Dreams Stall as CUNY, New York’s Engine of Mobility, Sputters – NY Times

When browsing Facebook, I came across something a friend of mine shared: http://www1.cuny.edu/sites/news-chancellor/2016/05/cuny-is-more-important-than-ever/

It is a statement by Chancellor Milliken, discussing the importance of CUNY in response to an updated NY Times article (that I believe we already looked at): http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/nyregion/dreams-stall-as-cuny-citys-engine-of-mobility-sputters.html?_r=0.

I went to read the NY Times article and I personally felt that the article was a little out of touch with CUNY’s current situation. It did an amazing job of highlighting all of the negative things that we are facing: poor maintenance of buildings, inadequate materials for classes, etc. This is definitely something we are seeing, but it felt one-sided. It failed to examine all of the positive things that CUNY continues to achieve, despite financial troubles.

I think CUNY will remain the engine of mobility for New Yorkers and that hard times will eventually come to an end. As we know, higher education is being disrupted in many different ways and maybe this financial circumstance we find ourselves in will spark some positive change for the years to come.

The article was a good read and I would love to know your thoughts on it! What do you guys think about this?

 

What I Want in the New Dean of Macaulay

Next week, I am going to meet one of the candidates for the new Dean of Macaulay. I’m really excited to hear about what this person can bring and what new things he/she plans to implement.

Earlier this week, along with a few of our classmates, I met with Ann Kirschner, former Dean of Macaulay, and spoke about a multitude of things with her. With the final question, I asked what qualities she thought the new dean should have. To me, her answer was basically this: we need someone who will uphold the student-centered structure and atmosphere of Macaulay (there was more to it, but this was most striking). I totally agree with her.

I think the new dean at Macaulay needs to understand that the students, their education, their extracurricular activities, and their opportunities should be at the top of the priority list. Macaulay is known for offering free tuition, campus advisement, the opportunities fund, and much more. Our new dean, rather than bring something new to the table, needs to improve what Macaulay already has on the table.

Next week when I meet our potential next dean, I am going to ask how he/she is going to improve our academics, the club activities on W 67th, and the opportunities fund – three of the things I find really important. Recently with the changes to the Macaulay tuition policy, a reduction in op fund approvals, and Governor Cuomo seemingly wanting to abandon CUNY in terms of state funding, getting money is also super important when it comes to hiring a new dean.

Next week, when I meet the candidate, I am going to consider multiple things. Most importantly, we need this person to understand what Macaulay is about: the students! In addition to that, we need someone who will be able to get funds for Macaulay so that our students can continue to get all of the benefits that it currently offers. Finally, this person must have the future in mind – long-term goals.

What are some specific things you guys want out of our new dean? I think it’s worth talking about!

Being the Model “Research Institution”: Helping or Hurting Our Students?

Universities are seen as the forefront of advancing research. Institutions that have a good reputation for research are usually seen as the “best.” History has instilled that in us. In my other class, we are currently discussing physicists who worked on discoveries leading up to the creation of the atomic bomb. Almost every great discovery was accompanied by “discovered in *some* university’s lab” or “research conducted at *insert name* University.”

Research is truly a great thing and universities have shown us (and continue to) some of the most advanced science we’ve ever seen. Although this is fine and dandy, when most common folk think of a university, they don’t see RESEARCH, they see EDUCATION: an opportunity to learn more so that in the future, you may be able to use your knowledge and skills to make a decent living (of course this definition of a college education may garner some argument, but for the most part, I think I cover it okay). Lately, I have been getting a feeling that this isn’t really the case for most institutions.

In one of our first classes, a student mentioned something about his Organic Chemistry professor that irked me. He relayed to us that the only reason this professor is here, is so that he can get support for research. Is it me or is that just messed up? Students go to a college and take classes so that they can learn the material and move further into their field of study. For Pre-Meds especially, Orgo is a really important class for a student to understand. When you put a professor that doesn’t really seem to love teaching in a difficult class, how could you expect him/her to teach well? His/her ulterior motives cause students to lose out.

I feel like there’s an issue with the hiring process at colleges. Most professors require doctoral degrees (usually very research-heavy) to teach at a university. These professors are experts in their fields, no doubt, but are they experts at teaching? Potentially not. High school and elementary school teachers must follow strict DOE rules affecting how they teach their classes. College professors, in some cases, don’t have to answer to anyone. Shouldn’t we hold them to a similar kind of standard, even something less strict?

Before going on, I have to clarify that there are some incredible professors who have their PhDs and other doctoral degrees. They’re AMAZING. BUT, there are also some who “aren’t the best” (please excuse my euphemism). Maybe it’s not that they “aren’t the best” in their field, but they certainly “aren’t the best” at teaching or perhaps it’s caring (about the students that is).

I propose that the system change. Do all of our professors really need doctoral degrees? For more advanced and specialized classes, yes. But for lower level classes, perhaps not. My Calculus II professor certainly didn’t need a PhD – he made it easy to ace Calculus with a strong understanding of it too. It’s an important, lower-level Math course that can be taught beautifully by a person who might not have their doctoral-level degree. What I am saying to colleges is: Please hire professors based primarily on how well they can teach, not how well they can research (make that a secondary consideration).

I write this based off of my own personal experiences. Ultimately, I have had many more great professors than I have had “bad” professors, but for the few times that I had those “bad” professors, it made college more difficult than it had to be.

Of course there are some issues with what I propose and discuss here. There always are. There can be a fundamental difference between professors which fall into this group of “bad”: Case 1- They have a secured job (tenure) or Case 2- They’re just not trained to teach well. This one example shows just how dynamic the situation could be and it’s hard to capture it all in a blog post.

This issue of hiring brings to light even bigger issues with the Higher Education system at large. Must universities always flaunt their research status? And if they don’t have that status, do they really need it? Maybe institutions should focus on flaunting their extraordinary teaching.