《其他人的学院:美国高等教育改革的起源》作者:伊森·w·里斯(书评)

IF 2.9 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Higher Education Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1353/rhe.2023.a907273
{"title":"《其他人的学院:美国高等教育改革的起源》作者:伊森·w·里斯(书评)","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/rhe.2023.a907273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reviewed by: Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform by Ethan W. Ris Erica Eckert, Assistant Professor Ethan W. Ris. Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022. 368 pp. $35. ISBN 9780226820224. While commonly regarded as a path for social advancement, it is well-known that higher education is a stratified system (Taylor & Cantwell, 2019). In Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform, Ethan Ris illustrates an underappreciated yet essential originator of postsecondary stratification—the philanthropic foundation. From the outset, Ris explains his goals are to look behind the curtain at the people, organizations, and movements seeking to reform higher education between 1890 and 1936. This period represents the earliest years in which philanthropic foundations leveraged financial resources to form higher education into a stratified system of vertically integrated institutions serving specific populations of students while systematically excluding or diverting others. These efforts and the pioneering opposition to these efforts comprise the book's scope. Ris argues that these higher education reform efforts and the efforts to oppose shaped higher education as it exists today. The book spans three phases of reform: ideas (1890–1905), efforts (1905–1915), and resistance (1915–1936). When most people think of the Progressive Era in the early 20th century United States, they likely think of muckraking journalism and individuals such as Jane Addams, W. E. B. DuBois, and Theodore Roosevelt (despite his more problematic beliefs) advocating for grassroots change. Progressivism also coincided with the scientific management movement, social Darwinism, and the prevailing belief that with sufficient expertise, all problems could be solved. Having amassed their fortunes by relying upon the labor of others, Gilded Age captains of industry John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie believed adherence to principles of scientific management and engineering could improve society at large. The first two major philanthropic organizations were Andrew Carnegie's Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT) and John D. Rockefeller's General Education Board (GEB). Ris presents the origin stories of these foundations, which were formed in large part to reshape the system of American higher education at the system rather than at the institution or individual level. The foundations were animated by the people who ran them and Ris characterizes these people as academic engineers. Ris carefully explains how the academic engineers developed their perspectives and inflicted them on higher education. This creates a rather dramatic storytelling landscape throughout the early sections of the book and Ris draws from a mass of personal papers and correspondence, historical essays and scholarship, journalism, and organizational documentation as evidence. The first section of the book describes the ideas and aims of higher education reform. In the first chapter, Ris introduces the academic engineers. Although their views were not completely uniform, most academic engineers held the belief that American higher education was not living up to its promise, needed to be fixed, and only those outside the system could fix it. Many of the academic engineers failed to complete (or attend) college, viewed themselves as self-made, and had the superiority complex to match. Most academic engineers were formally or informally affiliated with CFAT or GEB, although some served as college leaders or government officials. [End Page 127] CFAT and GEB wanted higher education \"To earn the right to survive\" by being \"more efficient, more accountable, and more useful to both students and society\" (p. 1). They did not, however, plan to create efficiency and accountability through competition. Instead, as Ris explains in the second chapter, they sought to reduce the total number of institutions and reduce competition among institutions. They aimed to reorganize the system of higher education, which would have the consequence of reinforcing social structures by directing students (along class, citizenship, racial, and economic lines) to specific institution types and geographic areas. Their mechanism of influence was money doled out by CFAT and GEB administrators using seemingly arbitrary guidelines. The classic and well-described example Ris provides is the CFAT pension fund for professors that could only be secured at the institution level, provided the institution abided by certain requirements. The promise of pension funds...","PeriodicalId":47732,"journal":{"name":"Review of Higher Education","volume":"2012 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform by Ethan W. Ris (review)\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/rhe.2023.a907273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reviewed by: Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform by Ethan W. Ris Erica Eckert, Assistant Professor Ethan W. Ris. Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022. 368 pp. $35. ISBN 9780226820224. While commonly regarded as a path for social advancement, it is well-known that higher education is a stratified system (Taylor & Cantwell, 2019). In Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform, Ethan Ris illustrates an underappreciated yet essential originator of postsecondary stratification—the philanthropic foundation. From the outset, Ris explains his goals are to look behind the curtain at the people, organizations, and movements seeking to reform higher education between 1890 and 1936. This period represents the earliest years in which philanthropic foundations leveraged financial resources to form higher education into a stratified system of vertically integrated institutions serving specific populations of students while systematically excluding or diverting others. These efforts and the pioneering opposition to these efforts comprise the book's scope. Ris argues that these higher education reform efforts and the efforts to oppose shaped higher education as it exists today. The book spans three phases of reform: ideas (1890–1905), efforts (1905–1915), and resistance (1915–1936). When most people think of the Progressive Era in the early 20th century United States, they likely think of muckraking journalism and individuals such as Jane Addams, W. E. B. DuBois, and Theodore Roosevelt (despite his more problematic beliefs) advocating for grassroots change. Progressivism also coincided with the scientific management movement, social Darwinism, and the prevailing belief that with sufficient expertise, all problems could be solved. Having amassed their fortunes by relying upon the labor of others, Gilded Age captains of industry John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie believed adherence to principles of scientific management and engineering could improve society at large. The first two major philanthropic organizations were Andrew Carnegie's Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT) and John D. Rockefeller's General Education Board (GEB). Ris presents the origin stories of these foundations, which were formed in large part to reshape the system of American higher education at the system rather than at the institution or individual level. The foundations were animated by the people who ran them and Ris characterizes these people as academic engineers. Ris carefully explains how the academic engineers developed their perspectives and inflicted them on higher education. This creates a rather dramatic storytelling landscape throughout the early sections of the book and Ris draws from a mass of personal papers and correspondence, historical essays and scholarship, journalism, and organizational documentation as evidence. The first section of the book describes the ideas and aims of higher education reform. In the first chapter, Ris introduces the academic engineers. Although their views were not completely uniform, most academic engineers held the belief that American higher education was not living up to its promise, needed to be fixed, and only those outside the system could fix it. Many of the academic engineers failed to complete (or attend) college, viewed themselves as self-made, and had the superiority complex to match. Most academic engineers were formally or informally affiliated with CFAT or GEB, although some served as college leaders or government officials. [End Page 127] CFAT and GEB wanted higher education \\\"To earn the right to survive\\\" by being \\\"more efficient, more accountable, and more useful to both students and society\\\" (p. 1). They did not, however, plan to create efficiency and accountability through competition. Instead, as Ris explains in the second chapter, they sought to reduce the total number of institutions and reduce competition among institutions. They aimed to reorganize the system of higher education, which would have the consequence of reinforcing social structures by directing students (along class, citizenship, racial, and economic lines) to specific institution types and geographic areas. Their mechanism of influence was money doled out by CFAT and GEB administrators using seemingly arbitrary guidelines. The classic and well-described example Ris provides is the CFAT pension fund for professors that could only be secured at the institution level, provided the institution abided by certain requirements. The promise of pension funds...\",\"PeriodicalId\":47732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"2012 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2023.a907273\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2023.a907273","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

埃里卡·埃克特,助理教授伊森·w·里斯。其他人的学院:美国高等教育改革的起源。芝加哥:芝加哥大学出版社,2022。368页,35美元。ISBN 9780226820224。虽然通常被认为是社会进步的途径,但众所周知,高等教育是一个分层的系统(Taylor & Cantwell, 2019)。在《别人的大学:美国高等教育改革的起源》一书中,伊森•里斯阐述了一个未被充分认识但却是高等教育分层的重要发起者——慈善基金会。从一开始,里斯就解释说,他的目标是揭开1890年至1936年间寻求改革高等教育的人们、组织和运动的面纱。这一时期是慈善基金会利用财政资源将高等教育形成一个垂直整合的分层体系,为特定的学生群体服务,同时系统地排除或转移其他人。这些努力和对这些努力的先驱性反对构成了本书的范围。里斯认为,这些高等教育改革的努力和反对的努力塑造了今天的高等教育。这本书跨越了改革的三个阶段:思想(1890-1905)、努力(1905-1915)和抵抗(1915-1936)。当大多数人想到20世纪初美国的进步时代时,他们可能会想到揭发丑闻的新闻和像简·亚当斯、w·e·b·杜波依斯和西奥多·罗斯福(尽管他的信仰更有问题)这样倡导基层变革的个人。进步主义还与科学管理运动、社会达尔文主义以及认为只要有足够的专业知识,所有问题都可以解决的普遍信念不约而同。镀金时代的工业巨头约翰·d·洛克菲勒和安德鲁·卡内基依靠他人的劳动积累了财富,他们认为坚持科学管理和工程原则可以改善整个社会。最早的两个主要慈善组织是安德鲁·卡内基的卡内基教学促进基金会(CFAT)和约翰·d·洛克菲勒的通识教育委员会(GEB)。里斯介绍了这些基金会的起源故事,这些基金会的成立在很大程度上是为了重塑美国高等教育体系,而不是在机构或个人层面。这些基金会是由管理它们的人赋予活力的,里斯把这些人描述为学术工程师。里斯仔细地解释了学术工程师如何发展他们的观点,并将其强加给高等教育。这在书的前几部分创造了一个相当戏剧性的叙事景观,里斯从大量的个人文件和信件、历史论文和学术研究、新闻和组织文件中汲取证据。这本书的第一部分描述了高等教育改革的理念和目标。在第一章中,Ris介绍了学术工程师。尽管他们的观点并不完全一致,但大多数学术工程师都认为,美国高等教育没有达到它的承诺,需要加以修正,而只有体制外的人才能加以修正。许多学院派工程师没能完成(或上)大学,他们认为自己是白手起家的,并有与之相匹配的优越感。大多数学术工程师正式或非正式地隶属于CFAT或GEB,尽管有些人担任学院领导或政府官员。CFAT和GEB希望高等教育通过“更有效率、更负责任、对学生和社会更有用”来“赢得生存的权利”(第1页)。然而,他们并不打算通过竞争来创造效率和责任。相反,正如里斯在第二章中解释的那样,他们试图减少机构的总数,减少机构之间的竞争。他们的目标是重组高等教育体系,通过引导学生(沿着阶级、公民身份、种族和经济界限)进入特定的机构类型和地理区域,从而加强社会结构。他们的影响机制是CFAT和GEB管理人员使用看似武断的指导方针发放的资金。Ris提供的一个经典且描述得很好的例子是教授的CFAT养老基金,该基金只能在机构层面获得,前提是该机构遵守某些要求。养老基金的承诺……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform by Ethan W. Ris (review)
Reviewed by: Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform by Ethan W. Ris Erica Eckert, Assistant Professor Ethan W. Ris. Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022. 368 pp. $35. ISBN 9780226820224. While commonly regarded as a path for social advancement, it is well-known that higher education is a stratified system (Taylor & Cantwell, 2019). In Other People's Colleges: The Origins of American Higher Education Reform, Ethan Ris illustrates an underappreciated yet essential originator of postsecondary stratification—the philanthropic foundation. From the outset, Ris explains his goals are to look behind the curtain at the people, organizations, and movements seeking to reform higher education between 1890 and 1936. This period represents the earliest years in which philanthropic foundations leveraged financial resources to form higher education into a stratified system of vertically integrated institutions serving specific populations of students while systematically excluding or diverting others. These efforts and the pioneering opposition to these efforts comprise the book's scope. Ris argues that these higher education reform efforts and the efforts to oppose shaped higher education as it exists today. The book spans three phases of reform: ideas (1890–1905), efforts (1905–1915), and resistance (1915–1936). When most people think of the Progressive Era in the early 20th century United States, they likely think of muckraking journalism and individuals such as Jane Addams, W. E. B. DuBois, and Theodore Roosevelt (despite his more problematic beliefs) advocating for grassroots change. Progressivism also coincided with the scientific management movement, social Darwinism, and the prevailing belief that with sufficient expertise, all problems could be solved. Having amassed their fortunes by relying upon the labor of others, Gilded Age captains of industry John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie believed adherence to principles of scientific management and engineering could improve society at large. The first two major philanthropic organizations were Andrew Carnegie's Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT) and John D. Rockefeller's General Education Board (GEB). Ris presents the origin stories of these foundations, which were formed in large part to reshape the system of American higher education at the system rather than at the institution or individual level. The foundations were animated by the people who ran them and Ris characterizes these people as academic engineers. Ris carefully explains how the academic engineers developed their perspectives and inflicted them on higher education. This creates a rather dramatic storytelling landscape throughout the early sections of the book and Ris draws from a mass of personal papers and correspondence, historical essays and scholarship, journalism, and organizational documentation as evidence. The first section of the book describes the ideas and aims of higher education reform. In the first chapter, Ris introduces the academic engineers. Although their views were not completely uniform, most academic engineers held the belief that American higher education was not living up to its promise, needed to be fixed, and only those outside the system could fix it. Many of the academic engineers failed to complete (or attend) college, viewed themselves as self-made, and had the superiority complex to match. Most academic engineers were formally or informally affiliated with CFAT or GEB, although some served as college leaders or government officials. [End Page 127] CFAT and GEB wanted higher education "To earn the right to survive" by being "more efficient, more accountable, and more useful to both students and society" (p. 1). They did not, however, plan to create efficiency and accountability through competition. Instead, as Ris explains in the second chapter, they sought to reduce the total number of institutions and reduce competition among institutions. They aimed to reorganize the system of higher education, which would have the consequence of reinforcing social structures by directing students (along class, citizenship, racial, and economic lines) to specific institution types and geographic areas. Their mechanism of influence was money doled out by CFAT and GEB administrators using seemingly arbitrary guidelines. The classic and well-described example Ris provides is the CFAT pension fund for professors that could only be secured at the institution level, provided the institution abided by certain requirements. The promise of pension funds...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Higher Education
Review of Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), The Review of Higher Education provides a forum for discussion of issues affecting higher education. The journal advances the study of college and university issues by publishing peer-reviewed articles, essays, reviews, and research findings. Its broad approach emphasizes systematic inquiry and practical implications. Considered one of the leading research journals in the field, The Review keeps scholars, academic leaders, and public policymakers abreast of critical issues facing higher education today.
期刊最新文献
Hoped-For Selves: Using Possible Selves to Explore the Career and College-Going Aspirations for Gang-Involved Latino Boys Tenure Bans: An Exploratory Study of State Legislation Proposing to Eliminate Faculty Tenure, 2012-2022 Black Taxes: African-American Doctoral Students Experiencing Tokenism at a Predominantly White Institution "It's an Old White Boys' Club:" Faculty of Color's Perceptions of Policy Engagement Language and Postsecondary Trajectories: How "Ever-English Learner" Status Predicts College Student Pathways and Outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1