Christenson sets the stage for The Innovative University by questioning the innovation of higher
education institutions. The former
Education Secretary’s comparison of universities to “mature enterprises” was an
interesting way of framing the shortcomings of higher education. “Increasingly
risk-averse, at times self-satisfied, and unduly expensive,” these
characteristics are not shocking criticisms, but I hadn’t really attributed
these traits as a reflection of the maturity of higher education business
model. In my environment at a large UC campus, many of our obstacles stem from
the complex bureaucratic processes that consume everyday tasks. As a slower
moving beast, change is something that is challenging to say the least.
It’s clear that one educational model won’t meet the needs
of every community, but for some reason imitation tends to be more common than
innovation when it comes to setting university program objectives. The Harvard
model is still seen in many schools of thought as the gold-standard of
education, but as Christenson points out, very few institutions have the
resources to sustain a Harvard-type institution. And what’s more is that we, as
a country, may not need more Harvard’s to serve our population and remain
globally competitive. The text made me think about how we model our university
programs and if there might be too much value placed on the exterior. Things
like rankings, and competitive admission, while desirable should not overshadow
student learning outcomes. I’m most
interested in how to design innovative university programs that are mindful of
the environment that students enter upon graduation. Do you think your place of
work is preparing students for the current economic reality? How can we be more
connected to our student’s needs? These are thoughts that frequently run
through my mind in the slow but steady process of disturbing the aura of the ivory
tower.
