On the Use and Abuse of the term, "University"

Remember the old days, when colleges were colleges and universities were universities? There's been this creeping trend toward re-labeling higher-ed institutions "universities." I had noticed it recently when I began a project that cursorily involved "online" colleges/universities and their marketing efforts. The big-marketing budget online higher-ed institutions all elect to use the university moniker, and it seemed at first glance that they were the ones spearheading the effort. But its really part of a broader trend to re-categorize all post-secondary institutions as universities. State colleges and liberal arts colleges are also slowly migrating toward university status, at least in their self-designation.

Remember DeVry Institute of Technology? Growing up in Silicon Valley, I heard their name frequently. DeVry was the place people went to learn all those technical skills needed to get a job in the valley. It made sense. A technical institute seemed the appropriate name for a private institution with a close connection to industry, one that offered skills that rather immediately will be applied. Pragmatic, private, etc. Nothing wrong with that. A technical institute is certainly an honorable designation, right?

Well, in 2003 they became a University! DeVry became a university itself when it "purchased" Ross University, a "well-established" 25 year old medical and veterinary school that apparently only offers international medical degrees, and is only accredited by the Dominica Medical Board (Dominican Republic) despite being based in New Jersey. No offense to the Dominican Republic, but isn't it a bit strange that a New Jersey-based "university" would be solely accredited by this small island nation? Bizarre. I guess the university-designation helps mask the rather questionable legitimacy of such an institution. Such minor points as accreditation seem to be as amorphous as the identities of these online higher-ed schools. May the student beware of such schools.

A few years ago, I also came across a state college up in Canada in the midst of a re-branding effort. While not exactly attempting to shoulder in on the University of British Columbia (UBC), Kwantlen Polytechnic University (née Kwantlen College) chose to change its name because the word, university, is better. What I like about them is that they lay out the logic for their name-change from Kwantlen College to the more prestigious University. They basically say that the University name has more cachet, end of story: "[t]he word 'university' will enhance Kwantlen’s ability to help British Columbia become the best educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America." But why? What’s wrong with being a college? Is a student from a great college going to be any less educated than one from a university? No. There’s more important things to be concerned with than a label: quality of instruction, graduation rates, student grades, faculty and staff development, etc. To be fair to Kwantlen, they do go on to say that they're just following in the footsteps of the California State College System, which initiated their campus name-change around 1972.  With the name transition a few years in the past, Kwantlen has abandoned the initial justification and become comfortable in its role as a 4-year degree granting institution that does research as well as teaching.  (current statement here)

So, this general trend to re-brand your college a university has been going on longer than I’d initially thought. My own understanding of university vs. college stems from the system implemented in California. I vividly remember a lecture given by Dean McHenry (a co-architect of the state's three-tier higher educational system) at UCSC in the late 1980s. McHenry, the UC representative, and his colleagues developed the California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960 based on the idea of universal education, but one that permitted each of the three tiers to focus on its area of expertise. Community colleges offered the first two years of education, remedial education, and topical courses. State colleges offered an applied higher educational path, while the university was the site of focused research: a site to train future professors, doctors, lawyers, etc. Only the UC can grant doctorates. CSUs focus on Bachelor/Masters degrees, and community colleges grant Associate Degrees. It’s a pretty logical system that was implemented elsewhere in North America and still exists to a large degree.

I'm not concerned by the large state colleges wanting to taking on the university designation. Many of their faculty members are involved in research and their students are getting a very solid education. The name does seem to have more cachet, after all. I am more concerned by the abandonment of the "college" term by smaller liberal arts schools because, unlike the large state schools, they are small, specialized institutions. The term seems appropriate with them. You can see the university term creeping into common usage in any list of North American higher-ed institutions. Look, for example, at Imagining America's list of consortium members: http://imaginingamerica.org/consortium/membership-directory/) This list captures the shift as much as it illustrates there are those unwilling (or unable) to change their name designation. What still puzzles me is what is embedded in the meaning of “university” that is somehow absent in the “college” term? I don’t get it.

The reasoning seems to be one of justifying one's institutional mission. Maybe it is easiest to justify continued societal support of the university if we think of it as that place where research is conducted, problems are solved, new ideas are dreamed up, etc. It is like a knowledge factory. University professors are the ones interviewed on news shows and introduced as experts. The college has a lofty mission too, but it seems more focused on the student's experience rather than the things usually associated with the university. So, maybe colleges want to re-brand themselves universities with the hope that some of these loftier associations stick to it.

Perhaps this discomfort with the college's role in society stems from our culture's overwhelming drive to increase efficiency and production. It is unfortunate because it seems like colleges and universities are increasingly emulating business. While such an idea is not universally bad, it is when it means students are not given the time and energy to develop as creative, critically-engaged citizens. The "college" term seems to have a connotation of elite education, and lofty ideas not so grounded in the pragmatics of everyday life. As higher education becomes increasingly unaffordable, students become more interested in utilitarian degrees.

It seems that two reasons for the shift are at play here. One is the seriousness implied by the university’s mission. The university is committed to serious research, and it therefore justifies its existence to broader society. Under this interpretation, the university term is a defensive move designed to stress the college’s continued relevance to broader society. I think the loftier principles that tend to emerge in an active university or college community are not often properly valued in our broader society. The university is a site for objective principles of “solid research,” something that is harder to dismiss by those antagonistic to the idea of a university as diverse community of ideas, ideals, in all its contradictions. The small liberal arts college seems like it has elite connotations too.

The rebranding effort is emanating from three camps: the small liberal arts college, the state college, and the online higher-ed institution. Of the three, it only makes sense for the large state college to adopt the new designation. the S.L.A college

The second issue, and I admit it is a cynical one, is the coattails idea: technical institutes, online degree mills, and maybe the occasional brick-and-mortar college, are changing their institutional designations in order to make their mission seem loftier than they really are. Perhaps my bias against the DeVrys, Walden University’s, and AIU’s of the world stems from a real fear that they are not as committed to community and the public good.

The one thing that troubles me about this shift is that private, technical colleges like DeVry and marginally-legitimate higher-ed institutions like AIU, Walden University and other online variants may lack a commitment to helping develop active, engaged citizens and are cynically adopting the designation, University, to legitimate their otherwise questionable role in public education. When corners are cut in education, is it the liberal education that gets dropped when making an online program "more efficient"? Isn't the classroom one place where community develops? I fear a curriculum that is optimized to the point of only containing applied courses and no classroom interaction.

The word, college, has that strong associations with small, liberal arts institutions. This type of college would seem to offer access to a solid education: literature, science, and the arts. In short, a liberal, broad-based, humanist education. The university putatively offers the same thing, but with bigger classes and professors actively engaged in research, laboratory work, etc. The thing that should bring these two terms together is a physical site of learning with engaged professors and students. The two aren't that far apart.

I desperately want the public colleges like Kwantlen up in Canada, and others throughout the United States, to embrace their role of preparing their students to be engaged citizens and critical and engaged thinkers. "University" is more than just a word: it is an active community, an ideal microcosm of our broader society.  I think higher educational institutions get it, even if the word, "university," still seems not to mean the same thing to those who use it.

Local Republican Candidate, John Colbert, proves he's no threat to Schiff

So, I've never read the Glendale News-Press, but they published an article on John Colbert, the Republican Congressional Candidate for California's 29th District (currently occupied by Rep. Adam Schiff). The article is here. I'm loathe to link to it because the article isn't very enlightening, and comes across as biased. On the other hand, read for yourself and decide what you think of Colbert. I suppose I'll look into Colbert's platform a bit more, but as it stands he just sounds like a poster-child for the Party of No, and dangerously, one who doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of how legislation gets done in Washington DC.

Oh, if you do read the article, don't skip the two comments. They're classic ideological nonsense.

I tried to post the following comment in the paper's forum but couldn't seem to get it to work:

Sorry, but the statements made by Colbert don't give me confidence he'd do a good job as our representative. Hackneyed statements about Rep. Schiff being from the "far left" are either just colorful rhetoric or indicate a candidate who truly has no idea how the lawmaking process actually works. Sure, if you don't provide (or understand?) the context, it's easy to make it sounds like a Congressperson is voting for a fish over farmers! Healthcare reform: what, specifically, are you opposed to, Mr. Colbert?

And sorry the reporter, Bill Kisliuk, introduced his article in a way that seems to agree with the candidate he's supposedly objectively reporting about rather than, well, objectively reporting. What proof do you provide that "Congress is killing jobs" other than Colbert's assertion that it is? This is just an ideologically loaded statement.

Well, from the two posts so far it looks like Mr. Colbert will get at least two votes.

whoa!

As a Google employee I can't comment much on the following blog post by my employer, but I have to say that this is a potential watershed moment primarily for corporations and the way the interact with state (national) governments:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html#links

McPain Flailin' and Bill Ayres

I am cautiously optimistic about this November's election.  I think Obama can win, and I think that an Obama presidency will be one modest step toward repairing the damage of the Bush presidency.  I am, however, saddened by the direction the McCain campaign has recently taken with exaggerating Obama's connections with William Ayres, former domestic bomber.  A critical component of the Ayres connection is apparently to use innuendo rather than substance to scare people into thinking Obama is a terrorist, supporter of terrorists, Muslim, Muslim terrorist, etc.  Amazingly, if one actually takes the time to do no more than five minutes of research--i.e. by reading Ayres' Wikipedia entry--to better understand what this man did during the tumultuous 1960s, what he regretted, and what he has done since.  Labeling Bill Ayres a "terrorist" is a terribly shallow gesture that neutralizes critical thought about our country's history, about how our society was divided in the 1960s and early 1970s, or what to think of people who once made poor decisions and have since tried to change their lives.  It is not really an argument to label someone a "terrorist" rather, it is a position that refuses to engage in dialogue.  In this case, the refusal is merely an unwillingness (or inability?) to acknowledge others in society that disagree with you.  Yes, there was this time in American history when our society was polarized.  And, dare I say, there were people on both sides that were saying and thinking sensible things.  There were also people who were unyielding, dogmatic, or even dangerous.  Is it really so much to ask to spend a little bit of time trying to think about what those who disagree with you think?  The "Ayres=terrorist" seems to be this kind of sad flattening of thought.

Not only does this sad refusal undermine our society's efforts to find common ground and develop shared goals but it's patently reactionary.  Is Bill Ayres redeemable?  What sins are redeemable?  Can we look at his past actions and make an informed decision about his humanity?  Apparently, John McCain and Sarah Palin cannot.

The sad position of those who refuse to understand is a position of ignorance.  When we have to deal with real terrorists, I want an elected leader who isn't afraid to understand what motivates our enemies.  You can't win "hearts and minds" when you're not willing to understand what's in them.

Restaurant Review: Traxx, Union Station, Los Angeles

I wanted to take my partner to a restaurant for a surprise dinner this Friday. I was looking for something different. I told her we were going out for dinner but didn't tell her where. As we are both like Los Angeles history, I had on my mind a retro experience and thought about Traxx, which is located in Union Station, just north of downtown. While the restaurant opened in 1997, the station itself was built in 1939 and the restaurant borrows design elements from that period. After reading a few reviews of the restaurant I sensed that we weren't going to have a superlative experience, but probably at least a positive one. If the food didn't do it for us, I expected the surroundings to at least be a treat.

I didn't make reservations, since it was unlikely to be crowded. Union Station primarily serves Amtrak passengers, Metrolink commuters and subway riders, and Traxx isn't cheap. I imagined only a small percentage of the traffic moving through the halls of the rail station would seriously consider stopping there, except for a drink. The large number of empty tables confirmed my suspicions. Traxx actually has a bar closer to the entrance of the station and the main restaurant, which consists of a main--and very well air-conditioned--room, and seating outside. The restaurant is on an interior corner the main thoroughfare of Union Station and both entrances afford good views of the goings on within the building. While we sat inside primarily due to the heat there were also no other patrons seated outside and we didn't want to be the only ones. The interior space of Traxx is nice enough: it mirrors the sturdy style of the station, yet also has muted design elements reflective of its 1997 inauguration and the warmth of a recent paint job.

Traxx has a small wine list, but I did notice a few memorable inexpensive wines, like the Riesling from my hometown, Bonny Doon Vineyard. To keep with the retro experience, we went with martinis from their bar: vodka for her, gin for me. While the drinks were well mixed, the olives were of mediocre quality: hard and flavorless. Dommage!

The menu is divided into small plates (soup, salad, appetizers, etc.) and large plates (main dishes). The high prices gave me pause: I almost considered suggesting we just have a drink and move on to another restaurant. The desire to experiment, though, won out. We decided to order two of each and share. I'd read in ChowHound that a few foodies recommended the Waldorf salad, the crab cake, and pork chop. We ordered all three, plus the roasted chicken.

Service was a bit slow, somewhat inattentive, but overall about what I expected from my prior research. Our small plates came and the Waldorf salad met my expectations. The apples were crisp, contrasting nicely with the blue cheese, arugula and radicchio. The crab cake was literally a giant puck of crab, breaded, deep-fried, and served on a chipotle remoulade. My wife found the crab cake overly heavy. I liked it, despite it not being very traditional. I'm accustomed to cakes that have some breadcrumb mixed with the crab. This variation was almost solid crab.

Our main dishes were decently prepared, fair-sized portions (though a tad overpriced, even for a couple accustomed to the occasional expensive dinner out). I started with the pork loin chop, which was served with a fig balsamic glaze, spinach, and a tasty, but somewhat dry fig polenta. The pork was juicy and well cooked, though quite fatty. My partner's half-chicken appeared to be a Cornish-game hen and was served in the middle of a large wide bowl of green chili-tomatillo posole. The chicken was moist, and the posole had a very nice texture. It was an unusual combination that would have worked better with the chicken if it weren't dominated by the tanginess of the tomatillo. The menu noted that the chicken was served with a cilantro-almond pesto, but it was lost in the sea of posole. Of the four dishes we had, the hands-down favorite was the small Waldorf salad we started with.

Overall, our experience of Traxx was decent, though far from stellar. I would consider returning, but probably just for drinks and maybe a selection of their small plates. They have a great location, but perhaps like train stations themselves, Traxx may be best as a stopover on the way to someplace else.

Traxx
in Union Station
800 N. Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 625-1999
http://www.traxxrestaurant.com

If the Creek Don't Rise Released!

A year ago this month my neighbor, Rita Williams, published a book she'd been working on for some time. She called it If the Creek Don't Rise and it's a memoir about her time growing up with her grandmother in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. We were all very excited for her not only because she got a great book published but also because it was very well received. Rita got an incredible break when Oprah Winfrey reviewed her book in O Magazine. Having someone so famous describe the emotional connection she had with the memoir really helps get people to notice a lot more quickly than they might have otherwise. Over the last year, it seemed like Rita was flying everywhere promoting her book. She put together a web site, and has been busy giving talks all over the nation. And this month the paperback was released.

A strange thing happened early this Monday. I had signed up to help with organizing talks in our local office as part of the Authors@Google series at the urging of one employees who's been doing the bulk of the organizing for the Santa Monica office and wanted some help and input from others in the office. He'd gone to the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books and met a number of authors he thought might be interested in coming to our office. When I went into our meeting, whose book was on the top of the stack but Rita's new paperback release of If the Creek Don't Rise!

I figured it was a wonderful coincidence and I knew I needed to invite Rita to speak at our office. I can't wait to see her talk and look forward to my colleagues getting to learn about her memoir too.

Review: Grbavica, Land of My Dreams

Jasmila Źbanić’s 2006 film, Grbavica, Land of My Dreams, is about to be released for the first time in the United States. I was lucky enough to see a sneak preview of her film through Matt’s Movies, a film club of sorts sponsored by Los Angeles radio station, KCRW. Grbavica is the story of a woman (Esma) and her 12 year old daughter (Sara) living in the Sarajevo of today, a city haunted by the ethnic conflict and still suffering from the open wounds from the war of the previous decade. The film is a meditation on the aftermath of conflict: how does a society recover from the wounds of ethnic cleansing? And when brought down to the personal level, how does a person deal with seemingly irreconcilable emotions of the past?

The film’s title refers to a neighborhood in Sarajevo and literally means “woman with a hump.” As metaphor, the community, Grbavica, is a woman who keeps on living, despite a deformity or condition that makes life more challenging. As a metonym, Grbavica is the city of Sarajevo and the country of Bosnia that struggles to live despite the past. Of course, this also applies to Esma, the protagonist, who is but one of the many women who has survived war and continues to live with this hump on her back.

Dialogue is peppered with plenty of harsh language, itself mirroring the violence and terror of the past as it continues to erupt in daily life.  Conflict as well as the threat of violence are present in everyday Sarajevo. The music in the film was great. It included chanting (llahijas), traditional folk music as well as the turbo folk and music played in the nightclub.

Most of the film was shot in wintry Sarajevo. The major scenes of the film include the apartment of Esma and Sara, the nightclub where Esma works and meets Pelda, a kind coworker, a women’s center where she receives social assistance and bides time with other women similarly situated, Sara’s school, and a few minor scenes shot around the city, including the markets, streets, hills, and abandoned buildings. The spaces of Esma’s existence are supremely claustrophobic: all of which seem to offer no reprieve from confrontation with the past. In her apartment, we see precious few moments when home is a reprieve from the harsh daily life of a Sarajevo not fully recovered or rebuilt. The tension only increases as Esma desperately saves money to pay for Sara’s school trip and Sara becomes more insistent on getting answers about her father’s past. Similarly, the nightclub guests’ profligate expenditure on drink and dance only reminds Esma of the disposable income that constantly eludes her. Even more challenging for Esma is the sexual debauchery, which only reminds her of the terrifying union of sex and violence during the war. Serving as a complex metaphor for reconciliation, the women’s center metamorphoses along with Esma, beginning as site of burden and denial and moving toward an acknowledgement with the past shared with the women of Sarajevo.

In one set of scenes I didn’t quite know how to interpret, Pelda and his friend are propositioned by a mafia man with a score to settle with their employer. The man offers a large bounty and a nice car for killing their boss, arguing that during the war their employer spent his time profiting rather than participating in armed conflict. Ultimately, Pelda refuses the offer. Interestingly, the entire scene is shot on the hills overlooking a newly reconstructed mosque. There are no other moments in the film that so openly situate religion. Is the message that religion inserts itself into Pelda’s decision not to pursue the violent path sought by his associate, or that the nationalist motivations of the mafia boss are informed (guided?) by religion? What is the filmmaker’s view?

I really enjoyed this film. It is a difficult subject matter and has a bleakness that won’t appeal to mainstream audiences; however, it is a well-constructed story and a prescient reminder of cost of war.

Details:

Length: 90 min
Format: 35mm, color
Language: Bosnian (English subtitles)
Distributor: Strand Releasing

Cast:

Mirjana Karanović (Esma)
Luna Mijović (Sara)
Leon Lučev (Pelda)