification of Higher Education (pp. 1-16). The Netherlands: Springer. Read More