Reimagining Higher Education for Character and Career

In a recent Radio Atlantic podcast, host Adam Harris and Atlantic contributing writer (and computer science professor) Ian Bogost discussed the current crisis in American higher education. They framed higher education’s “identity crisis” as a conflict between two models:

• The first model is a “coming-of-age” approach to higher education. Based on the British model of undergraduate colleges, it emphasizes self-discovery, character development, and intellectual pursuits.
• The second model focuses on professionalization of education, internships, jobs, and careers, opening the door for social mobility.

The intellectual and character-development model (first model) shaped colonial-era institutions like Harvard and Yale and drew heavily from Oxford and Cambridge. These institutions emphasized character development, residential community, and a strict liberal arts curriculum.

The vocational model (second model) emerged later through several key pieces of legislation. Morrill Act of 1862 established land-grant universities with a focus on practical and vocational education. The Hatch Act of 1887 provided permanent funding for research at public universities and required institutions to share scientific findings with the public through bulletins and reports. This work laid the groundwork for the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, which formally established the Cooperative Extension Service. The act sent university extension agents directly into rural communities to share research and educational resources, expanding practical and professional opportunities through education.

Following World War II and into the 1960s, the GI Bill democratized access to universities, and a large number of students began to see higher education as a way to expand opportunity. During this period, universities were seen as places where students could develop skills for professional pursuits and become good citizens.

Beginning in the 1970s, public funding for higher education began to decline. Combined with inflation, reduced state support shifted more of the financial burden onto students and families. This trend has since continued and has contributed to growing public skepticism about the value of a college degree. Degrees are now often evaluated primarily through the context of immediate vocational value rather than intellectual or civic development.

Universities must confront and address this dichotomy if they are to survive and flourish. At IU Indianapolis, we recently implemented changes to our governance structure that allow faculty experts, rather than administrators, to be the architects of the general education curriculum. Our goal is to create a learning experience that emphasizes character development, discernment, listening, and learning across differences.

At the same time, we are expanding internship and experiential learning opportunities to ensure that character development and career development are not mutually exclusive. Thanks to the work of faculty in the School of Liberal Arts, and a grant from the Teagle Foundation, we are beginning the process of re-centering the humanities within general education while also bridging the humanities with professional education.

Recent developments in AI further underscore how quickly the economic value of a degree can change substantially between a student’s freshman and senior years. Computer science is one clear example. Rather than preparing students for a “singular professional career” (as in ‘major’), we must equip students with adaptable skills and, most importantly, the ability to continue learning throughout their lives.

Career development and character development are not opposing goals; they can, and should, go together.

Go Jags!

Latha Ramchand
Chancellor