Top products from r/highereducation

Hi ecklesweb, I'm Jodie, the author of the blogpost. Cynical? Yeah, maybe. The post was written while I was on fieldwork, and actually, I think it's pretty telling that I can already hold these views even though I don't have 'Ph.D in hand' as yet, as you say, although I have been working as an academic on and off for the last 10 years. But I entered this project because I really believe in the good that universities and academics can do - I just think red tape often gets in the way of us being able to do that good.

That's a really interesting question you've posed here. I'm certainly not aware of anything like it, but I think the snag in operationalising the question might be which university 'needs' you wanted to look at. The modern university really has at least 3 conflicting needs - to be the best at every marker of excellence it sets itself (including making money), to reproduce disciplines and knowledge structures (which sometimes conflicts with need A), and to do good in the world more broadly, which again sometimes get in the way of needs A and B. So if you were looking for ways of organising that would meet a university's needs, I suspect you'd run into trouble because I don't know that there is a singular university - there are always multiple versions of the same university running at once. I think. That's just off the top of my head, but I'd love to hear where you go with this idea. Oh, also, I think Becher and Trowler would argue that universities are already organised using a tribal model, although there's been plenty of debate over that! But that might be worth checking out if you haven't read it: https://www.amazon.com/Academic-Tribes-Territories-Intellectual-Discipline/dp/0335206271

Seconding Bujo, Rhetoric has deep ties to philosophy, cultural studies, and (less so) with communications. Its sooooo much theory.

I'm finishing up my MA in Rhet/Comp right now. My first class was Rhetorical Traditions where we read Plato, Isocrates, Aristotle, Cicero, Quintillian, etc. So make sure you like the idea of reading those authors because they will come up again and again. My peers fulfilled their electives with Tech Comm classes. (I chose a more IDS route, but I had an agenda in mind).

Rhetoric will contribute to your longform skills, though. There is an emphasis on audience, voice, and context. Read Keith Grant-Davie's Rhetorical Situation to understand a typical rhetorical frame.

Rhetoric will absolutely improve your writing, but whatever topic you will write in long-form you'll have to educate yourself in. Think of Rhetoric as a methodology for how you write. In that sense, Literature emphasizes what youre writing about/ what you're saying.

Dont survey English theories. There are so many and, without an agenda, you'll go off on an irrelevant direction until you can find a purpose for it. Later on it'll be helpful to have lots of references in your head but starting out this might confuse you more than clarify things for you. For example, ludology is fascinating but will not help you unless you know how you want to apply it.

Think of it like this: Rhetoric is the study on how persuasion can be used to change attitudes and behaviors of other people in the world. Rhetoric is the basis of knowledge production through arguing what is and is not "true". If thats appealing for you then go for it, but understand that theory is central to understand method.

Edit: This is the Rhetorical Sourcebook we used for our first year.

Interesting question.

Completely US focused answer to follow:

I don't think you are interested in how University of Paris or Padua or Oxbridge were founded.

I think starting a school in 2016 would be completely different.

The folks that accredit higher education are based on region - http://www.chea.org/Directories/regional.asp

You might want to look at the history of places like University of the People http://www.uopeople.edu/ or maybe poke around at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_in_the_United_States. Looking into coursera.org and edx.org might be interesting.

So, what are you really looking for? Do you want to start a university, or do you want to know how people did it in the past?

If you are looking back, you might be interested in Thelin's history - https://www.amazon.com/History-American-Higher-Education-2nd/dp/142140267X/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=T2DBFC1SGS7Q7R2TPKHF

I think humor is always key in these types of gift exchanges, so I suggest a Snuggie. I found one on Amazon under $20 - http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NBXVGC/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_0GIGub0KXM9PC While alcohol is popular, honestly, who can resist a Snuggie?! :)

These are the ones I have immediately beside me on my shelf. All are histories of American higher education, but all reach back at least to the American colonial era. The Lucas text might be best for you, as he does cover origins all the way from pre-Greek Mesopotamia to the present. You're three chapters and 100 pages in to the book before you even reach the colonial period in America.

Cohen, Arthur M. 1998. The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System. Jossey-Bass. On Amazon

Lucas, Christopher J. 2006. American Higher Education: a History. 2nd Edition. St. Martin's Griffin. On Amazon

Thelin, John R. 2011. A History of American Higher Education. 2nd Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press. On Amazon

There are a few books that are pretty standard when learning about how the American university came to be and how they work.

this is a great history of how US colleges and universities came to be what they are, though a bit outdated.

this is another - though a lot drier in my opinion.

Derek Bok looks at the system and offers a thorough examination and criticism, not a history. His books are great and really informative, though.

Do you have the Law in Higher Ed book by Kaplin & Lee? If so, there is an index of cases used in the back of the text. If not, you can find that index on the book's Amazon Page and find some cases that way. It's been a while since I had to know any case law, but interesting and historical cases that I remember had to do with Title IX and Affirmative Action. Sorry about the vagueness and likely unhelpful response. Like I said, it's been a while...

So I might not be familiar with all the different fields in social sciences. I only have a 203 level understanding of the field to be honest. I like to think that I’m a well read individual and I read a lot of literature on the subject. Here’s another example: https://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046/ref=nodl_

550 pages about the decline of social capital. A fancy way of saying we don’t gather at bowling alleys anymore. You disagree that someone is OVER ANALYZING the topic a bit?

Disclaimer: I have hired helped make hire/fire decisions for faculty members but never worked specifically in a College of Nursing.

That aside, she should expect to be asked about her philosophy on teaching and learning. It is possible they may ask her to do a teaching demonstration, but likely they would have conveyed that well in advance.

For new faculty, I used this as my "teaching 101": https://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Its-Best-Research-Based-Instructors/dp/0470401044

Overall, I can't think of anything to avoid. I usually like to be asked 'what is the typical day like,' or something to that effect.

Start here if you feel like doing some research:

https://www.amazon.com/Campus-Rape-Frenzy-America%C2%92s-Universities/dp/1594038856

https://titleixforall.knack.com/databases#due-process-lawsuits3/

Take a look at the book Dream Hoarders

https://www.amazon.com/dp/081572912X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_6tYPAb2EYP2P0

Here is the mobile version of your link

> I do not have the academic credentials to make major statements about theories or even theories of my own without a great deal of backing from secondary and tertiary sources

I think it's more important to evaluate the statements themselves than to evaluate the person saying them, or their (possibly bogus) credentials. This reminds me of one of my favorite passages from Keith Windschuttle's The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past:

>Despite its logical untenability, the genealogical method holds a great attraction for Foucault and his followers. In debates with their opponents, especially if the opponent is a 'positivist' or a 'piecemeal empiricist', they hold what they believe is an unassailable position by focusing on who is speaking rather than on what is being said. They use the genealogical method to absolve themselves from the need to examine the content of any statement. All they see the need to do is examine the conditions of its production—not 'is it true?' but 'who made the statement and for what reasons?'. [. . .]

>In debate, any question about the facts of a statement is ignored and the focus directed to the way what is said reflects the prevailing 'discursive formation' or how it is a form of knowledge that serves the power of the authorities concerned (132).