UC Report from New York Times Magazine
Assessing Excellence in Higher Education
by Dr. Ed Welch

The University of Charleston was the focus of a four-page article in the September 30, 2007, New York Times Magazine. The article touted the University as a national leader in student assessment and outcomes-based learning.

The New York Times Magazine is truly a pre-eminent record of our times. It would be surprising if any West Virginia institution has previously been the feature of an article. Normally, the only way for a school like the University of Charleston to make it into their pages is to pay thousands of dollars for an advertisement.

Jim Traub, the Times staff writer, spent two days on the UC campus in July talking with students, faculty members, key administrators, and recent alumni. He shares the sentiment of other respected leaders of higher education that the University of Charleston is at the forefront of the effort to identify how well colleges and universities help students learn.

The impetus for the article is the push by U. S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings for greater accountability in higher education. She wants schools to use tests that will allow parents, families, and perhaps the Federal Government to know which schools are doing the best job of educating students. Traub joins those who believe that this movement toward institutional evaluation will continue. The burning question Traub poses is whether it should continue. He ponders whether Stanford University and Northwestern University, for example, should join the movement or be forced to do so?

In the marketplace of higher education competition, Stanford and Northwestern are imminently successful. They are overflowing with students, have large endowments, and are known as world-class institutions. There is no reason, Traub suggests, for them to participate in the student-assessment-based quality movement. That movement should be left to the smaller, relatively unknown institutions that want to increase their market share like the University of Charleston.

Twenty years ago, the exact same argument would have been made in health care. The pre-eminent hospitals like Johns Hopkins and Cleveland Clinic would not need to participate in an evidence-based care movement to demonstrate their quality. They were already successful and had as many patients as they could handle. However, a less well-known hospital, with fewer referrals, in a location like Charleston, West Virginia, might need to participate in a quality assessment project.

The Charleston Area Medical Center does participate actively in quality assessment and improvement efforts, and thanks to the dictates of the Federal Government, Johns Hopkins and Cleveland Clinic also participate. Doctors, chosen by their peers, determine the best practices in medicine which become the standards of care. Hospitals measure and report how often their patients receive this best possible care. These results are posted on the web for anyone in the world to consult. Surprise! Surprise! On the most recently published process of care measures, the Charleston Area Medical Center outperformed Johns Hopkins Hospital and Cleveland Clinic on every procedure reported and on each individual measure for the treatment of heart failure, surgical care, and pneumonia.

Could it be that just down the street from CAMC, the University of Charleston provides a better undergraduate learning experience for students than Stanford or Northwestern? Should students be able to see the evidence that answers that question? Should the Federal Government, which pays a part of the tuition for many students, be able to collect such information?

Yes, the University of Charleston is actively pursuing its quality assessment and improvement measures because it wants to improve its image and its market share. Using the best available tests for measuring student learning, and combining those with self-created instruments, the University is providing evidence to students and parents about the process and the results of a UC education. Improving student learning is not just good for the institution; it is precisely what students and parents deserve.

There is the stereotype of the great professor expounding on his or her favorite topics, creating eager recipients of the transmitted knowledge, and inspiring students to a lifelong interest in the subject. Traub mentions the “dotty and beloved professor of medieval history” who should be allowed to teach medieval history rather than being bound by the constraints of “required student outcomes.” Certainly, many graduates can recite an example or two of such a renowned and successful professor who promoted student learning unbounded by the looming end-of-term test or an external evaluation of whether students learned in the classroom. For every one of those great stories of inspiration, there may well be four or five memories of faculty members who read the textbook to the class instead of engaging thought, who delivered monotone lectures from yellowed pages of notes, or who otherwise put students to sleep or induced them never to come to class. Those inept faculty members could teach for years because no one had the authority or the means to determine whether the faculty member was helping students learn. I know of one incompetent faculty member who actually argued that his ineffectiveness in the classroom was a teaching device because it forced students to learn on their own.

Evaluating job performance occurs throughout society. It is a way of assuring that customers, patients, and clients receive the service they deserve and need. Why should higher education institutions be exempt from evaluation when paying for a college education is a major family expense and higher education consumes a significant portion of our tax dollars?

Traub tries to categorize the University of Charleston's “learning your way” focus as a mere marketing tool by saying that it is a case of “pleasing the customer.” This is precisely where he misses the point. When universities give more grants-in-aid to athletes, when they plant more ivy around their buildings, and when they put streaming videos on their websites, they are pleasing the customer. When universities enhance the learning experience and outcomes of students, they are pleasing the customer and fulfilling their mission.
The University set up an impromptu dinner for the New York Times' visiting writer while he was on campus, so that he could meet and talk with recent alums. Without rehearsal or prompting, these graduates shared their learning experiences with Traub. It was an inspiring evening of tributes like these:

“UC's program is fantastic. It is what students need.”
“UC provides the best possible preparation for future jobs. Students are ready for work and to play their part as active citizens. UC really lives up to its mission.”
“My experience with rubrics in measuring outcomes is particularly applicable for my teaching position.”
“Faculty members at UC really know what students need to learn and they gear their teaching toward that learning.”
“I was more prepared for law school than other students – particularly in the areas of deductive and analytical reasoning, problem solving, and in creating and presenting reports and arguments.”
At the Arizona national meeting of small college and university presidents last January, a noted speaker told the 600 people in his audience that there was one university in their midst that all of them should be emulating. He was referring to the University of Charleston because, he said, “those folks are reading the future.” You are all going there soon, he implied.
The University's national leadership in student assessment and outcomes-based learning is good for its students, and it is good for the communities and the society in which graduates will live. Yes, Jim Traub, Stanford and Northwestern universities should join the movement not just because it is a growing trend, but because it promotes excellence, and excellence in student learning benefits all of us.