Brave NewEntity

Confusion and controversy surrounds UT's 'customized education'

by Gina Sares

published April 30th 2008

They call it “NewEntity.” By the time it’s finalized in the fall semester, it and the vision from which it stemmed will forever alter the student experience at the University of Toledo. But this brave, new world of higher education has left more than a few faculty members, administrators and students bewildered.

On April 2, before an auditorium packed with students, faculty and community leaders, University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs gave his second annual address on the state of the university, unveiling his vision to re-engineer the undergraduate experience into a more customized journey for every student.

Jacobs said that universities, especially state universities, have “mass-produced the middle class” with an “educational assembly line” similar to the factory lines of Henry Ford. He called a stop to this mass-production and introduced the notion of an educational mass-customization, likening the new specialized student experience to the purchase of a Dell computer. Just as Dell customers can create a customized computer from a staggering number of potential combinations, students at UT should be able to create a customized learning experience.

Jacobs went on to vaguely outline how this mass customization would look on campus, stressing the importance of faculty development, enhanced computer-assisted learning for students, and the creation of “modules, algorithms and the customer interface.” He formally introduced “NewEntity,” a yet unnamed structure to house an expanded version of the current University College. Then, before closing, Jacobs stated that these concepts would be implemented at the University of Toledo immediately.

With raised eyebrows, many listeners wondered exactly what was happening and how it would unfold.

Finding the faculty voice

In the wake of Jacobs’ address, Faculty Senate Chairwoman and University Archivist Barbara Floyd is surprised by the advanced stage of the proposals. “We had heard snippets of ideas about re-engineering the undergraduate curriculum,” she said. “But I think all of us were surprised by the scope of what was being proposed.”

Floyd is also concerned about the lack of faculty involvement in the development of these decisions, leaving the faculty to do nothing but react. “You can’t just make blanket statements about curriculums, modules or algorithms without having ripple effects across this incredibly diverse institution.” This ripple effect has even spanned to the internet, where members of the UT Arts and Science Council have voiced their concerns on their online blog at http://ascforum.blogspot.com/.

Renée Heberle, a professor of political science at UT, says that Jacobs’ speech was just one more example of his problematic leadership style. “He has a pattern of putting out for public review a set of ideas he says is just to open conversation. It’s as if our positioning then is to react to those ideas,” she says.

Heberle says this recurring “top-down action-reaction” type of communication wastes time, as faculty and administration scramble to make sense of Jacobs’ visions. “We spend all our time trying to figure out if the parts of his public presentations can be realized. We don’t spend any time doing the work that would be necessary to realize what probably is not a bad idea.”

According to Floyd, the Faculty Senate has committees that have been established within its constitution to review and recommend almost all curriculum changes. “The faculty really believes that curriculum, more than any other thing at this institution, is a faculty perogative, because of their expertise, their daily interaction with the students, their frontline classroom interactions, and their oftentimes long involvement with the institution. It would be nice if we were a part of the formulation of the vision, rather than being told, ‘This is the vision, now you’re going to make it happen.’”

Despite the initial shock and disappointment about lack of faculty consultation, Floyd says she and other faculty members are not necessarily opposed to Jacobs’ ideas. “I think it’s exciting to figure out a new way to educate students,” she says. “Overall the idea of re-engineering the undergraduate experience may very well be a step in the right direction.”

But where exactly will this step take UT??

Defining terms of the vision

Dr. Rosemary Haggett joined the University of Toledo as the Main Campus Provost in July 2007. With President Jacobs visiting universities in China, she speaks on his behalf, explaining the building blocks of the new vision in layman’s terms.

“What the President is talking about is looking at every individual student and understanding where they want to go and how we can enrich their education to help them get there.” In regards to Jacobs’ reference to “modules” and “algorithms,” she says, “A module would be a set of courses or experiences that students put together to form a degree: majors and minors – things we know today.”

Haggett says Jacobs’ vision offers a more flexible educational path that leaves room for complementary experiences to shape a customized “module.” Experiential learning opportunities such as studying abroad, service learning, and undergraduate research may be included in this “academic journey.”

In other words, with this new vision of mass customization, students would be more engaged in creating a specialized path towards their degree. But Haggett assures the vision “would not create a [different] degree program for every student who walks through the door.” It would simply assemble resources in a way that would maximize how each individual works.

In a position that will play an integral role in the implementation of mass customization, Haggett feels ready for the new developments. “I’m excited and very proud that we are in line with what’s being called for nationally.” She says many schools throughout the nation “have pieces of this” vision. Indeed, institutions spanning from the University of California at Berkeley to Sarah Lawrence College in New York offer flexible options for students to create their own undergraduate degree path.

However, Floyd isn’t sure how the flexibility of mass customization will work in more structured colleges at UT. “In theory it sounds like a great idea, but many of these programs have accreditation standards and licensing requirements; there’s not a lot of fudge room,” she says. “I’m not sure how implementation is going to happen.”

Even Haggett admits she doesn’t completely know either. “This idea of individualization is going to look very different in different parts of the university.” Yet even rigid parts of the institution will share principles, commonalities and goals of the vision.

Haggett also says some of the more structured colleges have already adopted these ideas of mass customization. Although the College of Engineering requires a semester co-op of work, the college is flexible about which co-op experience each student has. “That’s the difference between making something mandatory for everybody and individualizing the experience,” says Haggett.

Concerns about customization

During his address, Jacobs also announced that all programs of University College — a longstanding home to UT students seeking interdisciplinary and special program degrees — would be filtered into “NewEntity.” Although University College will essentially be replaced by the finished “NewEntity” in the fall, Haggett assures that “University College’s mission will still exist.” “NewEntity” will host additional enriching experiences like the First Year Experience and tutoring programs.

However, the adult liberal studies and individualized programs, currently within University College, will bypass “NewEntity” and join the College of Arts & Sciences. With that realignment, these students would now have to fulfill a foreign language requirement, which poses yet another concern for Floyd.

“Most of these adult students probably haven’t taken a foreign language since high school,” she says. “The reason they took an individualized program is because they didn’t want a foreign language requirement.”

Details like that are making many faculty members cautious about the plan set forth by President Jacobs. “This is the kind of information that the faculty knows about that they could have shared with the President before he made his speech,” says Floyd.

In his address, Jacobs also stated that no conditionally admitted student would be allowed to take more than 11 credit hours in their first semester. However, 12 credit hours is the minimum to be recognized as being a fulltime student.

“(If ‘NewEntity’ happens) these students would no longer be eligible for their parents’ health insurance, they would no longer qualify for fulltime federal financial aid, and student athletes wouldn’t be eligible to play in their sport,” said Floyd.

Andrew Jorgenson, a chemistry professor at the University of Toledo, agrees. “It’s unworkable. Students would be disadvantaged under those limits.”

But Haggett says this limitation would affect a “relatively small group of students” who have “by far the lowest retention rate of the university.” She assures that the credit limitation would help these students ease into the world of college and manage their workload, giving them additional support.

Despite this forthcoming policy and some of the administrative structures being developed, Jorgenson doesn’t see a huge change with the call for mass customization. He believes that the current curriculum is “closer to what Jacobs is suggesting than perceived.” The proposed “modules” are comparable to majors that are already in place, and current customized classes create an opportunity for specialization for students.

Although he believes the president’s speech was challenging and inspiring, Jorgenson’s not quite sure where others see significant change.

A bold initiative

“What President Jacobs is articulating here is a bold initiative of trying to differentiate the University of Toledo from other institutions,” says James Tuschman, Secretary of the Ohio Board of Regents.

According to Tuschman, the President’s proposed changes are in line with the Chancellor of Higher Education’s ideas to focus on excellence and encourage collaboration with other institutions. “Before, universities went about their missions and did their own thing,” explains Tuschman. “The problem today is that with constrained financial resources, we can’t afford [to have] all institutions looking at themselves in isolation. Institutions are going to have to look at what they do best through internal evaluation and prioritization.”

Concentrating on excellence would strengthen each Ohio institution by drawing on its own unique and developed mission. Despite the state’s problems of limited financial resources and struggles to attract students, Tuschman believes UT is “positioned very well.”

In regards to the Jacobs’ vision to re-engineer the undergraduate experience, Tuschman says, “I think it’s exactly what needs to be done.”

But how soon?

It’s in the details

Provost Haggett says much of President Jacobs’ vision for mass customization is not set in stone, but some of the ideas are already in development.

On April 8, the University of Toledo signed a voluntary system of accountability, giving the public access to reports on issues such as affordability and student satisfaction. “It’s important to be accountable and transparent and to be able to tell people how we’re doing,” Haggett says.

In response to faculty concerns of their lack of input, Haggett insists that some faculty have been involved in the development of the ideas. This includes a committee of about 25 faculty members, as well as a few students and community leaders (the full list of committee members and their titles is available at toledocitypaper.com).

Benjamin Pryor, chair of the Department of Philosophy, was chosen to be a part of a committee organized by the provost. He says the main objectives of this committee include increasing student research, interdisciplinary work, and helping students see their time at college as a complete journey. According to Pryor, his committee began working months before Jacobs’ speech, and “much of [their] work was reflected in his address.”

However, lack of communication makes Pryor question the role of his committee in implementing the vision of mass customization. “That’s where things get sticky,” he says. “The faculty and administration aren’t quite on the same page as far as what the power and responsibility of the committee is.” Pryor believes Haggett will create a new committee to be charged with putting together the vision set forth by Jacobs.

Although Pryor sees some positive change happening, he says the leadership style of the administration “just isn’t working.” He says, “There’s a lot of dissention on whether or not our traditional role of faculty governance is being understood by the administration. So far there has been no consultation with the faculty at large about how the [mass customization] programs will begin.”

When it comes to faculty consulation, Haggett likens Jacobs’ speech to the President’s State of the Union Address. “When I worked for the federal government, the president set out the vision, and then the agencies figured out how we implement that vision. That’s where we’re at now,” she explains. “The faculty will have a very important role in implementing this vision, and I’m anxious to get started working with them.”

Floyd is equally anxious for faculty involvement. “I think the best step from here is to begin to immediately engage the faculty in planning and further development of these ideas,” she says. “The best way to be a leader, especially a leader of a university, is to make sure you communicate both up and down. You really need to get the perspective of the faculty members and the students.”

With “NewEntity” making its debut in the fall, and parts of the vision already in development, Floyd hopes the university will use its time wisely. “We as an institution owe it to our students to make sure that we do it right,” she says.

“I think the concept of re-engineering the undergraduate curriculum to make students feel more special is a great idea in concept. Of course, with all great ideas, the difficulty comes in the details.”

President Jacobs’ second annual address can be found on the University of Toledo’s website at http://utoledo.edu/offices/president/.

Combined General Education and Experiential Learning Committee

Batten, Susan: College of Nursing, Associate Professor and Associate Dean, Undergraduate Program

Beeman, Don: College of Business Administration and Director/Professor of Marketing

Blatz, Charles: Professor, Department of Philosophy

Bresnahan, Carol: Vice Provost, Academic Programs and Policies and Professor, History Department

Fritz, Margaret: Chair, Department of Interdisciplinary and Special Program

Gaboury, John: Professor, Dean, University Libraries, eLearning & Academic Support

King-Blandford, Marcia: Interim Assistant Vice-Provost

Kinsey, Tammy: Professor, Department of Theatre and Film

Knapke, Jody: Student

Kvale, Thomas: Director, Undergraduate Research

Meabon, David: Associate Professor, College of Education, Department of Educational Foundation & Leadership

Olson, Walter: Professor, College of Engineering

Palmer, Susan: UT Board of Trustees

Pasupuleti, Sudershan: Director, Office of Service Learning and Community Engagement

Poplin Gosetti, Penny: Interim Vice Provost for Academic Innovation

Randolph, Brian: Professor, Civil Engineering and Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies, College of Engineering

Williamson, Celia: Professor, Social Work, Department of Health Science and Human Service

Barlowe, Jamie: Professor, Department of Women’s and Gender Studies

Fitzpatrick, Kathleen: Associate Professor, Business Technology

Habrecht, Chris: Assistant Dean for Student Services, College of Arts & Sciences

Mains, Glen: Student Senator

Mandeville, Donald: Student Senator

Pryor, Ben: Chair & Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy

Schneider, Barbara: Associate Professor, English and Composition

Tiamiyu, Moji: Associate Professor, Department of Psychology