Designing the New American University by Michael M. Crow William B. Dabars

by Michael M. Crow

A radical blueprint for reinventing American higher education. America’s research universities consistently dominate global rankings but may be entrenched in a model that no longer accomplishes their purposes. With their multiple roles of discovery, teaching, and public service, these institutions represent the gold standard in American higher education, but their evolution since the nineteenth century has been only incremental. The need for a new and complementary model that offers broader accessibility to an academic platform underpinned by knowledge production is critical to our well-being and economic competitiveness. Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University and an outspoken advocate for reinventing the public research university, conceived the New American University model when he moved from Columbia University to Arizona State in 2002. Following a comprehensive reconceptualization spanning more than a decade, ASU has emerged as an international academic and research powerhouse that serves as the foundational prototype for the new model. Crow has led the transformation of ASU into an egalitarian institution committed to academic excellence, inclusiveness to a broad demographic, and maximum societal impact. In Designing the New American University , Crow and coauthor William B. Dabars—a historian whose research focus is the American research university—examine the emergence of this set of institutions and the imperative for the new model, the tenets of which may be adapted by colleges and universities, both public and private. Through institutional innovation, say Crow and Dabars, universities are apt to realize unique and differentiated identities, which maximize their potential to generate the ideas, products, and processes that impact quality of life, standard of living, and national economic competitiveness. Designing the New American University will ignite a national discussion about the future evolution of the American research university.

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, Leadership, Social Commentary

Hardcover

First published February 17, 2015

Reviews

[Michael Burnam-Fink · Rating 3 out of 5]

Designing the New American University has an ambitious aim: reformulating the necessary role of the American research university, and describing how Arizona State University is succeeding in those reformulations. These are noble goals, but the book buries many of its points under chunky verbiage and thickets of quotes from academic thought leaders, and doesn't quite connect on its major points about what ASU is doing. This is a good book for seeing what Michael Crow has thought, but doesn't give much insight into what he is thinking next.

The first few chapters are literature review; describing the evolution of the university from the 10th century on, the origins and nature of the specific institutional configuration called the American Research University in the late 19th century, and the current crisis of faith about rising costs and decreasing utility. Crow and Dabars argue that the major sins of the American university are Havardization, a focus on academic prestige as measured by similarity to Harvard, which can be seen more regularly in an increasingly exclusive admissions process, and overweening filiopietism, a senseless worship of old traditions for their own sake. The result is rigid institutions that don't adapt to local needs and issues, that don't produce relevant knowledge, and that actually serve to block access to the middle class. It's a comprehensive lit review, but also a clunky piece of writing. The key point, that the research university created American prosperity from 1940-1970, may be unprovable. Personally, I'd give credit to being on the winning side of World War II and the early Cold War defense boom.

Against this, Crow offers a vision of access, innovation, entrepreneurship, and interdisciplinarity.
The New American University serves as tentpole for an entire region, providing expert knowledge, skilled workers, and pragmatic solutions in a massive value ad for society. Some of the things that happened during Crow's tenure are truly impressive: the dramatic rise in admissions, access for children of poor families and minorities groups, and increased student success without substantially compromising educational quality; A 250% increase in research funding over a 12 year period, with commensurate increases in outputs; Whole new forms of civic engagement; a proliferation of schools and programs

On the other hand, I was reading descriptions of people and organization I know, and saying "Wait, they do that?" The plan looks very different from the ground level, and I'm a person who has benefited. Where Crow see entrepreneurship, I see groups of scholars in defensive crouches, terrified that their piece of cheese will be moved yet again. I do agree that the traditional disciplinary department needs to be shaken up; I'm not convinced that ASU has modeled its replacement, or that this book elucidates what has happened.

**Disclosure: I am an ASU graduate student. I purchased this book with my own money, and received no compensation for this review. If I were more astute, it'd probably be gentler. But I'm in the truth business.

[Judd Street · Rating 2 out of 5]

A periodic risk in reading is realizing that you've misread the title of a book. When I picked up a copy of this book, for instance, I mistakingly read the title as "DESIGNING the New American UNIVERSITY." In reality, however, the emphasis is nowhere near my naïve interpretation - instead, it ought to be read as "designing the new AMERICAN university."

Crow and Dabars start with an important an interesting premise: the structure of the traditional university is anachronistic and dated, and can no longer keep up with the needs of society. It prioritizes tradition over effectiveness; it emphasizes exclusivity over reach; and it clings to old organizational structures in the face of more innovative models. I couldn't agree more with this starting point, hence my eagerness to learn more about universities, their history, their need to evolve, and how exactly that design and evolutionary process ought to happen.

(I should also admit a bias up front here: I'm a graduate of Arizona State University, so I'm doubly interested in this story. Because the university was largely 'transformed' into the Crow model before I arrived, I was keen to learn more about the structural changes and lessons learned for university design more broadly.)

Unfortunately, though, the book falls off early and consistently in ways that render it ineffective (and occasionally problematic) at any of the tasks listed above. Primarily, its historical narrative is provincial and its analysis is thin where it needs to be thick. I'll take each of these concerns in sequence.

A large portion of the book is dedicated to telling the history of the "American Research University" (ARU from hereon out). This is, of course, an interesting story which deserves analysis and historical attention... but it's framed for failure from the get go. With a relentless American Exceptionalism, Crow and Dabars launch into a rewriting of the history of higher education that a priori writes any non-American institution out of the picture. Indeed, there are - as far as I could count - precisely three references to /any/ non-American influences: Oxford and Cambridge show up with cursory references (largely just to say that the ARU is better than their narrow focus on teaching rather than research), the University of Toronto receives two mentions in illustrating that size and quality can go together (but never any analysis of how that occurs at the U of T, of course, as a non-ARU), and the German university system gets a couple of glancing references as being the inspiration for the research part of the ARU (but are never analyzed for how they developed that strong research mission, or how they sustain it now).

This is off-putting at the best of times, as it undermines the explanations of variance that they try to offer. With even a modest glance, one could, of course, notice that institutions other than ARUs are capable of producing high quality teaching and research. They can perform at scale and educate the masses (as Crow and Dabars note about U of T, but never actually give any credence to), and they tackle all sorts of real-world relevant challenges. Instead, though, the blinders go on from page one: AMERICAN research universities are the ones that matter; they're the location of innovation; and they're the only real economic powerhouses.

At other times, though, it's not just off-putting - it results in comedically ill-informed analysis. As an example, Crows and Dabars opine early on that "proper financial support for full access to mass quality" education is "utopian and represents an unattainable societal goal" (p. 37). I think the Germans would be keen to have a word? Instead, we get an out-of-hand dismissal of the idea, which ends up setting up a later tacit, sub-surface, and unexamined argument that universities (a) are ultimately neoliberal companies that need to generate a profit (or at least sustain themselves primarily through student revenues), and (b) conceding any real hope of rich and equitable access by copping to (sure, smaller) loans and online education as the real venues for making the ARU more efficient.

Ironically, what this means is that the "new" American institution we see at the end is mostly just a tweaking and re-wallpapering of the "old" ARU. Sure, it's got some fun features: new titles for organizational units (which are no longer faculties but rather schools) and "a disproportionate number of ASU faculty members assum[ing] higher teaching loads to meet the mandate of educating one of the largest student bodies in the nation" (p. 267) which Crow notes "skews faculty [research] productivity downwards" (no real discussion here of how this affects teaching quality, adjunctification of labour, or the like). The ARU emperor has been given a new set of robes... but ultimately the reader needs to wonder whether those robes are actually clothes at all, or just fancier stories of ultimately invisible regalia.

All of this would be negligible, though, if the book accomplished more to explore the "designing" element of its mandate. But, we learn almost nothing about the process of designing ASU into its 'New American University' institutionalization. Don't get me wrong here: I love the way they've rearranged faculties, even if it ultimately still results in problems of siloing (just along different lines). But I came to the book looking for some reflection upon how the process occurred, what snags were encountered along the way, what transformations underperformed, and what lessons were learned about this kind of rebirthing of the university. Instead, Chapter 7 is simply a more black-and-white version of the glossy "Isn't ASU Great!?" brochure, devoid of any real reflection on the institution or the process over the past 18 years of rebuilding it from the ground up. I'll even put aside my complaints here about an over-reliance on bad metrics (primarily university ratings, but also some unexamined stats about things like graduation rates, which don't really evaluate the quality of an education)... I just wish that there was an attempt to address the "how" and the "why" behind various design choices. Instead, all we get is a whistle stop tour of the "what" with assurances about just how awesome it is.

I hate to give this book as few stars as I did. While I don't think ASU is a perfect model, I admire Crow tremendously for the courageous changes and attempts towards reinventing the university. I think Crow has done more than most to reimagine what universities can and should be, and that there's a huge amount to be learned from the ASU example. But, it was deeply disheartening to discover just how narrow and provincial the view of 'history worth knowing' was in this book, because it limits the conversations about reinventing higher education from the get go. And, coupled with a lack of substantive reflection about the process and lessons learned from ASU, it renders the book problematic for the average reader - and potentially even misleading about both the big picture of higher ed and the relative successes and challenges of ASU.

(I'd also refer you to this review, which hits on some critiques I didn't get a chance to make here, but are well stated and accurate: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...)

[Breck Wightman · Rating 4 out of 5]

The concept of the New American University is phenomenal, so the last chapter is what makes this worth reviewing regularly. The rest of the book is a decent summary of higher ed in the U.S., but the same or better can be found elsewhere. Recognizing that the authors are writing to other academics, the vocabulary and writing style makes the book inaccessible to the general public.

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

For me, "Designing the New American University" was a mixed bag. I think they offered a strong defense of the university as a driver of innovation, of the humanities as an integral part of education (beyond any possible utilitarian gains to be had from them), and of inter- or transdisciplinarity as a way of organizing and producing knowledge. Their commitment to inclusion is commendable. And their potted history of the American university was highly informative, even if the claim that an "egalitarian conception of higher education" has been "integral to our national identity from the outset of the American republic” stretches credulity given the elitism of the earliest colleges and the limited nature of the "we" of "we the people" then.

That said, the section on sustainability in higher education was rather underdeveloped, especially in light of the challenges faced in the twenty-first century. Sustainability needs to be woven into curricula and operations, but their brief section rarely seemed to get beyond what I'd call Davos speak. The examples of how ASU is expanding its global presence felt more like brand promotion than attempts to make intercultural exchange a core part of the university.

And that leads me to another main point: the New American University sounds like a business ("knowledge enterprise" is the frame they use), but higher education should not be treated as such. Higher education needs to be understood as a public good in this country, not as a competitive business sector. Arizona has seen some of the largest disinvestment from public higher ed--and thus largest tuition increases--in the country over the past few years. Crow and Dabars say that ASU was able to ramp up its operations and reach despite such disinvestment by "cutting costs" and increasing the use of technology (the tuition hikes were not noted--instead, they used a deceptively framed graph to show that they are still less expensive than other states' schools). The capital investment to do what Crow and Dabars recommend is likely high, and it seems unlikely that the money for it can be secured just by "efficiency." What were the impacts on labor conditions (for faculty and staff) of the cuts? How about student life? Not to mention that such capital-intensive expansion and the corresponding growth of administration are indeed among the biggest drivers of escalating costs.

This "knowledge enterprise" also evoked a standard business model in how democracy seemed absent. There is dismissal of being overly "deliberative" at one point, and there isn't much discussion or acknowledgement of the need to incorporate faculty, staff, and students in collective decision-making. For a university to live up to egalitarian principles, it must do so in its own design as well.

Ultimately, there's a mild irony at the core of this book. Crow and Dabars criticize the rise of "isomorphism" in higher ed, as universities seek to be like Harvard or suffer from "Berkeley envy." But are they not trying to offer a new model for universities to adopt?

[Lisa-Michele · Rating 3 out of 5]

A provocative even sometimes offensive book for a person like me who is currently serving as Chair of the Utah Higher Education Board and trying her best to promote the value of education. I met Crow in person a few months ago in my official role, where he pronounced Utah’s system a failure and offered his approach as a substitute. I thought I should read his book. “Cultural commentators and academics alike represent higher education in various stages of crisis, but the determinants at issue are symptomatic of a confluence of broader societal trends that threaten to undermine the egalitarian conception of higher education that has been integral to our national identity from the outset of the American republic.” Written like a college professor.

Crow broke the mold while president of Arizona State University pursuing a radical course of remaking higher education. He has both critics and cheerleaders. I like some parts of his thinking and roll my eyes at others. “The potential for graduates in any field to achieve professional success and thus contribute to our economy depends on their capacity to become adaptive master learners.” I like the way Crow argues that our next economic chapter will require people who can connect things otherwise unconnected, and thus, liberal arts education is essential. I like the high goals Crow sets for his institution – access for all, retention of 90 percent, 80 percent graduation. I am not so fond of the methods he uses to get there: his commercialization of some parts of teaching, the creation of feeder prep schools, and the elimination of hundreds of college programs, such as stripping education down to algebra taught by software. “We are witnessing the transition from teaching and learning based on fifteenth-century technology of the printed book to twenty-first century digital technologies that offer the potential for adaptive, interactive personalized learning at an infinite scale.” Maybe. But maybe not.

[Caleb Boyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

A model for a new American university: 1) instruction with focus on interdisciplinary cooperation and appreciation, 2) human-environmental interdependence and ethics will lie at the heart of the institution's interest, structural design, and curriculum, 3) pragmatist approach to learning -- emphasize active inquiry-based learning directed toward real-world, present-day problem solving, 4) avoid institutional isomorphism (don't just copy another university's design) -- an institution's (malleable) design should be unique and geared toward its local community, 5) that institutional design should be sustainable (useful to future generations and non-resistant to change, capable of being adjusted depending on that generation's present needs), 6) deep-seated interest and partnership with local business, with student innovation and entrepreneurship and community prosperity, wealth, and well-being only being a few of the goals, 7) increase focus on those high school students, particularly those from low- and middle-income families, who are overlooked by higher institutions, and provide them the opportunity to earn a degree, dependent on their potential for academic success, without worry of financial insolvency.

[Arfan Ismail · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book doesn't get that high reviews but I found it extremely informative. I learnt much from the book including that John Hopkins, the father of the US Research University was a conceptual amalgamation of two great systems: Oxbridge and German research universities. The central thesis of this book is that filalpiety has led to isomorphism in academic institutions and it's necessary to think again about what the US university should represent. The specific focus is on how Arizona State University has managed to achieve excellence whilst bucking the US trend of elitism but doing the opposite: opening their doors wider to those who may not traditionally have made it into such a prestigious instituion. The rallying cry heard loud and clear is that very narrow selection crieria and excluding masses is not the only way to develop an institution with excellence at its heart.

[Amy Colbert · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 - An interesting discussion of the challenges facing today’s research universities. Using Arizona State University as an example, the authors argue that the New American University should provide broad access to academic programs underpinned by research. They suggest this will require redesign of our institutions, but that doing so will allow universities to solve grand challenges and educate informed citizens.

[Rod Van Meter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have lots of thoughts on this topic, which I am slowly organizing into a decent blog posting or two, I hope.
Biggest problem with the book is not the model, not the history introduced, not the writing, but the fact that we aren't told enough about how the solution is actually achieved.
I could write exactly the same review about the authors' second book. In fact, I think I will...

[GHADEER · Rating 4 out of 5]

للمهتمين بالتجديدات الإدارية في التعليم العالي .. الكتاب يطرح أفكار تجديدة تتمحور حول الخصخصة ودعم التنافسية ومناهج التغير القائمة على حجم التأثير البيئي للمخرجات الجامعية