The university environment is ripe for this sort of attack despite its baseless generalizations ("nobody checks quality", "most college courses in America are knockoffs of some original", "no faculty member ever... goes back and looks at the learning outcomes") and loopy proposals ("I would be thrilled to have more conservative and libertarian professors scheduled to teach small seminars simply refuse to list learning outcomes"). The suggestion is that learning outcomes are intended to standardize courses, degrading from some idealized version (a.k.a. the Cheesecake Factory principle). This eliminates the differentiation that 'quality' programs institutions can establish "non-fungible with the rest"... "to build a new, valued brand." Where is this quality? It is found, according to Hollis Robbins, in the professors. "Professors are the quality product." My counterpoint: what is the response to the objection that 'conservative professors' are of lower quality than 'progressive professors'? That would explain (if it were a fact) why universities select the professors they do. That would explain why some sort of 'equal opportunity program' is required to ensure otherwise unhirable 'conservative professors' are awarded professorial positions. That would explain why students need to be enticed or even forced to take courses from these professors. Now I agree - learning outcomes and associated assessment practices are a weak point in the system. But replacing the entire system with conservatives is (giggle) hardly the answer.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
