Talk Amongst Yourselves

What could possibly go wrong?

The ideal of a well-run self-governing body of academics probably runs against many cultural stereotypes, from Asimov's Second Foundation to Jim March's (et al) Garbage Can Model to Sayre's Law. 

It might be argued that middlemen in the academy are a holdover from when we needed scribes and copyists, who evolved (devolved?) to Chief Information Officers, in charge of buying inferior products from the company with the biggest marketing budget, and their ilk. But the trouble remains that someone has to officiate when the physicists tell the biologists that they are not doing real science, or the engineers tell the marketing scholars that a better mousetrap is the sole requirement for customers to beat paths to doors. Now, I cannot claim to see a Utopian future that will only come about when an ideologically pure vanguard sets the tone for the rest of society. But what I can say is that the first gang of 16, who will endure the first non-value-adding phase of my proposed experiment, must in addition to volunteering their time for an uncertain outcome, also suspend some of the habits of thought formed during their period of apprenticeship in the contemporary academy. So, yes, maybe I am demanding not only ideological purity, but also an awareness of how massacres and purges can easily be justified by appeals to ideological purity.

Nonsense? It may well be, but hear me out. What are the characteristics of the pioneering 16 that would help circumvent some of the most obvious failure modes? A list. I love lists.

1. They must genuinely like each other.
   Academics, more than any other class of people, are notorious for standing on principle. And for not all having the same meaning in mind when using the word "principle". So principles will need to bend in a close collaboration such as this. If this is to be done without pedagogically-unnecessary outsiders, the 16 will have to bend principle based on genuine liking for each other.
2. They must be smug enough to neglect their own ego.
   Or, in other words, not need to win every argument just to know they are right. "Intrinsically motivated" is another way of putting it. It is not enough to agree on a destination. Or to take every turn as a group. The important thing is that every wrong turn taken, when back-tracked, does not lead to grudges, whether against or by, the minority that voted against it. Fortunately, the self-effacing genius is a more prevalent stereotype than the that it should not be a barrier.
3. Like all entrepreneurs, everyone must be willing to wear every hat (of the non-academic variety).
   It would compromise standards to give any course to any PhD (which otherwise reputable universities have been known to do) but when we only have 16 people to be registrar, bursar and janitor, everyone must pitch in.
4. And of course it would be a great help if most could cover more than one field. Renaissance men and women are always in demand here. 
   

Risk a little. Gain a lot.

Out of reach?

Reaching the minimum value proposition of 16 professors teaching 256 students over 4 years is ... a hurdle. Hashtag understatement.

But what about sub-minimum value propositions? To be clear, by this I mean steps that take us closer to the goal but which subtract, instead of adding, value. Another word for this is investment. Not in capital, but in time, trust, and effort. Investment requires a surplus - more of the item invested than one has immediate need for. Where can we look for this surplus?

One logical place to look would be in the crevices of the crumbling system that we are trying  to replace. Professors in diminishing affiliation with universities, students facing unsupportable tuition raises, employers who face a need to completely retrain or hire from abroad to get the people they need.

Let me get concrete. Suppose a large group of enrolled college students students wants to make a statement against an unusually large tuition hike. So they might be willing to take a negative-value-added step to express their frustration. It would take a lot less sacrifice for a group of professors in the same system to join in the protest. How? By being willing to sign non-university-approved graduation certificates for those students. The professors would be invest their reputation to attest that these students completed all the requirements to graduate except for paying the administration's arbitrary surcharges. But, they would not be giving up their income, except maybe over a much longer tome span and assuming near-suicidal vindictiveness by the administration. Similarly, the students would not be fully giving up the "brand" of the university, since the professors signing their independent certificate still have the public affiliation. 

What do you think?  Can this work? Anywhere?

Where to start? 

Even with the minimal value proposition of 16 by 256, the hurdle is pretty high before the whole concept can be proven. How can we get

• 16 people with active contributions to research in diverse fields, who can take the time to start this cooperative,
• 256 students who have other options,
• potential employers of these students agreeing to treat them as equal to regular college graduates,
• parents of these students who have never seen this system work, AND
• scholarships, grants, loans etc,. which require certain criteria to treat the cooperative as a college??

Maybe these can all be found based just on wide circulation of this blog and zealous converts to the cause. Yeah, right!

Instead, I  think we need one (or a combination) of two things:

1. A way to start with less than the minimum - part-time commitments from the professors, a smaller class, lower or free tuition, a two-year program.
2. Compelling value-added, such as a specific curriculum from a stellar core group of professors who can commit to provide a meaningful number of hours on small-group interaction with a selected cohort of students.

Creating the "stellar curriculum" might start with a list of things every graduate should know, before specializing. The goal is selective curation, not a smorgasbord. A good list starts the process of forming the core group of professors. Perhaps:

1. Economics (One intro, plus either "Micro" or "Macro" advanced)
2. History (World, plus one of multiple regions)
3. Philosophy (History of, contemporary issues in )
4. Linguistics (Intro, plus multiple semesters of a foreign language)
5. Literature 
6. Mathematics (Statistics, Linear Algebra, Calculus)
7. Physics
8. Biology (Human biology, ecology)
9. Art (Appreciation, Creation of any of music, fine arts, film)
10. Design (graphic or engineering)