Bulletin Spring‧Summer 1981

In contrast to "purposeful academic reform," there are also the changes which are undertaken because of some political concern or because of some pressure groups. For example, using the United States again as an illustration, there is the development of women's studies under pressure from women students or black studies under pressure from black students. To contrast "purposeful academic reform" with other efforts at change which were not aca­ demic, there were many efforts to change the system of governance of higher education by bringing in outside boards of regents, as for example in Sweden, and in contrast also with academic reform, such as giving more power to the University Grants Com mittee in Great Britain. Also in contrast are changes having to do with access, trying to make access more available to more people, particularly in what are called the "U-68 Reforms" in Sweden. Thus, I am talking about "purposeful academic reform", not other kinds of reform or change, and not those things that affected the academic side of the effort which came out of market forces or political pressures. Before going into what was attempted, let me say that during this period I was very sympathetic with the efforts at reform. I think most of the re forms—at least from the point of view of a reformer —failed, were unsuccessful, or did not meet ex pectations, if they survived at all. When I was Chan cellor at Berkeley, I listened to many student com plaints about the impersonality of a large university of that sort. I listened to complaints by the younger faculty members. I was generally sympathetic with them, not only in the field of higher education but beyond it, in my own field, for example, of industrial relations. Pluralistic Approach I have always felt there must be better ways of doing things than tradition has given us. And, even if the reforms did not work, at least it was wise all the time to keep on testing the status quo to see whether it could meet the test of being the best way of doing things or whether it was just some kind of a gift from the past. I am a pluralist and I favour the idea of doing things in several different ways; not that one may be better intrinsically than another, but that different people operate in different ways and what may be Utopia for one person will be hell for an­ other. So I have always been rather critical of the British idea that there is one gold standard in higher education, one best way of doing things, one best way of testing the quality of the degrees, and have thought that it was better to have several ways of doing things. One might be better for one group, one for another. Among other things, not all people think in the same way. By now there is a fair amount of literature on the different types of mentalities. As a pluralist I favour having several ways around, including new ways, to see if people would like them and take to them. I also generally feel that institutions are more dynamic if they have some experimental aspects to them; they tend to be more lively, they tend to draw forth more energy and enthusiasm from the people connected with them. I also rather think that if there is a chance to try things that are new, some of the people who are not entirely happy with the status quo will feel less of a sense of frustration and will feel that they have some potential control over their destinies. I also generally think that it is desirable for people belonging to any organization to feel it has a sense of identity, a sense of uniqueness. Then, they will feel more committed, and loyal to it. From that point of view, I favour doing things in different ways, too. For all these reasons I was very sympathetic with academic reforms. Specifically, my concerns were the following: that undergraduates, particularly in the big univer sities, were being treated in a very impersonal way and that there must be ways in which they could be treated more as individuals. I also felt that in many of our academic endeavours there was very little sense of community; that the relationships were on a very routine basis and not as friends interested in each other. I made various attempts in the social sciences, before I became an academic administrator, to find ways to bridge the gaps among and between the disciplines. I felt we fragmented the intellectual world, that there were too many subdivisions, too many tiny bits and pieces which did not add up to very much, particularly in giving the students an out­ look on life. There were some attempted reforms which I at all times opposed, particularly if they looked as if they might lead to a loss of quality. In the United States, one such reform that continues and in fact may even be expanding is giving credit for life ex­ perience. There are actually more and more colleges now that say, "Well, you know you worked and that is a kind of education, so we will give you three units of credit for it." Or, "You have been to Europe and that is an education, so we will give you six units of credit for that." But I have been opposed to that type of thing which looked like it was going to reduce the academic content of higher education. I also then generally opposed those reforms which tried to substitute "affective learning" for 5