|
Roosevelt University Chicago, Illinois The Role of the Professoriate in the U.S. and Germany in an Expanding Higher Education Marketplace During the industrial age - a period that lasted well beyond the middle of the 20th century - nations were defined and dominated by the sectors of their economy concerned with manufacturing and the distribution of manufactured goods. Universities, concerned with the production and dissemination of knowledge, where isolated from the smokestack economy within their "ivory towers." In the new information age, the production and distribution of information has subsequently become the dominant force defining national productivity. This, in turn, has put universities in the path of forces that are reshaping the image of the academe and that are creating internal tensions that are still unresolved. This paper will focus specifically on changes in the role of the professoriate in Germany and in the United States during the last half of the 20th century. However, before considering some of these changes, a brief comparison of the similarities and differences in the two systems of higher education is necessary. This is true particularly since this paper will focus on university-level tertiary education, and there are major differences in the definition and access to this type of institution within these two countries. Comparison of the US and German Systems University Education There are three major differences in the systems of higher education of Germany and the United States which must be considered in any comparison of the two countries: restrictions in access to university-level education, the funding of tertiary education, and the differentiation of types of tertiary institutions. The first difference concerns the route of access for students to university-level education. In Germany, access to a university-level education is restricted to students who have completed the academic track of high school, the Gymnasium, with a total of 13 years of schooling. In the United States, all students who have completed a twelve-year elementary and high school educational program are eligible to attend an institution of higher education. Although all students are expected to reach this level of achievement, in 1997 the high school drop-out rate was 11%, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 1999). Thus, access to higher education is less restricted in the United States, with university-level education restricted to a smaller group of elite students in Germany -- a group that has none-the-less quadrupled during the past two decades (Secretariat of the Standing Conference, 1992). The second major difference between the higher educational opportunities within these two countries is the funding of their systems of higher education. In Germany, all university-level education is publicly funded, and cost to students is minimal. In tertiary non-university education, slightly more than half of the students attend institutions that are characterized by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as "government-dependent private institutions" (OECD, 1998, p. 181). In the United States, about two thirds of university students attend public institutions and one third attend independent private institutions. At the non-university tertiary level, more than 90% of students attend publicly funded institutions (mostly 2-year community colleges). The type of funding, combined with the pressures of growth, has a widely divergent impact on universities in these two countries. The third major difference in the organization of the higher education system is the differentiation of institutions. In Germany, there are basically only two major types of tertiary educational institutions. As a comprehensive tertiary educational institution, the university serves students of various academic levels over a broad geographic region, and it covers a broad spectrum of academic subjects. We include the "comprehensive Hochschule" in this category because of its similarity to the university. The second type of institution, the "Fachhochschule," serves students at the tertiary educational level primarily in the professional and applied disciplines such as art, music and business. American universities are much more differentiated in type. (A brief description of the Carnegie classification of higher-education institutions is attached in the Appendix). Universities are differentiated by funding type (private and public), by quality and academic rigor, by research orientation, by selectivity and competitiveness, by level of degrees offered, and by comprehensiveness of offerings. They also differ greatly in terms of cost to students. Given these differences in the structure of German and American tertiary education systems, we will address the following questions in this paper: · What are some of the most important changes in the professoriate in both countries in recent years? · Which, if any, of these changes do we share in common as we face the future? · Are there opportunities for cooperation as we address these common problems? To set the stage for our consideration of these questions, we need to briefly review the current status of some of the major changes in the professoriate in both countries. In recent years, several major developments have occurred which affect the professoriate in both Germany and the United States. Tension between Growing Enrollment and Staffing The growth in tertiary education, both in Germany and in the United States, is primarily the result of changes in the aspirations of the public in both countries. Between 1960 and 1994, enrollment in the tertiary sector increased almost six-fold in Germany, with a slightly lower increase in university-level enrollment. The percentage of 19-26 year-olds enrolled in tertiary education increased from 4.4% to 28.8% during this time period. There was a decrease in the percentage of tertiary-level students enrolled in university-level institutions during this period from 81.9% to 74.8%, because non-university enrollment grew at a faster rate. These data include only the Laender of the former Bundesrepublik, as data for the former GDR are not available in these sources for the period of time prior to 1990 (see Tables in Appendix). These data are confirmed by the OECD: In Germany, "student numbers rose from 291,000 in 1960 to 510,500 in 1970, increasing year by year to 1,044,200 in 1980 and continuing to grow annually … to more than 1.5 million students in 1990 in higher education institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany" (OECD, 1997a, p.5). The problem caused by this explosive higher education enrollment growth was that "the increase in staff numbers did not keep pace and the staff/student ratio deteriorated," from a faculty/student ratio of 1:9 in 1970 to 1:47 in 1989 (OECD, 1997a, p.5). Increases in the United States also were dramatic. While the population increased by a factor of 1.39 from 1960 to 1990, the number of educational institutions increased by a factor of 1.76, and faculty increased by 2.17. There were 2.68 times more students receiving BA degrees in 1990 than in 1960, 4.36 times more students receiving MA degrees, and 3.9 times more student receiving Ph.D. degrees. As students increased more rapidly than the number of institutions, the average size of institutions also increased, while the faculty/student ratio declined, as it did in Germany. While the numbers and dates for the two countries are not exactly comparable, it is clear that both Germany and the United States experienced exponential growth in attendance at institutions of higher learning which was totally disproportionate to population growth. Historically, compared with Western European Countries, the United States has had the highest rates of attendance of students in tertiary education. Enrollment rates are still higher than those in Germany. However, the rate of growth of tertiary education in Germany and in other countries is greater than that in the US, and the gap is closing. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports variances in entry rates to university-level education for students in Germany and in the United States in 1996 (OECD, 1998). First-time university entry rates exceeded 50% in the United States, with slightly over 40% in full-time enrollment, whereas the full-time enrollment rate of German students was at about 27%. As a result of these increases, faculty in both countries are responsible for teaching an increasing number of students. In the United States, the tension between enrollment and staffing is complicated by the ratio of full-time and part-time faculty. Recent data highlight the seriousness of the problem. For example, in 1987 full-time faculty comprised 66.9% of all instructional staff, whereas part-time faculty comprised 33.1% (NCES, 1997a). In 1992, full-time faculty comprised 58.4% of all instructional staff, whereas part-time faculty comprised 41.6% (NCES, 1997a), a decrease in full-time faculty of 8.5% in only five years. Changes in the Content and Structure of Academic Programs In Germany, reforms under consideration in recent years include the shortening of university studies to four or five years from the current average of seven or more years; expanding the number and type of academic program offerings to keep pace with the increasing demand from students and employers, improving the articulation between universities and the Fachhochschulen; a greater emphasis on research in higher educational institutions; and greater collaboration among all higher educational institutions and industry (OECD, 1997a). There are many implications for the professoriate in Germany as an outgrowth of these emerging pressures. For example, there have been efforts to improve teaching. A number of the Laender have instituted performance indicators (student evaluation of teaching and faculty reviews) as a basis for Teaching Reports (OECD, 1997a). At the same time, the role of the professoriate is being expanded to include advising, maintaining office hours, and assisting in the orientation of students, among others. So too, all of the Laender have made improvements in the examination process to allow for taking final examinations without penalty (OECD, 1997a). There is considerable evidence based on both policy and programmatic initiatives to conclude that the German professoriate is under increasing pressures to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in teaching. In the United States, a number of factors too complex to outline here have set the stage for reforms in the content and structure of higher educational academic programs. The length of time it takes to complete an academic program is a function of market forces, certification requirements, and the abilities and motivations of individual students. Colleges and universities routinely compare the number and cost of credit hours and other variables with competing academic programs. In this way, significant aspects of the content and delivery of education programs in the United States are driven by market forces, including time to completion, academic reputation, and cost. As was previously noted, the German higher educational system is currently grappling with issues related to the articulation between universities and the Fachhochschulen. Similarly, the higher educational enterprise in the United States is faced with challenges of articulation between community colleges and four-year colleges and universities. In addition, there are the problems of articulation of academic programs with professional, state, and federal certification standards as well as the articulation of academic programs to the world of work. The concern regarding the quality of teaching in the German higher educational system has been an issue in the United States for some time. Most colleges and universities in the United States today utilize some form of student evaluation of teaching performance. In contrast to the professoriate in Germany, faculty in the United States typically have significant responsibilities associated with administrative duties and working with students in addition to their teaching, research, and community service responsibilities. Faculty in the United States expect to have advising responsibilities, to assist with the orientation of new students, and to maintain office hours, among a host of other duties that might seem surprising to the German professoriate. Tension between Research and Teaching Universities, both in Germany and in the United States, serve two separate but interrelated functions: the acquisition of new knowledge through research and publications, and the dissemination of knowledge through teaching. Actually, American universities are more diverse than German universities in the extent of their commitment to research, with German universities being more comparable to the American Research I and Research II institutions (see Carnegie classification in Appendix). The founding of the Humboldt University in Berlin in 1810 caused a change in the nature of the university, emphasizing pure research and scholarship. The research function of American universities is a more recent development. Institutions of higher education in the United States were developed, in colonial times, primarily to provide professional training. During the 19th century, the Humboldt model of education, in which the role of the professor combined both the production and dissemination of knowledge, slowly was introduced into the elite institutions of higher education, though not without a struggle. Doctoral programs and the study of science and technology were offered only in the last quarter of the 19th century (Boyer, 1990). It was not until after World War II that the "publish or perish" requirement became common throughout the American university system. Since that time, however, here has been growing reliance on publications as a major criterion in the promotion and tenure system of all types of universities, including four-year colleges. Similarly, public evaluations of universities rely heavily on faculty productivity. In research universities, financial resources for these activities are available, primarily through government grants, but also with support from private and industry contributions and contracts. At other universities, the research and publication requirement is less well supported financially and is sustained largely through the expenditure of faculty time. Thus, at a time of rapidly expanding enrollments, enrollment growth that also exceeded the growth in faculty positions, emphasis on non-teaching duties is increasing. In the United States, there has been an increase in "student contact hours … from 300 in the fall of 1987 to 337 in the fall of 1992 … (and) in classroom hours, from 9.8 hours in the fall of 1987 to 11.0 hours in the fall of 1992" (NCES, 1997a, p. vii). "Full-time instructional faculty and staff allocated the majority of their time to teaching activities, the second largest percentage of their time to research, and the remainder to administrative or 'other activities' " (NCES, 1997a, p. vii). More specifically, in 1992, full-time faculty reported spending 55% of their time teaching, with 10% spent on research, 13% on administration, and the remainder of their time spent on consulting or service activities (NCES, 1997a). Yet at the same time attitudinal surveys of American faculty reveal a growing and broadly felt pressure to increase research and publication productivity. A partial institutional resolution to this dilemma has come in the increased use of part-time faculty hired entirely for the purpose of teaching. These "adjunct professors" are paid only a fraction of the salary of full-time professors, are usually paid by the course, and receive no benefits. There are basically two types of adjunct professors: those for whom the professoriate is a supplement to other full-time employment and those for whom the professoriate is their full-time work. Professionals who are employed full-time at some other profession are typically recruited to teach courses in their area of expertise. They work, in part, because of the prestige conferred by university teaching, as well as because of an interest in mentoring new entrants into the profession. These adjuncts can contribute invaluable practical knowledge for students in professional programs, such as business and education. In the ideal situation, this is a system from which everybody benefits. The second type of adjunct professor is less fortunate, and this group has been referred to as the "academic nomads." These are individuals who have the qualifications for university positions, but are unable to find full-time employment. Often part-time instruction is their only means of support, and they may work at several universities. While teaching as many or more courses as full-time faculty (though at different universities), their income is low and they receive no benefits. According to the 1998 Digest of Education Statistics (NCES, 1999b), 76% of faculty in public 4-year institutions were employed full-time, 60% in private 4-year colleges. The general trend across all institutional types, however, is of grave concern. As was noted earlier, the number of part-time faculty is increasing at all institutional levels. Given these trends, a real threat to the professoriate in the United States is whether or not the role of the professoriate will become, for the majority of academics, a part-time job. The existence of this "lumpen professoriate," which is being unionized at the present time, will surely put pressure on the existing structure of the American university. This may result in a two-tiered professoriate, with the teaching tier having lesser status than the research tier. This may also put pressure on the system of tenure in general. A few American universities have already abolished or modified the tenure system, allowing professors to exchange tenure rights for added benefits and greater salaries. Dr. Larry Poston, a former national officer for the American Association of University Professors, described these trends as "the gradual erosion of tenure through the lapse of tenured lines on retirement or resignation, coupled with positive growth in non-tenure track appointments, and a new wave of incentives to faculty voluntarily to renounce tenure" (Anderson, 1999). Although part-time instructors are used less frequently in German universities, there is pressure to expand the professorate by increasing lower level positions, or even creating new types of positions to accommodate the increased number of students. The German university system has historically valued research above teaching. This educational orientation is under increasing scrutiny as a result of the tremendous growth both in the number and type of students enrolled in German higher education. With the increased emphasis on teaching will come concomitant demands for improvements in the preparation of teachers, the reward structure for quality teaching, and a system of advancement that recognizes and values quality teaching. At the same time that the increasing number of students in higher education is putting pressure on universities to place more emphasis on teaching, the role of the university in the production of research is decreasing. Between 1971 and 1995, expenditures for research and development at German universities has increased by a factor of 4.26, while industry spending in the same area has increased almost five-fold, by a 4.9. In the United States, universities still dominate basic research, producing 60% of this type of research. However, research carried out in independent private and public research institutes and within the business sector is growing. Competition for research funding is growing, and there are many more players on the scene. Threats to Tenure In the past, universities were often self-contained systems with their own internal norms, culture, and values. They were, in many ways, insulated from the pressures of the outside world. They served society as depositories of knowledge and culture in the broadest sense. To the individual, they were seen as an essential key to providing an opportunity for a better life, and in many ways, they were viewed as the places where solutions to society's problems were found. This "ivory tower" world, however, is currently under attack. Universities today are often viewed by the public and portrayed in the media, as offering both the solution and the cause of many societal problems. In part, this is due to the fact that decisions made at the university now affect a much larger percentage of the population. There are numerous issues within the academy that reflect the current tensions in institutional governance and decision-making. The central guide which underlies the professoriate and institutional governance in Germany is the Basic Law, "which guarantees the independence of professors, free from interference by state authorities" (OECD ,1997a, p.22). Recent reform initiatives may provide some indication of emerging challenges to this tenet. As an outgrowth of the efforts for greater efficiency in general, institutions may expect greater self-governance and decentralized decision-making through greater flexibility in budgeting, a strengthening in the role and authority of institutional administrators, and greater institutional self-determination (OECD, 1997a, p.11). Along with greater autonomy at the institutional level may, however, come expectations of institutional rectors for greater autonomy and control related to faculty staffing. "A number of Laender at the Federal ministry of education have proposed a new form of limited duration professorial appointments" (OECD, 1997a, p.27). To cite a particular case in one of the Laender, the Bavarian minister of education in 1997, called for "granting more autonomy to the institutions for staffing … and (providing the provision to allow rectors to) … appoint a number of professors for a limited time only" (OECD, 1997a, p.11). Certainly, variations to the current model of staffing faculty positions will receive intense scrutiny by the professoriate in Germany. It will be interesting to observe whether or not the pressures for decentralization in educational decision-making to the local institutional level will also translate into greater faculty participation in decision-making. In the United States, the system of tenure in higher education has been under extensive scrutiny for a number of years. Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that "there was a decline in the percentage of instructional faculty and staff who had tenure between the fall of 1987 and 1992 (from 58 percent to 54 percent) and an increase in the percentage of faculty who were not on a tenure track at their institution during this same time period (from 8 percent to 11 percent, respectively)" (NCES, 1997a, p. vi). The following factors raise serious issues related to the future of the full-time tenured professoriate in the United States: the decline in the percent of faculty with tenure; the decrease in the number of faculty on a tenure track; and the increase in the number and percent of part-time versus full-time faculty. Emergence of a Market and Consumer Orientation In general, there is a rather broad adoption of both business concepts and language in German higher education. Concerns over markets, competition, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and so on, seem as much a part of the language of Bund and Laender educational officials as they are heads of business and industry. To illustrate, there is a greater concern in higher education in Germany today than in recent history related to educational products, namely, academic programs and graduates and their relationship to the labor market and unemployment rates. These concerns are based, in part, on a twenty-year projection by the Institute for Research into the Labour Market and the Professions that as many as "a third of graduates might not find jobs commensurate with their qualifications" (OECD, 1997a, p.14). The debate over student fees is yet another reflection of the market and consumer orientation of higher education in Germany. Some of the other pressures on the professoriate include reducing the time for program completion, shifting program emphases from universities to Fachhochschulen in order to accommodate a decreasing demand for some university degrees, an increased demand for some vocational programs, and pressures to make academic programs more outcome-oriented and relevant to the world of work. The emergence of teaching performance evaluations is another example of the increasing consumer orientation in Germany as related to the professoriate. Higher education in the United States today is in many ways controlled by a strong market and consumer orientation. Perhaps one of the most telling examples of the market orientation on the role of the professoriate in the United States is the increasing role and responsibility which faculty have taken in terms of both the recruitment and retention of students. A significant cause for this development can be traced to the underlying funding source of higher education in America: student tuition. In contrast to Germany, the United States has a well-developed system of both public and private higher educational institutions that compete for students. In Germany 100% of the higher educational expenditures are derived from public sources. By contrast, in the United States, only 54% of higher educational expenditures are from public sources and 46% of higher educational expenditures are from private sources (NCES, 1992b). In fact, higher educational institutions in the United States are not limited by the number of spaces allocated to the institution, as is the case in Germany; rather more students mean more money. This competition for students has led to sophisticated marketing and recruitment efforts among higher educational institutions that compare in many ways to advertising in other businesses. For example, an annual marketing strategies survey of among colleges and universities in the United States reveal a complex array of marketing techniques ranging from media advertising, direct mail, telemarketing, and sophisticated computer software (Noel Levitz Center for Enrollment Management, 1994; 1992). The Effect of Technology on Education The increased demand for higher education among adults all ages has combined with new electronic information technology to change an existing form of education, distance education. While distance learning and degree programs pre-date the Internet and electronic communication, it is fair to say that this technology has created a new type of instructional environment. Both in Germany and in the United States, participation in distance learning has increased during the last few years. Because of the great initial cost of course and program development to fit this format, a few institutions in both countries offer the largest share of distance courses and complete programs. The prospect of vastly increasing distance education, across national boundaries, is intriguing to some and threatening to others. Clearly, this medium will change the role of the professoriate. It will add new types of activities to the professorial repertoire; it may involve third parties in instruction, both in the development of instructional modules and in the delivery of instruction. Finally, distance learning will change the competitive environment of education as barriers to participation across national boundaries are reduced. It is fair to say that, while Germany has made great use of technology in education and in other fields, the delivery of educational services has been more limited than in the United States. In the future, the German professoriate will be called upon to apply technology to deliver initial and continuing academic programs in general, and with respect to instructional design in particular (OECD, 1997a, p.20). A major stimulus in the development of the use of technology for distance learning in the United States has been market competition. No longer limited by geographic boundaries, higher educational institutions in the United States compete for students at virtually every site with a modem and a computer. The professoriate in the United States is being called upon to use technology in regular classrooms, develop instructional programs that can be delivered via distance technology, and incorporate technology across the curriculum. It is very likely that the professoriate in the United States in the future will be expected to demonstrate competencies related to technology today in the same way that faculty in prior generations were expected to know how to use the library. Conclusion One of the questions we raised related to the role of the professoriate is: What are some of the most important changes in the professoriate in both countries in recent years? In answer to this first question, we believe that there is substantial evidence to suggest that, in recent years, the professoriate in Germany and United States is being affected by many of the same developments. These developments include the tension between enrollment and staffing, changes in the content and structure of academic programs, the tension between research and teaching, changes in institutional governance and decision-making, the growth in market and consumer orientation, and the impact of technology in general, and distance learning in particular. These six developments obviously have not occurred in isolation from other broader socio-cultural, political, and economic influences, but reflect the evolution in emphasis in the underlying values of each society. One possible explanation for the similarities that appear among these six developments is that both Germany and the United States have shared a shift in emphasis in values in recent years. German educational reform initiatives parallel, in many ways, recent educational reform initiatives in the United States, in that they have also been concentrated on two compelling values, namely efficiency and quality of teaching (Wirt and Kirst, 1997; OECD, 1997a, p.8; OECD, 1997b). The second question posed for this Symposium was: What are the opportunities for cooperation as we address common problems? If these broader societal shifts in values continue, with an emphasis on quality and efficiency, then the professoriate in Germany and the United States would do well to foster continued dialogue related to strategies to address these common developments. In our examination of these issues, we know that we have looked with a fresh perspective at the changes in the professoriate in the United States, in ways that we might not otherwise have done. Similarly, we would not have attempted to explore recent developments in the nature of the German professoriate without the stimulation that this conference presents. Bibliography Altbach, P. (Ed.). (1991). International higher education: An encyclopedia Vol. 1-2. New York: Garland. Anderson, K. (1999, November). Poston presentation on tenure highlight of annual meeting. Illinois Academe. Boyer, E. L. (1987). The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper Collins. Benditt, T. M. (1990) The research demands of teaching in modern higher education. In Cahn, S. M. (Ed.). Morality, reponsibility, and the university: Studies in academic ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Bode, C. (1996). Kommentierte Grafiken zum deutschen Hochschul- und Forschungssystem. Muenchen: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst und Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. Boyer, E. L. (1989). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriat. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic profession: National, disciplinary and institutional settings. Berkeley: The University of California Press. Cochern, L. (1992). Publish or perish: The wrong issue. Cape Girardeau, MO: Step Up Inc. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins. Diamond, R. M. & Adam, B. E. (Eds.). (1993). Recognizing faculty work: Reward system for the Year 2000.San Franciso; Jossey-Bass. Diamond, R. M. Changing priorities and the faculty reward system. 5-12 Diamond, R. M. Instituting change in the faculty reward system. 13-22 Adam, B. E. & Roberts, A. O. Differences among the disciplines. 23-62 Roberts, A. O., Wergin, J. F. & Adam, B. E. Institutional approaches to the issues of reward and scholarship. 63-86 Froh, R. C., Menges, R. J. & Walker, C. J. Revitalizing faculty work through intrinsic rewards. 87-96 Froh, R. C., Menges, Gray, P. J. & Lambert, L. M. Representing faculty work: The professional portfolio. Edgerton, R. (1992). AAHE's new forum on faculty roles and rewards launches its first conference. AAHE Bulletin, 45 (1). Education and science: An excerpt from "Facts about Germany". (1996). Bonn: Press and Information Office of the Federal Government. Eliot, C. W. (1898). Educational reform: Essays and addresses. New York: Century. Federal Statistical Office Germany. Institutions of higher education. [On line: 11-1-1999. http:// www.statistik-bund.de/basis/e/biwiku/hochtxte.htm; hoch1 to hoch16.htm]. Federal Statistical Office Germany. Formal level of qualification. [On line: 11-1-1999. http:// www.statistik-bund.de/basis/e/biwiku/bildtab1.htm]. Federal Statistical Office Germany. Apprentices and examination results. [On line: 11-1-1999. http://www.statistik-bund.de/basis/e/biwiku/azubi1]. Feldman, K. (1988) Meta-analysis of relation of teaching and research. Reviewed in Teaching Professor Jan, 1989. (43 studies, correlation of .12) Fuehr, C. (1989). Schools and institutions of higher education in the Federal Republic of Germany. Bonn Inter Nationes. Fuehr, C. (1996). Deutsches Bildungswesen seit 1945: Grundzuege und Probleme. Bonn: Inter Nationes. Gray, P. J., Froh, R. C. & Diamond, R.M. (1992). A national study of research universities on the balance between research and undergraduate teaching. Syracuse, NY: Center for Instructional Development, Syracuse University. Hattie, J. & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66 (4), 507-542. Jencks, C. & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. New York: Doubleday. Kennedy, D. (1997). Academic duty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lawrence, J. K. & Green, K. C. (1980). A question of quality: The higher education ratings game. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Lynton, E. (January, 1993). The scholarly function: Common characteristics and criteria. Paper presented at the AAHE Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards, San Antonio, Texas. McAdams, R. P. (1993). Lessons from abroad: How other countries educate their children. Lancaster: Technomic Publishing co., Inc. Miller, P. S. & Stayton, V. D. (1999). Higher education culture - A fit or misfit with reform in education? Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (4), 290-302. Mitchell, M. (1999). Scholarship as process. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (4), 267-289. Morsy, Z. & Altbach, P. G. (Eds.). (1996). Higher education in an international perspective: Critical issues. New York: Garland. National Center for Education Statistics. (August 1997a). InstructionalfFaculty and staff in higher education institutions: Fall 1987 and Fall 1992. [On Line. http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs97/97470.html] National Center for Education Statistics. (1997b). International education indicators: A time series perspective: NCES 997-059. Washington, DC: Author. National Center for Education Statistics. (February, 1998). Distance learning in higher education institutions: Incidence, audiences, and plans to expand. [On Line. Issue Brief NCES 98-132]. National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Student exposure to faculty a institutions of higher education. [Online]. Available: http:/nces.ed.gov/pubsold/CoE95/50txthtml and 50-01 html]. National Center for Education Statistics. (July, 1999). Postsecondary institutions in the United States: 1997-1998. [On Line: NCES 1999-174]. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999a). Fast Facts [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16 [November 11, 1999]. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999b). Digest of Education Statistics 1998 [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/digest98 [November 3, 1999]. Newman, J. H. (1853). The idea of a university. Noel Levitz Center for Enrollment Management. (1992). National enrollment management survey report. Littleton, CO: Author. Noel Levitz Center for Enrollment Management. (1994). Fall 1993 national enrollment management survey, report of findings. Littleton, CO: Author. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (April 1997a). Thematic Review of the first years of tertiary education. Country Note: Germany. [On line]. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (April 1997b). Thematic Review of the first years of tertiary education. Country Note: Commonwealth of Virginia, United States. [On line]. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (1998). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Postlethwaite, T. N. (Ed.). (1995). International encyclopedia of natinal systems of education (2nd ed.). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon. Rice, R. E. (1991). The new American scholar: Scholarship and the purpose of the university. Metropolitan Universities Journal, 1 (4), 7-18. Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university: A history. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Laender in the Federal Republic of Germany. (June, 1992). Basic sructure of the education system of the Federal Republic of Germany. Bonn: Author. Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Laender in the Federal Republic of Germany. (January, 1994). Higher education and academic degrees in the Federal Republic of Germany. Bonn: Author. Shulman, L. (1989). Toward a pedagogy of content. AAHE Bulletin, 41 (10), 8-13. Soley, L. C. (1995). Leasing the ivory tower: The corporate takeover of academia. Boston, MA: South End Press. Teaching and Research. (1997). The Teaching Professor, 11 (8), 2. Wirt, F. M. & Kirst, M.W. (1997). The political dynamics of American education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. |