Search

This American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) Occasional Paper presents the proceedings of a conference on "Liberal Arts Colleges in American Higher Education: Challenges and Opportunities" convened by ACLS in November 2003 in Williamstown, Massachusetts with the support of the Oakley Center for the Humanities and Social Sciences at Williams College and the collaboration of the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute. Eighteen speakers on five panels focused on historical perspectives, fiscal pressures, professional life, student achievement, and the future of liberal arts colleges. The frame of the Williamstown conference encompassed questions of faculty development and scholarly formation, but widened to include also the relationship between intellectual mission and economic constraints of the college-university, the history of these institutions, and their distinctive effectiveness in undergraduate education. The papers delivered were revised following discussion and an additional entry, Michael McPherson's, was solicited for this volume. Including Dr. McPherson, ten current or former college presidents participated in this discussion. The Introduction is presented by Pauline Yu while the Prologue, entitled "The Liberal Arts College: Identity, Variety, Destiny," is provided by Francis Oakley. The volume divides into three sections. Section I, "The Past: The Liberal Arts Mission in Historical Context," contains these papers: (1) Balancing Hopes and Limits in the Liberal Arts College (Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz); and (2) The Problem of Mission: A Brief Survey of the Changing Mission of the Liberal Arts (Christina Elliott Sorum). Section II, "The Present: Economic Pressures/Teaching, Research, and Professional Life/Educational Goals and Student Achievement," contains these papers: (3) The Economic Challenges of Liberal Arts Colleges (Lucie Lapovsky); (4) Discounts and Spending at the Leading Liberal Arts Colleges (Roger T. Kaufman); (5) Scholars and Teachers Revisited: In Continued Defense of College Faculty Who Publish (Robert A. McCaughey); (6) Beyond the Circle: Challenges and Opportunities for the Contemporary Liberal Arts Teacher-Scholar (Kimberly Benston); (7) Built To Engage: Liberal Arts Colleges and Effective Educational Practice (George D. Kuh); and (8) Selective and Non-Selective Alike: An Argument for the Superior Educational Effectiveness of Smaller Liberal Arts Colleges (Richard Ekman). Section III, "The Future: Five Presidents on the Challenge Lying Ahead," contains these papers: (9) The Challenges Facing Public Liberal Arts Colleges (Mary K. Grant); (10) The Importance of Institutional Culture (Stephen R. Lewis); (11) The Future Ain't What It Used to Be (Michele Tolela Myers); (12) A Story Untold and Questions Unasked (David H. Porter); and (13) Liberal Arts Education at Large Research Universities and at Small Liberal Arts Colleges (Morton Owen Schapiro). Responses to articles in sections I and II are presented by Stephen Fix, Michael S. McPherson, Kenneth P. Ruscio, and Mitchell J. Chang. (Contains 23 figures, 3 tables, and 157 notes.)

Four papers discuss research exchanges between the United States and the USSR and East Europe. The first paper considers the evolution of perceptions of social scientists in these countries during the Cold War and Detente. The dominant view of American researchers during the Cold War was that the United States, as the most modern society, was the yardstick for measuring other societies. The United States experienced rapid growth of training and research related to the Soviet orbit. However, Soviet scholars were constrained by Marxist-Leninist doctrine and by educational and research policies. In the 1960s, American social scientists gained a greater appreciation for the complexities of modern societies and East European social scientists began innovative studies. The second paper discusses evaluations of research exchanges between the United States and the Soviet Union. The conclusion is that these exchanges are scientifically valuable to both countries. The most serious problem is Soviet political repression of its scientific community. The third paper discusses problems and accomplishments of East European studies in the United States. Although progress seems to be steady, American social scientists have come to pursue topics that are politically safe, and thus often of secondary importance. The final paper suggests that in exchanges between the Soviet Union and the United States, both academic and government communities profit. The point that Soviet exchanges are generally in sciences and engineering and American exchanges are in history and literature illustrates that each side sends whom it wishes. Thus, the author concludes that this type of exchange is neither unbalanced nor unfair. (Author/KC)

The United States influenced the origins, elaboration, and implementation of the politics of knowledge between social science and policy in the South African National Bureau for Educational and Social Research. Divided into six sections, the historical analysis of the Bureau: (1) examined the context within which the Bureau emerged, the origins of the new paradigm, and the organization of the Bureau; (2) looked at the first major study in the new paradigm; (3) explored the Bureau's role in intelligence testing; (4) examined the efficiency surveys in African education; (5) studied the Bureau's involvement in educational measurement; and (6) evaluated the Bureau's bilingual survey and its consequences. Established in 1929 as an informal information gathering and research division within the South African Union Department of Education, the Bureau became the center of the development of a new relationship between social science and policy in South Africa. Four years after the Bureau's foundation, its potential influence increased with a substantial grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York (United States). The foreign funding enabled the Bureau to sponsor, conduct, and publish social science research as well as build a national library on education and the social sciences. Although temporarily closed in 1940 for the duration of World War II, the Bureau continued to exert influence on South African policy until its incorporation into the Human Sciences Research Council in 1969. As the director of the Bureau, Dr. Ernest Gideon Malherbe pioneered an interdisciplinary approach to policy oriented social science research in the Carnegie Poor White Study. (Author/CK)