Blog RSS Feed
Via E-mail
Twitter
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/mordintberutu/videos/1141579405939053/
Mereka masih bersyukur
masih adakah diantara kita yang mengeluh ?
.
Sempatkan menulis Aamin dikomentar
semoga Aallah selalu mengampuni dosa2 kita..Aamin
Read more »
Thursday, October 20, 2016
ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION
ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION
dapted physical education (APE) is specially de-signed instruction in physical education intended to address the unique needs of individuals. While the roots of adapted physical education can be traced back to Swedish medical gymnastics in the 1700s, adapted physical education, as practiced today, has been significantly shaped by the mandates of the In-dividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This act, enacted in 1997, amended the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which was enact-ed in 1975 and stipulated that all children with dis-abilities had a right to special education.
The IDEA Mandates
Specifically, IDEA defined special education as ‘‘spe-cially designed instruction, at no cost to parents or guardians, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including—(A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals, and in-stitutions, and in other settings; and (B) instruction in physical education.’’ The inclusion of physical ed-ucation in the definition of special education is sig-nificant for two reasons. First, it identified physical education as a direct service that must be provided to all students who qualify for special education ser-vices as opposed to related services, such as physical or occupational therapy, that are required only when they are needed for a child to benefit from a special education service. Second, it highlighted the impor-tance of physical education for students with disabil-ities.
IDEA also defined physical education, mandat-ed that all special education services be delivered in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and pre-scribed a management document called an Individu-alized Education Program (IEP). Physical education was defined as ‘‘the development of: (A) physical and motor fitness; (B) fundamental motor skills and patterns; and (C) skills in aquatics, dance, and indi-vidual and group games and sports (including intra-mural and lifetime sports.’’ IDEA further delineated that ‘‘physical education services, specially designed if necessary, must be made available to every handi-capped child receiving a free appropriate public edu-cation’’ and that ‘‘if specially designed physical education is prescribed in a child’s individualized education program, the public agency responsible for the education of that child shall provide the ser-vice directly, or make arrangements for it to be pro-vided through other public or private programs.’’
With respect to LRE, IDEA stated the following: ‘‘To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including those in public or private in-stitutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who do not have disabilities; and . . . special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the na-ture and severity of the disability is such that educa-tion in regular classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily.’’
To ensure that IDEA was implemented as in-tended, the act required that IEPs must be developed and monitored for all students who qualify for spe-cial education. The IEP is developed by a team and includes the student’s present level of performance; annual goals and short-term instructional objectives; specific educational services that will be provided and the extent to which the student will participate in regular education programs; any needed transi-tion services; the projected dates for the initiation and duration of services; and objective criteria and procedures for evaluating, at least annually, progress on the stated goals and instructional objectives.
Finally, IDEA mandated that qualified person-nel deliver special education instruction. In this con-text, ‘‘qualified’’ meant that a person has ‘‘met State educational agency approved or recognized certifica-tion, licensing, registration, or other comparable re-quirements which apply to the area in which he or she is providing special education or related ser-vices.’’
In summary, the legal basis for adapted physical education results from the mandates that require that all students who qualify for special education must receive physical education. If specially designed physical education is required, then these services must be stated in the IEP, delivered in the LRE, and provided by a qualified teacher.
It is important to note that while IDEA requires that all students who qualify for special education have a right to adapted physical education if needed to address their unique needs, adapted physical edu-cation is, can, and should be provided to all students who have unique physical and motor needs that can-not be adequately addressed in the regular physical education program. It is not uncommon, for exam-ple, for many students to have temporary orthopedic disabilities such as sprained ankles, broken limbs, or muscle strains during their school years. Short-term APE programs would be appropriate for these stu-dents both to assist in the rehabilitation of their inju-ries and to minimize any fitness and/or skill deficits that may occur during their recovery. Other students may have mild physical or health impairments, such as asthma or diabetes, that do not interfere with their educational performance enough to qualify them for special education but that are severe enough to war-rant special accommodations and considerations in physical education.
In the United States physical education and most major sport/recreation programs for youth are school centered, hence the emphasis on education in the terms physical education and adapted physical ed-ucation. In other countries, physical education, rec-reation, and sport are commonly conducted independent or outside of the schools and sponsored by other organizations and agencies. In these set-tings, the term adapted physical activity may be used instead of adapted physical education.
Trends and Issues
Although IDEA has provided a sound legal basis for adapted physical education, there are still a number of issues that need to be resolved by the profession to ensure that the physical and motor needs of all students with disabilities are appropriately ad-dressed. Two major issues relate to who is qualified to provide APE services and how decisions are made regarding the appropriate physical education place-ment for students with disabilities.
Who is qualified? While IDEA specified that physi-cal education services, specially designed if neces-sary, must be made available to every child with a disability receiving a free appropriate education, it stopped short of defining who was qualified to provide these services. IDEA stated that it was the re-sponsibility of the states to establish teacher certifi-cation requirements. Unlike other special education areas (e.g., teachers of individuals with mental retar-dation or learning disabilities), most states did not have in place defined certification requirements for teachers of adapted physical education. Given the fiscal constraints placed on schools by the mandates of IDEA, most states were reluctant to place addi-tional demands on their schools by forcing them to hire APE specialists. As a result, by 1991 only four-teen states had actually defined an endorsement or certification in adapted physical education.
The existence of a mandate that required that services be provided but that did not define who was qualified to provide these services created a dilemma for both teachers and students. In many cases, regu-lar physical educators with little or no training relat-ed to individuals with disabilities and/or therapists with no training in physical education were assigned the responsibility of addressing the physical educa-tion needs of students with disabilities. Since these teachers do not have the prerequisite skills to address the needs of these students, these needs are largely going unaddressed. To respond to this situation, the National Consortium for Physical Education and Recreation for Individuals with Disabilities (NC-PERID) created national standards and a voluntary national certification exam for adapted physical edu-cation. The adapted physical education national standards (APENS) delineate the content that adapt-ed physical educators should know across fifteen standards. The national exam has been administered annually since 1997 at more than eighty test sites in the United States.
While the creation of the APE national stan-dards and the national certification exam have been significant steps toward addressing the issue of who is qualified to teach APE, much more work still needs to be done. The NCPERID is working with a small number of states on developing a process through which states can adopt the NCPERID APE standards and APE national certification exam as their state credential. It is hoped that a uniform cer-tification similar to the APENS exam will be adopted by all states by 2010, and this issue will be resolved.
How are placement decisions made? The intent of defining physical education as a direct service, spe-cially designed if necessary, in IDEA was to ensure that the physical and motor development needs of these students were not ignored or sacrificed at the expense of addressing other educational needs. This emphasis was warranted given the extensive research documenting marked physical and motor develop-ment delays and increased health risks (e.g., coro-nary heart disease and obesity) in many children with disabilities. There is also a wealth of research that has shown that well-designed and implemented physical education programs can reduce both physi-cal and motor delays and many health risks in stu-dents with disabilities. While the intent of the law was clear, how it has been implemented has been less then optimal.
What has happened in many schools is that the majority, if not all, of the students with disabilities are being dumped into regular physical education classes. The justification for this practice can be linked to a number of subissues. First, like many other problems in the schools, most schools were not provided with sufficient resources to implement the mandates of IDEA. Given the need to comply with legal mandates and limited resources, many schools were forced to look for ways to meet the let-ter of the law using their existing resources. Two particular mandates shaped this behavior. First, part of the LRE mandate stated that students with disabil-ities be educated in the regular education environ-ments to the maximum extent appropriate. Second, the IEP mandates required only that specially de-signed services be defined and monitored in the IEP. Many schools therefore deduced that if they put all the students with disabilities in regular physical edu-cation, then they would be addressing part of the LRE mandate and at the same time avoiding the ad-ditional time, effort, and costs related to actually cre-ating specially designed physical education programs. Fiscally this solution was very attractive given that most schools lacked qualified personnel who were trained to assess the physical and motor needs of students with disabilities and who could make appropriate decisions regarding what would be the most appropriate (LRE) physical education environment in which to address their needs.
Ideally, this practice would have been identified and stopped during the early years of implementing the law via the required state and federal monitoring procedures. Unfortunately, it was not for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was that the IEP docu-ment was used as the primary monitoring docu-ment. Because physical education was not identified as a needed specially designed service, it was not monitored. In the rare cases in which parents under-stood their rights and demanded specially designed physical education to meet the unique needs of their child, schools tended to handle these requests on an individual basis and subcontract to have these services delivered.
The approach to stopping the practice of placing all students with special needs in regular physical ed-ucation must be multifaceted. The ideal solution would be simply for schools to hire qualified adapted physical educators as intended by the law. This solu-tion, however, is not as simple as it may initially ap-pear. First, schools would have to recognize that their current physical education placement practices were wrong and then be motivated to make a change. In many schools these practices have gone on unquestioned for more than twenty years. In ad-dition, there are no new fiscal resources to hire the additional teachers needed to correct this problem. To obtain additional public monies to fund these positions, schools would have to explain why these new teachers were needed and why they had not provided these appropriate services in the past.
Resolving the problem of inappropriate place-ment of students with disabilities into regular physi-cal education is important not only for the students with disabilities but also for the regular education students and the regular physical education teachers. Research in the field has repeatedly shown that many regular physical educators feel unprepared to ad-dress the needs of students with disabilities and that trying to accommodate the needs of these students has a negative impact on all the students in their classes.
Recognizing the dilemma schools face in resolv-ing this problem, the issue is being addressed at two levels. The first level is to educate schools and state departments of education about this problem and recommend that they develop both long- and short-term solutions. An example of a long-term solution would be to require schools to hire certified adapted physical educators as replacements when existing physical educators retire or leave for other positions. An example of a short-term solution would be to use in-service training programs for school administra-tors and regular physical educators. These programs would focus on educating them on what is appropri-ate physical education and then providing them with some of the fundamental skills needed to offer a con-tinuum of alternative placements in physical educa-tion as intended by the LRE requirements. The second level is to educate parents via the various par-ent advocacy organizations regarding their rights and what should be involved in making an appropriate placement decision in relation to physical education. This information would allow parents to make more informed decisions and to advocate for appropriate physical education services for their children.
Training
Through competitive grant provisions associated with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and subsequently IDEA, a number of colleges and universities have developed pre-service adapted physical education teacher-training programs. Be-cause adapted physical education training builds upon the traditional teacher training in physical ed-ucation, most adapted physical education training occurs at the master’s level. Most undergraduate physical education teacher preparation programs now include at least one APE course as part of their required curriculum. In recent years, many regular physical education teacher-training programs have also started to offer three- to twelve-credit emphases or minor areas of study in adapted physical educa-tion as part of their undergraduate programs. These emphasis areas typically are composed of one to three theory courses and one to two practical experi-ences where the students can apply their APE course work.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.
U.S. Public Law 94-142. U.S. Code. Vol. 20, secs. 1401 et seq.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997.
U.S. Public Law 105-17. U.S. Code. Vol. 20, secs. 1400 et seq.
Kelly, Luke E., ed. 1995. Adapted Physical Educa-
tion National Standards. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Rimmer, James H. 1994. Fitness and Rehabilitation
Programs for Special Populations. Dubuque, IA:
Brown and Benchmark.
Sherrill, Claudine. 1998. Adapted Physical Activi-ty, Recreation, and Sport: Crossdisciplinary and Lifespan, 5th edition. Dubuque, IA: MCB/ McGraw-Hill.
Winnick, Joseph P., ed. 2000. Adapted Physical Ed-ucation and Sport, 3rd edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
HATI-HATI SAAT MEMASAK KANGKUNG.
HATI-HATI SAAT MEMASAK KANGKUNG.
Diharuskan bila anda memasak kangkung, harap belah batangnya !!
Beberapa hari yang lalu, di klinik yang terkenal di Yogya, Semua dokter kebingungan karena ada seorang pemuda asal SOLO bernama Rifai yang menderita sakit perut. Pemuda itu dibawa ke klinik oleh Ortunya setelah 2 hari menderita diare.
Sudah bermacam obat sakit perut yang diberikan kepada pemuda itu, namun diare tidak kunjung sembuh.
Kemudian Orang tua pemuda tersebut ditanya oleh dokter, "Makanan apa yang di makan oleh pemuda tersebut selama 2 hari ini?" Ortu anak itu kebingungan, karena sejak anaknya diare. Pemuda tersebut tak mau makan, dia hanya minum susu putih, itu pun muntah.
Setelah diperiksa, ternyata sebelum menderita diare, Pemuda itu makan kangkung tumis di restoran bersama Orang tuanya. Dokter segera melakukan rongent, ternyata dalam usus Rifai telah berkembang biak lintah dengan anaknya yang kecil-kecil.
Dokter menyerah dan menyatakan tidak sanggup mengambil tindakan medis apapun.
Akhirnya pemuda malang itu pun meninggal dun
a. Setelah diteliti, ternyata Lintah berasal dari dalam batang kangkung yang besar.
Memang untuk penggemar kangkung tumis yang paling enak adalah batangnya.
Lintah yg berada di dalam Batang Kangkung itu Tdk akan Mati walau dimasak selama 20 Menit, Apalagi untuk kangkung tumis yang proses memasaknya tidak terlalu lama agar menghasilkan rasa kangkung yang sedap.
Lintah hanya akan mati jika dibakar !
Dalam usus pemuda tadi, Lintah hanya butuh waktu 1-2 hari untuk berkembang biak. Jika ada keluarga/Teman-teman yang mengalami hal serupa, lakukan tindakan dengan memberi minum "Air Rendaman Tembakau". (bisa diambil dari Rokok Kretek) dan biasanya Lintah "Akan keluar dalam keadaan mati".
Informasikan kepada Keluarga, teman dan sahabat anda.
Ini kisah nyata di Yogyakarta !
INGAT !!! MEMASAK KANGKUNG HARUS DIBELAH DULU BATANGNYA SEBELUM DIMASAK !!
dr.H. Ismuhadi, MPH
Mohon disebarkan sebanyak2 nya, sayangi keluarga dan orang-orang yang kita cintai.
Semoga bermanfaat.
Friday, January 30, 2009
ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
The objectives of colleges and universities differ from those of commercial enterprises for which profit is the primary motive in that colleges and universities seek to provide educational services within the existing levels of revenues available, although a slight level of excess revenue may be desired by some governing boards. A balanced budget where expenditures remain within available revenues is always expected of a financially responsible college or university. A major reduction in the net assets of an institution should be cause for concern and may be a sign of financial instability.
Revenue and Assets
The primary sources of revenue vary depending on whether an institution is public or private. Most private institutions depend heavily on student tuition as the major source of revenue, while public institutions receive a mixture of state appropriations and student tuition. The portion of the budget that comes from state appropriations may vary from state to state depending on the policy position of each state as to the percentage of the budget that tuition is expected to support.
According to 1996–1997 data from the National Center for Education Statistics, fund revenues for public institutions came from four primary sources: tuition and fees (19%), federal funds (11%), state funds (36%), and sales and services (22%). Private institutions also received the majority of total revenues from these four sources but had different percentages in each category: tuition and fees (43%), federal funds (14%), state funds (2%), and sales and services (21%). As noted, state appropriations are particularly important to public institutions and, in fact, represent the majority of revenues available to the overall higher education enterprise. In the academic year 1995–1996, direct general expenditures of state and local governments for postsecondary education totaled $100.7 billion. Of this total, $89.7 billion were appropriated for educational and general expenditures and $11.0 billion for capital outlay. Without the state funding of public institutions, private colleges and universities have greater reliance upon tuition and fee revenue. In 1999–2000, the total tuition, room, and board per private institution student was $20,277, while the same fees for public school students averaged $7,302. Public and private institutions are all facing an increased reliance upon those tuition and fees for any level of improvement funding. Even within the public sector with its government funding, revenues from tuition and fees increased 318 percent from 1980 to 1996 while revenues from government appropriations during that time only increased 125 percent. Little evidence exists that this trend will change between now and 2010.
Other important sources of revenue include grants and contracts, private gifts, endowment income, investment income, and sales and services of auxiliary enterprises. Auxiliary enterprises include such operations as student housing and campus bookstores that are expected to be service components that finance their own operations. Some institutions also have teaching hospitals that are major financial component units. In addition to these revenue categories, higher education institutions must also account for sizable property holdings. The total value of higher education property in 1995–1996 was $220.4 billion. Of this amount, $11.4 billion was represented by land, $150.5 billion by buildings, and $58.5 billion by equipment inventory.
Expenditures
Higher education institutions are very labor intensive, with the major portion of expenditures being devoted to salaries and benefits. Other expenditure requirements include such items as utilities, travel, scholarships and fellowships, communication costs, debt service on capital assets, supplies, and contractual services. In 1999–2000, total expenditures in higher education were $257.8 billion. Of this total, public institutions accounted for $159.7 billion and private institutions for $98.1 billion.
As a foundation of the accounting system, most higher education institutions maintain expenditures by functional classification. These classifications include instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, operation and maintenance of plant, scholarships, and auxiliary enterprises. Current operating activities are further identified and separated depending on whether the source of revenue is unrestricted or restricted. Unrestricted revenues are presumed to be available for current operations without specific external restrictions being placed on the use of the revenues. Restricted revenues, which are available for current operations, must be used for the purpose designated by the donor or granting entity.
Colleges and universities also have other specialized accounts that are used for the unique functions of those institutions. Loan accounts are used to record loans to students, faculty, and staff. Specific reporting requirements may be imposed on loan funds (such as the Federal Perkins Loan Program) depending on the source of funding. These accounts function on a revolving basis accounting for principal, interest, and amounts available for new loans. Another special set of accounts are agency accounts that are used for resources held by the institution strictly in a custodial role.
Many institutions are the recipients of gifts and donations for which the donor stipulates that the principal be invested with the earnings available for designated purposes. Endowment accounts are used for these types of purposes. The account is deemed to be a true endowment if only the earnings can be spent with the principal remaining intact. A term endowment allows the principal to be used after some period of time or specified event. Governing boards may designate funds to function as endowments, but the board may rescind these decisions.
Three specialized types of accounts are used for plant activities. These types include accounts for the construction or acquisition of capital assets, resources set aside for the repair and replacement of capital assets, and resources set aside for the repayment of principal and interest (debt service) on capital assets.
The three financial statements required of higher education include the Statement of Net Assets, the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets, and the Statement of Cash Flows. Accounting standards are established for private institutions by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and for public institutions by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Major new reporting requirements were established for public institutions effective with fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2001.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
National Center for Education Statistics.
2000. Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Revenue and Assets
The primary sources of revenue vary depending on whether an institution is public or private. Most private institutions depend heavily on student tuition as the major source of revenue, while public institutions receive a mixture of state appropriations and student tuition. The portion of the budget that comes from state appropriations may vary from state to state depending on the policy position of each state as to the percentage of the budget that tuition is expected to support.
According to 1996–1997 data from the National Center for Education Statistics, fund revenues for public institutions came from four primary sources: tuition and fees (19%), federal funds (11%), state funds (36%), and sales and services (22%). Private institutions also received the majority of total revenues from these four sources but had different percentages in each category: tuition and fees (43%), federal funds (14%), state funds (2%), and sales and services (21%). As noted, state appropriations are particularly important to public institutions and, in fact, represent the majority of revenues available to the overall higher education enterprise. In the academic year 1995–1996, direct general expenditures of state and local governments for postsecondary education totaled $100.7 billion. Of this total, $89.7 billion were appropriated for educational and general expenditures and $11.0 billion for capital outlay. Without the state funding of public institutions, private colleges and universities have greater reliance upon tuition and fee revenue. In 1999–2000, the total tuition, room, and board per private institution student was $20,277, while the same fees for public school students averaged $7,302. Public and private institutions are all facing an increased reliance upon those tuition and fees for any level of improvement funding. Even within the public sector with its government funding, revenues from tuition and fees increased 318 percent from 1980 to 1996 while revenues from government appropriations during that time only increased 125 percent. Little evidence exists that this trend will change between now and 2010.
Other important sources of revenue include grants and contracts, private gifts, endowment income, investment income, and sales and services of auxiliary enterprises. Auxiliary enterprises include such operations as student housing and campus bookstores that are expected to be service components that finance their own operations. Some institutions also have teaching hospitals that are major financial component units. In addition to these revenue categories, higher education institutions must also account for sizable property holdings. The total value of higher education property in 1995–1996 was $220.4 billion. Of this amount, $11.4 billion was represented by land, $150.5 billion by buildings, and $58.5 billion by equipment inventory.
Expenditures
Higher education institutions are very labor intensive, with the major portion of expenditures being devoted to salaries and benefits. Other expenditure requirements include such items as utilities, travel, scholarships and fellowships, communication costs, debt service on capital assets, supplies, and contractual services. In 1999–2000, total expenditures in higher education were $257.8 billion. Of this total, public institutions accounted for $159.7 billion and private institutions for $98.1 billion.
As a foundation of the accounting system, most higher education institutions maintain expenditures by functional classification. These classifications include instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, operation and maintenance of plant, scholarships, and auxiliary enterprises. Current operating activities are further identified and separated depending on whether the source of revenue is unrestricted or restricted. Unrestricted revenues are presumed to be available for current operations without specific external restrictions being placed on the use of the revenues. Restricted revenues, which are available for current operations, must be used for the purpose designated by the donor or granting entity.
Colleges and universities also have other specialized accounts that are used for the unique functions of those institutions. Loan accounts are used to record loans to students, faculty, and staff. Specific reporting requirements may be imposed on loan funds (such as the Federal Perkins Loan Program) depending on the source of funding. These accounts function on a revolving basis accounting for principal, interest, and amounts available for new loans. Another special set of accounts are agency accounts that are used for resources held by the institution strictly in a custodial role.
Many institutions are the recipients of gifts and donations for which the donor stipulates that the principal be invested with the earnings available for designated purposes. Endowment accounts are used for these types of purposes. The account is deemed to be a true endowment if only the earnings can be spent with the principal remaining intact. A term endowment allows the principal to be used after some period of time or specified event. Governing boards may designate funds to function as endowments, but the board may rescind these decisions.
Three specialized types of accounts are used for plant activities. These types include accounts for the construction or acquisition of capital assets, resources set aside for the repair and replacement of capital assets, and resources set aside for the repayment of principal and interest (debt service) on capital assets.
The three financial statements required of higher education include the Statement of Net Assets, the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets, and the Statement of Cash Flows. Accounting standards are established for private institutions by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and for public institutions by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Major new reporting requirements were established for public institutions effective with fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2001.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
National Center for Education Statistics.
2000. Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
ACCELERATED SCHOOLS
Accelerated Schools emerged from a national school reform movement established in 1986 to replace academic remediation for atrisk students with academic enrichment. Research studies done in the 1980s documented a growing population of students who were at risk of educational failure because they lacked the experiences in their homes, families, and communities on which school success is based. These students were heavily concentrated among minority, immigrant, and singleparent families— and those with low parental education and income. Studies of the schools such students attended found heavy reliance on repetition and drill, as well as a glacial instructional pace, compared to schools with more advantaged pupils. The consequences of this uninspiring instruction, with its low expectations and stigmatization of students in atrisk situations, were viewed as contributing to an achievement gap for atrisk students that led to failure and dropping out of school.
Accelerated Schools were designed to bring all students into the academic mainstream through academic enrichment and acceleration by replacing remediation with gifted and talented instruction. In the fall of 1986 two schools were established as pilot schools in the San Francisco Bay Area to implement the ideas that had been derived from the earlier research. The goal was to transform these schools from an emphasis on remediation to an emphasis on acceleration. The schools were exposed to the ideas behind the project and asked to consider if they wanted to move forward with them. Both schools agreed to work with teams from Stanford University to implement Accelerated Schools at their sites. From this initial work on implementation, replication, and research, considerable development has taken place in terms of the knowledge base, the process of transformation, and the expansion of Accelerated Schools. In 2001 there were about 1,000 Accelerated Schools enrolling almost half a million children in fortyone states and in several foreign countries.
The Accelerated Schools approach aims to make all students academically able at an early age through Powerful Learning, an approach to enrichment that integrates curriculum, instructional strategies, and school context. Powerful Learning is embodied in student research activities, artistic endeavors, community studies, and a range of applications where knowledge is applied to realworld activities. Students are expected to generate authentic ideas, products, artistic performances, and problem solutions across subjects that can be assessed directly for quality, rather than assuming that examination scores will be adequate assessment instruments.
The conversion to acceleration requires an internal transformation of school culture. The Accelerated School incorporates a model of governance and operations built around three principles that empower the school community to adopt accelerated strategies: (1) Unity of Purpose refers to consensus by school staff, parents, and students on common goals, a search for strategies for reaching them, and accountability for results; (2) Empowerment with Responsibility refers to the establishment of the capacity of the participants to make key decisions in the school and home to implement change and to be accountable for results; and (3) Building on Strengths refers to the identification and utilization of the strengths of all of the participants in addressing school needs and creating powerful learning strategies.
Accelerated Schools Process
Accelerated Schools require the training and support services of both an external coach and internal facilitators to assist the school in following the model of transformation. External coaches are usually drawn from the central office staff of each district, and are given a day or more a week to work with the school. Internal facilitators are teacher leaders who are provided with time to assist the external coach in providing training and followup guidance. Both coaches and facilitators are trained at regional centers of the Accelerated Schools Project (ASP) through an intensive initial session of five days, followed by subsequent monthly training sessions of one or two days. Staff from regional centers train and communicate with coaches on a regular basis through telephone followup and school visits to provide support for coaches and facilitators and feedback to the school. Schools are provided with an Internal Assessment Toolkit to check implementation progress as well as guidelines for endofyear assessment.
The transformation process puts great emphasis on placing school governance and decisionmaking in the hands of school staff, parents, and students so that they can take responsibility for transforming their own culture and practices. School staff and other members of the school community begin by taking stock of school strengths, challenges, and operations. This is done through initiating members into small research groups. Taking stock is followed by a communitywide effort to set out a future vision for the schools with specific goals. The results of the takingstock summary are contrasted with the future vision to set out areas of priority that the school must address. Governance at the school site is structured through cadres working on these priorities, a steering committee, and an overall decisionmaking body called school as a whole (SAW) that includes all school staff, parents, other community members, and student representatives. Each of these entities is guided through problem solving and decision making by a specific inquiry process that carefully defines each challenge and generates hypotheses on why the challenge exists. Hypotheses are tested, and solutions are sought that match those that are supported by data. Powerful learning approaches are developed to address learning challenges, and overall school results are evaluated periodically.
Both time and district support are major challenges. School staff and other participants need regular meeting times to do the research that taking stock, inquiry, and evaluation require, and to receive and apply training. Powerful Learning requires teamwork in constructing units, lessons, and learning experiences and sharing them—with the intent of always finding new ways to strengthen them. Governance can only be done through careful reflection and consideration of the usefulness of recommendations and the evidence that supports them. Appropriate time requirements include a minimum of six full days per year for staff development, as well as a weekly earlyrelease day or its equivalent for governance, inquiry, and planning activities. Coaches and facilitators need time to plan and monitor school progress and provide additional training and support. District support includes not only meeting these time requirements, but also providing a coach with appropriate skills and the stability to enable the school to master the ASP process.
Results have been encouraging. Schools have reported substantial increases in student achievement, parent participation, community projects, student research, and artistic endeavors. Thirdparty evaluations have shown gains in student achievement of 8 percentiles in a national evaluation and about 40 percentiles in an urban sample of six schools when compared with similar schools not undertaking reforms. The accomplishments suggest that a school based on acceleration is superior to one using remediation for students in atrisk situations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bloom, Howard; Ham, Sandra; Kagehiro, Susie; Melton, Laura; O’Brien, Julieanne; Rock, JoAnn; and Doolittle, Fred. 2000. Evaluating the Accelerated Schools Program: A Look at Its Early Implementation and Impact on Student Achievement in Eight Schools. New York: Manpower Development Research Corporation.
Finnan, Christine, and Swanson, Julie D. 2000. Accelerating the Learning of All Students. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hopfenberg, Wendy; Levin, Henry M.; Chase, Christopher; Christensen, S. Georgia; Moore, Melanie; Soler, Pilar; Brunner, Ilse; Keller, Beth; and Rodriguez, Gloria. 1993. The Accelerated Schools Resource Guide. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Levin, Henry M. 1987. ‘‘New Schools for the Disadvantaged.’’ Teacher Education Quarterly 14:60– 83.
Levin, Henry M. 1998. ‘‘Accelerated Schools: A Decade of Evolution.’’ In International Handbook of Educational Change, Part Two, ed. Andy Hargreaves, Ann Lieberman, Michael Fullan, and David Hopkins. Boston: Kluwer.
Natriello, Gary; McDill, Edward M.; and Pallas, Aaron M. 1990. Schooling Disadvantaged Children: Racing Against Catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ross, Steven M.; Wang, L. Weiping; Sanders, William L., Wright, S. Paul; and Stringfield, Samuel. 1999. Two and ThreeYear Achievement Results on the Tennessee ValueAdded Assessment System for Restructuring Schools in Memphis. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
Accelerated Schools were designed to bring all students into the academic mainstream through academic enrichment and acceleration by replacing remediation with gifted and talented instruction. In the fall of 1986 two schools were established as pilot schools in the San Francisco Bay Area to implement the ideas that had been derived from the earlier research. The goal was to transform these schools from an emphasis on remediation to an emphasis on acceleration. The schools were exposed to the ideas behind the project and asked to consider if they wanted to move forward with them. Both schools agreed to work with teams from Stanford University to implement Accelerated Schools at their sites. From this initial work on implementation, replication, and research, considerable development has taken place in terms of the knowledge base, the process of transformation, and the expansion of Accelerated Schools. In 2001 there were about 1,000 Accelerated Schools enrolling almost half a million children in fortyone states and in several foreign countries.
The Accelerated Schools approach aims to make all students academically able at an early age through Powerful Learning, an approach to enrichment that integrates curriculum, instructional strategies, and school context. Powerful Learning is embodied in student research activities, artistic endeavors, community studies, and a range of applications where knowledge is applied to realworld activities. Students are expected to generate authentic ideas, products, artistic performances, and problem solutions across subjects that can be assessed directly for quality, rather than assuming that examination scores will be adequate assessment instruments.
The conversion to acceleration requires an internal transformation of school culture. The Accelerated School incorporates a model of governance and operations built around three principles that empower the school community to adopt accelerated strategies: (1) Unity of Purpose refers to consensus by school staff, parents, and students on common goals, a search for strategies for reaching them, and accountability for results; (2) Empowerment with Responsibility refers to the establishment of the capacity of the participants to make key decisions in the school and home to implement change and to be accountable for results; and (3) Building on Strengths refers to the identification and utilization of the strengths of all of the participants in addressing school needs and creating powerful learning strategies.
Accelerated Schools Process
Accelerated Schools require the training and support services of both an external coach and internal facilitators to assist the school in following the model of transformation. External coaches are usually drawn from the central office staff of each district, and are given a day or more a week to work with the school. Internal facilitators are teacher leaders who are provided with time to assist the external coach in providing training and followup guidance. Both coaches and facilitators are trained at regional centers of the Accelerated Schools Project (ASP) through an intensive initial session of five days, followed by subsequent monthly training sessions of one or two days. Staff from regional centers train and communicate with coaches on a regular basis through telephone followup and school visits to provide support for coaches and facilitators and feedback to the school. Schools are provided with an Internal Assessment Toolkit to check implementation progress as well as guidelines for endofyear assessment.
The transformation process puts great emphasis on placing school governance and decisionmaking in the hands of school staff, parents, and students so that they can take responsibility for transforming their own culture and practices. School staff and other members of the school community begin by taking stock of school strengths, challenges, and operations. This is done through initiating members into small research groups. Taking stock is followed by a communitywide effort to set out a future vision for the schools with specific goals. The results of the takingstock summary are contrasted with the future vision to set out areas of priority that the school must address. Governance at the school site is structured through cadres working on these priorities, a steering committee, and an overall decisionmaking body called school as a whole (SAW) that includes all school staff, parents, other community members, and student representatives. Each of these entities is guided through problem solving and decision making by a specific inquiry process that carefully defines each challenge and generates hypotheses on why the challenge exists. Hypotheses are tested, and solutions are sought that match those that are supported by data. Powerful learning approaches are developed to address learning challenges, and overall school results are evaluated periodically.
Both time and district support are major challenges. School staff and other participants need regular meeting times to do the research that taking stock, inquiry, and evaluation require, and to receive and apply training. Powerful Learning requires teamwork in constructing units, lessons, and learning experiences and sharing them—with the intent of always finding new ways to strengthen them. Governance can only be done through careful reflection and consideration of the usefulness of recommendations and the evidence that supports them. Appropriate time requirements include a minimum of six full days per year for staff development, as well as a weekly earlyrelease day or its equivalent for governance, inquiry, and planning activities. Coaches and facilitators need time to plan and monitor school progress and provide additional training and support. District support includes not only meeting these time requirements, but also providing a coach with appropriate skills and the stability to enable the school to master the ASP process.
Results have been encouraging. Schools have reported substantial increases in student achievement, parent participation, community projects, student research, and artistic endeavors. Thirdparty evaluations have shown gains in student achievement of 8 percentiles in a national evaluation and about 40 percentiles in an urban sample of six schools when compared with similar schools not undertaking reforms. The accomplishments suggest that a school based on acceleration is superior to one using remediation for students in atrisk situations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bloom, Howard; Ham, Sandra; Kagehiro, Susie; Melton, Laura; O’Brien, Julieanne; Rock, JoAnn; and Doolittle, Fred. 2000. Evaluating the Accelerated Schools Program: A Look at Its Early Implementation and Impact on Student Achievement in Eight Schools. New York: Manpower Development Research Corporation.
Finnan, Christine, and Swanson, Julie D. 2000. Accelerating the Learning of All Students. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hopfenberg, Wendy; Levin, Henry M.; Chase, Christopher; Christensen, S. Georgia; Moore, Melanie; Soler, Pilar; Brunner, Ilse; Keller, Beth; and Rodriguez, Gloria. 1993. The Accelerated Schools Resource Guide. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Levin, Henry M. 1987. ‘‘New Schools for the Disadvantaged.’’ Teacher Education Quarterly 14:60– 83.
Levin, Henry M. 1998. ‘‘Accelerated Schools: A Decade of Evolution.’’ In International Handbook of Educational Change, Part Two, ed. Andy Hargreaves, Ann Lieberman, Michael Fullan, and David Hopkins. Boston: Kluwer.
Natriello, Gary; McDill, Edward M.; and Pallas, Aaron M. 1990. Schooling Disadvantaged Children: Racing Against Catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ross, Steven M.; Wang, L. Weiping; Sanders, William L., Wright, S. Paul; and Stringfield, Samuel. 1999. Two and ThreeYear Achievement Results on the Tennessee ValueAdded Assessment System for Restructuring Schools in Memphis. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
THE ACADEMIC MAJOR
The major field of study is the most prominent and significant structural element of the American baccalaureate degree. For students it is often a key to choosing which college or university to attend. College catalogs frequently claim certain types of learning result from study in a particular academic major. They also often suggest that study in specific majors prepares individuals for graduate education and for specific jobs and careers, and that it can impart certain specialized knowledge. Research affirms that the academic major is the strongest and clearest curricular link to gains in student learning.
Across higher education there is a tremendous variety of academic majors—ranging from art history to political science to zoology. Collectively these represent several hundred fields and subfields of study. The major field of study is often thought of synonymously with academic disciplines (e.g., history, physics, music); however majors also represent professional fields (e.g., education, engineering) and interdisciplinary fields (e.g., AfricanAmerican studies, ecological studies). Employers interview students at specific institutions based on the perceived match between their needs and a corresponding major program. A significant portion of the gifts and grants given to colleges and universities come based on the rank, reputation, or perceived quality of one or more academic majors.
The major provides indepth study in one of the fields in which an institution awards a degree. General education imparts knowledge, skills, and abilities drawn from the various realms of liberal learning and is the breadth component to the undergraduate degree. The major, on the other hand, is the depth component, providing the student with (a) terms, concepts, ideas, and events pertinent to the field; (b) models, frameworks, genres, theories, and themes that link phenomena and give them meaning; (c) methods of research and modes of inquiry appropriate to the area of study; and (d) criteria for arriving at a conclusion or making generalizations about that which is studied.
An academic major may serve multiple purposes. The major may represent specialization in a disciplinary or interdisciplinary field attendant to liberal learning, and as such can be regarded as nonpreparatory specialization. It may also serve as the student’s first introduction to a field of study that is manifested in postgraduate study as well. In addition, the major serves as preparation for one or several professional fields. Thus, a student may choose to study biology for its own merits, in preparation for graduate work in the biological or life sciences, or as preparation for entry into medicine or healthrelated fields. In some instances students may create their own majors reflecting their own interests or the specific competencies they wish to develop. Aside from such instances, the faculty with expertise in the field of study prescribe the entrance qualifications for students, the number of courses or credits required to complete the major, the content of those courses, the number and sequence of courses, and the requirement of exams, papers, or theses associated with satisfactorily completing study in the subject area.
The Rise of the Disciplines and Majors
Major fields of study emerged in the nineteenth century as alternative components of the undergraduate degree. In 1825 the University of Virginia offered students eight programs from which to choose, including ancient languages, anatomy, and medicine. Following the American Civil War, academics increasingly received their advanced training in continental Europe. Specialization at the undergraduate level and in graduate and professional studies developed quickly in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The term major was first used in the 1877–1878 catalog of Johns Hopkins University, as was the term minor, signifying a course of specialized study less lengthy than the major—the major required two years of study, while the minor required but one. From 1880 to 1910, institutions offering the American baccalaureate degree widely adopted the free elective system, whereby a student might choose from the courses offered by the institution to amass credits necessary for degree completion.
In research universities particularly, the German concepts of Lernfreiheit and Lehrfreiheit were freely interpreted by American academics as the professors’ freedom to teach and to conduct research as scholarly interest and inquiry dictated, and as the students’ freedom to select those courses, seminars, and topics that propelled the individual’s intellectual development and curiosity. Majors and minors became widely adopted in such institutions, providing prescription and socialization of students to the language, perspectives, and values of disciplinary inquiry.
The development of academic majors deeply structured not only the curriculum but also the organization of institutions. Nearly all colleges and universities have academic departments that reflect the primary academic disciplines and applied fields of study, such as English, education, mathematics, and sociology. The department is often thought to be synonymous with the discipline or field of study, yet a department may offer several academic majors representing various subfields of study. Proponents of the department and the major argue that they enable an academic community to foster the development, conservation, and diffusion of knowledge. In contrast, critics claim that they promote intellectual tribalism, where specialization receives favor over the mastery of multiple epistemologies, where broader values of liberal learning and of campus unity are lost, and where innovation is inhibited due to parochial opposition to new subspecialties and research methods.
Structure
Most colleges and universities offer majors, though they are more common in professional and technical colleges than in liberal arts colleges. While they are common features of baccalaureategranting institutions, majors are frequently only present in the preprofessional, technical, and vocational subjects of associate degree (twoyear) colleges. Credits required for the major represent 20 to 50 percent of the bachelor of arts degree and 20 to 40 percent of the associate of arts degree. Study in a professional field may require more credits and a greater proportion of the overall degree within the major than study in a liberal arts field. Also, professional majors may be subject to professional accreditation and state licensing.
Courses within disciplinary, applied, field, and professional studies majors possess an inherent coherence generated by the knowledge structures and paradigms of that single discipline or field. While such courses may be highly bounded by the way knowledge is organized within a given discipline, they possess a certain inherent coherence as a result. Interdisciplinary majors possess a coherence represented in the theme or focus to which they are addressed, although they are more permeable to the addition of subjects or topics than traditional disciplinary majors. Thus, the American studies major may incorporate relevant courses from history and literature, but may also include art or architecture. Coherence is found in the interdisciplinary focus on American society and culture.
Interdisciplinary Majors
One innovation that draws upon the disciplines is the interdisciplinary major. One of the earliest interdisciplinary majors was American studies. Arising in the 1930s, its organizers and proponents used the concept of culture to serve as one of its organizing principles. Other areas, such as Russian studies and Latin American studies, developed later, primarily due to government and foundation interests in foreign relations. Majors, like individual courses, come into existence in response to social, intellectual, or technical issues and interests. In the early 1970s, new interdisciplinary majors, such as women’s studies and black studies, derived their interest from the civil rights movement. These majors relied on cultural issues for content and ethnography for method. Interdisciplinary majors often rely on related disciplines for their teaching faculty, and the interdisciplinary majors often use what may constitute electives in traditional disciplinary fields. Thus, a course in women’s literature may serve as an elective in an English major and a required course in a women’s studies major.
Students, Academic Majors, and Disciplinary Knowledge
Disciplinary inquiry often supersedes institutional goals in defining the direction and purpose with which undergraduates study. A discipline is literally what the term implies. When one studies a discipline, one subjugates the ways one learns about phenomena to a set of rules, rituals, and routines established by the field of study. A student learns to study according to these rules, classifying phenomena according to commonly adopted terms, definitions, and concepts of the major field. Relationships among phenomena are revealed through the frames provided by the discipline, and the researcher or student arrives at conclusions based on criteria for truth or validity derived from the major field.
Disciplines can provide conceptual frameworks for understanding what knowledge is and how it is acquired. Disciplinary learning provides a logical structure to relationships between concepts, propositions, common paradigms, and organizing principles. Disciplines develop themes, canons, and grand narratives to join different streams of research in the field and to provide meaningful conceptualizations and frameworks for further analysis, and they impart a truth criteria used globally to define differences in the way knowledge is acquired and valued. They also set parameters on the methods employed in discovering and analyzing knowledge, and how they affect the development of students’ intellectual skills.
Not only are the paradigms of inquiry imparted by disciplines, but so too are values and norms regarding membership and scholarly conduct within the major field, as well as the preferred modes of learning (canonized texts, methods of investigation, and schools of interpretation). Disciplines provide much structure and coherence to learning. It is easy to underestimate their power and importance in the advancement of knowledge and understanding at the undergraduate level. It is not clear whether a student or a faculty member can be truly interdisciplinary without first mastering one or more disciplines. The ascendancy of the disciplines in the late nineteenth century and their continuing dominance throughout the twentieth century have left an indelible imprint on the shape and direction of the academic major. It also has subjugated the aims of general and liberal studies to the perspectives and political rivalries of individual departments and specialized fields. It was only in the late 1980s and 1990s that interdisciplinary studies, multiculturalism, feminist pedagogy, and a renewed concern for the coherence and direction of the undergraduate program began to assail the baccalaureate degree dominated by the academic major.
Evaluation of Programs and Majors
Academic majors are subject to review as part of the institutional accreditation process. Specialized accrediting bodies, such as the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology and the American Occupational Therapy Association, also evaluate many majors in applied and professional fields. Finally, institutions themselves often insist on periodic reviews of academic programs and their majors. Regional, specialized, and institutional program reviewers most frequently rely on the judgments and observations of peers in conducting these evaluations. Peer reviewers who visit a department or program as part of the accreditation process often praise those units that use their own statement of purpose and educational objectives to frame its description of the characteristics and competencies it intends its student to acquire in the given major. Such reviewers also expect the teaching faculty to establish measurable learning objectives for what they expect their student to learn—not only in specific courses, but in the major field as a whole.
Conclusions
At the outset of the twentyfirst century, students, teachers, employers, parents, and lawmakers often ascribe a liberal arts education largely to the academic major studied; i.e., they believe the major and the degree are largely one in the same. Majors, at least conversationally, have become more imitative of graduate study. Until the rise of the universities, the elective system, and the academic major, most—if not all—of undergraduate courses were taken by all of the students at an institution. The academic major, a twentiethcentury phenomenon, implies a uniformity of curriculum for any group of students; however, that uniformity has become the major more than the institution in which it resides. That the academic major is a powerful and predominant tool of the baccalaureate degree is both its strength and its limitation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Becher, Tony. 1989. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
2. Becher, Tony, and Kogan, Maurice. 1992. Process and Structure in Higher Education, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
3. Biglan, Anthony. 1973. ‘‘The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 57:195–203.
4. Biglan, Anthony. 1973. ‘‘Relationships between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and Output of University Departments.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 57:204–213.
5. Carnochan, W. B. 1993. The Battleground of the Curriculum: Liberal Education and American Experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6. Conrad, Clifton F. 1978. The Undergraduate Curriculum: A Guide to Innovation and Reform.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Donald, Janet G. 1986. ‘‘Knowledge and the University Curriculum.’’ Higher Education 15:267– 282.
7. Holland, John. 1963. ‘‘Explorations of a Theory of Vocational Choice and Achievement II: A Four Year Predictive Study.’’ Psychological Reports 12:547–594.
8. Hutchinson, Philo A. 1997. ‘‘Structures and Practices.’’ In Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Comprehensive Guide to Purposes, Structures, Practices, and Change, ed. Jerry G. Gaff and James L. Ratcliff. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
9. Kolb, David A. 1981. ‘‘Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences.’’ In The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society, ed. Arthur W. Chickering et al. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
10. Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New York: PrenticeHall.
11. Levine, Arthur M. 1978. Handbook on Undergraduate Curriculum. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
12. Pascarella, Ernest T., and Terenzini, Patrick T. 1991. How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
13. Rudolph, Frederick. 1977. Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course of Study Since 1636. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
14. Shulman, Lee S. 1987. ‘‘Knowledge and Teaching.’’ Harvard Educational Review 57:1–22.
Read more »
Across higher education there is a tremendous variety of academic majors—ranging from art history to political science to zoology. Collectively these represent several hundred fields and subfields of study. The major field of study is often thought of synonymously with academic disciplines (e.g., history, physics, music); however majors also represent professional fields (e.g., education, engineering) and interdisciplinary fields (e.g., AfricanAmerican studies, ecological studies). Employers interview students at specific institutions based on the perceived match between their needs and a corresponding major program. A significant portion of the gifts and grants given to colleges and universities come based on the rank, reputation, or perceived quality of one or more academic majors.
The major provides indepth study in one of the fields in which an institution awards a degree. General education imparts knowledge, skills, and abilities drawn from the various realms of liberal learning and is the breadth component to the undergraduate degree. The major, on the other hand, is the depth component, providing the student with (a) terms, concepts, ideas, and events pertinent to the field; (b) models, frameworks, genres, theories, and themes that link phenomena and give them meaning; (c) methods of research and modes of inquiry appropriate to the area of study; and (d) criteria for arriving at a conclusion or making generalizations about that which is studied.
An academic major may serve multiple purposes. The major may represent specialization in a disciplinary or interdisciplinary field attendant to liberal learning, and as such can be regarded as nonpreparatory specialization. It may also serve as the student’s first introduction to a field of study that is manifested in postgraduate study as well. In addition, the major serves as preparation for one or several professional fields. Thus, a student may choose to study biology for its own merits, in preparation for graduate work in the biological or life sciences, or as preparation for entry into medicine or healthrelated fields. In some instances students may create their own majors reflecting their own interests or the specific competencies they wish to develop. Aside from such instances, the faculty with expertise in the field of study prescribe the entrance qualifications for students, the number of courses or credits required to complete the major, the content of those courses, the number and sequence of courses, and the requirement of exams, papers, or theses associated with satisfactorily completing study in the subject area.
The Rise of the Disciplines and Majors
Major fields of study emerged in the nineteenth century as alternative components of the undergraduate degree. In 1825 the University of Virginia offered students eight programs from which to choose, including ancient languages, anatomy, and medicine. Following the American Civil War, academics increasingly received their advanced training in continental Europe. Specialization at the undergraduate level and in graduate and professional studies developed quickly in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The term major was first used in the 1877–1878 catalog of Johns Hopkins University, as was the term minor, signifying a course of specialized study less lengthy than the major—the major required two years of study, while the minor required but one. From 1880 to 1910, institutions offering the American baccalaureate degree widely adopted the free elective system, whereby a student might choose from the courses offered by the institution to amass credits necessary for degree completion.
In research universities particularly, the German concepts of Lernfreiheit and Lehrfreiheit were freely interpreted by American academics as the professors’ freedom to teach and to conduct research as scholarly interest and inquiry dictated, and as the students’ freedom to select those courses, seminars, and topics that propelled the individual’s intellectual development and curiosity. Majors and minors became widely adopted in such institutions, providing prescription and socialization of students to the language, perspectives, and values of disciplinary inquiry.
The development of academic majors deeply structured not only the curriculum but also the organization of institutions. Nearly all colleges and universities have academic departments that reflect the primary academic disciplines and applied fields of study, such as English, education, mathematics, and sociology. The department is often thought to be synonymous with the discipline or field of study, yet a department may offer several academic majors representing various subfields of study. Proponents of the department and the major argue that they enable an academic community to foster the development, conservation, and diffusion of knowledge. In contrast, critics claim that they promote intellectual tribalism, where specialization receives favor over the mastery of multiple epistemologies, where broader values of liberal learning and of campus unity are lost, and where innovation is inhibited due to parochial opposition to new subspecialties and research methods.
Structure
Most colleges and universities offer majors, though they are more common in professional and technical colleges than in liberal arts colleges. While they are common features of baccalaureategranting institutions, majors are frequently only present in the preprofessional, technical, and vocational subjects of associate degree (twoyear) colleges. Credits required for the major represent 20 to 50 percent of the bachelor of arts degree and 20 to 40 percent of the associate of arts degree. Study in a professional field may require more credits and a greater proportion of the overall degree within the major than study in a liberal arts field. Also, professional majors may be subject to professional accreditation and state licensing.
Courses within disciplinary, applied, field, and professional studies majors possess an inherent coherence generated by the knowledge structures and paradigms of that single discipline or field. While such courses may be highly bounded by the way knowledge is organized within a given discipline, they possess a certain inherent coherence as a result. Interdisciplinary majors possess a coherence represented in the theme or focus to which they are addressed, although they are more permeable to the addition of subjects or topics than traditional disciplinary majors. Thus, the American studies major may incorporate relevant courses from history and literature, but may also include art or architecture. Coherence is found in the interdisciplinary focus on American society and culture.
Interdisciplinary Majors
One innovation that draws upon the disciplines is the interdisciplinary major. One of the earliest interdisciplinary majors was American studies. Arising in the 1930s, its organizers and proponents used the concept of culture to serve as one of its organizing principles. Other areas, such as Russian studies and Latin American studies, developed later, primarily due to government and foundation interests in foreign relations. Majors, like individual courses, come into existence in response to social, intellectual, or technical issues and interests. In the early 1970s, new interdisciplinary majors, such as women’s studies and black studies, derived their interest from the civil rights movement. These majors relied on cultural issues for content and ethnography for method. Interdisciplinary majors often rely on related disciplines for their teaching faculty, and the interdisciplinary majors often use what may constitute electives in traditional disciplinary fields. Thus, a course in women’s literature may serve as an elective in an English major and a required course in a women’s studies major.
Students, Academic Majors, and Disciplinary Knowledge
Disciplinary inquiry often supersedes institutional goals in defining the direction and purpose with which undergraduates study. A discipline is literally what the term implies. When one studies a discipline, one subjugates the ways one learns about phenomena to a set of rules, rituals, and routines established by the field of study. A student learns to study according to these rules, classifying phenomena according to commonly adopted terms, definitions, and concepts of the major field. Relationships among phenomena are revealed through the frames provided by the discipline, and the researcher or student arrives at conclusions based on criteria for truth or validity derived from the major field.
Disciplines can provide conceptual frameworks for understanding what knowledge is and how it is acquired. Disciplinary learning provides a logical structure to relationships between concepts, propositions, common paradigms, and organizing principles. Disciplines develop themes, canons, and grand narratives to join different streams of research in the field and to provide meaningful conceptualizations and frameworks for further analysis, and they impart a truth criteria used globally to define differences in the way knowledge is acquired and valued. They also set parameters on the methods employed in discovering and analyzing knowledge, and how they affect the development of students’ intellectual skills.
Not only are the paradigms of inquiry imparted by disciplines, but so too are values and norms regarding membership and scholarly conduct within the major field, as well as the preferred modes of learning (canonized texts, methods of investigation, and schools of interpretation). Disciplines provide much structure and coherence to learning. It is easy to underestimate their power and importance in the advancement of knowledge and understanding at the undergraduate level. It is not clear whether a student or a faculty member can be truly interdisciplinary without first mastering one or more disciplines. The ascendancy of the disciplines in the late nineteenth century and their continuing dominance throughout the twentieth century have left an indelible imprint on the shape and direction of the academic major. It also has subjugated the aims of general and liberal studies to the perspectives and political rivalries of individual departments and specialized fields. It was only in the late 1980s and 1990s that interdisciplinary studies, multiculturalism, feminist pedagogy, and a renewed concern for the coherence and direction of the undergraduate program began to assail the baccalaureate degree dominated by the academic major.
Evaluation of Programs and Majors
Academic majors are subject to review as part of the institutional accreditation process. Specialized accrediting bodies, such as the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology and the American Occupational Therapy Association, also evaluate many majors in applied and professional fields. Finally, institutions themselves often insist on periodic reviews of academic programs and their majors. Regional, specialized, and institutional program reviewers most frequently rely on the judgments and observations of peers in conducting these evaluations. Peer reviewers who visit a department or program as part of the accreditation process often praise those units that use their own statement of purpose and educational objectives to frame its description of the characteristics and competencies it intends its student to acquire in the given major. Such reviewers also expect the teaching faculty to establish measurable learning objectives for what they expect their student to learn—not only in specific courses, but in the major field as a whole.
Conclusions
At the outset of the twentyfirst century, students, teachers, employers, parents, and lawmakers often ascribe a liberal arts education largely to the academic major studied; i.e., they believe the major and the degree are largely one in the same. Majors, at least conversationally, have become more imitative of graduate study. Until the rise of the universities, the elective system, and the academic major, most—if not all—of undergraduate courses were taken by all of the students at an institution. The academic major, a twentiethcentury phenomenon, implies a uniformity of curriculum for any group of students; however, that uniformity has become the major more than the institution in which it resides. That the academic major is a powerful and predominant tool of the baccalaureate degree is both its strength and its limitation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Becher, Tony. 1989. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
2. Becher, Tony, and Kogan, Maurice. 1992. Process and Structure in Higher Education, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
3. Biglan, Anthony. 1973. ‘‘The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 57:195–203.
4. Biglan, Anthony. 1973. ‘‘Relationships between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and Output of University Departments.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 57:204–213.
5. Carnochan, W. B. 1993. The Battleground of the Curriculum: Liberal Education and American Experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6. Conrad, Clifton F. 1978. The Undergraduate Curriculum: A Guide to Innovation and Reform.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Donald, Janet G. 1986. ‘‘Knowledge and the University Curriculum.’’ Higher Education 15:267– 282.
7. Holland, John. 1963. ‘‘Explorations of a Theory of Vocational Choice and Achievement II: A Four Year Predictive Study.’’ Psychological Reports 12:547–594.
8. Hutchinson, Philo A. 1997. ‘‘Structures and Practices.’’ In Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Comprehensive Guide to Purposes, Structures, Practices, and Change, ed. Jerry G. Gaff and James L. Ratcliff. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
9. Kolb, David A. 1981. ‘‘Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences.’’ In The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society, ed. Arthur W. Chickering et al. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
10. Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New York: PrenticeHall.
11. Levine, Arthur M. 1978. Handbook on Undergraduate Curriculum. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
12. Pascarella, Ernest T., and Terenzini, Patrick T. 1991. How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
13. Rudolph, Frederick. 1977. Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course of Study Since 1636. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
14. Shulman, Lee S. 1987. ‘‘Knowledge and Teaching.’’ Harvard Educational Review 57:1–22.
ACADEMIC LABOR MARKETS
The process by which colleges and universities acquire qualified applicants and hire faculty members, and by which academics seek and gain academic employment, is known as the academic labor market. Few general elements characterize the academic labor market. Depending on their mission, colleges and universities seek faculty with diverse backgrounds to perform different institutional roles. Likewise academics seek different positions depending upon their aspirations and education. The academic labor market fluctuates by demographics, the demands created by student preferences, and alterations in society’s employment opportunities. Finally, the academic labor market is also influenced by social norms.
In the midnineteenth century American colleges tended to look very much the same. Led by an academic president, colleges employed a handful of faculty members who taught several subjects. In the twentyfirst century postsecondary institutions range from community colleges that offer twoyear associate degrees in the liberal arts and technical and preprofessional fields to research universities (often called multiversities) that provide baccalaureate through doctoral education, as well as televised football games. The distinction among these diverse institutions resides in their missions. Many colleges and smaller universities are dedicated primarily to teaching, whereas others attach great significance to their research output. Thus, the institutional mission defines the role of the faculty at a particular institution.
Teaching institutions search for and hire faculty members who are oriented primarily to the student and the classroom. In community colleges, instructors teach approximately fifteen hours, or five courses, per semester. At liberal arts (only baccalaureate degrees) and comprehensive (both baccalaureate and master’s degrees) colleges, faculty members teach three or four courses per term. At the other end of the spectrum research universities seek academics who spend as much, if not more, of their time producing scholarship as they do in instructional activities. Since research university faculty members are expected to conduct and publish research results regularly, their teaching load generally consists of two courses each term.
Community colleges, therefore, tend to hire faculty members who are more interested in teaching than in research. Approximately twothirds of the faculty in these twoyear colleges have earned master’s degrees, while only 15 percent possess the doctorate. In almost all other types of collegiate institutions, the doctorate, which educates recipients to a life of research, is a requirement for entry. Most fouryear and master’s degree institutions seek faculty members for their interest in teaching. As a result of their doctoral education, these faculty also often engage in research and publication. However, except for prestigious liberal arts colleges, most do not exist in a ‘‘publish or perish’’ environment.
The competition for faculty appointments at research universities extends beyond the possession of the doctorate. Those aspiring to a faculty position are rarely selected for an interview if they have not published several articles and given several presentations at professional meetings. In days gone by the prestige of a particular dissertation mentor brought a young scholar to the attention of a research university department seeking a new hire. Today, however, while a renowned mentor may still be helpful, an applicant’s publishing career is just as important.
Supply and Demand
The institutional demands and professional preferences of faculty applicants are compounded by issues of supply and demand. The faculty supply depends in part on the output of graduate programs across the nation. When faculty positions are plentiful, students flock to graduate school—as they did in the late 1960s, when college enrollments soared. However, faculty members are not interchangeable across their specialties. If enrollment demands shift away from or towards certain academic programs, as they did in the mid1970s, colleges and universities must respond by adjusting the distribution of faculty positions. By 1975 the supply of liberal arts faculty overwhelmed demand; thus many new Ph.D.s had to seek nonacademic employment and institutions hired instructors with more prestigious credentials than previously.
The supply of potential faculty members also depends on the professional interests and aspirations of graduate students. In 2000 there were 41,368 doctoral degrees awarded across the various fields, but these were not evenly distributed. Twentyone percent of the doctorates were awarded in the life sciences, including biology and zoology, while only 2.5 percent were awarded in business. The number of graduates is only half the equation, however. The graduates’ aspirations and the availability of nonacademic professional employment further reduce the supply. In engineering, for example, 5,330 doctorates were awarded in 2000, but 70 percent of these graduates intended to enter industry research positions rather than education. Nonacademic employment opportunities are uneven across fields, and thus create either expanded or limited career choices for doctoral graduates. Of all doctoral graduates in 2000, only 38 percent intended to seek a teaching position. The rest planned to enter research and development (31 percent), administration (12 percent), or professional services, such as counseling (12.5 percent). By field, graduates in the humanities aspired to teaching positions most often (74 percent), while only 11 percent of doctoral engineers planned to teach.
Gender and Ethnicity
The supply of faculty also involves gender and ethnicity differentials. Fields differ in attracting men and women, as well as members of various ethnic groups. In the early twentyfirst century men continued to dominate some fields, such as engineering, physical science, and, to a lesser degree, business. In the year 2000 women earned 65 percent of the doctorates in education. Some other fields, such as humanities, social sciences, and life sciences, awarded doctorates in even proportions. All fields attract predominately white aspirants, but some fields appear to be slightly more attractive (or receptive) to members of certain ethnic groups. African Americans are slightly more likely to enter education (12.4 %) than other fields, while Asian Americans lean more toward engineering (17.5%).
On the demand side, social norms have affected the hiring of women and ethnic minorities in colleges and universities. The proportion of women within American faculties increased throughout the 1990s. By 1997, women composed 36 percent of all fulltime instructional faculty; however, women are more likely to be employed as fulltime faculty members within twoyear (47%), rather than fouryear (33%), colleges. The gender distribution among all parttime faculty gives a slight advantage to men (53%).
Institutions of higher education attempted to recruit faculty of color to campuses throughout the 1980s and the 1990s through affirmative action programs. However, the ethnic distribution still does not reflect national demographics. In 1998, 85 percent of the faculty were white, 6 percent were Asian, 5 percent were African American, and 3 percent were Hispanic. Colleges and universities with enrollments consisting predominantly of one ethnic group (e.g., African American, Hispanic, Native American) tend to employ higher percentages of that ethnic group than other institutions. Approximately 16 percent of AfricanAmerican faculty members teach in historically black institutions. This pattern reduces the distribution of faculty of color within the general labor market. Finally, highdemand labor markets support the hiring of minorities, whereas a highsupply market merely creates more competition across ethnic lines and seems to favor white candidates.
Salary Issues
Salaries offered to faculty recruits largely depend on the type of institution, the rank at which a faculty member is hired, the field, and, to some degree, gender and ethnicity. Faculty members in public institutions receive 22 percent less compensation than their privateinstitution colleagues. On the whole, faculty members earn an average of $8,600 more at fouryear institutions than at twoyear institutions, and twoyear college faculty average 55 percent less than doctoral university faculty. Those who work in research earn higher salaries than faculty in teaching institutions. The salary differentials between institutional types largely spring from the imperative to recruit and retain faculty members who are at the forefront of knowledge in their fields.
Although 69 percent of American faculty teach in fouryear colleges, 82 percent of AsianAmerican faculty members are employed at these institutions. Twothirds of the AsianAmerican faculty are men. Not surprisingly then, AsianAmerican faculty average higher salaries than any other ethnic group. Fulltime Hispanic faculty members earn slightly belowaverage salaries, in part because 43 percent of all Hispanic faculty teach in twoyear colleges and 48 percent are parttime faculty.
Men still take home more money than women do, regardless of rank. The gender differentiation in salary is sometimes explained by the short length of time women have served as faculty, or by their lower publication rates, resulting in employment at lower ranks. Indeed, only 16 percent of all fulltime women faculty are full professors, while 32 percent of all fulltime men have attained this rank. However, men comprise 80 percent of all full professors. In 1998 the average female professor earned $8,500 less than her male counterpart. This pay inequity crosses ethnic lines as well. Seventyone percent of all professors are white men. Within the other ethnic groups, men also dominate the highest rank: 63 percent of all black professors, 85 percent of all Asian professors, and 73 percent of all Hispanic professors are men. Thus, women across all ethnic groups have yet to emerge proportionately into the highest ranks, and thus receive higher salaries.
Salary is also associated with field differentiation. Humanities and education, which attract significant numbers of women, are among the lowerpaying fields, whereas engineering, law, and business, fields still dominated by men, produce higher salaries. In the 1999–2000 academic year, the salary difference between highpaying fields and lowpaying fields, on average, was $24,000 for professors and $16,000 for assistant professors.
At the beginning of the twentyfirst century few institutions are experiencing the rapid growth in enrollment, and thus the massive faculty hiring, of the late 1960s. Tight institutional finances and the need for flexibility have also changed the demand for faculty. As states cut back their support of public institutions, and as private institutions attempt to hold down escalating tuition costs, the sizable group of retiring faculty has enabled institutions to establish new hiring patterns. Rather than automatically replacing retirees with tenuretrack assistant professors, many institutions have instituted nontenuretrack positions or hired parttime faculty to fill the classrooms. In 1997 only 73 percent of the faculty in public fouryear colleges were fulltime employees, while 59 percent of those at private fouryear colleges were fulltime. Students are more likely to be taught by parttime faculty at community colleges, where 66 percent of the faculty have parttime status. Private colleges and universities appear to have more opportunity to experiment with nontenuretrack and parttime positions than public institutions. Only 58 percent of their faculty are tenured, as opposed to 66 percent in public colleges and universities.
In ways similar to other labor markets, academe is composed of various types of organizations with differing needs. Its academic staff and its hiring patterns are changing as society changes its demands for education and its norms for equality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Baldwin, Roger, and Chronister, Jay. 2001. Teaching without Tenure: Policies and Practices for a New Era. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
2. Fairweather, James S. 1996. Faculty Work and Public Trust: Restoring the Value of Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Finkelstein, Martin J., and Schuster, Jack H. 2001. ‘‘Assessing the Silent Revolution.’’ AAHE Bulletin 54(2):3–7.
3. Finkelstein, Martin J.; Seal, Robert K.; and Schuster, Jack H. 1998. The New Academic Generation: A Profession in Transformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4. Finnegan, Dorothy E.; Webster, David; and Gamson, Zelda F., eds. 1996. Faculty and Faculty Issues in Colleges and Universities. ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster Custom Publishing.
5. GlazerRaymo, Judith. 1999. Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6. Manrique, Cecilia G., and Manrique, Gabriel G. 1999. The Multicultural or Immigrant Family in American Society. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.
In the midnineteenth century American colleges tended to look very much the same. Led by an academic president, colleges employed a handful of faculty members who taught several subjects. In the twentyfirst century postsecondary institutions range from community colleges that offer twoyear associate degrees in the liberal arts and technical and preprofessional fields to research universities (often called multiversities) that provide baccalaureate through doctoral education, as well as televised football games. The distinction among these diverse institutions resides in their missions. Many colleges and smaller universities are dedicated primarily to teaching, whereas others attach great significance to their research output. Thus, the institutional mission defines the role of the faculty at a particular institution.
Teaching institutions search for and hire faculty members who are oriented primarily to the student and the classroom. In community colleges, instructors teach approximately fifteen hours, or five courses, per semester. At liberal arts (only baccalaureate degrees) and comprehensive (both baccalaureate and master’s degrees) colleges, faculty members teach three or four courses per term. At the other end of the spectrum research universities seek academics who spend as much, if not more, of their time producing scholarship as they do in instructional activities. Since research university faculty members are expected to conduct and publish research results regularly, their teaching load generally consists of two courses each term.
Community colleges, therefore, tend to hire faculty members who are more interested in teaching than in research. Approximately twothirds of the faculty in these twoyear colleges have earned master’s degrees, while only 15 percent possess the doctorate. In almost all other types of collegiate institutions, the doctorate, which educates recipients to a life of research, is a requirement for entry. Most fouryear and master’s degree institutions seek faculty members for their interest in teaching. As a result of their doctoral education, these faculty also often engage in research and publication. However, except for prestigious liberal arts colleges, most do not exist in a ‘‘publish or perish’’ environment.
The competition for faculty appointments at research universities extends beyond the possession of the doctorate. Those aspiring to a faculty position are rarely selected for an interview if they have not published several articles and given several presentations at professional meetings. In days gone by the prestige of a particular dissertation mentor brought a young scholar to the attention of a research university department seeking a new hire. Today, however, while a renowned mentor may still be helpful, an applicant’s publishing career is just as important.
Supply and Demand
The institutional demands and professional preferences of faculty applicants are compounded by issues of supply and demand. The faculty supply depends in part on the output of graduate programs across the nation. When faculty positions are plentiful, students flock to graduate school—as they did in the late 1960s, when college enrollments soared. However, faculty members are not interchangeable across their specialties. If enrollment demands shift away from or towards certain academic programs, as they did in the mid1970s, colleges and universities must respond by adjusting the distribution of faculty positions. By 1975 the supply of liberal arts faculty overwhelmed demand; thus many new Ph.D.s had to seek nonacademic employment and institutions hired instructors with more prestigious credentials than previously.
The supply of potential faculty members also depends on the professional interests and aspirations of graduate students. In 2000 there were 41,368 doctoral degrees awarded across the various fields, but these were not evenly distributed. Twentyone percent of the doctorates were awarded in the life sciences, including biology and zoology, while only 2.5 percent were awarded in business. The number of graduates is only half the equation, however. The graduates’ aspirations and the availability of nonacademic professional employment further reduce the supply. In engineering, for example, 5,330 doctorates were awarded in 2000, but 70 percent of these graduates intended to enter industry research positions rather than education. Nonacademic employment opportunities are uneven across fields, and thus create either expanded or limited career choices for doctoral graduates. Of all doctoral graduates in 2000, only 38 percent intended to seek a teaching position. The rest planned to enter research and development (31 percent), administration (12 percent), or professional services, such as counseling (12.5 percent). By field, graduates in the humanities aspired to teaching positions most often (74 percent), while only 11 percent of doctoral engineers planned to teach.
Gender and Ethnicity
The supply of faculty also involves gender and ethnicity differentials. Fields differ in attracting men and women, as well as members of various ethnic groups. In the early twentyfirst century men continued to dominate some fields, such as engineering, physical science, and, to a lesser degree, business. In the year 2000 women earned 65 percent of the doctorates in education. Some other fields, such as humanities, social sciences, and life sciences, awarded doctorates in even proportions. All fields attract predominately white aspirants, but some fields appear to be slightly more attractive (or receptive) to members of certain ethnic groups. African Americans are slightly more likely to enter education (12.4 %) than other fields, while Asian Americans lean more toward engineering (17.5%).
On the demand side, social norms have affected the hiring of women and ethnic minorities in colleges and universities. The proportion of women within American faculties increased throughout the 1990s. By 1997, women composed 36 percent of all fulltime instructional faculty; however, women are more likely to be employed as fulltime faculty members within twoyear (47%), rather than fouryear (33%), colleges. The gender distribution among all parttime faculty gives a slight advantage to men (53%).
Institutions of higher education attempted to recruit faculty of color to campuses throughout the 1980s and the 1990s through affirmative action programs. However, the ethnic distribution still does not reflect national demographics. In 1998, 85 percent of the faculty were white, 6 percent were Asian, 5 percent were African American, and 3 percent were Hispanic. Colleges and universities with enrollments consisting predominantly of one ethnic group (e.g., African American, Hispanic, Native American) tend to employ higher percentages of that ethnic group than other institutions. Approximately 16 percent of AfricanAmerican faculty members teach in historically black institutions. This pattern reduces the distribution of faculty of color within the general labor market. Finally, highdemand labor markets support the hiring of minorities, whereas a highsupply market merely creates more competition across ethnic lines and seems to favor white candidates.
Salary Issues
Salaries offered to faculty recruits largely depend on the type of institution, the rank at which a faculty member is hired, the field, and, to some degree, gender and ethnicity. Faculty members in public institutions receive 22 percent less compensation than their privateinstitution colleagues. On the whole, faculty members earn an average of $8,600 more at fouryear institutions than at twoyear institutions, and twoyear college faculty average 55 percent less than doctoral university faculty. Those who work in research earn higher salaries than faculty in teaching institutions. The salary differentials between institutional types largely spring from the imperative to recruit and retain faculty members who are at the forefront of knowledge in their fields.
Although 69 percent of American faculty teach in fouryear colleges, 82 percent of AsianAmerican faculty members are employed at these institutions. Twothirds of the AsianAmerican faculty are men. Not surprisingly then, AsianAmerican faculty average higher salaries than any other ethnic group. Fulltime Hispanic faculty members earn slightly belowaverage salaries, in part because 43 percent of all Hispanic faculty teach in twoyear colleges and 48 percent are parttime faculty.
Men still take home more money than women do, regardless of rank. The gender differentiation in salary is sometimes explained by the short length of time women have served as faculty, or by their lower publication rates, resulting in employment at lower ranks. Indeed, only 16 percent of all fulltime women faculty are full professors, while 32 percent of all fulltime men have attained this rank. However, men comprise 80 percent of all full professors. In 1998 the average female professor earned $8,500 less than her male counterpart. This pay inequity crosses ethnic lines as well. Seventyone percent of all professors are white men. Within the other ethnic groups, men also dominate the highest rank: 63 percent of all black professors, 85 percent of all Asian professors, and 73 percent of all Hispanic professors are men. Thus, women across all ethnic groups have yet to emerge proportionately into the highest ranks, and thus receive higher salaries.
Salary is also associated with field differentiation. Humanities and education, which attract significant numbers of women, are among the lowerpaying fields, whereas engineering, law, and business, fields still dominated by men, produce higher salaries. In the 1999–2000 academic year, the salary difference between highpaying fields and lowpaying fields, on average, was $24,000 for professors and $16,000 for assistant professors.
At the beginning of the twentyfirst century few institutions are experiencing the rapid growth in enrollment, and thus the massive faculty hiring, of the late 1960s. Tight institutional finances and the need for flexibility have also changed the demand for faculty. As states cut back their support of public institutions, and as private institutions attempt to hold down escalating tuition costs, the sizable group of retiring faculty has enabled institutions to establish new hiring patterns. Rather than automatically replacing retirees with tenuretrack assistant professors, many institutions have instituted nontenuretrack positions or hired parttime faculty to fill the classrooms. In 1997 only 73 percent of the faculty in public fouryear colleges were fulltime employees, while 59 percent of those at private fouryear colleges were fulltime. Students are more likely to be taught by parttime faculty at community colleges, where 66 percent of the faculty have parttime status. Private colleges and universities appear to have more opportunity to experiment with nontenuretrack and parttime positions than public institutions. Only 58 percent of their faculty are tenured, as opposed to 66 percent in public colleges and universities.
In ways similar to other labor markets, academe is composed of various types of organizations with differing needs. Its academic staff and its hiring patterns are changing as society changes its demands for education and its norms for equality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Baldwin, Roger, and Chronister, Jay. 2001. Teaching without Tenure: Policies and Practices for a New Era. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
2. Fairweather, James S. 1996. Faculty Work and Public Trust: Restoring the Value of Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Finkelstein, Martin J., and Schuster, Jack H. 2001. ‘‘Assessing the Silent Revolution.’’ AAHE Bulletin 54(2):3–7.
3. Finkelstein, Martin J.; Seal, Robert K.; and Schuster, Jack H. 1998. The New Academic Generation: A Profession in Transformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4. Finnegan, Dorothy E.; Webster, David; and Gamson, Zelda F., eds. 1996. Faculty and Faculty Issues in Colleges and Universities. ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster Custom Publishing.
5. GlazerRaymo, Judith. 1999. Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6. Manrique, Cecilia G., and Manrique, Gabriel G. 1999. The Multicultural or Immigrant Family in American Society. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
