This is a thought provoking article. Compliments to the authors for writing the
book and engaging in this discussion, but it must be recognized that the topics addressed here are only a small piece of a very large puzzle. There are many things that are "wrong" with higher education in this country, but they cannot be viewed in isolation from the other components that drive the dynamics of this our society. I am a professor in an engineering department at one of the Golden Dozen/Ivy League institutions that is repeatedly mentioned by name in the article. I am not a native of the United States though, and all my schooling through secondary school was in the British system, so we had 'O' and 'A' level exams and the whole bit that some folks here may be familiar with. I came to the US as an undergraduate student and stayed for graduate work before doing post-doctoral research and starting as an assistant professor in my current position. All of my education/training in the US was at institutions that again are repeatedly mentioned in this article. That said, given my background, I think I can comment somewhat objectively on the issues at hand.

LIBERAL ARTS/LIBERALISM

I believe that Hacker and Dreifus are very much on point in the value that they place on the "liberal arts" education of college students. I could perhaps rephrase that to say that the value to society and the student in the long run is in liberal education, *broadly defined*. The gap between American high school students and many of their foreign counterparts in capability in subjects such as mathematics and physics (and many others) is simply glaring. Yet, somehow, as if by magic, when one compares the products of American institutions at the MS and PhD level especially, but also too at the BS/BA, that gap has narrowed tremendously or even disappeared altogether. More importantly, in the "things that matter", in the creation of new knowledge and capabilities as a society, few places can compete with the US for its dynamism. All of this is a reflection I believe of the creativity of US students/society. I believe that US education eschews rote learning in favor of open ended learning. This was certainly more the case 50 years ago than it is today with the excessive focus on things like SATs, achievement exams in high school, No Child Left Behind etc., but certainly by comparison with many other countries, particularly "Old World" nations, it is undeniable.

GETTING THINGS DONE

While liberal/more open ended education is great, the benefit to society must be balanced against the need to just get things done. If you want a bridge built, or a circuit board designed, or accounts balanced, on the basis of existing and well established knowledge, you need vocational training to prepare 'workers', dare I use that word, to accomplish those tasks. Companies like Caterpillar and Goodyear don't go looking to MIT and Stanford for the bulk of their BS level engineers when they go hiring, and for good reason. The liberal education of a workforce or society (or military) is in general a luxury, but I would argue that it is a luxury that this country can afford, one that would serve it well on the societal level (awareness, enlightenment...they improve the human condition), and one that would also serve its interests economically, given how much of the US economy is based on 'cutting edge' activity, as opposed to simply pumping out large volumes of low value goods. In some areas, though, the rapid entry of vocationally trained individuals into the workforce is required (think nursing, for example), and there the society must act in its interest, for example, by making such training available without a liberal education prerequisite. I would argue (and many foreign educated people tend to agree) that already the US system places a very heavy emphasis on liberal education, even within the confines of a 4 year engineering degree, and to me that's perfectly fine and acceptable. I would argue, as many have and as I think the authors support, for the broadening of the disciplines in which college students major, and a more holistic approach to education, but not sans the chemistry or the engineering or economics etc. (Why should these be withheld? A lot can be accomplished in 4 years of college!) This is especially relevant in light of the trajectory of the US economy and the acceleration of progress in the sciences overall. Although there are still examples of cases where students are hired directly for the (vocational) knowledge derived from their college years, more and more, the utility of a BS level engineer for example, is decoupled from the specifics of the engineering discipline he or she learned in college. This is moreover the case for students who want to attend graduate school. These students are valued for their intellect, curiosity and creativity, along with broad based knowledge of engineering principles (a certain capability in math, for example), and their ability to learn. My comments here are specific to engineering, but I suspect strongly that the same applies rather well to many other disciplines (economics, chemistry etc).

TEACHING AND RESEARCH

I find myself at odds with the authors comments regarding teaching and research. Perhaps the duality here is rather analogous to the liberal arts/vocational issue, but the authors have omitted a key discussion - research creates new knowledge, and in this sense is indivisibly linked to 'teaching'. It may not be the case in some liberal arts fields, but even so, if one is willing to extend one's timeline, one recognizes that what one teaches in the classroom today is simply the product of yesterday's research/thought. They are one and the same, only separated in time. There is a lot of value in learning in an environment where one's mentors make this connection apparent, and indeed live it day to day. It has the potential to be enriching, rather than distracting, but the burden is on the professor to deliver this value to his/her students. The downside is that effort expended in this direction is not recognized on an equal footing with research activity.

The advancement of our society is strongly linked to the generation of new knowledge, and not just in the treatment of diseases or development of new modes of communication, but in new schools of thought surrounding art, law, civics and so on. So riddle me this - where should this research take place, if not at universities? Aren't universities envisioned as the places where unconstrained thought and freedom of expression give rise to the very advances that we universally acknowledge are the key to improving our human condition? The problem of course is that, especially in the sciences, research nowadays is not just about sitting in a room with a few books, one's thoughts and a pen. It requires assimilating an ever expanding body of knowledge, communicating with a larger than ever community of academics, and coordinating gobs of effort *and* thought into projects (many of them physical) of ever expanding size. The amount of time and effort required to make an advance in science these days is simply staggering, compared certainly with 200 years ago, but even with 50!

What is one to do? Maybe we should make a distinction between research and teaching professors, or, heavens forbid, research intensive and teaching universities, and then let students choose where to go? Sounds kind of like the status quo, doesn't it? I say research *intensive* and not research exclusively because the exposure of students to cutting edge research is needed to help develop the next generation of researchers. Perhaps one can advocate for the limiting of research intensive universities to being graduate only, but in a free-system, these universities can offer undergraduate programs as well, as they do, and let students decide what institutions best serve their interests. One issue that has gone unmentioned in all of this is the simple fact that different disciplines account for research/teaching in different ways. Medical schools often do not pay their research faculty! Their salaries are derived from research grants funded by NIH etc. Correspondingly, these faculty have no teaching obligations. Universities usually link salary to teaching duties. One could advocate for stipulations from funding agencies regarding the amount of time a faculty member can spend teaching if he/she has research grants active, and there is some accounting like this that goes on, but it's far from realistic especially in light of the weightings used in evaluating faculty. Many institutions also allow research active faculty to buy out their teaching time, so that they pay some portion of their grants back to their institution in exchange for not teaching. While this may sound reprehensible on the surface, it is probably the most transparent and realistic way to recognize the fact that research and teaching efforts sometimes come into conflict. In cases where research is funded by the university, I would argue then that the same should apply. While it's not a perfect system - for example it would not address the distraction of a research faculty who has to teach in between grants - it does go a long way towards being coherent and transparent in addressing the issue.

The reality is that at many top tier schools, the professors and the schools, implicitly, leverage the motivation and capability of the students to bridge the gap exposed by their need to focus to a large extent on research, as opposed to teaching. What then, do the students derive from their education? Well, the college experience thing is not limited to late night parties and football games. It also encompasses time spent with possibly like-minded individuals and a broadening of perspective through exposure to guest lecturers, cutting edge research and everything else all mixed in. They may not get a better classroom experience than their peers at a small liberal arts college, but most people know that up front. What students get at top tier institutions is (more) the belief that anything is possible, (more) the desire to be at the bleeding edge of knowledge, (more) the courage or foolhardiness to be a leader and (more) the connections to like-minded/like-educated individuals that brings an ease of movement in the circles of people needed to make all of the above happen. That's it. Top-tier institutions expose their students to more, I would argue, train them to expect more and to be leaders. That said, ability and the actual material learned counts. But it counts differently in different fields. If you have all the chemistry degrees in the world, but can't make a molecule to save your life, truth will out so to speak and that will be the tragic end of that. Granted, the name on the degree may delay the outing, which is unfortunate, but that's another matter. Chemistry, however, is a rigorous scientific discipline. A BS chemistry major from XYZ university may be a great thinker, but if he/she can't get the job done and the molecule made at the bench in ABC Chemical Co., the truth outs, and ABC Co. refrains from recruiting BS chemistry students from XYZ. The same is not true in other fields. The value of the degree is too heavily weighted towards connections and culture, and not academic rigor in some areas. I'll make mention of our current economic debacle and say no more.

ADMISSIONS

Agreed...wholeheartedly. Beyond a threshold competence, let it be a random process. Separate qualified from unqualified using the relevant (if not completely transparent) criteria, and then draw lots. That's the only sane way to do it where the numbers of qualified applicants so far exceed the number of available slots. Affirmative action is such a thorny issue. Diversity is needed to keep a society balanced and also is a breath of fresh air in many venues. However, the issues that cause imbalance in our society need to be addressed at much deeper levels, and some of them concern the very identity of the country. Our democracy suffers from artificial urgencies concocted by the media for the benefit of their bottom line, the skittishness of politicians in the face of even fleeting voter dissatisfaction, and that most fundamental of human imperfections, greed. I believe a true liberal democracy with an educated electorate is a boon for all. The conservatism that is so rampant in this country is great in the context of free speech, but an absolute downer when it comes to advancing our human condition. Really, it is. My belief on the issue - the northern Europeans have a lot figured out...

ATHLETICS

The development of the body goes hand in hand with the development of the mind and the advancement of society. I don't think the authors are advocating this, but it would be a mistake to de-emphasize the role of honest to goodness amateur athletics in universities. However, the extraordinarily strong coupling between college sports and professional sports in this country is a complex and troubling thing, but it can be put to rest with a single stroke of the pen - take away the tax exempt status from institutions that generate significant revenues from sports. We pretend that our institutions of higher education are a class apart from regular corporations, but in many ways they are not. Salaries are determined based on the free market and a lot of attention is paid to the bottom line. Fair enough...there is such a thing as a for-profit university. Let more of these schools be put in that category. Students and parents are free to choose after all.

TENURE - publications and peer review

The authors raise a truly intriguing point regarding the fact that tenure, and the habits developed in one's seeking tenure, do not actually encourage academic freedom/speaking out. Notwithstanding the other discussions at hand, the true destination if one wants to address this issue head on, is the question of peer-review. The peer-review process works, but not very well. It's a well recognized fact that peer-review as practiced now does a great job in the suppression of anything more than incremental advances, encouraging academics to tow the line far too often. Our rabid fascination with publication statistics does little to help this. I find this a nearly intractable problem. The one solution that comes to mind is anathema to the academic culture, and that is to do away with tenure all together. That leaves unsolved, however, the issue of how an institution is to evaluate its faculty. It seems in most cases that the protection tenure offers is from retaliation over internal disputes at an institution, rather than protection from expressing unpopular opinions scientifically. Sometimes the two cases overlap of course, but I would argue that the main enemy of academic freedom of expression is the inadequacy of the current peer-review process. As Churchill once opined on democracy being "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", so too we might say that the peer-review process has its shortcomings, but better alternatives have not been brought to the fore.

In the context of the teaching/research discussion - the need for professors to publish and to be very research active is clear at certain institutions, but not at all. The faculty at Evergreen College are no more judged on the basis of research productivity than faculty at a top biology school are judged on teaching. So where's the problem? i.e. we apparently have some universities that are more committed to teaching, and others that are more committed to research, but that still do teach. Students and parents are free to choose among them. In some way, I fail to see the issue. I suppose that position though is akin to asking what's wrong with making unhealthy snacks and cigarettes available to young people and kids in schools, or worse yet, subsidizing them, and then asking, what's wrong, as they are free to choose! We do need to educate ourselves well, and develop the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. Companies know how to do this - as I mentioned, they don't go looking for chemists in the wrong places, so to speak, so students should not go looking for a particular type of education in the wrong place either. That said, we also need to help the evolution of things and help to shape our society to be what we would like it to be. In that sense, I would advocate for the following, although not all are related to the issues identified by the authors...some frankly are random musings!:

1. The establishment of more national labs and the tasking of national labs with graduate only education in their fields of specialty. I imagine here institutions in the spirit of the Scripps Research Institute, which if I am not mistaken only offers graduate programs.

2. The requirement that publicly funded research be open and accessible to all - this has already started to be a requirement for some NIH funded research if I am not mistaken, but it should be spread to all publicly funded research. Why should the society not be able to have unpaid access to the proceeds of research that it funds?!! It's not a cure all, but it would would seriously change the economics of scientific publishing and I believe lead to a more level playing field for scholars with possibly unpopular or controversial views.

3. Admissions should be by a random draw from a reduced pool of qualified candidates.

4. The development of public accreditation (not accreditation controlled by a private for-profit entity) for undergraduate curricula arranged under broader rubrics than we currently have - i.e they would not include obtuse subdivisions such as business management, sports management, information technology etc.

5. Place a cap on the cost of tuition and board at state universities that is locked via percentage to the average (median) salary of families in the state. If the desire is for X% of the population (hopefully 100%) to be able to afford college, then the cost of a college education should be viewed with respect to the income of the society. I don't think higher education should be completely free, as this devalues it to some extent, but it should be affordable. To me there seems to be little justification for the rampant rise we have seen in college tuition rates over the past 10 years.

6. A recognition of the fact that there will always be a 'branding' factor at play in academics, even in some of the more rigorous fields. A fair bit of it can be allayed by the development of better publishing controls that give even small or unpopular voices an audience.

7. The loss of tax-exempt status for schools with a significant (to be decided) revenue stream based in athletics.

Apologies for spelling/grammatical mistakes and any inconsistencies in my arguments...