Notes on the Cost of Chaos in the Curriculum

The Cost of Chaos in the Curriculum

Authors and Background Information

  • Elizabeth D. Capaldi Phillips

    • University professor and professor of psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University.

    • Served as university provost and executive vice president from 2006 to 2013.

    • Formerly vice chancellor and chief of staff of the State University of New York.

    • Provost at both the University at Buffalo SUNY and University of Florida in Gainesville.

    • Fellow of multiple prestigious organizations (e.g. American Association for the Advancement of Science, APA).

    • Earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Rochester (1965) and a Ph.D. in experimental psychology from the University of Texas–Austin (1969).

    • Authored over 75 chapters and articles, coauthored introductory psychology textbooks, and edited works on the psychology of eating.

  • Michael B. Poliakoff

    • Vice president of policy of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

    • Formerly vice president for academic affairs and research at the University of Colorado and held senior roles at various educational organizations.

    • Taught classical studies at multiple universities and founded the classics department at Hillsdale College.

    • Received a B.A. from Yale University and studied at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

    • Published works in Greek and Roman literature, combat sports, and higher education policy.

Summary of the Argument

  • The contemporary baccalaureate degree involves a mix of a focused major and a wide range of elective courses selected by students, leading to chaos within the curriculum.

  • The core curriculum, often filled with broad distributional choices, questions the effectiveness of letting students choose courses based on faculty interests and uninformed decisions.

  • There is a concern about the substantial costs associated with the increasing number of degrees and underenrolled courses available.

  • Chaos in the curriculum affects the institution's fiscal health and has harmful effects on students’ academic progress, leading to lower graduation rates and a loss of cohesive intellectual community.

  • The authors aim to analyze the causes and effects of curricular expansion and propose feasible solutions.

Strategies for a Coherent and Cost-effective Curriculum

  • Institutions can explore various strategies to mitigate curriculum chaos:

    • Consolidation of Departments: Create larger, interdisciplinary units to reduce fragmentation.

    • Limiting General Education Requirements: Prescribe a limited number of required general education courses for all students.

    • Eliminating Niche Courses: Remove courses that cater to very specific interests, which may not serve the broader educational mission.

    • Sufficient Sections for Core Courses: Ensure that fundamental general education courses are taught in enough sections to meet demand.

    • Mandatory Minors: Instead of a high number of random electives, require students to complete a minor to ensure deeper engagement in a specific discipline.

  • Implementing these strategies can lead to substantial savings, with potential reductions of up to 10% in educational costs per semester.

The Cost of College and Quality of Degrees

  • Increasement of Tuition Costs:

    • College tuition and fees rose by 538% from 1985 to 2013, compared to a 121% increase in the consumer price index.

    • Education costs have risen significantly compared to healthcare inflation (286%).

  • OECD Comparisons:

    • The U.S. expenditures in higher education are nearly twice the average of other developed nations.

  • Poor Educational Outcomes:

    • U.S. ranks 12th among OECD countries for college degree attainment in adults aged 25-34.

    • Graduation rates are low, indicating issues in educational quality.

  • Consideration of financial costs and declining educational outcomes emphasizes the necessity of coherent curricular requirements to improve both quality and efficiency.

Structure of the Undergraduate Curriculum

  • The present-day undergraduate curriculum consists of:

    • General education requirements.

    • Major requirements.

    • Free electives that do not fulfill major or general education criteria.

  • Historical Perspective:

    • Early American colleges focused on a prescribed curriculum grounded in liberal arts, following the model of colonial colleges for future community leaders.

    • Influential educators like Jefferson and Franklin have promoted the significance of a liberal arts education.

    • Harvard's President Eliot emphasized a well-rounded knowledge base essential for intelligent public opinion, recognizing that social progress relies on educated citizens.

The German University Model

  • The emergence of the German research university model transformed American higher education:

    • Prioritized methodical investigation and specialized faculty.

    • Institutions like Johns Hopkins adapted these principles, establishing research and higher standards of academic rigor.

  • This led to specialization in majors, overshadowing the broad educational vision espoused by earlier leaders like President Eliot of Harvard.

The Elective System and Consequences

  • Impact of Electives:

    • Free electives allow for courses that often reflect faculty interests rather than curricular coherence.

  • Consequences of Overspecialization:

    • Quality of undergraduate education diminishes; employers find graduates lacking necessary skills.

    • Fragmentation of curricula results in lack of coherence which undermines intellectual community and weakens retention and graduation rates—disproportionately affecting underprivileged students.

  • Financial Sustainability:

    • Proliferation of majors and elective courses increases institutional costs without improving educational outcomes.

The Fractionated Curriculum and its Financial Impacts

  • Expansion of Degree Programs:

    • Between 1985 and 2012, there was a 60% increase in disciplines offering degrees at public four-year institutions, primarily driven by academic specialization.

  • Budget Implications:

    • Growth in academic departments is often driven by the quest for departmental prestige, resulting in increased costs.

  • Student Experience Issues:

    • Students experience difficulty connecting coursework, leading to confusion and a lack of clear educational pathways.

Remedies for Curricular Bloat

Administrative and Curricular Reorganization

  • Department Consolidation:

    • Merging departments can lead to significant cost savings and enhance collaborative interactions among faculty.

  • Successful Example from ASU:

    • Administrative restructuring at ASU saved over $13 million without eliminating faculty positions, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

  • Impediments to Academia:

    • Traditional departmental structures may discourage innovative faculty whose interdisciplinary focus does not align with departmental interests.

General Education Re-Evaluation

  • Rising specialization has led to a dilution of general education's coherence with distracted learning objectives.

  • Evidence shows that institutions are offering substantially more advanced courses than necessary early in a student's career (e.g., just 26% of general education offerings were foundational courses).

  • Potential Cost Savings:

    • Estimates show opportunities for eliminating non-essential general education courses, which could save institutions roughly 10% of instructional costs.

Conclusion

  • The expansion of chaotic curriculum weakens graduates' competencies in core skills and cultural literacy.

  • The overwhelming array of choices complicates pathways for graduation and workforce readiness.

  • Institutions can realize significant savings and structural improvements by reconsidering curriculum focus, aligning general education with core disciplinary majors, and limiting elective offerings that fail to demonstrate educational benefit.