{"id":16081,"date":"2015-12-02T13:57:27","date_gmt":"2015-12-02T18:57:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=16081"},"modified":"2015-12-02T13:57:27","modified_gmt":"2015-12-02T18:57:27","slug":"a-co-op-model-for-a-college","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=16081","title":{"rendered":"a co-op model for a college"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is a model for a new kind of college that I think could compete well with the available choices today, put beneficial pressure on the whole market, and avoid the “institutional isomorphism<\/a>” that makes so many of our colleges and universities similar to each other. In a sentence: It is a co-op college in which the faculty and students jointly produce scholarship and learning\u00a0at low cost<\/em>. The college\u00a0is organized democratically, but not because democratic values are intrinsically superior or identical to intellectual values. (I have argued against those\u00a0claims\u00a0here<\/a>.) Rather, the organization\u00a0of this college is democratic and participatory because it\u00a0is a common property regime<\/a>.\u00a0That form of economic organization\u00a0can be highly\u00a0successful, but only when all participants feel that they have a voice to match their obligations.<\/p>\n

I’d suggest these features:<\/p>\n

Location:<\/em> It would be a commuter college (no dorms) in a large metro area with a shortage of high-quality existing slots for undergraduates. Los Angeles is an example. The facilities could be relatively cheaply reconfigured buildings, such as a former school.<\/p>\n

Business model:<\/em> The sticker price would be $11,000. With a\u00a0student\/faculty ratio of 10:1, that yields\u00a0$110k per professor, which is plenty to cover\u00a0salaries and benefits plus facilities and\u00a0a small support staff for maintenance, IT, and accounting. (The\u00a0mean<\/a> associate professor’s salary in English is $62,000; in the natural sciences, $67,590). These numbers would compare favorably to UCLA–which I respect deeply–where the average student pays<\/a> $13,723 and the student\/faculty ratio is 17:1. I\u00a0envision a student body of 1,000 and a faculty of 100.<\/p>\n

Professors’ responsibilities:<\/em> The teaching load would be two\u00a0courses per semester. Faculty would be expected to be active researchers. They would also populate\u00a0committees that would fully handle admissions,\u00a0counseling, curriculum, hiring, tenure and promotion, discipline, and external relations. Especially heavy responsibilities, such as chairing a major committee, might earn a course release.\u00a0There would be no full-time administrators, but professors\u00a0would serve elected\u00a0terms as leaders with titles like president, provost, and dean, and\u00a0would\u00a0have\u00a0limited course loads for the duration. The whole faculty\u00a0would also meet for\u00a0deliberations and governance.<\/p>\n

Student responsibilities:<\/em> Students would meet as a kind of legislative body in a bicameral arrangement with the faculty for some decision-making purposes. Some students would also be elected to serve on committees along with faculty and to provide\u00a0other forms of leadership. For instance, instead of coaches and extramural athletics, there would be strong student-led intramurals and\u00a0club sports. Although faculty would be involved in counseling of various kinds, students would also play essential roles in helping their peers. Some jobs\u00a0might be eligible for Federal Work Study, which would\u00a0reduce the $11k sticker price for those with greater need.<\/p>\n

A board of trustees.<\/em> The faculty and students would elect a board of trustees, including a few of their own number along with prominent outsiders. This\u00a0board would serve as an accountability and review committee and would be able to lend their blessing to the whole enterprise.<\/p>\n

Culture:<\/em> I would recommend not<\/em> especially targeting zealous proponents of alternative economics for either the student body or the faculty. I believe\u00a0groups dominated by people with that\u00a0kind of motivation tend to devolve into ideological hair-splitting and factional strife. (See Jenny Mansbridge<\/a>‘s work on 1960s communes–or think of the French Revolution.) Instead, I would be looking for pragmatists with maturity and people-skills, along with academic excellence and diversity of various kinds. I’d recruit the faculty from a generation of talented and dedicated younger scholars who are facing a terrible job market. I’d look for students with a high potential to benefit from the experience–in other words, not necessarily the highest test scores or GPAs, but serious interest in learning in a no-frills environment.<\/p>\n

Curriculum:<\/em> This would be developed and modified\u00a0by the group, deliberatively over time. It would be disappointing if the results failed to be unusual. That would be a waste of the opportunity to\u00a0innovate, given the absence of traditional silos and barriers. But it wouldn’t necessarily be wise to create one curriculum for everyone. Diversity and choice are not only intellectual values; they prevent self-governing groups from splintering over matters of principle. Specifically, there is a kind of conversation that goes: “‘X is important, so X should be a required topic of study for all.’ ‘Well, if X is important, so is Y, and why isn’t that required?'” (Repeat endlessly.) I’d expect some coherence and some distinctiveness to emerge in a wholly new college with a democratic\u00a0process, but if I were in the deliberations, I’d probably be a voice for individual choice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is a model for a new kind of college that I think could compete well with the available choices today, put beneficial pressure on the whole market, and avoid the “institutional isomorphism” that makes so many of our colleges and universities similar to each other. In a sentence: It is a co-op college in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[19,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16081","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academia","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16081","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16081"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16081\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16104,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16081\/revisions\/16104"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16081"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16081"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16081"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}