The very first student I advised was a bright young man who expressed a desire to attend graduate school in psychology. After asking him why he decided on this path, I polled him about what year he was at KU so we could plan accordingly. He told me that he was a senior, set to graduate in a few months. I was stunned. I had to inform him that the application deadlines for graduate programs for the next year had already passed. This experience has been repeated many times. I have also dealt with students with unreasonable career expectations, or career expectations guided wholly by popular media (such as wanting to become a “profiler” and catch serial killers) and not faculty advice, as well as students who are unaware of the numerous training and service-learning opportunities available to them outside of the classroom. Most students have been unaware of many immediate opportunities and long-term options. My experiences with students, many of whom we would consider to be very bright, and my participation in senior exit interviews for three years have led me to ask why more of our students are not prepared to succeed.
When students select and subsequently enroll at a university, they have a number of expectations about their experience. Non-academic expectations aside, it is reasonable for students to anticipate that the university experience will in some way make their future a better one. This betterment may come in the form of acquiring a better understanding of themselves and the world around them or a better understanding of a particular topic that holds their interest. However, what most students will say they expect is the chance for a better job. I do not feel qualified to speak to the thoughts of students in years past, but when I speak to my students, their biggest concern seems to be about what their opportunities will be once they finish at the University of Kansas. They seem to implicitly accept that their chances of finding a good job or a satisfying career are better with a college education, but it is generally unclear to them why. When I ask students why they should expect a better job with a college degree, they have no satisfactory answers. They seem unsure if they have developed any skills that set them apart from non-college graduates other than domain specific knowledge gained in coursework. In a point I will return to, they seem equally unaware of how the curriculum that they are required to take supports future success, leading some particularly jaded students to report that the University simply imposes a set of requirements to “get their money.”
Historical context
The curriculum of the University was not set for financial reasons, but because of underlying goals that have changed throughout its history. As I began to consider what I perceived as a disconnect between student preparation and a clear desire on the part of the University for student success, I decided to examine the University’s explicit goals. An understanding of my second and third statements (“Universities are designed with implicit goals for students” and “These goals are reflected in the curriculum and our methods of instruction”) follows from this research.
I first engaged the question of university goals by taking advantage of the wonderful archives in Spencer Research Library to look at the stated goals for the University of Kansas at its inception. Since institutional practice is built upon historical precedence, I thought that it would be helpful to determine what the institution set as the goals for instruction when it began. (I should note here that this examination is centered around liberal arts and sciences, since the University started with liberal arts training and sciences alone, with a provision for professional education later.) Examination of the original 1866 University of Kansas catalogue (A General Description of the University) revealed that goal statements were fewer in number (one) than faculty (three) or statements about the influence of religion on University activity (two)1: “The object of the University shall be to provide the inhabitants of this State with the means of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the various branches of Literature, Science, and the Arts” (p. 8). In other words, the University shall provide a university education. Examination of the curriculum reflected this mission. First session: Latin, Greek, algebra, geometry, Grecian history; second session: Latin, Greek, geometry, plain trigonometry, Roman history. The following sessions are similar.
As I moved forward, the theme continued. In 1879, the Methods of Instruction indicated that students of Mental and Moral Science were “prepared by previous study for more critical research,” followed by a “critical review of the whole subject” and combined with recitation with the President, who was responsible for instruction (p. 53). The 29th Biennial Report (1922) lists the “Functions of a University” as threefold:
“1. The education and intensive training of students. 2. The discovery of new truth through investigation in the arts and sciences. 3. The dissemination of knowledge among the people … First of all, experience has demonstrated that there is a wide distribution of talent among all classes of people. It exists among the poor as well as among the rich, and it is essential in a democracy that this talent be discovered and trained. A state university is thus a talent-discovering, career-saving institution” (p. 3).
What can best be described as the “betterment” model of higher education is best summed up in the 30th Biennial Report’s (1924) College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Statement of Purpose: “The combination of applied science with basic science and with cultural and citizenship subjects is therefore intended not only to prepare young men and women to succeed in some definite technical work, but also to lead a successful and well-rounded life” (p. 25).
In the modern era, it is not obvious that university documents provide a clearer view of the goal of higher education. Students reading about the “Aims” of an education in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences in their 1976 catalogue would have this to guide them:
“The purpose of the baccalaureate degrees in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences is liberal education, which is different from both vocational training and isolated specialization. A rigorous education includes both the understanding of our past and a concern for the future through discovery of new knowledge. Breadth of knowledge is necessary, but risks superficiality; depth is equally important, but risks over-specialization. A liberal education presupposes intensive study of the sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities.
In addition, a liberal education embodies both theory and practice, the knowledge and experience of both being requisite to an understanding of the sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. Thus such an education is active and relevant in the most fundamental sense” (p. 3).
It is difficult to see how, from a student’s perspective, this aim could be turned into a concrete plan for approaching education. Lacking in this and earlier goal statements are clear descriptions of what students should extract from their college education beyond “an understanding of the sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences.” Again, I am not arguing that this betterment approach does not lead to student achievement or improvement. However, students engage in a four- or five-year full-time experience at a high financial cost, and it is reasonable for them to ask “What am I going to get from this?” and to expect something more concrete than what is outlined by the aims above.
In recent years, the University has made an effort to become more explicit in its goals. In 1989, the University Assessment Committee established a set of “Goals of General Education at KU.” These were first included in the 1998-2000 catalogue and have since been distilled to six primary goals. These are:
One could rightfully argue that the current goals are certainly an improvement over those from the inception of our university, or the vague notions offered in 1976. But, returning to the central problem, do even these specific goals help guide our students?
First, for goals to be useful, the person for whom they apply must be aware of them. Our students are clearly not aware of the stated University goals, or at least none of the hundreds of students I have polled in my classes or before senior exit interviews are aware of them. I believe this problem should not be understated, but it is also one that can be easily solved. For example, when I teach research methods, I make my students aware of these goals and in particular goal number one. I tell them that research methods is perhaps the most important class they will take because they will start to develop the ability to conduct research and evaluate information. Further, it is specifically that skill employers seek college graduates for, and it is that skill they must cultivate during college and they must make clear they possess during job interviews. This approach is too post hoc, however. We need to do more to make students aware of these goals early in their experience if the goals are to be of any real use in helping students get the most from their education.
However, even making students aware of these goals at an early point is not sufficient. For goals to be useful, they must either come from the person for whom they apply or directly relate to existing goals for that person. I admit ignorance about how the current statements were developed, but my read of the goals is that they are very top-down. I think each of the goals is excellent, but I am not sure that students would independently develop goals like these if they were asked to identify their own goals for their university experience. Given the possibility of this disconnect, we must make an effort to bring students to value these goals and/or determine what their goals are and help foster those goals. I think the best answer is both of these. I am not certain that the average freshman has the experience to develop a set of goals that would prepare her or him to take full advantage of the university experience. On the other hand, I do not think we should think we “know what is best” for our students. Though we have all been students and have succeeded in our time, students cannot succeed by simply plagiarizing (with our permission) our past. They have values and goals which may be very different from ours, and we need to consider how to integrate that into goals for higher education. In addition, we need to consider how these top-down goals apply to different approaches to a university education. While all KU students should expect a standard level of betterment no matter which major they pick, choice of major is certainly linked to choosing different goals for the university experience. The six goals listed above should apply for fine arts as well as psychology majors, but students in those majors will have goals specific to that major.
Implementation of a goal-centered approach
The betterment model is an excellent approach to higher education, but it is my belief that students need to know how the experience can help them succeed once they finish. In the Department of Psychology, we are working to improve the role that goals and planning play in education for our students. The department has an excellent cadre of instructors. The approximately 1200 students majoring in psychology at the University of Kansas receive excellent instruction in theories and practice in psychological science. It is less clear whether most of our students receive sufficient formal training to prepare them for opportunities related to their major. A small number of our graduates are well-prepared to meet their future when they leave KU with a degree in psychology. They seek advising, do research, and take initiative to investigate what they need to do as undergraduates to develop and meet career goals. However, with 200 to 300 students per year leaving KU with an undergraduate degree in psychology, there is still a large number that has inadequately formulated professional goals. Too few have prepared themselves to meet those goals, because they do not consider this very important issue until they near graduation. Other students are simply misinformed about careers and what they need to do to achieve them. In my role as Director of the Honors Program in Psychology, I have seen that this problem is not isolated to a few, low-achieving students.
Goals we would like to achieve include the following:
1. Reach students early
2. Put courses in context by providing students with information about psychology course planning
3. Provide students with information about opportunities supported by the psychology major
4. Provide information about other opportunities
The first goal of this course is to reach students early. Goals after the fact are of no use. The course we are implementing, PSYC 102, will provide the basis for further coursework in psychology. It is designed for students to take either concurrently with their introductory psychology course or the semester following, before they take many junior/senior content courses in psychology. Ideally, students would take this course their freshman year or the first semester of their sophomore year. It will be required before taking more than three advanced psychology courses. This will allow non-majors to enroll in psychology core courses but prevent psychology undergraduates from failing to enroll in PSYC 102 until late in their undergraduate coursework. The remaining goals can be met if PSYC 102 is offered as a one credit hour, pass/fail course.
There are numerous models for teaching such a course (taught by one instructor, team-taught by a combination of faculty, staff, students, and outside speakers, etc.). However, this would allow enrollment only three times per year and would require a large amount of time to coordinate. A more appropriate model is to use a distance education approach. PSYC 102 will be an entirely web-based course administered through Continuing Education. An advantage of this approach is that students can enroll on an as-needed basis. Students can take the course at any time they see a need to enhance their formation of goals to guide their educational progress. This might be a student who is exploring different majors, a student who is already planning to become a psychology major but needs to explore options as a prelude to developing more specific goals, or even a student outside the institution (high school or returning student) who wishes to know more about what his or her options are.
Throughout this course the emphasis will be on encouraging students to take an active role in planning their education. The university is about exploration, so it is not designed to force students into a preset series of experiences or to make the liberal arts experience a vocational education experience. Rather, students will be encouraged to consider all aspects of possible futures and how the University can help them to get to that future successfully. The purpose is not to set goals for students, but to provide them with the process for doing so and with examples of successful pathways toward achieving those goals. It is my belief that we have bright students and they can set goals for themselves, but that they do not always understand when they need to do so or how to go about doing so. This is one approach for encouraging student ownership of their coursework, and it is worth reflecting upon how we can continue to improve using goals to further the university experience.
Endnote
1 For those curious about these statements, they are “No religious sect shall ever control any part of the Common School or University Funds of the State” (p. 8) and “Provided, That not more than three of the Regents to be members of the same religious denomination” (p. 9). As far as I know, the latter is still in place.
