AAC&U Webinar: “What Now?”
On June 9th, 2020, I attended the AAC&U Webinar, “What Now? Planning for the Future of Higher Education in the Wake of the Pandemic.” The session was moderated by Lynn Pasquerella (President, AAC&U), and included panelists Barbara Brittingham (President, New England Commission of Higher Education), Brandon Busteed (President, Kapaln University Partners), Pam Eddinger (President, Bunker Hill Community College), and Walter Kimbrough (President, Dillard University). While all of the presenters made good points (and reinforced the need for transparency voiced at last month’s CMS Webinar), I was especially struck by comments by Dr. Kimbrough and Mr. Busteed.
I first encountered Dr. Kimbrough at the 2019 NCHC Conference, where he was the speaker for the opening plenary session. I was impressed by his commitment to engaging controversial speakers to stimulate dialogue and critical thinking, and started following him on Instagram after the session. At this webinar, he responded to questions regarding the protests surrounding the murder of George Floyd and lessons for resilience.
As regards institutionalized racism, he affirmed that actions speak louder than statements, and challenged all of us to lean into this opportunity to “do the work” of becoming anti-racist. He also commented that he had instituted a series of small focus groups, in which participation was voluntary, to engage the larger campus community in the dialogue, surrounding both institutionalized racism and COVID-19. In speaking of resilience, he observed that recovering from setbacks is sometimes a long process. In addition to the viral and racism crises, he identified the current anti-intellectual/anti-truth trend as a “third pandemic,” to which there were no quick fixes. Finally, he advised that we take the best elements of the online experience from the last Spring and incorporate them into what we usually do. I especially liked the idea of appreciating the successes of the crisis and allowing them to change our Standard Operating Procedure.
Mr. Busteed brought an interesting perspective to the discussion and, along with Dr. Brittingham, illuminated the outside perspective on higher ed (I also loved his room: I’m a sucker for Brutalism!). He began with a theme that echoed the “UNC-Tomorrow” initiative of 2007: that employers felt college graduates were not ready for work, and that we needed to double down on the “soft skills” of critical thinking, collaboration, communication, etc. As a teacher in the performing arts, I especially appreciated his identifying “liberal arts vs. technical training” as a false dichotomy. Employers, he insisted, want both specific technical training and a well-rounded person (I’m a big fan of both–and thinking).
He had several ideas about the relationship between higher-ed and the business sector that were interesting, although some would be problematic in our program. In particular, he envisioned fruitful collaborations in which universities might add credential programs to degrees and/or offer non-degree credentialling programs, and employers might subsidize educational programs (most likely online) in lieu of requiring work experience. Apparently, this last has been a successful model in South Korea.
I’m not entirely sure what this would look like in my program, although it has interesting implications. Early Childhood education certifications might be a possibility, or we might, in collaboration with a record label, create a certification in critical listening/artist development. When I was at Winston-Salem State, there was an attempt to create a training program for church musicians, although such a program at HPU might not be affordable for smaller churches, and any kind of independent credentialling would conflict with the residential, liberal arts branding. If nothing else, it’s an interesting topic for discussion, and my faculty colleagues would probably be able to envision other feasible possibilities.
Mr. Busteed also mused on the idea of the “gap year,” observing that many typical gap year experiences were unavailable in the face of the pandemic, and warning that, statistically, students who took gap years were less likely to enter higher ed. This interests me, and while I may not have time to run down the details, I wonder why this occurs. Do students find a better alternative to education during the gap years, and if so, what is it? Is it something, like a job opportunity or service experience, that can work for us? Are we missing an opportunity in not providing a similar experience to what students get out of a gap year, are our programs so outdated that students are able to find or create vocations without us, or do we simply not create a space in which gap year students can inhabit? These would seem to be important follow-up questions.
My emphasis on the contributions of the men in the group is in no way meant to marginalize the contributions of the women. Dr. Brittingham emphasized the importance of listening, and suggested that remote/online learning might be an effective way to reduce costs. Dr. Eddinger made the insightful observation that, as campuses, none of us are ready to respond to the crises we have experienced: there would always be faculty, staff, students, and community on either extreme of every issue, and our goal should be to bring everyone to the center through professional development, discussion, and scholarly reading. She also asserted that we need to get better at predictive analytics (which is certainly true) and observed that, as a result of the pandemic, we are getting better at letting go of “tradition for the sake of tradition.”
In all, this was a very useful session, and I look forward to exploring these ideas further with my colleagues.