The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University has made its findings public in a report whose objective is to create a model for the country's one hundred or so research universities.

Shirley Strum Kenny, USB president, chaired the committee, which included Bruce Alberts, President of The National Academy of Sciences, Stanley Ikenberry, President of the American Council on Education and various other academic luminaries, as well as a few people who have nothing at all do with undergraduate teaching.

The report begins by describing the characteristics that differentiate a Research University from its non-research oriented counterparts. According to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching there are 88 universities in the United States classified as "Research I." They are so classified according to the high priority they place on research, the number of post-graduate degrees they confer yearly as well as the large sums of money they receive in federal subsidies. There are also 37 institutions classified as "Research II" who meet similar guidelines. The report therefore reserves its counsel for these schools in particular.

Central to the findings of the report is the contention that the campus environments in question strongly encourage and support the research being conducted there, yet disdain the undergraduates whose tuition dollars largely subsidize these researchers.

Among the obstacles faced by undergraduates are poor communication between instructor and student, and an educational system that spoonfeeds its participants rather than challenges their intellectual curiosity. These situations are the result of a system that has traditionally viewed teaching as an inconvenient burden rather than the primary purpose of a university.

The report calls for "Radical Reconstruction" and a reevaluation of "Time-worn assumptions and practices and goes on to say that "Universities must be willing to reexamine and pare away everything that cannot demonstrate its value." How such value is to be determined is not explicitly stated.

The Boyer Commission has identified what it feels are ten basic reforms that research universities must make in order to fulfill their obligations to undergraduates. They are as follows:

1. Make research-based learning the standard.

2. Construct an inquiry based Freshman year.

3. Build on the Freshman foundation.

4. Remove barriers to interdisciplinary education

5. Link communication skills and course work.

6. Use information technology creatively.

7. Culminate with a capstone experience.

8. Educate graduate students as apprentice teachers.

9. Change faculty rewards systems.

10. Cultivate a sense of community.

The rationale for research based learning is that traditionally research and teaching have been utterly unrelated, and this has resulted in the emphasis of one at the expense of the other. Classes will now be run as seminars; "traditional lecturing should not be the dominant mode of instruction in a research university." The Commission, however, does not explain how the extra instructional resources will be obtained, as it is obvious that this mode of instruction will require far more faculty than have been needed for the traditionally large lecture hall situation.

The Boyer Commission contends that first year students would benefit from seminars conducted directly by faculty, and by participation in faculty research projects. Students would eventually be prepared for internships at local businesses, perhaps paid, perhaps only for academic credit. Central to the notion of research-based learning is the mentor, who would provide intensive academic guidance, while at the same time building a relationship with the first-year student. These mentors would be expected to fulfill this obligation throughout the undergraduate course of a student's education.

A small interdisciplinary first year seminar would be required. Students would also benefit from being grouped throughout several classes to encourage collaboration and support among them. The Commission claims that students often "waste" their first year taking remedial courses, since "the American system of higher education has become less elite" in recent years. "Remediation should not be the function of a research university," the Commission asserts. In carrying out their vision, the members of the Boyer Commission would like to eliminate all remedial courses, requiring freshmen instead to complete such work before applying to the University. While the Commission expressed regret at the fact that high schools often don't prepare students for the requirements of research universities, it left the burden of correcting these deficiencies to the students at their own expense, at community colleges or in intensive summer programs.

The Commission goes on to stress that this mode of learning must continue beyond the first year, and should pervade the entire undergraduate experience. Transfer students, who may not have experienced inquiry-based learning as first year students, will have to be integrated smoothly into this environment.

The Commission places great value on the creation of an interdisciplinary curriculum that would not only enable, but encourage, students to create their own majors. To do so, the Commission realizes that departmental barriers would have to be eliminated. Such a move would free up financial resources now being absorbed by what the Commission refers to as the quest for unrestrained growth. The Commission recognizes that faculty would be resistant to such a deconstruction, but believes that research universities will have to look beyond the objections of such "tenured drones" in order to realize their goals.

Another of the aims of the Commission is to take steps to reverse the trend of "conferring degrees upon inarticulate students." A strong course of instruction in critical analysis and critical writing would become the backdrop of all courses, rather than the exception in English courses. The Commission feels that "communication skills should be integrated with subject matter," in a redoubled effort to prepare future employees to communicate complex information simply to their "employers or higher authority."

The Commission has some rather ambitious proposals regarding the implementation of new methods of instruction. It hopes to create a virtual classroom where students, perhaps even students from different schools, could all learn from the same instructors. Instructors would receive incentives for adding new technology to their courses. While this would reduce the number of necessary instructors, the technological costs could be prohibitive. Although peer interaction would obviously be reduced by such a system, flexibility of schedule and repeated access to learning materials would be the advantages provided. Yet Committee member Milton Glaser, noted instructor and graphic artist, has cautioned that "technology is never neutral." This must always be taken into account.

Concerned with the apathy that sometimes accompanies the senior year, the Commission recommends that a final project of original research, a synthesis of previous coursework, be demanded before graduation. Such a project would help prepare students for graduate-level research, or for personal enrichment.

The Commission concludes that poor graduate education is partly responsible for poor undergraduate education, and proposes to correct this by providing more training for graduate teaching assistants. However, the Commission does not explain what the role of graduate students will be in the brave new world of seminar- and research-based instruction. Though it claims that the traditional lecturer/recitation model is flawed and must be abolished, the Commission?s ideas for restructuring graduate training seem better suited for the traditional mode of instruction.

In an interview with the Stony Brook Press, President Kenny stated that graduate students should be more trained in methods of instruction before entering the classroom. Consequently, they would be alleviated from teaching responsibilities in their first year, while being trained in educational methods. The Commission cryptically expresses its concern that "compensation for all teaching assistants should reflect more adequately the time and effort expected," but does not specify whether it thinks their present compensation is too high or too low.

The retraining of instructors would extend beyond the graduate student population. Professors would be subject to a more critical review of their accomplishments in synthesizing research and undergraduate instruction. As in the past, however, research productivity would continue to be "a more manageable criterion than teaching effectiveness," and the Commission does not specify practical means of evaluation it considers effective.

The final recommendation of the Commission is to "cultivate a sense of community." Suggestions include pep rallies, football games, and other forms of "shared rituals." The Commission views the traditional emphasis on "diversity" as being divisive, segregating students into clubs based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality, rather than on mutual talents. It would prefer a greater emphasis on activity-based organizations in order to provide to students a "comfort level with difference." It also expresses commuting students? allegation that most campus events are primarily for the benefit of residents.

We conclude that the Boyer Commission's report is regrettably short on detail. In delineating an alternate course of education, members of the Commission did little to indicate how such changes could be carried out. It is irresponsible to propose drastic overhaul of a system without a clear idea of what lies in the future. In many ways, the Boyer Commission's larger scope served as a vehicle to suggest, if not mandate, highly controversial proposals which would not have received a wide audience on their own merit. In fact, it seems possible that the goal of reforming undergraduate education is a ruse in which to couch these otherwise unpopular proposals for public consumption.

For example, the Commission insults tenure by mocking faculty as "tenured drones." The professors on this Commission are hardly likely to have supported this position. The Commission also recommends that "committee work at all levels of university life should be greatly reduced to allow more time for productive student-related efforts." In other words, faculty should desist from having a voice in Administrative matters because it detracts from teaching and research (which should be taking up all their time).

The Commission calls for the abolition of remedial education, in effect alienating students from lower socio-economic backgrounds who may not have had the same access to a quality preparatory education as their more well-moneyed counterparts. Proponents of educational accessibility should find this development alarming, especially since there is no justification provided for this view. The Commission also seems to disdain extracurricular activities that focus on diversity, which once again could serve to marginalize students traditionally underrepresented on college campuses.

Most disturbing is that there is little evidence that the Commission's recommendations will actually improve education, even if they could be realistically implemented. Reform movements have been attempted in the past, and have failed because there was much reliance on technology, on independent research, and on "innovative techniques" which had not been tested even experimentally. Throwing students into radically different systems of learning can be extremely harmful if serious attention is not given to the manner in which the reforms are enacted.

An example of this sort of restructuring, which had many of the same goals, has been occurring in mathematics education. "Reform calculus" was touted by a group of mathematics instructors as a system of learning which would invigorate calculus in the eyes of freshmen, by making it relevant to other subjects, by tying it directly to technology, and by emphasizing conceptual techniques over computational techniques. It was well-intentioned, but there was a good deal of improvisation, and many reforms were implemented before faculty were prepared to change their styles of teaching. Inevitably, the reform movement remains unsuccessful, and the faculty members who felt forced to comply have enacted no more than token changes in teaching. Is there any evidence that the same will not happen when these same sorts of reforms are proposed for all subjects, instead of just mathematics?

While championing the idea of making undergraduate education more rigorous (which would most likely be well-received), implementing plans such as freshman research may in fact lead young students to prematurely specialize in chosen fields, rather than pursuing general education. Further, requiring freshmen to conduct research before they learn the basic background necessary to do this effectively is a misdirection of their scant resources.

Additionally, it is not made clear as to whether internships would be mandatory or elective. If they are mandatory, would monetary compensation be provided for the student? In both the realm of research and internships there exists the possibility that the creators of the report are seeking to capitalize on the cheap (if not free) labor that the undergraduate student would provide.

On a final note, by and large, the members of the Boyer Commission are individuals who have not been part of classroom instruction for a long time (if at all). It seems that professors who spend most of their time teaching students would be better qualified to make observations and recommendations regarding undergraduate education.