{"id":132,"date":"2018-05-12T18:07:33","date_gmt":"2018-05-12T22:07:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/?p=132"},"modified":"2018-05-12T18:07:33","modified_gmt":"2018-05-12T22:07:33","slug":"the-modern-university","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/2018\/05\/12\/the-modern-university\/","title":{"rendered":"The Modern University"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reuben, J. A. (1996).\u00a0The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality<\/em><\/a>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

\"\"Reuben\u2019s work examines development of the American university during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the roles of religion and morality. Her socio-historical analysis is dominated by the prevailing American Protestantism, and its focus is primarily larger research universities\u00a0 However, many of the trends that Reuben identifies affected the development of Catholic universities.<\/p>\n

Reuben begins by explaining the traditional intellectual view of a \u201cunity of truth\u201d that encompassed \u201creligious doctrines, common-sense beliefs, and scientific theories\u201d (p.2).\u00a0 While religious truth was considered the most important, \u201cintellectuals assumed that truth had spiritual, moral and cognitive dimensions\u201d, that the three were ultimately in agreement, and that \u201cthe good, the true and the beautiful\u201d were intimately connected. However, by the 1930\u2019s, scientific or \u201cobjective\u201d truth had assumed the greatest importance, while religious or moral \u201ctruth\u201d was considered abstract, \u201cemotional\u201d and \u201cvalue-based\u201d.<\/p>\n

A critical development here (and one which surely affected Catholic Universities) was the rapid expansion of knowledge and new \u201csubjects\u201d (notably in the sciences and social sciences), particularly in the early 20th<\/sup> century. Together with the growing number and diversity of students, this created a demand for broader, more up-to-date and diverse education that had greater \u201crelevance\u201d and \u201cutility\u201d in terms of future employment and useful contributions to society (an important aim of both Protestant and Catholic higher education).\u00a0 This put enormous pressure on university curricula, prompting numerous \u201celective\u201d courses rather than a standard course of study, early subject specialization, and the expansion of science and social science studies at the expense of the humanities and religion.\u00a0 The associated pressure to hire better qualified instructors and specialists proficient in the \u201cnew subjects\u201d rather than basing hires on religious affiliation (a tradition seen as holding back progress) reinforced the \u201cmodernization\u201d of curricula in favor of the sciences, social sciences as well as technical and professional studies.<\/p>\n

Reuben does not claim to fully explain the secularization of higher education, but argues that it was not a deliberate choice, but rather due to a complex interaction of factors.\u00a0 These included the failure of science to admit religious explanation (more than the reverse, although both were factors), the demands of university faculty for more autonomy (freedom from the constraints of religious dogma), a growing emphasis on scientific research and laboratory studies, declining student interest in the classics and religion, the separation of \u201cobjective\u201d scientific knowledge from subjective, \u201cvalue-based\u201d religious belief and an emphasis on \u201cscientific rigor and neutrality\u201d (p. 189). She notes that \u201cuniversity reformers tried to modernize religion to make it compatible with their conception of science.\u00a0 Religion disappeared from the university because these attempts failed, not because university education neglected religion\u201d (p.13).<\/p>\n

Reuben\u2019s history of the struggle to reconcile science and religion is fascinating, but an interesting sub-theme is the assumption that a key function of a university was to produce \u201cmoral\u201d individuals (e.g. in 1901 \u201cColumbia \u2026 intended that moral education would be an integral part of the new, expanded college curriculum\u201d p 73). This seems to contrast early Catholic writers such as Newman and Ward who held that the primary aim of higher education was intellectual development (e.g. Ward: the \u201chabit of virtue\u201d cannot be taught, but is fostered by developing the intellect).\u00a0 There were, however those who seemed closer to the Catholic tradition.\u00a0 For example,\u00a0 Reuben quotes Gilman (University of Michigan) as stating \u201cthere is no better way known to man for securing intellectual and moral integrity than to encourage those habits, those methods, and those pursuits that tend to establish truth\u201d (p.74)<\/p>\n

An interesting sidelight of great relevance today was an argument to separate traditional \u201cclassical colleges\u201d and \u201cspecialized schools\u201d (akin to current vocational schools, but with the college education as a prerequisite), which never really took hold.\u00a0 Instead, the modern system of a number of \u201ccolleges\u201d or \u201cschools\u201d within a single university took hold, particularly at larger institutions. \u00a0While this was an attempt to accommodate the new demands of education, it has surely contributed to the lack of cohesion and \u201cdepartmental silos\u201d effect so often found in modern universities.<\/p>\n

Among the many aspects of university development she discusses, Reuben also notes various efforts to establish \u201ccore curricula\u201d, most notably at Yale.\u00a0 She blames failure on competing departmental and subject interests (faculty \u2026 \u201cdid not agree on what subjects constituted essential aspects of the curriculum\u201d) and reluctance to teach \u201cgeneral education courses\u201d (p. 240) and, most importantly according to Reuben, \u201cthey had begun to lose faith in the ideal of the unity of truth\u201d (p.241).<\/p>\n

Given the failure to \u201cground moral training in the curricula\u201d, universities began to emphasize the influence of individual faculty as models and mentors.\u00a0 A rare quotation from a Catholic educator (Edward Pace of Catholic University in 1926) emphasizes the difference between \u201cvalue-free research\u201d and \u201cvalue-laden teaching\u201d, stating that (an educator) \u201cmay not be content with a manner of teaching whose results are at variance with his innermost convictions (p. 246).\u00a0\u00a0 This idea of the faculty as moral educator and character-shaper gave rise to reservations about many faculty\u2019s preoccupation with their own research and reputation at the expense of teaching (a problem later reinforced by universities\u2019 preoccupation with faculty research grants and publications as the measure of worth). It also led to dissatisfaction with \u201cspecialists\u201d \u2013 \u201cstudents need instructors who can explain the connections between various areas of knowledge and help them make sense of the whole\u201d (p. 248).\u00a0 The plea for hiring instructors and rewarding instructors based more on teaching quality than research and publication history certainly resonates today \u2013 especially when teaching loads typically prevent those very faculty from accomplishing much in the way of research and publication!\u00a0 But rather than give priority to faculty teaching and student mentoring (except at the graduate level), universities began offices of student services, voluntary faculty advisors, extra-curricular activities and \u201cfreshman life\u201d orientations that many of us see today.<\/p>\n

Note:<\/strong>\u00a0 For a subsequent article which summarizes key points of the book and more recent changes, see<\/p>\n

Reuben, J.A (2005). Writing When Everything Has Been Said: The History of American Higher Education following Laurence Veysey’s Classic.\u00a0History of Education Quarterly<\/em>\u00a045(3): 412-419.<\/p>\n

Questions<\/h4>\n
    \n
  1. Has the changing role of \u201cmorality\u201d that Reuben describes had a similar impact on Catholic Universities?<\/li>\n
  2. Is it possible for a university to provide a traditional, intellectually and spiritually-based education AND meet the demand for professional career preparation and subject specialization?<\/li>\n
  3. If it were feasible to more rigorously separate \u201cvocational\u201d from \u201cuniversity\u201d training, would we be missing important educational opportunities (I am thinking particularly of health and medicine or business).<\/li>\n
  4. Are our curricula \u201cover-burdened\u201d? Should we try to cover less material more in-depth, and if so, what should our priorities be?<\/li>\n
  5. Do we over-emphasize research grants and publications over teaching (in hiring, tenure and promotion and other \u201creward<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Reuben, J. A. (1996).\u00a0The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reuben\u2019s work examines development of the American university during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the roles of religion and morality. Her socio-historical analysis is dominated by the prevailing American Protestantism, and … Continue reading “The Modern University”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":116,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-challenges-in-higher-education"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/116"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":134,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132\/revisions\/134"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}