Can universities be responsive to
the forces of the market place, globalization, and government policies without
turning higher education into a mere commodity? Paul Axelrod, a Canadian educational historian, believes that we
have reached a nodal point where the very raison d’etre of the
university, “intellectual life, autonomous scholarly activity, and
curiosity-based research in the arts and science”(7), will soon be stunted, if
not lost, by the bottom-line demands of the market place. In his book, Values
in Conflict: the University, the Marketplace, and the Trials of Liberal
Education, Axelrod investigates the foundations and implications of liberal education in a utilitarian age where
higher education is being reduced to function by “a host of narrowly focused,
market-driven training programs so cherished by concept-challenged and
culturally blinkered policy makers”(85). 

Axelrod believes that the two
millennia experiment in liberal education is once again at risk. And he
considers a chilling possibility: its
demise! Although the mission of the
university has always been contentious and contested, if denuded of the liberal
arts, our author foresees that, “It is possible that a decade from now our
universities will resemble little more than giant training warehouses, where
short-term corporate needs dictate curricula to students who are increasingly
taught not by professors but by advanced, impersonal technology” (5).

Setting as his educational compass
point “a more precise and workable definition of liberal education”(9), Axelrod
uses Chapter 1: Roots and Branches of Liberal Education to situates
higher education in general, and the liberal arts in particular, within a broad
historical context. Here he traces the
roots of liberal education beyond the expected discussions of Ancient Greece
and Rome to include early “oriental history” as well. And his discussion of this “most enduring and changeable of
academic traditions” (8) branches off into consideration of such often
neglected topics as the role of women in this tradition and the Canadian
experience.

Chapter 2: Intellect, Culture, and Community picks
up two key questions: “What is a liberal arts education?” and “Why do I need
it?” The reader’s hope here is that our
author will cut through the rhetoric and trim back some of the sprouting goals
of a liberal education and carefully “demonstrate that the continued
devaluation of liberal education will be costly to students and to the
communities where they choose to live and work” (34). Unfortunately, the initial definition of a liberal arts education
that is proffered is quite pedantic and reads like a page out of a college or
university catalog. Liberal education,
writes Axelrod, “refers to activities
that are designed to cultivate intellectual creativity, autonomy, and
resilience; critical thinking; a combination of intellectual breadth and
specialized knowledge; the comprehension and tolerance of diverse ideas and
experiences; informed participation in community life; and effective
communication skills” (35). However, to
his credit, Axelrod spends much of the chapter trying to show that these
objectives are not merely cobbled together but “echo the past and situate
themselves in the present” (35).

 We are reminded in Chapter 3: Occupations, Income, and the
Economy that liberal education serves a wide range of goals including the
preparation of undergraduates for the world of work. Although Axelrod continually reminds us that a liberal education
provides its own justification, this chapter focuses on the economic benefits
of a liberal arts education both to the individual and to society. Axelrod, like earlier Greek thinkers,
believes that some things, like education, can both be both good in themselves
and good as a means to further goods.

In Chapter 4: Ideology and Policy, Axelrod, a professor and dean of the Faculty
of Education at York University, presents the university experience in
Canada as a case study of “academic capitalism.” He explains how Canadian universities during the past two decades
have often succumbed to bureaucratic and political regulation. The result has been the rise of the
utilitarian dogma of “use value,” and the emergence of an educational setting
where “[s]o-called clients and customers (students) expect service providers
(faculty) to enhance their economic worth in the labour market” (87).

Not only do academics feel
assaulted by external political and economic pressures, they believe themselves
assailed from within, as well, by students who 
“tend to be more pragmatic, more vocationally oriented, and more
politically conservative (125).” Chapter
5: Teaching and Learning attempts to move the beyond “mere impressionism
and professorial grumpiness” to constructively discuss the challenges and
promises of teaching contemporary university students. Although University faculty are probably the
most severe critics of undergraduates, Axelrod believes that students can
respond to the ideals of the liberal arts “if instructors are pedagogically
imaginative and personally approachable (127).” He then uses the rest of the
chapter to present examples from higher education in the United States and
Canada of what he considers to be some of the more creative approaches to
teaching and learning: “constructive controversy,” “critical inquiry,”
problem-based learning, cooperative learning, and placement programs. Also included in this chapter are brief
discussions of whether educational technology is “[f]ools gold or precious
metal,” and popular culture as a potential source for creative teaching and
learning. With respect to the debate over
the costs versus the benefits of the new learning technologies, Axelrod delays
a final judgment until further research is conducted. However, he concludes with the conventional Latin warning: Caveat
emptor.

Axelrod’s Conclusion, that
if current political agendas and economic trends continue, we may witness the
eclipse of liberal education, reminds us that the distinguished history of
liberal education is no guarantee of its continued survival. Universities no longer have a monopoly on
higher education. In the realm of
biology, survival requires adaptation. 
However, in education, natural selection may operate more subtly. Those universities who currently survive
by responding to “preference
indicators,” “rationalizing” their operations efficiently, and “prioritizing by
functions” may well be the adaptive universities who perish in the new
millennium.

© 2002 
Larry D. Hultgren

Larry Hultgren describes himself as follows:

A.B.
Grinnell College majoring in Philosophy and Religion; Ph.D. Vanderbilt
University in Philosophy. Currently Professor of Philosophy
at Virginia Wesleyan College, Norfolk, VA.
Since I am at a liberal arts college, my teaching runs the gamut of philosophy
offerings. I am especially interested in interdisciplinary pursuits, and I
direct the college’s Social Ecology Program and our innovative PORTfolio
Project, which attempts to bring the liberal arts to life for our students by
connecting the classroom with real world experiences. I also serve on the
Bioethics Committee of the Children’s Hospital
of the King’s Daughters in Norfolk, VA, and serve on the Board of Directors
of the Bioethics Network of Southeast Virginia.

Categories: Ethics, General