Monday, November 30, 2015

Declining Student Resilience: A Serious Problem for Colleges


Faculty at the meetings noted that students’ emotional fragility has become a serious problem when it comes to grading. Some said they had grown afraid to give low grades for poor performance, because of the subsequent emotional crises they would have to deal with in their offices.

Many students, they said, now view a C, or sometimes even a B, as failure, and they interpret such “failure” as the end of the world. Faculty also noted an increased tendency for students to blame them (the faculty) for low grades - they weren’t explicit enough in telling the students just what the test would cover or just what would distinguish a good paper from a bad one. They described an increased tendency to see a poor grade as reason to complain rather than as reason to study more, or more effectively.

Much of the discussions had to do with the amount of hand-holding faculty should do versus the degree to which the response should be something like, “Buck up, this is college.” Does the first response simply play into and perpetuate students’ neediness and unwillingness to take responsibility? Does the second response create the possibility of serious emotional breakdown, or, who knows, maybe even suicide?

Two weeks ago, that head of Counseling sent us all a follow-up email, announcing a new set of meetings. His email included this sobering paragraph:
“I have done a considerable amount of reading and research in recent months on the topic of resilience in college students. Our students are no different from what is being reported across the country on the state of late adolescence/early adulthood. There has been an increase in diagnosable mental health problems, but there has also been a decrease in the ability of many young people to manage the everyday bumps in the road of life. Whether we want it or not, these students are bringing their struggles to their teachers and others on campus who deal with students on a day-to-day basis. The lack of resilience is interfering with the academic mission of the University and is thwarting the emotional and personal development of students.”
He also sent us a summary of themes that emerged in the series of meetings, which included the following bullets:
  • Less resilient and needy students have shaped the landscape for faculty in that they are expected to do more hand-holding, lower their academic standards, and not challenge students too much.
  • There is a sense of helplessness among the faculty. Many faculty members expressed their frustration with the current situation. There were few ideas about what we could do as an institution to address the issue.
  • Students are afraid to fail; they do not take risks; they need to be certain about things. For many of them, failure is seen as catastrophic and unacceptable. External measures of success are more important than learning and autonomous development.
  • Faculty, particularly young faculty members, feel pressured to accede to student wishes lest they get low teacher ratings from their students. Students email about trivial things and expect prompt replies.
  • Failure and struggle need to be normalized. Students are very uncomfortable in not being right. They want to re-do papers to undo their earlier mistakes. We have to normalize being wrong and learning from one’s errors.
  • Faculty members, individually and as a group, are conflicted about how much “handholding” they should be doing.
  • Growth is achieved by striking the right balance between support and challenge. We need to reset the balance point. We have become a “helicopter institution.”
Reinforcing the claim that this is a nationwide problem, the Chronicle of Higher Education recently ran an article by Robin Wilson entitled, “An Epidemic of Anguish: Overwhelmed by Demand for Mental-Health Care, Colleges Face Conflicts in Choosing How to Respond" (Aug. 31, 2015).

Colleges and universities have traditionally been centers for higher academic education, where the expectation is that the students are adults, capable of taking care of their own everyday life problems. Increasingly, students and their parents are asking the personnel at such institutions to be substitute parents. There is also the ever-present threat and reality of lawsuits.  When a suicide occurs, or a serious mental breakdown occurs, the institution is often held responsible.

On the basis of her interviews with heads of counseling offices at various colleges and universities, Wilson wrote:
“Families often expect campuses to provide immediate, sophisticated, and sustained mental-health care. After all, most parents are still adjusting to the idea that their children no longer come home every night, and many want colleges to keep an eye on their kids, just as they did. Students, too, want colleges to give them the help they need, when they need it. And they need a lot. Rates of anxiety and depression among American college students have soared in the last decade, and many more students than in the past come to campus already on medication for such illnesses. The number of students with suicidal thoughts has risen as well. Some are dealing with serious issues, such as psychosis, which typically presents itself in young adulthood, just when students are going off to college. Many others, though, are struggling with what campus counselors say are the usual stresses of college life: bad grades, breakups, being on their own for the first time. And they are putting a strain on counseling centers.”
In previous posts (for example, here and here), I have described the dramatic decline, over the past few decades, in children’s opportunities to play, explore, and pursue their own interests away from adults.

Among the consequences, I have argued, are well-documented increases in anxiety and depression, and decreases in the sense of control of their own lives. We have raised a generation of young people who have not been given the opportunity to learn how to solve their own problems. They have not been given the opportunity to get into trouble and find their own way out, to experience failure and realize they can survive it, to be called bad names by others and learn how to respond without adult intervention.

So now, here’s what we have: Young people, 18 years and older, going to college still unable or unwilling to take responsibility for themselves, still feeling that if a problem arises they need an adult to solve it.

Dan Jones, past president of the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors, seems to agree with this assessment. In an interview for the Chronicle article, he said:
“[Students] haven’t developed skills in how to soothe themselves, because their parents have solved all their problems and removed the obstacles. They don’t seem to have as much grit as previous generations.”
In my next post I’ll examine the research evidence suggesting that so-called “helicopter parenting” really is at the core of the problem. But I don’t blame parents, or certainly not just parents.

Parents are in some ways victims of larger forces in society - victims of the continuous exhortations from “experts” about the dangers of letting kids be, victims of the increased power of the school system and the schooling mentality that says kids develop best when carefully guided and supervised by adults, and victims of increased legal and social sanctions for allowing kids into public spaces without adult accompaniment. We have become, unfortunately, a “helicopter society.”

If we want to prepare our kids for college - or for anything else in life! - we have to counter these social forces. We have to give our children the freedom, which children have always enjoyed in the past, to get away from adults so they can practice being adults - that is, practice taking responsibility for themselves.
Basic Books, with permission
Source: Basic Books, with permission

And now, what do you think? 

Have you witnessed in any way the kinds of changes in young adults described here and that seem to be plaguing colleges and universities? How have you, as a parent, negotiated the line between protecting your children and giving them the freedom they need for psychological growth? Do you have any suggestions for college counselors and professors about how to deal with these problems they are struggling with?

I invite you to share your stories, thoughts, and questions in the comments section below. This blog is, among other things, a forum for discussion. As always, I prefer if you post your comments and questions here rather than send them to me by private email. By putting them here, you share with other readers, not just with me. I read all comments and try to respond to all serious questions if I think I have something worth saying. Of course, if you have something to say that applies only to you and me, then send me an email.

See also: Free to Learn (link is external) and alternativestoschool.com (link is external), and  join me on Facebook (link is external).

Facebook image: wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Why Australia Needs a New Model for Universities

English: School of Art at the Australian Natio...
School of Art at the ANU in Canberra (Photo: Wikipedia)
by Raewyn Connell, University of Sydney, The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/why-australia-needs-a-new-model-for-universities-43696

Australia is in need of a new model for universities.

That isn’t the impression you get from the delighted students, contented staff and shining buildings pictured on every university website. But that’s a fantasy.

University managers now hire a considerable number of advertising staff to create the pretty picture. Behind the façade are growing signs of trouble. A vital one is the gap between management and staff.

The CEOs, still called vice-chancellors, are paid up to A$1.3 million a year. Their average package in 2014 was 14 times the starting salary of an entry-level academic working full-time.

Surveys of staff show little belief that these highly paid executives are doing a good job. In the 2015 national survey by the National Tertiary Education Union, over two-thirds of the 7,000 university staff who took part in the survey said changes in the workplace have not been handled well.

Managers evidently don’t trust the staff either. There is a growing mass of surveillance and auditing mechanisms, branding requirements and online control systems imposed on the work of university staff, including research.

Fixed course templates make teaching more controlled and conventional. The trend is towards a de-professionalisation of staff, whose freedom to make judgements autonomously is curtailed.
There is a striking reliance on an insecure workforce to do the bread-and-butter teaching.

Managements don’t publicise this - it would undermine the advertising - but the best information is that staff employed on a casual basis, often part-time, now do about 50% of undergraduate teaching.
This has become a secondary labour market in its own right.

With non-academic staff, there has been a trend to outsource trades and services such as maintenance, IT and security, which used to be supplied in-house. There has also been a trend to take support staff away from departments and faculties and centralise them under the direct control of management.

And the students? HECS/HELP debt exceeds A$30 billion across the country, and there is private debt by full-fee-paying students on top of that. In the US, on which our universities are increasingly modelled, total student debt is US$1.08 trillion.

What they have gone for is increasing class sizes and more routinised courses. Students too have been increasingly shut out of university decision-making, except through their dollars as customers.

There is no mystery about how this situation arose. The Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s expanded the university system, but did it on the cheap, following a market-style user-pays logic. Fees have risen massively since then, while the proportion of university budgets coming direct from government collapsed from about 90% to under 45%.

Universities have been profoundly re-defined in neoliberal terms, from being sections of a unified public service to being competing firms in a market.

Universities are not collapsing. Staff commitment continues to make them work, despite worsened conditions. But a crisis of sustainability is building up, as we continue to drift towards a privatised system under the neoliberal cover story that there-is-no-alternative.

What’s the alternative?

University of Berlin: a classic role model? www.shutterstock.com

The history of universities around the world is rich with alternatives, large and small.

Let’s start with the University of Berlin, the model for the modern research university. It came from a German Enlightenment concept of the Bildungsstaat, the educational state, in which supporting cultural and intellectual development was a public responsibility.

Not relevant today? It remains a strong tradition. A year ago, the last of the German Länder abolished university tuition fees. The most successful economy in Europe now has a fee-free national university system.

In the “Flying University” tradition in Poland, intellectuals set up clandestine study programs to keep alive the knowledge not wanted by the authorities - under the Tsars and under the Communists. In the developing world, universities have been centres of reform and social change. Among them are mega-universities like the amazing National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Australia has its own tradition of experiment and invention. The Australian National University in its early days was an adventure in the integration of knowledge in new forms. Newcastle medical school pursued a remarkable rethinking of medical education, to make it socially responsive. The small experimental Free Universities of the 1960s ran student-directed courses.

Many mainstream departments and programs have supported student and staff planning, interactive pedagogies, autonomous research groups and more.

Agenda for change

Australia needs fresh thinking on four basic issues.

Knowledge itself

We have the tools to re-think curriculum and research agendas around the knowledge a more democratic society needs, rather than what a corporate economy needs.

Finance

Australia can afford free higher education and wide-ranging, adventurous research. That requires a public system. It isn’t credible, and won’t be funded, if it mimics corporate profit-making. A public university must be open in its working, socially inclusive and modest in demeanour.

Universities as workplaces

Knowledge is now produced by large workforces; universities should be decent places to work, for all the groups who work here. Universities can be far more democratic than they are; means of shared decision-making are crucial.

Public role

Universities have been places of privilege; only as places of public service will they flourish. A key public service is independent critical thought. Another is educating professionals, which has to be re-thought as neoliberalism undermines old models of professionalism.

Those are directions of change, not a ready-made model.

In making a start, it’s important to know that the grey corporate orthodoxy of fees, competition and control was never, and is not now, the only possibility for higher education.

Raewyn Connell will be discussing the issues raised in this article at the Challenging the Privatised University conference on November 23, 2015.
The Conversation

Raewyn Connell, Professor Emerita (social science), University of Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.