Ten days ago, the world read with fascination and interest the interview conducted with Pope Francis six months into his papacy. For Catholics and non-Catholics alike, Pope Francis has been interesting to listen to and observe as he reveals more and more his approach to leading the Church.
Many, who are often uncomfortable with the grandeur of the hierarchy in contrast to the message of the Gospels, are energized by Pope Francis’ choices to live in community and in a more simple lifestyle. His spontaneous and never-ending pastoral approach and his smile are infectious.
But what is more important is to listen … to really listen to his words. While clearly conservative in his theology, Pope Francis seems determined to reframe the world’s understanding of the message and meaning of the Church rooted in hospitality to all and a spirit of hope.
The headlines ten days ago focused on the Pope’s concern that the focus of the Church in recent years has been too limited to teachings related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraception. While clearly affirming these teachings the day after his interview was released, Pope Francis called for “a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
As one would expect, the news reports simply highlight only the most surprising comments made by the Pope in this interview. I would strongly urge those seriously interested in Pope Francis and his leadership to read the entire interview, readily available online. It helps us to understand better the depth and spirituality of this man. It also helps to understand Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s life (For Italian opera fans like me, it was wonderful to read the Pope’s reference to Puccini’s great work, Turandot, in his response regarding the importance of hope!).
Over the past two weeks, the reactions to the Pope’s statements have been relatively few from within the Church. Hopefully, his vision of the Church will be embraced in word and deed by dioceses all over the world. But I wonder?
On the same day that the Pope’s interview was released, the House of Representatives in Washington voted to cut $40 billion dollars from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as the Food Stamps program. The rationale for this draconian decision was the improving economy and the waste in the program.
If waste was the primary criterion for reducing government programs, they should all be cut immediately. Administering federal programs of this magnitude have an inherent element of mismanagement and abuse. The fact is that a high number of Americans still cannot afford food and basic sustenance. The percentage of families in Worcester County who qualify for food stamps is 20%. There may be signs of an improving economy, but not among the poorest of our neighbors.
In light of Pope Francis’ speech, I have been waiting to hear the American Catholic Church speak out against this potential cut in a critical program in this country. I scan the web and news reports regularly, but have yet to find any statements from Church leaders. I was hopeful when I found an article entitled, “Food Stamp Cuts a Cruel Proposal.” But this well written critique of this potential congressional decision was authored by political strategist Donna Brazile.
Maybe Church leaders have been silent because they assume this legislation will not pass the Senate. But maybe they are silent because it does not relate to the limited moral issues so prevalent in the rhetoric today. Maybe it would help if they would read the interview with Pope Francis. Because I wonder … if Pope Francis was an American Cardinal … what would he say? Actually, I think I know!
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)
Higher education has its fair share of myths, biases and stereotypes. Last week, for example, I provided some evidence to address the bias against the value of online degrees and the myths about on-ground (face to face) instruction.
There are also many myths, biases and stereotypes related to classroom instruction. For example, most people inside and outside of higher education tend to believe that the quality of instruction is better with full-time (tenure track) faculty rather than adjunct or part-time faculty. But the results of a recent research study conducted at Northwestern University challenges this preconception.
Last week, the National Bureau of Economic Research released a paper entitled, “Are Tenure-Track Professors Better Teachers?” The study was based on data drawn from over 15,000 students who attended Northwestern University from 2001-2008. It focused primarily on instructional quality in introductory courses, the courses every student is required to take.
According to the authors of the study, there was “strong and consistent evidence that Northwestern faculty outside of the tenure system outperform tenure track/tenured professors in introductory undergraduate classrooms.” These qualitative differences were consistently found across disciplines and subject areas. The differences were even more pronounced for students of “average” ability and those “less qualified.”
The data also revealed other interesting trends. Students who took an introductory course taught by an untenured instructor were more likely to take a second course in that same discipline than those instructed initially by a tenure-track/tenured faculty member. Students taught by untenured faculty tended to earn higher grades as well.
Critics of the study point to the facts that it was conducted at a single institution and one that attracts students who are not necessarily reflective of the entire college-bound student population. However, while the authors accept these limitations, they state, “Our results provide evidence that the rise of full-time designated teachers at U.S. colleges and universities may be less of a cause for alarm than some people think, and indeed, may actually be educationally beneficial.”
From my perspective, this study’s greatest benefit is to help break down the myth or stereotype about adjunct faculty. I doubt that any college or university will use this study to dismantle its full-time, tenure-track faculty. But many institutions utilize many part-time faculty and this study corroborates what some of us already know.
Good teachers are good teachers. Whether full-time or part-time … tenure-track/tenured or adjunct, colleges and universities have great instructors and those who are less inspiring. The common element is not the type of contract or employment status. Rather it’s the knowledge and understanding of the material, the creativity and dedication to effective pedagogy, and the abiding commitment to serving the educational and learning needs of the students.
College students are fortunate to have so many wonderful instructors who enter the noble profession of teaching for all of the right reasons. Some pursue their teaching careers full-time … others part-time … but they all share a love for teaching and a dedication to student learning.
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)
More and more colleges and universities are offering online degree programs. The rationale in most cases relates to accessibility and flexibility. Online degrees are accessible to students from anywhere in the world and are not restricted by geographic boundaries and proximity to campus. Online degrees allow learners to engage in the course material at flexible times that better meet the needs of their hectic lives with competing expectations and obligations. Anna Maria College has been offering online degrees for a number of years.
Questions that often get raised relate to the quality of these degree programs. Are they of the same quality as an on-ground (face to face) learning environment? Are they perceived by the public as valid and credible? The educational quality issue has been answered repeatedly through extensive research. Quality learning has much more to do with the instructor, course content, pedagogical approaches, levels of student engagement, etc. than with modality (on-ground or online). Perhaps I will return to this topic in a future blog.
But there is less evidence related to external perceptions. So I was interested in a recent headline that read, “Employers View Online, Traditional Degrees Equally.” The article compiled data from a number of research studies conducted by credible organizations … some that engage in online educational programs and services and others that address more widespread higher ed issues. The article itself was sponsored by an institution promoting its own online university. But I think the data is both valuable and valid.
According to studies conducted by the Zogby International Survey and Inside Higher Ed.com, the U.S. News and World Report, the Sloan Consortium, the Society for Human Research Management, and the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, employers and recruitment professionals view online degrees and traditional degrees equally if they meet three criteria.
The first criterion is accreditation. Employers and recruiters feel strongly that only online degree programs that are accredited are equivalent to traditional programs. It is interesting to note that U.S. News and World Report, which publishes a list every year of the ”Best Online Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree Programs,” will only include those that are regionally accredited.
The second criterion is that the online degree program is offered by a college or university that also has a traditional campus. While 70% of academic leaders in the Sloan Consortium Study expressed some confidence in online only institutions, the percentage increases to 89% if the online program is offered by an institution that also has a traditional campus. This high level of support for programs from colleges and universities with a traditional campus was also expressed by HR Directors, CEOs and hiring managers (Zogby Survey).
The third criterion relates to brand. Online programs are viewed more often as equal to traditional degree programs if the institution offering the program has an established brand. If the college or university has name recognition and a good reputation, the online programs are judged to be the same in quality as the traditional programs.
The growth in online education has been exponential. The reputation of these programs has been negatively impacted by too many for-profit institutions that are viewed as being “diploma mills.” What is clear from these studies is that employers and recruiters are more discerning and assess a person’s degree carefully. If the degree is awarded from a traditional college, regionally accredited, and well respected, the online degree is equally valued.
As more and more well respected colleges and universities expand their online degree options, this can only be a good thing for those interested in quality education in a more flexible and accessible modality. It is nice to see that students have more and more choices. It is nice to know that these students’ efforts will be respected … if they make the right choice!
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)