In Unpacking the Master’s Plan from Fight the Tower, Eliza Noh discusses how many
universities act as if they value diversity while implementing policy that hurts Asian
American Studies, as well as other ethnic studies departments. One common action she
discusses is universities eliminating general education requirements in order to improve
graduation rates in underserved populations. However, since most high schools lack
ethnic studies, GEs are essential to exposing students to ethnic studies and recruiting
more ethnic studies majors. Personally, I have never realized this before reading this,
although it makes sense, and it has brought to light how GEs are taken for granted and
play a bigger role than it may seem. In my experience, many students change majors,
add majors, or add minors in their undergraduate career, so eliminating GEs is illogical
and a disservice to many students. Another common pattern is universities focusing on
data-driven decision making, which is meant to reduce faculty. Noh discusses how one of
the Foundation for Excellence in Education’s goals is to “customize [students’] education
using digital content” (Noh, n.d, p.88). Faculty are crucial to student’s success and expanding
online classes at the expense of traditional classes does not benefit students at all. Additionally,
the word customize seems out of place in education; “customize” is used for cell phone data
plans or pizza. This only reveals how a business lens is used for the university rather than an
educational lens.
universities act as if they value diversity while implementing policy that hurts Asian
American Studies, as well as other ethnic studies departments. One common action she
discusses is universities eliminating general education requirements in order to improve
graduation rates in underserved populations. However, since most high schools lack
ethnic studies, GEs are essential to exposing students to ethnic studies and recruiting
more ethnic studies majors. Personally, I have never realized this before reading this,
although it makes sense, and it has brought to light how GEs are taken for granted and
play a bigger role than it may seem. In my experience, many students change majors,
add majors, or add minors in their undergraduate career, so eliminating GEs is illogical
and a disservice to many students. Another common pattern is universities focusing on
data-driven decision making, which is meant to reduce faculty. Noh discusses how one of
the Foundation for Excellence in Education’s goals is to “customize [students’] education
using digital content” (Noh, n.d, p.88). Faculty are crucial to student’s success and expanding
online classes at the expense of traditional classes does not benefit students at all. Additionally,
the word customize seems out of place in education; “customize” is used for cell phone data
plans or pizza. This only reveals how a business lens is used for the university rather than an
educational lens.
Question: How are universities supposed to raise graduation rates and make students graduate
faster while trying to get rid of faculty? What is their reasoning?
faster while trying to get rid of faculty? What is their reasoning?
References
Noh, E. (2019). Unpacking the Master’s Plan. Unpublished manuscript.
(n.d.) Corporations at Pride. [Digital Image]. Retrieved from https://pics.me.me/what-inspired-you-to-change-your-logo-to-the-rainbow-57493414.png
No comments:
Post a Comment