2008 Occasional Papers - AUK

etention. However, in addition, they found that enrollmentin consistently top-rated courses also significantly reducesthe probability of retention. In other words, the risingexpectations of the best and the brightest may, at times,only be met by exiting the university. These are the studentwe desperately want to keep! These are not drop-outs orstop-outs as discussed earlier—these are “top-outs.” Theyget bored, are not challenged, and leave.4. A Re-examination of the Role of First Year andDivisional Advising at AUK. In a recent survey of 1,000colleges and universities in the US, only 12% offeredincentives or rewards that recognized outstanding advisingof first-year students (Policy Center on the First Yearof College, 2003). Research shows that only minorconsideration is given to advising in faculty promotion andtenure decisions (Habley, 1988). In addition, over 2/3 ofpostsecondary institutions surveyed (1987) have no criteriafor selecting advisors (Crockett, Habley, and Cowart,1987). In fact, at AUK’s last faculty awards night, thosefaculty members recognized were recognized for theirpublications, not their teaching or service contributions.Based on his review of five national surveys of academicadvising, it became fairly clear, fairly quickly that, as Habley(2000) states, “…training, evaluation, and recognition andreward have been, and continue to be, the weakest links inacademic advising… These important institutional practicesin support of quality advising are at best unsystematic andat worst nonexistent” (p. 40). This presents an excellentopportunity for AUK to reexamine its current practices.5. AUK must recognize its inability to fully accomplishacademic and career preparedness in the context of anadvertised American model of Higher Education in asegregated learning environment. Mixed gender groupsand cooperative partnerships using face-to-face problembasedlearning methods to solve real world problems is nota reality in the gender segregated classroom, and createsinsurmountable pedagogical and international accreditationproblems, as recently evidenced. AUK’s administrativeposition thus far has been clear to faculty, staff, and students:We are guests in this country. If this issue is to be addressed,or changed, it must come from voters. That answer does notseem to be satisfying anyone. The owners of this universityare not guests of this country. Clear guidance, direction, anddeliberate and immediate courses of action are needed. Thisis a perceptual issue, and one less about local law, and moreabout institutional longevity. Less about holdings, and moreabout humanity. Less about short terms investments inproperties, and more about long term investments in people.In the interim, new AUK faculty should have theopportunity, during new faculty orientation, to be exposedto the latest teaching techniques appropriate to the gendersegregated classroom.6. The Establishment of a Teaching and Learning TechnologyCenter. AUK faculty are, due to intergenerationaldifferences and the rapid face of technology, generationsbehind current students in command of technology. Aninstructional technology development center is neededto enhance multimedia and computer-based learningapproaches, aid faculty in developing and utilizing thelatest technologies in curriculum development andcurricula, and foster greater integration of on line coursemanagement, to include platforms such as Web CT.7. Other. AUK student and faculty recommendationsvia self-report data for retention included: mandatoryfulfillment of prerequisites prior to course enrollment;mandatory advising prior to course registration; availabilityof 5-year course cycling plans via the web; a studentunion; adequate health, recreation, and sports facilities;a second-year experience; better, increased, and moreinnovative university advertising platforms; and increasedenforcement of university standards that promote studentresponsibility for their own actions.ConclusionIn a recent edition of Inside Higher Ed, the author describedthe new, for-profit university. He compared it to themovie industry, where a few companies make movies,and lots of others simply distribute them to theaters, ontelevision, and on DVDs. He described these universitiesas follows:“A small core of knowledge engineers who wrap coursesin to a degree to be distributed in cookie cutter institutionsand delivered by working professionals, not academics.There is no tenured faculty, no academic processes; thesole focus is on bottom line economic results. There21 st century institutions are not burdened with esotericpursuits of knowledge….they are market driven. [The] keysurvival mechanism is the ability to rapidly evolve to newenvironments and to position in the market. Since they donot carry tenured faculty, they can rapidly jettison disciplinesof study that do not penetrate market. Since they do nothave academic processes, they can rapidly bring to marketprograms that can capture market share….Not all havethe core capacities to compete long term in the market.Some emerge quickly, and as quickly become extinct.”17