Higher education, as we know it and cherish it, is evolving in such a fashion that demands institutions and individuals alike to stay forward-thinking. On Thursday, September 5th, four university presidents met in Old Cabell Hall to discuss the future of higher education. The Presidents’ Panel, as part of UVA’s Futures Initiative, was moderated by UVA’s own President Jim Ryan, and included President Michael Crow from Arizona State University (ASU), President Harriet Nembhard from Harvey Mudd College (HMC), and President Santa Ono from the University of Michigan (UMich). Introductory remarks were made by UVA’s Vice President for Research, Lori McMahon. McMahon incited laughter throughout the audience by commenting that more presidents congregated for Thursday’s Presidents’ Panel than did on the day the first cornerstone of UVA’s infrastructure was set in 1817, for which American Presidents Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison were present.
The primary question of the panel pertained to how different institutions of higher learning are thinking about the future. As this is so open-ended, each of the presidents intended to clarify the philosophy of their institution. However, it would only become more evident that there is no singular approach to the future that suits each place of higher education. Rather, the distinctive nature of each institution’s philosophy is the very essence of the future. As times change, technology advances, and students’ circumstances stand in the way of their education less and less, colleges and universities require different ways of facilitating the future. Hence, the respective models for the future held by ASU, HMC, UMich, and UVA aim to accomplish something unique.
ASU’s President Crow began the discussion by describing his university’s mission. ASU is a public research university that currently has around 140,000 students. Their acceptance procedures are designed such that any high school student with a 3.0 GPA can attend, and thus ASU must be prepared to take in any number of students in a given year. In the 22 years that Crow has served as president, he has worked to nearly triple the size of incoming classes, which he cited as a huge accomplishment related to knocking down socioeconomic barriers. Crow demonstrated his pride for the diversity of ASU’s student body. In describing the difference ASU’s model is having on the world, Crow discussed a woman from Afghanistan who had been unable to attend school for many years. This particular student benefited from ASU’s online testing program, which allowed her to demonstrate her academic potential and gain acceptance to the university, going on to attend in person. In this case, it is also evident the extent to which technology and online learning are being implemented in ways that serve higher education.
On the topic of technology in higher education, President Nembhard of HMC discussed virtual reality technology being used to simulate anything from historical episodes to engineering projects. HMC has fewer than 1,000 students at a given time, which offers a stark contrast to ASU. Despite their acceptance models being drastically different, as HMC values a far smaller classroom, HMC and ASU both strive to achieve a balance between technology and education. With one of the top engineering programs in the nation, HMC combines degrees in STEM with a curriculum involving the humanities. President Nembhard said this initiative was “STEM for the world,” meaning that graduates of HMC are effective communicators with scientific minds. HMC is an institution that believes wholeheartedly in its mission, which is why its small class sizes, emphasis on a four-year residential experience, and interdisciplinary agenda do not intend to make fundamental concessions to an evolving system of education. However, Nembhard believes that HMC is taking the changing climate of higher education in stride as part of its STEM-focused initiative.
President Ono of UMich described a different vision for the future of his university. Ono spoke on the importance of having disciplines in higher education—students having the opportunity to make connections in an academic department is a valuable part of being at a university, he said. On the surface, UMich and HMC appear to differ in this way, yet both presidents highly regard interdisciplinary studies. Ono said, however, that in order to have an interdisciplinary focus, there must be strongly defined disciplines. This is a more traditional thought about higher education in a world where pursuing multiple majors, often in different fields of study, is becoming more common. Less traditionally, Ono spoke against the idea of a four-year degree. While this is a standard, he maintained, it should be the responsibility of an institution to help students achieve their goals on their own timeline, whether that takes two years or five.
A topic that President Ryan was especially interested in was the future of AI and its role in higher education. The four presidents were optimistic about how AI could contribute to, rather than jeopardize, higher education. Many people would naturally feel opposed to this optimistic stance, but President Crow succinctly stated that his optimism is founded on the obligation of universities to stay educated at a faster rate than that of AI. Otherwise, there truly might be an existential threat at hand.
The different approaches to the future of higher education exemplified by the Presidents’ Panel on Thursday are indicative of an ever-changing society in which higher education must also evolve in certain ways while maintaining its mission in other ways. Institutions of higher learning with differing philosophies are necessary for an increasingly diverse population pursuing higher education, with all types of backgrounds, interests, and ideas. UVA strives toward its mission by being both great and good. The panel reminded audience members that what is great and good for us may not always look the same everywhere and for all time.
Leave a Reply