Five years ago, Allen Guelzo wrote a piece in Books and Culture on some of the important issues facing Evangelical colleges. In that essay he discussed the eroding financial health of Evangelical colleges, the failure of Evangelical colleges to recruit high-caliber students, and the tensions between faculty religious commitments (or lack thereof) and the college’s statements of faith.
Shortly after it appeared, I was asked to lead a discussion of this essay during a faculty symposium at Messiah College. To be honest, I don’t recall much of what we talked about, but I do remember that the entire session was devoted to debunking all of Guelzo’s claims. I only remember a few members of the conversation actually taking Guelzo seriously.
Now Guelzo has returned with a new essay on Evangelical colleges. (Readers of this blog will note that I included a reference to this article in last night’s “odds and ends.”)
In this piece, which was published in Touchstone, Guelzo draws the following conclusions:
- Evangelical colleges admit roughly three out of every four students who apply.
- Alumni giving to Evangelical colleges is too low
- Evangelical college endowments are too small
- Several leading Evangelical colleges have been called out by the Department of Education for failing an annual “test” of financial strength.
- Evangelical colleges hire “rolodex presidents” who do not understand how to run an institution of higher learning.
- Faculty are more committed to their profession and discipline than they are to their institution.
- By seeking after credentialing and prestige, Evangelical colleges are in danger of losing their core identity. They forget their “reason for educating.”
I am guessing that many Evangelical college administrators and faculty will get very defensive about Guelzo’s article.
Indeed, Guelzo sweeps with a broad brush. Not every Evangelical college has a “rolodex president.” Not all scholarly-active Evangelical college professors are more committed to their profession than their institution. But in the end, Guelzo is mostly right. Christian colleges should heed his words.
Two comments:
1. John, what has changed in your perceptions of the situation in the past five years? I assume you were in agreement with your colleagues when the B&C article appeared. What has changed? For you, what follows from your conclusion that Guelzo is “mostly right”?
2. I agree that administrators are likely to be defensive about these charges. Guelzo is pointing at them. But faculty shouldn't get defensive–this is a great opportunity to sound the alarm. Faculty should thank Guelzo for being a truth-teller and pointing out uncomfortable truths. And, if this spurs faculty on to being more rigorous, so much the better. (Unfortunately, Guelzo and others have pointed out that the entire system is rigged against offering rigorous courses.)
Jonathan: When I reread my post I can see how it sounds like I was one of the chorus of faculty who thought Guelzo was wrong. I do not think this was the case. I was merely a facilitator and when I said that most people tried to debunk Guelzo, I was not necessarily talking about myself.
So, to answer your question, I do not think much HAS changed since his B&C piece.
I largely agree with point #2 in your comment.
Three More Points:
1. Thanks for the clarification. If anything, article #2 should be read with even greater urgency. Troubling trends 5 years ago have become realities now. If Christian higher education drifts for 5 more years, the situation may become dire.
2. The list of school that failed the finances test is here: http://chronicle.com/article/Low-Grades-on-Education/123872
3. Just for the record, I lost a good deal of sleep last night ruminating on the article!
For some reason I am only coming to the Touchstone article today. While I think there are plenty of reasons administrators should feel defensive and rightly chastened upon reading this essay, I also think some of the most incisive criticism here is directed toward careerist faculty. Over the past 13 years teaching at a Christian college, I have noticed a much greater tendency toward loyalty to respective guilds and a diminishing vision for the institution, the core, the broad enterprise of thinking Christianly, and institutional mission. It seems that the institution like ours have increasingly become places where we hang our shingle to practice our craft, and I think he justifiably takes us to task for downplaying one of the few things that our kinds of institutions really have to offer that others (like Gettysburg and Wabash) don't.