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.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

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 »

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.

Read more »

THE ACADEMIC DEAN

Academic deans are typically the highest ranking academic officials in an institution, next only to the president or chancellor and the provost or chief academic officer. Academic deans preside over colleges, schools, or divisions comprised of a cluster of disciplines or disciplinary specialties, such as arts and sciences, engineering, fine arts, business, natural sciences, education, and health sciences. Most academic deans are situated in the institutional hierarchy as reporting to vice presidents or provosts; however, some hold the dual title of dean and vice president, a situation that is often an artifact of institution size and type. Smaller liberal arts institutions and community colleges, where numbers of faculty are fewer, may have a dean of faculty or academic dean who has jurisdiction over faculty in all disciplines. Deans’ roles frequently vary according to academic field, institution type, and institutional context. In institutions marked by higher levels of disciplinary specialization, such as research and doctoral institutions, the number of academic deans is larger so as to accommodate the unique leadership demands of the diverse disciplinary programs housed in the institution.

Drawn from the senior faculty ranks, academic deans are seen by many as serving a dual role, that of scholar and administrator, particularly in institutions that place high value on research and publication in assessing faculty performance. Terms of appointment are typically in the range of five to seven years, and while appointments may be extended, very few serve more than ten years in a deanship position. This is no doubt due to the demands inherent in the role and the associated stress characteristic of the management environment. Deans answer to a variety of constituents, including faculty, the central campus administration, students, and alumni, and in order to be effective must be capable of understanding and serving their often disparate interests and conflicting goals.

Deans serve both academic and administrative purposes in that they are responsible for hiring department chairs and providing management oversight to bureaucratic processes within the unit. Depending on unit size, deans often have some number of associate and assistant deans to whom they delegate responsibilities associated with administrative functions related to finances, facilities, personnel, and management of academic or curricular programs. The position’s uniqueness lies in its routine contact with a broad range of institutional constituents—the president or chancellor, the chief academic affairs officer, the faculty, students, external stakeholders such as donors and corporate supporters, and in some cases the boards that provide institutional or unit oversight. The unique position occupied by academic deans places them at the forefront of institutional change.

Decisionmaking responsibilities of academic deans typically encompass the following areas: (a) educational program/curriculum; (b) faculty selection, promotion, and development; (c) student affairs; (d) finance; (e) physical facilities development; and (f) public and alumni relations. Given the comprehensiveness of responsibility, it is not uncommon for the role of academic deans in larger, more complex institutions to resemble that of a chief executive officer of a moderately sized business enterprise. Resources under their control are often into the tens, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in large research institutions. With diminishing state support of higher education and increased operational costs, the need to identify new sources of revenue has increased considerably, and the work of garnering such support has become a primary function of academic deans in most institutional settings. Responsibilities associated with fundraising, the increasingly complex financial environment presented by issues of student access and equity, and increasing numbers of parttime faculty has made the role of the academic dean far more complex than it has been in the past.

Typical Characteristics of Academic Deans
The press of responsibility and the critical role assumed by academic deans is reflected in the increasing skills required for the position. Typically, academic deans are not only required to be scholars of highest repute but also to possess some measure of managerial and leadership talent. Communication with faculty is a central activity to the deanship and one that often provokes disagreement, if not conflict. Faculty interactions often involve sensitive issues, such as tenure decisions and salary concerns, demanding an acute sensitivity to faculty needs and skills in problemsolving and conflict management. The most effective deans are skilled in building consensus, influencing outcomes in support of academic programs in a context of disparate goals, and in negotiating for resources in an increasingly scarce resource environment. On a universitywide level, many of the rivalries among academic units are resolved in the relationship between the dean and the central administration. Thus, persuasiveness and ability to navigate the political environment are essential. Effective deans also possess skills in collaboration and integration that facilitate development and implementation of new academic programs and cultivation of new opportunities for research and student learning.

Possibly one of the biggest challenges of academic deans is enacting leadership in a context where those being led neither believe they need to be led, nor are predisposed to succumb to administrative policy and procedural dictates. Such is the case with the typical faculty collective. To complicate matters further, faculty believe the kind of work in which they are engaged—teaching and research— does not require extensive bureaucratic structures, thus the administrative apparatus that demands their conformity is viewed as a nuisance and a diversion of resources. Consequently, deans must operate in an environment within which their authority is subject to ongoing challenge, making fortitude, perseverance, and humility important attributes for survival.

Career Path to the Academic Deanship
One typically ascends to the fulltime administrative post of the deanship through the academic ranks, having achieved success as a scholar and teacher. This particular path often includes time spent in a previous administrative role such as department chair and an assistant or associate deanship. An alternative route, and one which is less characteristic of deans in research and doctoral institutions where scholarly performance is typically the primary prerequisite for candidacy, is that of the trained administrator. These individuals specialize in the practice and study of institutional management and have made a career in institutional administration. Another route that is becoming more common, particularly in professional schools such as business and engineering, is via the corporate world. The experience of the seasoned business executive is viewed as bringing added value in the development of important linkages with business and industry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Dibden, Arthur J. 1968. The Academic Deanship in American Colleges and Universities. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
2. Griffiths, Daniel E., and McCarty, Donald J. 1980. The Dilemma of the Deanship. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers and Publishers.
3. Morris, Van Cleve. 1981. Deaning: Middle Management in Academe. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Tucker, Alan, and Bryan, Robert A. 1991. The Academic Dean. New York: ACE and Macmillan.
4. Wolverton, Mimi, Wolverton, Marvin L., and Gmelch, Walter H. 1999. ‘‘The Impact of Role Conflict and Ambiguity on Academic Deans.’’ Journal of Higher Education 70(1):80–106.

Read more »

ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE

Professors have a variety of responsibilities, which generally fall within one of three main areas: research, teaching, and service. In research and teaching, and sometimes in service, inquiry is the key aspect of what professors do. In research, professors examine traditional and new ideas and draw conclusions; in teaching, professors share information and knowledge with students, raising questions and at times offering answers about issues. And, in service, professors bring their expertise to a problem, using inquiry to aid in the solution. These fundamental activities give rise to complex concepts: academic freedom and tenure.

Roots of Academic Freedom
Academic freedom in the United States derives its conceptual basis from nineteenthcentury German conceptions of freedom for professors in research and teaching. These conceptions, called Lerhfreiheit, offered legal protections for professors, who were employed as civil servants in German universities.

U.S. professors who had studied in Germany in the 1800s (the most popular location for graduate study at the time) returned home focused on research as a search for truth. As American professors increasingly challenged a variety of economic, political, and social tenets, a need for academic safeguards soon arose. By the early 1900s, a few nationally recognized professors had been dismissed by their universities because of their findings on such issues as the abuse of immigrant labor, unions, and administrative control of universities.
Initially, disciplinary societies investigated these dismissals, although they had virtually no power to sanction institutions, other than through public discussion of institutional errors of judgment. A national professorial organization, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), was founded in 1915 in an effort to provide opportunities for professors to influence, if not control, colleges and universities. Association leaders found, however, that the most pressing challenge was the protection of academic freedom, and the AAUP became the primary national group dedicated to the preservation of academic freedom. Although German professors were protected as civil servants, United States professors have had to rely on the activity of organizations such as AAUP. In 1915, 1925, and 1940, the AAUP developed national policy statements on academic freedom, and the 1940 Statement on Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure has been endorsed by a wide range of educational organizations, whose membership ranges from mostly professors to mostly administrators.

The statement provides a definition of academic freedom, including that:
1. The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
2. The teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his subject, but he should be careful not to introduce into his teaching controversial matter that has no relation to his subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.

The AAUP proposed that institutions assure such freedom through the device of academic tenure, and the 1940 statement outlined specific procedures in regard to the award and removal of tenure, indicating that ‘‘teachers or investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and their service should be terminated only for adequate cause, except in the retirement for age, or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies’’ , and that moral turpitude may be cause for dismissal. The statement also indicates that professors should exercise restraint in their public utterances, in view of their special position as experts. Tenure is a device that protects, to some degree, professors’ academic freedom.

Thus, academic freedom is the freedom to inquire and to communicate the results of that inquiry both in publication and in the classroom. The AAUP definition has important exceptions to such freedom, including for institutions with religious aims since these institutions often require statements of faith that preclude unfettered inquiry, with truth defined by a church or denomination. However, a 1970 interpretation addressed this exception, indicating that churchrelated institutions, which were becoming increasingly secular, needed to address the principle of academic freedom.

Restrictions on Academic Freedom
Other organizations have also developed statements on academic freedom, including the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the National Education Association (NEA), and in the 1950s, the Association of American Universities. The AFT and NEA issued a joint statement in the 1990s, one that reflects much of the sentiment of the 1940 AAUP statement. The statement of the Association of American Universities on academic freedom in 1953, however, placed substantial restrictions on professors, claiming, for example, that membership in the Communist Party warranted dismissal. Such a claim was in the context of McCarthyism, when much of the nation was gripped with fear about Communist infiltration of political and intellectual sectors of society, yet the claim also put academic freedom in conflict with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The AAUP itself, in a 1956 statement on academic freedom, indicated that it was legitimate to question the competence of professors who were Communists. As several scholars have noted, restrictions on public utterances are, in fact, restrictions on freedom of speech as constructed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, statements on academic freedom are not necessarily absolute statements of principle.
Nor does academic freedom exist outside the social characteristics of the academy. An empirical analysis of AAUP academic freedom cases involving dismissed professors in the 1980s indicated that there was a gendered bias in academic freedom and tenure issues, for institutions often removed women professors before considering the removal of other faculty members. This finding suggests that women occupy an especially vulnerable place in the academy, regardless of the protections offered by academic freedom and tenure. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the AAUP leadership and membership debated the relationships of academic freedom to such issues as race, ethnicity, and gender, and the association has addressed these relationships through a variety of policy statements.

In addition, academic freedom entails areas of behavior with important nuances. Examinations of professors in times of specific societal concerns about patterns of thought—such as McCarthyism or the segregation in the deep South—indicate that professors may restrict their work without acknowledging any restriction on their academic freedom. Any such apprehensions about academic freedom (which scholars have documented as a key issue of academic freedom) reflect external pressures and, perhaps just as important, individual professors’ hesitancy to challenge the status quo.

Finally, in view of the challenges to society and institutions that occur as a result of inquiry in the academy, there are disparate views regarding academic freedom, and there is even a tendency to individual interpretation. While the AAUP statements on academic freedom have been central points of reference, other organizations have added to the meanings of academic freedom, and individual colleges and universities may also develop their own definitions of the concept. In general, it represents the freedom of the professor to do research and to teach on matters of expertise, but specific characteristics often vary depending on the era, the topic of concern, the individual professor, and the institutions involved. Academic freedom is also dependent on a college or university’s willingness to protect the professor, especially by guaranteeing his or her appointment. Tenure is the primary device for such guarantees.

Tenure
Tenure, in general, provides a lifetime contract between a professor and an institution, and as such serves as the primary safeguard for academic freedom. The AAUP initiated negotiations with the Association of American Colleges in the 1930s in order to develop its 1940 statement, and a central goal of the AAUP leadership was to ensure procedures, through the use of tenure, that would protect academic freedom. Careful processes for the dismissal of a tenured professor are offered in detail in the 1940 statement, with several subsequent interpretations to further the right of professors to due process. Institutions do dismiss professors with tenure, although far less often than they dismiss professors without tenure, since the dismissal of a tenured professor can be a protracted experience and may include lawsuits as well as lengthy institutional procedures.

Tenure often requires a probationary period of seven years, during which the professor is expected to develop the patterns of productivity, especially in scholarship and teaching, that will characterize his or her work for the remainder of the career. In the last year or so of the probationary period, the tenure candidate proceeds through a review process, which usually includes fellow professors as well as administrators and culminates in a decision to award or deny tenure. Professors who do not receive tenure may leave higher education, or move to another college or university—sometimes in a tenuretrack position, and other times in a position that will never offer tenure.

There are a variety of arguments about the worth of tenure, including many opposing views. It is unclear whether institutions spend more or less money when they have tenured faculty members, as the condition of tenure is a device for recruiting potential professors at less than pure market competitive conditions, but then requires an institution to maintain its contract—and increases in salary and benefits—with the tenured professor. Some institutions have used contracts (often in three or fiveyear sequences), rather than tenure, as a way of establishing flexibility. These institutions have often found, however, that it is extremely rare for them to dismiss any of the contracted professors. Additionally, tenure does not protect the academic freedom of untenured professors, an issue that became extremely important in the 1990s, when the number of parttime and nontenuretrack professors surged.

Nevertheless, tenure remains a dominant characteristic of the U.S. professoriate. For several decades, from twothirds to half of all fulltime professors have held tenure, and the national faculty associations continue to place considerable emphasis on tenure. Despite arguments against tenure, colleges and universities have not found any compelling substitutes that offer professors some security when they pursue controversial topics in their research and teaching.
Academic freedom is a cornerstone of the role of higher education, offering professors the opportunity to investigate issues, including highly controversial ones, in the ongoing search for truth. Tenure offers protection for professors who voice unpopular ideas. Neither academic freedom nor tenure, however, operates in a pure sense, as both are subject to social and institutional pressures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. American Association of University Professors. 1984. ‘‘1940 Statement of Principles and Interpretive Comments.’’ Policy Document Reports, 1940 edition. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
2. Gruber, Carol. 1975. Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of Higher Learning. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
3. Hofstadter, Richard, and Metzger, Walter P. 1955. The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Hutcheson, Philo A. 2000. A Professional Professoriate: Unionization, Bureaucratization, and the AAUP. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
5. Slaughter, Sheila. 1994. ‘‘Academic Freedom at the End of the Century: Professional Labor, Gender, and Professionalism.’’ In Higher Education in American Society, 3rd edition, ed. Philip G. Altbach, Robert O. Berdahl, and Patricia J. Gumport. Buffalo, NY: Promotheus Books.

Read more »

ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES

Discipline is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘‘a branch of learning or scholarly instruction.’’ Fields of study as defined by academic discipline provide the framework for a student’s program of college or postbaccalaureate study, and as such, define the academic world inhabited by scholars. Training in a discipline results in a system of orderly behavior recognized as characteristic of the discipline. Such behaviors are manifested in scholars’ approaches to understanding and investigating new knowledge, ways of working, and perspectives on the world around them. Janice Beyer and Thomas Lodahl have described disciplinary fields as providing the structure of knowledge in which faculty members are trained and socialized; carry out tasks of teaching, research, and administration; and produce research and educational output. Disciplinary worlds are considered separate and distinct cultures that exert varying influence on scholarly behaviors as well as on the structure of higher education.

The number of disciplines has expanded significantly from those recognized in early British and German models. Debates are ongoing about the elements that must be present to constitute a legitimate disciplinary field. Among such elements are the presence of a community of scholars; a tradition or history of inquiry; a mode of inquiry that defines how data is collected and interpreted, as well as defining the requirements for what constitutes new knowledge; and the existence of a communications network.

Disciplines and the Structure of Higher Education
Influence in the academic profession is derived from disciplinary foundations. A hierarchical structure of authority is not possible in colleges and universities given the autonomy and expert status of faculty with respect to disciplinary activities. Consequently, the structure of higher education is an associational one based on influence and persuasion. Interaction between the professor and the institution is in many ways shaped by the professor’s disciplinary affiliation. This condition is not only a historical artifact of the German model of higher education that was built on the ‘‘scientific ethos’’ from which status in the profession has been derived, but it also results from faculty members having their primary allegiance to a discipline, not to an institution. Disciplinary communities establish incentives and forms of cooperation around a subject matter and its problems. Disciplines have conscious goals, which are often synonymous with the goals of the departments and schools that comprise an institutional operating unit.
Colleges and universities are typically organized around clusters of like disciplines that have some cognitive rationale for being grouped together. The seat of power for decisions on faculty promotion, tenure, and, to some extent, support for research and academic work, lies in the academic department. Thus discipline as an important basis for determining university structure becomes clear. In institutions placing lesser emphasis on research and in institutions more oriented toward teaching, the faculty may adopt more of a local or institutional orientation than a cosmopolitan or disciplinary orientation. In these institutions faculty performance and recognition may be based on institutional as opposed to disciplinary structures. Therefore, the strength of discipline influence on organizational structure in research institutions, liberal arts colleges, and community colleges, for example, can be expected to vary.

Discipline Classification Systems
Numerous analytical frameworks are evident in the literature for classifying academic disciplines for purposes of comparative study. Four of these frameworks have drawn much of the focus of empirical work in the study of discipline differences. These are codification, level of paradigm development, level of consensus, and the Biglan Model. Each of these frameworks is reviewed in turn with relevant commentary on categorical variation determined through empirical study.

Codification.
Codification refers to the condition whereby knowledge can be consolidated, or codified, into succinct and interdependent theoretical formulations. As a cognitive dimension, codification describes a field’s body of knowledge as opposed to behavioral attributes of scholarly activity. Use of the codification framework in the study of discipline has essentially been displaced by the use of the highlow consensus concept, because consensus, or level of agreement among scholars, has been determined to be a function of codification.

Paradigm development.
Paradigm development, as first developed by Thomas S. Kuhn, refers to the extent to which a discipline possesses a clearly defined ‘‘academic law’’ or ordering of knowledge and associated social structures. ‘‘Mature’’ sciences, or those with welldeveloped paradigms such as physics, are thought to have clear and unambiguous ways of defining, ordering, and investigating knowledge. At the opposite end of the scale are fields such as education and sociology, which are described as preparadigmatic. These fields are characterized by a high level of disagreement as to what constitutes new knowledge, what are appropriate methods for inquiry, what criteria are applied to determine acceptable findings, what theories are proven, and the importance of problems to study. The terms paradigm development and consensus are thought to be interchangeable as they describe a common dimension of disciplinary fields—the extent of agreement on structure of inquiry and the knowledge it produces.

Consensus.
The core of the paradigm development concept is the degree of consensus about theory, methods, techniques, and problems. Consensus implies unity of mind on elements of social structure and the practice of science. The indicators of consensus in a field are absorption of the same technical literature, similar education and professional initiation, a cohesiveness in the community that promotes relatively full communication and unanimous professional judgments on scientific matters, and a shared set of goals, including the training of successors. Researchers commonly attribute high levels of consensus to the physical sciences, low levels to the social sciences, and even lower levels to the humanities.

Greater particularistic tendencies, that is, judgments based on personal characteristics, have been exhibited by lowconsensus disciplines. For example, in award structures in the sciences, the lower the consensus level the more awards are based on personal characteristics. With respect to the peerreview process, lowconsensus editorial board members have been shown to be more likely to accept publications from their own universities. Also, in selection of editorial board members, lowconsensus journals put more emphasis on personal knowledge of individuals and their professional associations.

The Biglan Model.
Anthony Biglan derived his taxonomy of academic disciplines based on the responses of faculty from a large, public university and a private liberal arts college regarding their perceptions of the similarity of subject matter areas. His taxonomy identified three dimensions to academic disciplines: (1) the degree to which a paradigm exists (paradigmatic or preparadigmatic, alternatively referred to hard versus soft disciplines); (2) the extent to which the subject matter is practically applied (pure versus applied); and (3) involvement with living or organic matter (life versus nonlife systems). The natural and physical sciences are considered to possess more clearly delineated paradigms and are in the ‘‘hard’’ category. Those having lessdeveloped paradigms and low consensus on knowledge bases and modes of inquiry (e.g., the social sciences and humanities) are considered ‘‘soft.’’ Applied fields tend to be concerned with application of knowledge, such as law, education, and engineering. Pure fields are those that are viewed as less concerned with practical application, such as mathematics, history, and philosophy. Life systems include such fields as biology and agriculture, while languages and mathematics exemplify nonlife disciplines. Biglan’s clustering of thirtythree academic fields according to his threedimensional taxonomy is displayed in Table 1.

Subsequent work by Biglan substantiated systematic differences in the behavioral patterns of faculty with respect to social connectedness; commitment to their teaching, research, and service roles; and publication output. Biglan concluded that the three dimensions he identified were related to the structure and output of academic departments. Specifically, hard or highparadigm fields showed greater social connectedness on research activities. Also, faculty in these fields were committed more to research and less to teaching than faculty from soft or lowparadigm fields. Those in hard fields also produced more journal articles and fewer monographs as compared to their lowparadigm counterparts. Greater social connectedness was exhibited by scholars in highparadigm fields, possibly as a result of their common orientation to the work. Applied fields showed greater commitment to service activities, a higher rate of technical report publication, and greater reliance on colleague evaluation. Faculty in life system areas showed higher instance of group work with graduate students and a lesser commitment to teaching than their counterparts in nonlife systems areas. Empirical research applying the Biglan Model has been consistent in supporting its validity.

Discipline Differences
While the disciplines may share a common ethos, specifically a respect for knowledge and intellectual inquiry, differences between them are vast, so much so in fact that discipline has been referred to as the major source of fragmentation in academe. Disciplines have been distinguished by styles of presentation, preferred approaches to investigation, and the degree to which they draw from other fields and respond to lay inquiries and concerns. Put simply, scholars in different disciplines ‘‘speak different languages’’ and in fact have been described as seeing things differently when they look at the same phenomena.

Differences in discipline communication structures, reward and stratification systems, and mechanisms for social control have been observed. In addition to these variations in structure of disciplinary systems, variations at the level of the individual scholar, the departmental level, and the university level, summarized in a 1996 work by John M. Braxton and Lowell L. Hargens, are drawing a good bit of scholarly attention. To illustrate the extent and content of differences reflected in the literature, a comparative review of discipline differences, based on nature of knowledge, community life and culture, communication patterns, and social relevance or engagement with the wider context, has been synthesized from the work of Tony Becher in Table 2.

It is important to note that the differences captured here encompass both epistemological and social characteristics of each of the four discipline groups. Much of the early study of disciplinary variation focused primarily on the epistemological or cognitive aspects, and it was essentially studies in the sociology of science that brought attention to the social aspects of disciplinary work. Indeed the social factor is becoming more a focus of study with increased attention to the disciplinary impacts on academic organization and leadership. In better understanding how social and epistemological characteristics are manifested in disciplinary groups, scholars will move closer to a theory of discipline differences.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Becher, Tony. 1987. ‘‘The Disciplinary Shaping of the Profession.’’ In The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary, and Institutional Settings, ed. Burton R. Clark. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2. Becher, Tony. 1989. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of the Disciplines. Bury St. Edmunds, Eng.: Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press.
3. Beyer, Janice M., and Lodahl, Thomas M. 1976. ‘‘A Comparative Study of Patterns of Influence in United States and English Universities.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly 21:104–129.
4. Biglan, Anthony. 1973. ‘‘The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 58:195–203.
5. Biglan, Anthony. 1973. ‘‘Relationships between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and Output of University Departments.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3):204–213.
6. Braxton, John M., and Hargens, Lowell L. 1996. ‘‘Variations among Academic Disciplines: Analytical Frameworks and Research.’’ In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. XI, ed. John C. Smart. New York: Agathon Press.
7. Clark, Burton R., ed. 1987. The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary, and Institutional Settings. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
8. Kolb, David A. 1981. ‘‘Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences.’’ In The Modern American College, ed. Arthur W. Chickering. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
9. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ladd, Everett C., and Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1975. The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
10. Light, Donald, Jr. 1974. ‘‘Introduction: The Structure of the Academic Professions.’’ Sociology of Education 47(winter):2–28.
11. Lodahl, Janice B., and Gordon, Gerald. 1972. ‘‘The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments.’’ American Sociological Review 37(February):57– 72.
12. Ruscio, Kenneth P. 1987. ‘‘Many Sectors, Many Professions.’’ In The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary, and Institutional Settings, ed. Burton R. Clark. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Read more »

ACADEMIC ADVISING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

The role of the academic adviser shifts as student populations and administrative conditions in universities change over time. Faculty members are increasingly committed to teaching undergraduates, and academic advising is an innovative form of teaching that helps students become involved in their own choices. Instilling students with a sense of commitment to their future plans and responsibility for their decisions is the cornerstone of the academic adviser’s work.

Developmental Advising
Traditionally, faculty advisers simply helped students choose courses in a prescriptive approach to advising. Since the 1970s, however, scholars and faculty members have redefined the academic adviser’s task to include guidance as well as imparting information. Developmental academic advising evolved out of this process; faculty advising took on importance as an experience that contributes to a student’s personal growth. In two seminal works on academic advising, both published in 1972, Burns B. Crookston and Terry O’Banion targeted three goals, or vectors, for developmental academic advising: developing competence, developing autonomy, and developing purpose in the undergraduate student. Using this approach, advisers ask students to become involved in their own college experiences, explore with students the factors that lead to success, and show interest in both the students’ academic progress and extracurricular achievement. As they urge students to take responsibility for their own learning, developmental advisers avoid simply providing answers and instead ask openended questions. Developmental advising provides advantages not only for the student, but for the university as well: the school’s academic community benefits from an advising process that bridges institutional divisions between academics and student affairs.

Differences between Developmental and Prescriptive Approaches
Perhaps the most important part of any successful adviser/student relationship is a sense of shared responsibility: Students learn by taking control of their own choices and finding ways to handle the consequences of those decisions. Traditional or prescriptive advising situations, however, tend to emphasize the authority of advisers and the limitations of students. Prescriptive advisers supply answers to specific questions but rarely address broadbased academic concerns. An adviser using the prescriptive approach supplies information to the student, giving out information about campus resources. The developmental approach, on the other hand, urges students to take responsibility for their own college experience and career goals. In a developmental advising relationship, students and faculty share responsibility. This form of advising contributes to students’ rational processes, environmental and interpersonal interactions, and behavioral awareness, as well as problemsolving, decisionmaking and evaluation skills. The relationship between adviser and student is vital, and both longterm and immediate goals are important. Successful advising functions first as a means of exploring careers and majors, and second as a method for selecting courses and arranging schedules. Most academic advising programs clarify their approach with a mission statement, which helps both advisers and students to understand their roles and responsibilities.

A Brief History of Academic Advising
The historical aims of undergraduate education— involving students with learning and involving students with teachers—pertain to academic advising. The role of the academic adviser has shifted with cultural and historical changes. Before academic advising became a defined part of the university experience, formal divisions often kept students and faculty apart and limited interaction between the two groups. In the late 1930s many colleges and universities developed formalized but unexamined advising systems, which focused solely on the academic aspects of student life. By the 1950s federal funding for education resulted in an emphasis on accommodating new student populations, and universities began implementing freshman orientation programs.

Changes in the advising process result primarily from shifts in the undergraduate student population. In the twentieth century, new populations gained access to colleges and universities, demanding innovative responses from faculty and administrators. After the passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (commonly known as the G.I. Bill), higher education became a possibility for students from a variety of backgrounds and age groups. As women, multicultural students, students with disabilities, and transition students began to matriculate, institutes of higher learning responded with changes in their approaches to student support structures such as academic advising. In the late twentieth and early twentyfirst century, technological communication has signaled another major shift in the adviser/student relationship. Academic advisers are able to contact students through email, and students are also able to seek out academic advisers through electronic communication. As online education has affected university classes and research, academic advising has also had to adjust, and advisers have had to meet the challenges of using online communication to strengthen, not diminish, their interactions with students.

Peer Advisers, Professional Advisers, and Faculty Advisers
The adviser population is diverse; faculty from all disciplines advise students, and many schools, both colleges and universities, hire professional advisers and implement peeradviser programs as well. Because faculty members often know the culture and requirements of both their own disciplines and the university as a whole, their expertise strengthens their relationships with the students they advise. Often, institutional recognition for faculty advising is limited on college and university campuses, and adviser/student relationships can suffer from a faculty member’s busy schedule. Developing useful methods for evaluating academic advising helps faculty advisers receive credit for this important aspect of their work as teachers.

Many schools hire outside professional advisers to handle freshman orientation and other academic advising needs. Professional advisers tend to bring useful counseling experience to the advising process. These advisers, however, need training to understand the university’s program and the role of academic advising in the institution. The primary role of the academic adviser is to offer support, encouragement, and information to improve a student’s academic life and create a sense of responsibility in an undergraduate. Students should discuss personal, emotional, and mental health problems, however, with a trained counselor.

Many colleges and universities have implemented peeradviser programs. Peer advisers tend to understand a fellow student’s position and the undergraduate culture at their institution better than either faculty or professional advisers. Because peer advisers often know less than the faculty about college requirements and academic issues, however, training is an important part of any peeradvising program. Colleges and universities that offer peer advising usually require the student advisers to take part in extensive training programs, such as retreats, workshops, and meetings.

These three types of academic advisers work with either individual advisees or groups of students. With successful group facilitation, advising groups can provide students with an academic adviser as well as a sympathetic peer group. Discussion among members of an advising group is important, and students in the group need to learn effective ways of exchanging ideas and interacting with others.

Student Populations and the Adviser/Student Relationship
Academic advising has evolved with academic trends and, most important, with student populations. Research shows that interaction between students and faculty increases student involvement on campus and makes students more likely to remain in school. These advantages of the academic adviser system are particularly valuable for the increasingly diverse student populations attending U.S. universities. Interested and informed advisers work with all students, not only to help them stay in school but also to help them become contributing members of the college or university community. Students with particular advising needs include academically underprepared students, students with disabilities, student athletes, students in transition, and international students.

Some student populations benefit from intrusive advising; academic advisers of academically underprepared students, for example, often initially assume responsibility for sustaining the advising relationship by contacting students frequently and encouraging them to succeed. Started out of concern for freshmen and sophomores who were unsuccessful in college, intrusive advising employs some prescriptive advising tools. The field of academic advising continues to react to changes in student populations. In meeting the needs of students, academic advisers must tailor their approaches in the increasingly diverse undergraduate student population.

Conclusion
As college graduates face new expectations from the workplace, academic advisers can help them learn to take responsibility for their decisions. Academic advising, in developing these valuable relationships between teachers and students, becomes an important form of teaching. Academic advisers help undergraduates understand their choices as students and the effect of those decisions on their future plans. Through openended questions and discussions, academic advisers develop a valuable relationship with undergraduate students, helping them to become more responsible members of college or university communities and to develop a lasting sense of personal responsibility.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Crookston, Burns B. 1972. ‘‘A Developmental View of Academic Advising as Teaching.’’ Journal of College Student Personnel 13:12–17.
2. Frost, Susan H. 1991. Academic Advising for Student Success: A System of Shared Responsibility. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
3. Frost, Susan H. 1994. ‘‘Advising Alliances: Sharing Responsibility for Student Success.’’ NACADA Journal: The Journal of the National Academic Advising Association 14(2):54–58.
4. Frost, Susan H. 2000. ‘‘Historical and Philosophical Foundations for Academic Advising.’’ In Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook, ed. Virginia Gordon and Wesley R. Habley. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
5. Gordon, Virginia, and Habley, Wesley R., eds. 2000. Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Read more »

ACADEMIC CALENDAR

Academic calendar use at the higher education level has followed a consistent and nonvaried path over the last few decades. Five types of calendars have been principally used. These include the early semester, traditional semester, quarter system, trimester, and ‘‘414’’ calendars. A longitudinal review of use patterns revealed that the traditional semester (a calendar that divides the academic year into two terms of 15 to 17 weeks) was the dominant calendar used by U.S. colleges and universities from the 1950s to the early 1970s. The early semester (a variant of the traditional semester that divides the academic year into equivalent terms but begins and ends about two weeks earlier) replaced the traditional semester in prevalence in the mid1970s and has remained the dominant calendar used since that time.

The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) conducted an analytical study of calendar use in 2001 to gauge the extent of change that has occurred. The study, based on data sets from the National College Stores, Oberlin, Ohio, and literature and institutional practice reviews, examined calendar use and conversions at 4,100 colleges and universities during the 2000–2001 academic year. Principal findings from the study and evaluative information on the impacts of calendar use or conversion on higher education instruction follow.

Calendar Use during the 1990–2000 Decade
Marginal variations occurred in calendar use over the 1990–2000 decade. Most institutions used the early semester calendar; its use actually increased by 8 percent over the tenyear period. Use of the quarter calendar decreased cumulatively by 9 percent, while use of the traditional semester experienced a zero level of net change. Modest shifts occurred in use of the trimester and 414 systems.

Current Calendar Use
A significant majority of higher education institutions currently use the semester calendar (either the early or traditional semester). The AACRAO study found that 70 percent of all institutions that participated in the study and 77 percent of the degreegranting institutions used a semester calendar for academic year (AY) 2000–2001. Twothirds of the institutions used the early semester calendar and 4 percent used the traditional semester. Fifteen percent used the quarter system, few institutions used the 414 calendar, and the trimester was the least frequently used.

The pattern (i.e., predominance) of calendar use was consistent across institutions even when adjustments for basic indices such as institutional sector and size were made. Disaggregation by these institutional indices, in fact, yielded statistically similar results.

Calendar use by institutional level or sector. The early semester was the dominant calendar used across all institutional sectors. Eightythree percent of the community colleges used it, along with 71 percent of the fouryear doctoral and nondoctoral granting institutions, and 52 percent of the junior colleges. Fiftynine percent of the professional schools (law/medical schools) and 40 percent of the graduate schools also used the early semester calendar. Trade schools, by contrast, used the quarter system more frequently than other calendars (with a use rate of 39%).

Calendar use by enrollment size. Again, because of its generalized high frequency of use, the early semester was the primary calendar used across all enrollment variants. Sixtyfour percent of schools with small enrollments (total enrollments under 5,000) used it, as well as 68 percent of mediumsized schools (those with enrollments of 5,000 to 19,999), and 77 percent of schools with larger enrollments (equaling or exceeding 20,000 students).

Calendar Conversions
Three hundred and eightyfive of the institutions participating in the AACRAO 2001 study changed their calendar during AY 2000–2001 (a conversion rate of 9.2%). This conversion rate is historically significant because it constitutes a rate that is four times the conversion rate that occurred in AY 1990– 1991 and more than twice the rate that occurred in AY 1997–1998 (the last time the AACRAO study was conducted).

Prevalent conversions. The majority of the conversions entailed changes to the semester calendar; 55 percent of the converting institutions made this change (48% converted to the early semester system and 7% to the traditional semester). Seventeen percent of the institutions converted to the quarter calendar and 12 percent converted to the 414 calendar. Other conversions were nonconsequential.

Conversion paths. The most frequent change entailed institutions converting from the traditional semester to the early semester system; fiftyeight institutions (or 15% of those converting) made this change. Fiftyfive institutions (14%) converted from the quarter calendar to a semester calendar (primarily to the early semester); and fortyfour institutions (11%) converted from the semester to the quarter calendar.

Conversions by institutional type or level. Conversion rates by institutional level were again fairly consistent. Professional schools (law/medical schools) converted at a rate that was marginally higher than other school types (13%). Junior colleges, trade schools, and graduate schools converted at rates of 12% each. Community colleges and fouryear doctoral and nondoctoral colleges and universities converted at lower rates (8% respectively).

Conversions by institutional size. Rates of conversion were also consistent across enrollment variants. Smaller institutions (those with enrollments of less than 5,000) converted slightly more frequently than institutions of other sizes (13%). Mediumsized schools (enrollment size of 5,000 to 19,999) and schools with larger enrollments (20,000 or more students) converted at a rate of 8 percent.

Effects of Calendar Use and Conversion on Instruction and Curriculum
The AACRAO study did not address the impacts of calendar use or conversion on higher education instruction. An examination of these issues, especially effects on degree requirements, timetodegree completion, course load/credit hour requirements, and curriculum restructuring, would have enhanced the study but were considered to be beyond its scope.

A review of institutional policy documents, technical approaches, and working papers from the Ohio State University, University of California at Davis, and other institutions did, however, provide the following evaluative assessments:

Most of the college and university administrators who have participated in implementing calendar changes have had varied assessments of its impact. Administrators at some of the larger research institutions have suggested that the impact of conversion on teaching load, class size and staffing needs will vary depending on the conversion model adopted (typically the Constant Format model, the Constant Content model, or a hybrid of the two). Faculty and administrators of other institutions suggest that most of the models proposed are too inflexible and will ultimately have negative consequences on college curriculum. Most agree that the various models utilized or proposed either expand or shorten the length of instruction time but generally have a neutral effect on course content. Many also agree that rigidly defined schemes of assigning semester credits to courses must be considered and justified as part of the implementation process that precedes the calendar change; and that any conversion model adopted ensures that program instructional time and hours are maintained over the course of the academic year. (The Ohio State University 2001 Ad Hoc University Calendar Committee, n.p.)

The administrators at the Ohio State University (when considering a quarter to semester calendar conversion) admonished that the conversion would result in a reduction of the total credit value of curricula by approximately one third (as the total number of credits to graduate increases from 180 to 120) but felt that it was actually the distribution and ‘‘packaging’’ of the course content that would actually change, as a result of the reduction in the number of courses and credits offered per course. They further suggested that there are two primary issues to consider when contemplating a quarter to semester conversion: (1) the use of a semester calendar will bring institutions into conformity with 85 percent of the U.S. research institutions (most of the highly ranked institutions are on the semester calendar); and (2) consideration of a calendar change must occur simultaneously with the institution’s curricular review, including reviews of creditstograduate and general education curriculum requirements. The following assessments were offered in regard to effects on course load and timetodegree completion:

A lack of documentation on this subject precluded a detailed discussion of the issue. Literature reviews provided little if any substantive or empirical information on these outcomes. Information from institutions that have made conversions suggest that the outcomes for students at these institutions are not well defined. The semester system, for example, reduces the number of terms per year but lengthens the span of each term imposing greater commitments on students. Students will be forced to make greater commitments to each term because failure to complete a term will delay degree completion by a full semester. There may, however, be a tendency for students to remain enrolled in a two semester system to avoid that delay. The lengthened commitment represented by semesters may have a particularly negative impact on the enrollment of students who are parttime, older, nontraditional, university employees, or public school teachers taking evening courses. The increased commitment necessary may cause scheduling difficulties for these students and result in delayed graduation or program completion. The quarter calendar may extend timetocompletion for more students than the semester system because students may be able to skip a quarter and delay their academic progress by only three months. Students on quarters can also change majors more casually than students on semesters because required courses in program majors can begin in the subsequent quarter. (The Ohio State University 2001 Ad Hoc University Calendar Committee, n.p.)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Specific Calendars
Reports from the University of California at Davis and Ohio State University that examined the merits of calendar system use addressed the issue of quarter versus semester system advantages and suggested the following. Some of the advantages of the semester calendar cited are that: (1) it provides an opportunity for more thorough examination of subjects, research assignments, and term papers; (2) it increases time spent in each course, making it possible to receive indepth learning and a better opportunity for students to ‘‘rebound’’ from a poor start in a course; (3) it promotes greater interaction between faculty and students; (4) it reduces the tendency towards course fragmentation; and (5) for transfer students, it offers greater compatibility with other institutions’ calendars and curriculums.

Some advantages cited in favor of the quarter system include its ability to: (1) afford departments greater flexibility in providing course offerings and availability; (2) allow students increased flexibility in selecting majors and arranging class schedules; (3) allow fundamental, introductory courses to be offered more frequently, making scheduling easier and classes smaller; (4) allow students to receive instruction from more instructors; (5) provide opportunities to retake failed courses sooner; (6) allow students who miss terms to resume college enrollment sooner; and (7) provide more opportunities for students to drop in and out, possibly shortening timetodegree for parttime and transient students.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers and State Higher Education Executive Officers. 1998. ‘‘Postsecondary Student Data Handbook (Internal Review Draft).’’ Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics and U.S. Department of Education.
2. National Association of College Stores. 2000. Schedule of College and University Dates, 2000– 2001. Oberlin, OH: National Association of College Stores.
3. National Center for Education Statistics. 1995. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Glossary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
4. Overturf, L. L.; Frazier, J. E.; and Baker, R. D. 1977. ‘‘The Process of Calendar Conversion.’’ College and University 52:724–734.

Read more »