The University We Need: Reforming American Higher Education Kindle Edition

This is a fascinating study by a distinguished historian. Its most noteworthy characteristic is the fact that after enumerating the problems with contemporary higher education (particularly its failings with regard to the evaluation of teaching and research) the author offers concrete recommendations as partial remedies for our current condition.

The listing of the problems and challenges is exhilarating even if it is discouraging. We are comforted by the realization that this multiplicity of problems can actually be identified in candid, no-holds-barred fashion. The staccato, paratactic, insistent inventory makes this a very fast read that offers the urgency that we usually associate with literary thrillers. If Sean Hannity took a Ph.D. in History and spent 45+ years in the academic trenches his 'opening monologue' on higher education would sound something like this. I read two-thirds of the book in one sitting.

There are three principal recommendations: the establishment of a federal review board to evaluate the quality of American doctoral dissertations on commonsensical, traditional grounds, a board to assess instances of plagiarism and other forms of academic fraud and the creation of a new research college/eventual university capable of competing with the top ivies by following traditional principles, establishing high expectations and producing stellar research.

The principal usefulness of the recommendations will be to draw attention to the shortcomings of our current practices, in part because they are listed in fulsome detail. In 'getting down to specifics' in such a detailed fashion Professor Treadgold is able to highlight nearly every issue that could possibly be confronted. For example, he recommends that dorms in his new institution have separate entrances for men and women and small beds (yes, small beds) to reinforce the emphasis on learning rather than socialization, writ large, and disincent individuals from inviting themselves into spaces where their presence has not been consciously sought.

The installation of a federal agency for dissertation evaluation would quickly reveal that many current products are largely drivel and force hiring departments to confront that reality when they are in the process of hiring on other than meritocratic grounds. There is no question that such a board would stimulate a great deal of discomfort along with a series of honest discussions. I have several reservations. First, while this board would be a comparatively small (Government) agency it would be quite cumbersome to manage. Who (as Milton asked in his Areopagitica—a consideration of government censorship) would ever want to read this stuff? The recommendation is that evaluators would be paid honoraria (a hundred dollars or two, as they receive for evaluating a manuscript for a university press). Given the fact that there are some 50,000 doctorates awarded annually in America, if each dissertation received three separate readings, the minimal number of energy transaction/contacts would be 150,000, each and every year. Many would decline. Many would object vociferously to the process (for obvious reasons). Many would be on Professor Treadgold's excluded list (postmodernists, Marxists and other ideologues). Those who would be the best candidates would be traditionally-trained scholars who share Professor Treadgold's (and my) values. Unfortunately, such figures are now largely dead, dying or pursuing other projects within a short temporal horizon. The biggest problem, however, is that those who have created the problem would simply refuse to acknowledge Professor Treadgold's concerns, throw up evasive barriers, make personal accusations, and virtue-signal in the precise same way that they do now. In other words, they would not be shamed by the board's findings because they are not shamed by our current realities.

The notion of a literally NEW university is an interesting one, though it is not a unique suggestion. William Pannapacker, e.g., has also made this recommendation. His university would be (secularly) monastic as opposed to the country clubs, corporatist shams and daycare centers that we now see. As with Professor Treadgold's imagined institution, it would radically limit administration, devalue athletics, focus on hiring tenure/track rather than contingent faculty, and so on. Many would happily join the faculty of such institutions. Since the establishment of such an institution is unlikely to occur (though I will add my prayers for the possibility) we can at this time only look at what a model might be. Unfortunately, I have only one to suggest: the California Institute of Technology. Caltech is a bona fide meritocratic institution; it is not politicized; it does not discriminate against Asian students in the manner of the ivies and, Professor Treadgold reports, its administrative budget is miniscule. It is also the American institution which is most frequently cited as the top academic institution in the world.

Of course, it does next to nothing in the humanities and very little more in the social sciences and those are the areas which (quite properly) command the majority of Professor Treadgold's concern and attention. It is the case, however, as he notes, that time will heal some of these wounds. Postmodernism, e.g., one of his significant targets, has done a fast fade in recent years. Derrida came to America over 50 years ago and the students who cannot name the duties of the vice president or the occupants of the chairs in the supreme court will be hard put to remember him.

Bottom line: a very thoughtful book whose principal result will be the stimulation of serious thought and discussion and whose very existence and honesty will provide reassurance to those who have watched the greatest system of higher education in history devolve into a miasma of political correctness, low expectations, unaffordable cost and omnipresent failure.

P.S. Professor Treadgold suggests the D.C. suburbs or exurbs for the location of his new institution. I would rethink that. The area is far too expensive (we have enough financial problems now) and the federal government is too great a distraction. I lived there 17 years. There is only one good job in town (in the common perception) and it sucks the energy and attention that rightly belongs in the classroom, library and laboratory. It fixates on the 24-hour news cycle rather than on the timeless. It also draws people with posters and bullhorns. Go for something a tad more pastoral.

I first became aware of Warren Treadgold's book "The University We Need." via John Leo's review, "Rethinking College" in the July 19, 2018, print edition of The Wall Street Journal. Reading the review prompted a question: Isn't it a wonder how so many things can be wrong with our American universities and still have them considered the best in the world?

Then came a letter-to-the-editor response to Leo's review in the July 27, 2018 issue of the Journal, "Rethinking the Best Universities in the World," by Emeritus Prof. Sol Gittleman (Tufts University) who wrote:

"In the 1930s we were a homogeneous faculty and student body, harmonious, agreeable, and mediocre. Now we have anarchy, are diverse in faculty and student body, with a million students from all over the world in our dreadful colleges and universities, with another million wishing they could get in. Perhaps 150 of our Nobel laureate's chose American universities for their research and emigrated. We have all of those terrible qualities that Messrs. Leo and Treadgold identify -- but could the Journal quietly tell its readers that we have the greatest higher education "anarchy" in the world? It is a mess, chaotic, sports-driven, with incompetent administrators trying to lead ungovernable faculty and students. Perhaps that's the price you pay for being the envy of the world."

After emailing Gittleman to tell him that I liked his letter but questioned how long can schools supporting big- time football and men's basketball programs be considered the "envy of the world" when weighted down by related academic corruption, not to mention the adjunct and unmotivated-student problems – commenting that I don't believe schools like MIT and Cal Tech should have a problem, so too with the professional schools within universities, such as medical, law, and those involving STEM and other professional disciplines. I also advised him that I ordered a copy of Treadgold's book to see firsthand what he really has to say with the intent of writing my own review of the book.

However, Joel Eissenberg's spot-on, critical AMAZON customer review of Treadgold's book spared me the task of writing a similar review since he noted essentially the same deficiencies in the book as I noted. Nevertheless, here are a few personal observations:

1. Rather than fault so-called leftist faculties and administrations I would fault college and university boards of trustees/regents for many of the problems cited by Treadgold. Who better to blame than
stonewalling board members who hide behind the mask of institutional maintenance – fiduciary guardians and protectors of their school’s reputation? These board members espouse the cover-up play book titled "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" as applied to campus sexual assaults as well as the loss of academic integrity at most of our schools supporting big-time football and men's basketball programs that strive to win at any cost for fame and fortune.

2. It is also a wonder that college and university boards allow what Treadgold sees as an anti-conservative bent in today's colleges and universities when, for the most part, board members are active or retired bankers and/or corporate officers that are generally wealthy (read donors) and very conservative. Could they possibly be neutralized by lavish perks and awards?

3. On page 142, Treadgold writes "In theory, no doubt, enlightened trustees could try to choose a determined and forceful new president for an already distinguished University." He goes on to say: "Yet, I am not aware of any existing major university that has such enlightened trustees.” One would think that the first order of business for our colleges and universities would be to educate their board members. Unfortunately, most schools offer no such education for new board members. To this end, see veteran board member Allen C. Guelzo’s op-ed “Back-to-School Advice for College Trustees” in the Aug. 25, 2018, issue of the Journal.

4. Reading Treadgold’s book would also be a worthwhile exercise for current and future board members. So too would becoming a member of ACTA, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an independent, non-profit organization committed to academic freedom, excellence, and accountability at America's colleges and universities.

5. Board members, presidents, and other administrators, as well as faculty members could very well profit from viewing “The Hunting Ground,” a CNN documentary/exposé that covers the campus rape epidemic at colleges across America. Thoughtful consideration should also be given to the work of The National Coalition Against Violent Athletes (NCAVA) that is dedicated to empowering individuals affected by athlete violence through comprehensive services including advocacy, legal aid, education and counseling and also works to eliminate off-the-field violence by athletes. Similarly, thoughtful consideration should be given to the work of The Drake Group that has as its mission the defense of academic integrity in higher education from the corrosive aspects of commercialized college sports.

6. The aforementioned educational resources will likely go unused since most, if not all colleges are comfortable with the status quo. It would seem that coercion via government intervention is required – painful as that may be. Rather than building and staffing a new university that we don’t need, education of college and university board members, presidents, and other administrators could be mandated by the U.S. Department of Education. Failure to comply with the mandate and a request for corrective action plans to address issues of sports related academic corruption and sexual abuse will result in the loss of the school’s tax-exempt status as well as the loss of federal funding.

7. Though written from a narrow perspective, this provocative book is considered to be a must read for anyone interested in reforming our nation’s institutions of higher education. Why so? Because, despite the deficiencies cited by Eissenberg, the book forces the reader to think about alternative solutions to the formidable problems facing our nation’s institutions of higher education.

Frank G. Splitt, a former McCormick Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, is the author of the 2015 book An Odyssey of Reform Initiatives, 1986-2015: From Engineering, K-12 and Higher Education to the Environment, National Information Infrastructure, and Collegiate Athletics.

Professor Treadgold's clear, concise, and truly remarkable book should be read by all parents of children about to consider their choice of college. Universities today are little more than centers for indoctrination into the core beliefs of Progressives. This has resulted in such Orwellian terms as "Inclusion, Diversity, and Fairness" and the hire of legions of highly paid administrators whose sole objective is to promote their belief that America is a racist, sexist, ogre and that Western Culture is a disease that must be eliminated. Sadly, this attack has now been extended to colleges of Science and Engineering. At my own university, the emphasis of our once proud engineering program has been transformed into a crusade to reduce the number of male students and instructors while increasing - solely for the sake of increasing - the number of minorities. After 50 years as a professor, I can say that the book provides a fair and accurate portrayal of the demise of higher education in the United States.