1.What is the meaning of a liberal arts education? How do colleges define it today? Is it just a tool to promote an idea they want to sell? Does any college truly embody “liberal arts education”?

2.Who decides that a liberal education matters more than a career-oriented one? Or vice versa? Is it politicians? Policy makers?

3.Humphreys claims that within the next few years, there will not be enough college-educated people to fill the necessary jobs. Isn’t there a decrease in hiring at this point in time? Is that expected to continue? If so, how are we to understand these two pieces of information?

4.It seems that there is a new movement to assess competence and not just hours spent in classroom. Should there also be a way to test for competence in regards to liberal arts knowledge, ie reasoning, social responsibility, practical skills, etc?

5.Are employers expecting too much by wanting employees who have a broad and wide depth of knowledge? Is this an unrealistic expectation?

6.The critique on liberal arts education claims that one can teach himself all the things that a liberal arts education is said to impart and it is therefore a waste to give money to colleges to do just that. Is this a valid argument? Can people learn reasoning and civic responsibility from online classes and self-motivated learning?

7.Coulson seems to be bemoaning a lack of initiative on the part of today’s generation and not so much the “myth” of a liberal arts education. What exactly is he trying to say here?

8.We’ve spoken about mission creep, but is it possible that colleges are trying to be something they’re not because that’s where the money is? Some colleges have expanded their scope because they weren’t pulling in enough applicants by having such a narrow niche. Is it possible that the real crux of the matter here is economics? Is it also possible that student demand is part of what drives the mission creep we see?

9.Is the new focus on vocational training a result of the current economic situation or has it been years in the making? Why is this push happening now?

10.Employers want people who can work well with others, but this isn’t necessarily something a liberal arts education can impart. Even vocational training can do this. Is this skill a relevant part of the LA arguments?

11.It seems that colleges are doing a poor job of effectively conveying to the public what they are really saying. For example, small private colleges may have a huge price tag but the actual price you pay is much less. Or, for example, these small colleges often promote liberal arts education, which some studies have shown increases income after college. Yet, somehow, the public does not know this information. Why is that? What are these colleges doing wrong?

12.Is higher ed in crisis or not?

13.A few articles (and Nussbaum) have compared the liberal arts argument and rhetoric to religious rhetoric. How true is this claim?

14.Does economic growth need a liberal arts education or not? Nussbaum is arguing that employers decry it as useless but surveys of employers indicate that they do, in fact, want the skills most people are supposed to get from a liberal arts education. What is the reality here?

1.Because of money issues, students from low-income families are going to school later (1/3 of undergraduates), which is correlated with lower graduation rate. Is this lower graduation rate a correlation or a causation of the fact that those who defer for a year tend to be coming from low-income families?

2.Why is it that students who enroll in 2 year colleges are, in theory, meant to continue on to 4 year colleges but very rarely do so? Are all the access issues a function of money?

3.College does pay off, according to Attewell-Lavin. Is this only for public institutions in which tuition is cheaper?

4.Justice Rehnquist argued that affirmative action is actually a quota system and is unconstitutional based on fact that this critical mass criteria isn’t being uniformly applied, and based on fact that there is almost equal amounts of students getting accepted as there are applying. (And that other colleges don’t use this policy and manage to be diverse.) Is he implying that those who are accepted aren’t qualified and are just being accepted based on race? Other colleges that manage to be diverse – is this because of where it is situated? Are there other factors at play here?

5.Justice O’Connor said that her decision (Grutter vs Bollinger) wouldn’t be needed in 25 years because it shouldn’t be a problem at that point. So is she saying it is not in the best interests of equality but is a necessary evil so that minorities can have greater access to higher education? In which case, it isn’t really about “critical mass” of minorities on campus benefitting the school, is it? Or isn’t it?

6.Yale (and others) recently opened up minority-only scholarships to all students and this is part of a trend to get rid of need-based scholarships. Why is this happening? What forces are at work here? Does anyone really think need-based is no longer necessary?

7.Now, Michigan College uses essays and not points and the essays have a lot to do with diversity – Is this a valid system that evaluates applicants successfully? What other options did Michigan have?

8.The article says that post-graduate people were strongest opposition to Proposition 2 – why do you think that is?

9.To say that without affirmative action, there would be immediate discrimination against blacks, implies that this rule was only ever to increase access, even thought colleges state it’s for diversity which is educationally beneficial. Is this a shifting of policy from educational value to value based on equality. Wasn’t this a bit fuzzy to begin with? Was it always like this but thinly veiled?

10.Texas found other way to boost minority enrollment – by considering things other than race, like taking top 10% of the every high school class.Another idea is to add preference for students who have overcome discrimination or prejudice. How will they assess this? If in essay format, students will learn to lie and write what needs to be said, even those who have nothing to say on the matter. Another idea is to look at socioeconomic background. Is this feasible? Is this the solution we’ve all been looking for? If yes, why aren’t more people doing this( Like University of CA)?

11.U of Texas says its new policy will specify that Native Americans will have preference. Why isn’t anyone up in arms about this? Is this whole question really a racial issue, thinly veiled as one about rights etc?

12.California Community Colleges have really great access but they also have really poor completion rates, possibly as a result?

13.Shulock argues that CCC should be able to access the money it is getting from students, not so that it can raise tuition but so that it can be more responsive to their needs and get more direct benefits, but is it inevitable that by putting money in the hands of these colleges they will get greedy and do just that – raise prices?

14.Does affirmative action hurt minority students by giving them access to universities where they can hardly keep up and are bound to be isolated by their peers for being less intelligent?

15.To what extend is politics a driving force in universities? It seems that a lot of what happened in Michigan was happening to the higher education institutions as a result of outside forces.

16.U of Michigan might start using Descriptor Plus, a program that groups people (data mining). And they will give preference to people from groups that are known to have lots of diversity and low SES. This method is working and black enrollment went up 12% even as total class size shrank. But is this leading to more segregation by profiling and making race a big thing and talked-about?

1.Economist says that generation Y is not passive and wants an active role in the work environment, but it also says that this generation is not as independent as previous ones. How are these two reconciled? Aren’t they contradictory?

2.The Trouble with online colleges – this articles quotes a study saying that students in community and technical colleges who took more online courses were less likely to graduate. The writer does not take in to account the fact that community colleges may have weaker students who didn’t get in to the upper colleges due to academic weakness. Does this have an effect on success in online courses?

3.Udacity points out that having online support, great professors, and student engagement means more students stay in the online class. These factors are also what make a student stay in a traditional classroom. It seems that what makes good teaching work is important in traditional and online classes. Is there more of a connection between these two ways of teaching than we may initially think?

4.Does providing competency testing water down education?

5.Dean Kirschner suggests that Ivy League colleges should be the pioneers and role models for change in higher education, because if they do it, others will likely follow. Is this a correct assumption? If Harvard makes it possible to earn competency-based degrees online, from Harvard, will other institutions follow suit?

6.Right now, it is possible to get a good paying job with a bachelor’s, but the more people who have bachelors, the more people will need masters and PhD’s, no? If yes, what are the social and economic ramifications of making a BA that much more accessible?

7.Right now, MOOCS are free or offer some sort of credit for a small fee, but what happens when people start charging? Will they? How can they not? Professor put in a tremendous amount of time, so at what point will they stand up and demand more pay? And if that’s the case, where is that money coming from?

8.Where is the money that is being poured into MOOC’s ($60 million from MIT and Harvard) coming from?

9. One article briefly mentioned “elite MOOC’s.” What is this and what is the point of something like that, given why MOOC’s were originally started?

10. Is it possible that MOOC’s will stratify society by creating a situation in which the elite who can afford college in the traditional classroom, pay, and those who can’t, take MOOC’s?

1. Does having college-wide standards hurt the colleges themselves and their autonomy? Does it create new problems?
2. I really like idea of enlisting other campus professionals to help improve the educational process but how does this wok practically?
3. The writer mentions a CD-Rom, which is clearly outdated. How relevant is his advice today? It is interesting that he is giving outdated practical advice, especially since he advocates long-term solutions.
4. Interesting that change come as result of economic trouble – what else could galvanize people to change? The issues that are a problem now in higher education didn’t suddenly pop up, but they’re a big issues when money is involved.
5. Kirp seems to be blaming students for promoting and/or encouraging this consumerism. Is that what he is doing? Is he correct that students play an important role here?
6. Kirp contends that there are some schools where teaching still matters – is it true that in most schools it doesn’t? According to his standards, yes, but is there an objective measure by which one could say teaching matters or doesn’t matter to the faculty?
7. Which one is causing the steep tuition rise – Administrative costs of professors?