Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 77, Issue 4, pp 717–738 | Cite as

Prestige or education: college teaching and rigor of courses in prestigious and non-prestigious institutions in the U.S.

  • Corbin M. CampbellEmail author
  • Marisol Jimenez
  • Christine Arlene N. Arrozal
Article

Abstract

It is often assumed that higher prestige colleges and universities, via the rankings, have a better quality of education. Yet, the prestige structure in U.S. higher education favors resources, research, and student selectivity over teaching and undergraduate educational practices. Using quantitative observational data from 587 courses across 9 institutions of higher education in the U.S., this study examines whether courses in high prestige institutions have stronger teaching and academic rigor than courses in lower prestige institutions. Using a broad scale observational protocol, the study provides a closer look at course practices as they unfold, while also examining trends across contexts. Findings show initial evidence that the assumption that higher prestige institutions in the U.S. have better in-class educational experiences could be re-examined.

Keywords

Higher education Prestige College teaching Academic rigor Observation 

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Research in classrooms. The study of teachers, teaching and instruction. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barkow, J. H., Akiwowo, A. A., Barua, et al. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology, 16(4), 553–572.Google Scholar
  4. Bastedo, M. (2009). Convergent institutional logics in public higher education: State policymaking and governing board activism. The Review of Higher Education, 32(2), 209–234.Google Scholar
  5. Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52, 3–23.Google Scholar
  6. Bastedo, M. N., & Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in US public higher education. Higher Education, 46, 341–359.Google Scholar
  7. Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441–469.Google Scholar
  8. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034699.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals—Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  10. Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of U.S. News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50, 415–436.Google Scholar
  11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Braxton, J. M. (1993). Selectivity and rigor in research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 64(6), 657–675.Google Scholar
  13. Braxton, J. M., & Nordvall, R. C. (1985). Selective liberal arts colleges: Higher quality as well as higher prestige? The Journal of Higher Education, 538–554.Google Scholar
  14. Britt, R. (2012). Universities report highest-ever R&D spending of $65 billion in FY 2011. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Info Brief. Google Scholar
  15. Brooks, R. (2005). Measuring university quality. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 1–2.1.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, C. M., Cabrera, A. F., Michel, J. O.,* & Patel, S.* (2017). From Comprehensive to singular: A latent class analysis of college teaching practices. Research in Higher Education, 58(6), 581–604.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, C. M., & Dortch, D. (2018). Reconsidering academic rigor: The practice of posing and supporting rigorous coursework at two research institutions. Teachers College Record, 120(5), 1–42.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, C. M. (2018). Future directions for rigor in the changing higher education landscape. New Directions for Higher Education, 181, 97–102.Google Scholar
  19. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290.Google Scholar
  20. Diamond, N., & Graham, H. D. (2000). How should we rate research universities? Change, 32(4), 20–33.Google Scholar
  21. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.Google Scholar
  22. Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Reaching for the brass ring: The U.S. News and World Report rankings and competition. Review of Higher Education, 26(2), 145–162.Google Scholar
  23. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
  24. Ewell, P. T. (2008). Assessment and accountability in America today: Background and context. New Directions for Institutional Research, 8(1), 7–17.Google Scholar
  25. Gardner, S. (2010). Keeping up with the joneses: Socialization and culture in doctoral education at one striving institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 728–749.Google Scholar
  26. Gardner, S. (2013). Women faculty departures from a striving institution: Between a rock and a hard place. The Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 349–370.Google Scholar
  27. Gonzales, L. D. (2014). Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: An application of Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(2), 193–218.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777324 Google Scholar
  28. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2006). Structural equation modeling: A second course. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutor Quantitative Methods Psychology, 8(1), 23–34.Google Scholar
  31. Hazelkorn, E. (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking systems on higher education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 87–110.Google Scholar
  32. Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world excellence. London, England: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  33. Henderson, B. B., & Kane, W. D. (1991). Caught in the middle: Faculty and institutional status and quality in state comprehensive universities. Higher Education, 22, 339–350.Google Scholar
  34. Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196.Google Scholar
  35. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Observational systems and a case for the G-study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.Google Scholar
  36. Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 309–332.Google Scholar
  37. Kuh, G. D., & Pascarella, E. T. (2004). What does institutional selectivity tell us about educational quality? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(5), 52–59.Google Scholar
  38. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching: The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675.Google Scholar
  39. McLean, M., Abbas, A., & Ashwin, P. (2015). Not everybody walks and thinks “That’s an example of othering or stigmatization”: Identify, pedagogic rights and the acquisition of undergraduate sociology-based social science knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 13(2), 180–197.Google Scholar
  40. Melguizo, T., & Strober, M. H. (2007). Faculty salaries and the maximization of prestige. Research in Higher Education, 48(6), 633–668.Google Scholar
  41. Meredith, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. News and World Report college rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 443–461.Google Scholar
  42. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.Google Scholar
  43. Morphew, C. C., & Baker, B. D. (2004). The cost of prestige: Do new research one universities incur increased administrative costs? Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 365–384.Google Scholar
  44. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Harvard University. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=Harvard+University&s=all&id=166027#retgrad.
  45. Neumann, A. (2014). Staking a claim on learning: What we should know about learning in higher education and why. The Review of Higher Education, 37(2), 249–267.Google Scholar
  46. Nelson Laird, T. F., Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, C. F. (2014). Deeply affecting first-year students thinking: Deep approaches to learning and three dimensions of cognitive development. Journal of Higher Education, 85, 402–432.Google Scholar
  47. Neumann, A., & Campbell, C. M. (2016). Homing in on learning and teaching: Current approaches and future directions for higher education policy. In P. J. Gumport, P. Altbach, & M. Bastedo (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (4th ed., pp. 401–431). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  48. O’Meara, K.A. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 20, 241–306.Google Scholar
  49. O’Meara, K. A., & Bloomgarden, A. (2011). The pursuit of prestige: The experience of institutional striving from a faculty perspective. The Journal of the Professoriate, 4(1), 39–73.Google Scholar
  50. Pattison, E., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2013). Is the sky falling? Grade inflation and the signaling power of grades. Educational Researcher, 42, 259–265.Google Scholar
  51. Pike, G. R. (2004). Measuring quality: A comparison of U.S. News rankings and NSSE benchmarks. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 193–208.Google Scholar
  52. Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociololgy, 984, 829–872.Google Scholar
  53. Porter, S. R. (2013). Self-reported learning gains: A theory and test of college student survey response. Research in Higher Education, 54(2), 201–226.Google Scholar
  54. Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 29–44.Google Scholar
  55. Renaud, R. D., & Murray, H. G. (2007). The validity of higher-order questions as a process indicator of educational quality. Research in Higher Education, 48, 319–351.Google Scholar
  56. Sauder, M. (2006). Third parties and status position: How the characteristics of status systems matter. Theory and Society, 35, 299–321.Google Scholar
  57. Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.Google Scholar
  58. Schnee, E. (2008). “In the real world no one drops their standards for you”: Academic rigor in a college worker education program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41, 62–80.Google Scholar
  59. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  60. Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on learning, teaching, and learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  61. Spence, M. (1974). Market signaling. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Stallings, J.A., & Mohlman, G.G. (1988). Classroom observation techniques. In J.P. Keeves (Ed.). Educational research methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 469–474).Google Scholar
  63. Taylor, P., & Braddock, R. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(3), 245–260.Google Scholar
  64. Terosky, A. & Gonzales, L. D. (2015). The reimagining of academic careers: Faculty views on work across various institutional types. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  65. Time. (2015). Money magazine’s best colleges: Harvard University. Time . New York, NY: Time Warner. Retrieved March 9, 2015 from http://time.com/money/3023681/harvard-university-moneys-best-colleges/.
  66. U.S. News & World Report. (2017). America’s best colleges. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved June 4, 2017 from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges.
  67. Vacaro, A. (2014). Harvard’s endowment is bigger than half the world’s economies. Boston. Retrieved September 25, 2015 from https://www.boston.com/news/business/2014/09/25/harvardsendowment-is-bigger-than-half-the-worlds-economies.
  68. Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  69. Volkwein, J. F., & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional prestige and reputation among research universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 129–148.Google Scholar
  70. Waxman, H., Tharp, R. G., & Hilberg, R. S. (Eds.). (2004). Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Wieman, C., & Gilbert, S. (2014). The teaching practices inventory: A new tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 552–569.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corbin M. Campbell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marisol Jimenez
    • 1
  • Christine Arlene N. Arrozal
    • 1
  1. 1.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations