Altogether, the UNCW Department of Political Science MPA Program has been an amazing experience for me. As much as it has been intellectually stimulating, mind-exapanding and intensive, it has also been difficult, stressful and, at times, bewildering. Thus, when I state that it has been amazing, I mean it in a somewhat ambivalent way, depending on how I look at it.
As an aspiring administrator, it has been a powerful introduction to a discipline about which, frankly, I knew precious little. As a mid-career professional, this program has given me a great deal to reflect upon as I compared the nexus of theory and application, demonstrating to me that there is no good substitute for experience. As a part-time, non-traditional student, I have found myself and my family tested and, occasionally, pushed to the limit of endurance. When I started the program in 2002, I had no children and was living in an apartment. Now we have a home and two young children. Thus, much of this stress has been simply the confluence of the MPA program and changing life circumstances. However, that is not to imply that the program is not sufficiently challenging. When all is said and done, it is, as with all forms of education, what one makes of it.
The question is: what could be done to make it a better experience? As a long-time consumer of the program, I am in a unique position to provide feedback about the evolution of the program, along with my personal reflections. I will start with the positives and discuss what I feel are the program's strengths. True to form, I'll turn to weaknesses. Finally, I'll combine opportunities and threats into set of specific recommendations on how to improve the program.
Program Strengths
When I started the MPA Program in 2002, one semester after its launch, my choices were fairly simple: Coastal Management (CM) or Nonprofit Management (NM). Given my creative background, nonprofit management was a no-brainer. My reasoning for entering the program in the first place: I wanted to be of some use to my society other than an aesthetic one. I was unhappy in my position as an art director and wanted more. I was already volunteering and serving my community in various supplemental capacities. I wanted to make an even bigger splash and rise above the limits I had set upon myself. Being a big believer in education, an advanced degree seemed the best alternative. That brings me to the first great strength of the program: Expanding Choice.
I chose the UNCW MPA Program because, of all of my educational choices, it offered the broadest form of preparation. Furthermore, much like an MBA in the business world, the MPA presented a more direct path to the upper echelons. I didn't know exactly what it was that I wanted to do there, but I figured it probably would not hurt to have three little letters after my name. The concentration options also offered some amount of specialization. Later on, the program evolved to include the Environmental Policy and Management (EPM) and the Policy Analysis (PA) Concentration. These new options now allow for a more in-depth study of policy specialties, emphasizing just the sort of practical applications that I feel will benefit us more technically-minded students most in such a broad course of study.
Being academically adventurous, I began to explore whether I might be able to secure a dual concentration in both NM and PA. There was enough crossover in the requirements that if I took the just the right combination of electives, I could meet the requirements of both. That remains to be seen. At any rate, the program will naturally become more attractive to prospective MPA students by increasing available choices that emphasize depth of study in conjunction with the breadth supplied by the core requirements. More programs will lead to more students, which will ultimately contribute to even more offerings. In the long run, that kind of expansion might lead to an amalgamation of multiple programs under a new school of public policy for the university.
Hopefully, such an expansion will not become unaffordable to average income residents of SE NC. The extremely affordable tuition in relation to program's offerings leads me to the next great strength: Educational Value.
Compared to most other graduate universities around NC, UNCW's graduate tuition is amazingly low. The cost is, of course, not strictly in keeping with the NC Constitution's admonishment to the legislature to “provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.” However, the operational word there is "practicable." At $1,851 per semester for full time graduate tuition, practically anyone can afford to attend. One wonders why more do not, since a master's degree can be a real career booster.
Of course, the value of the tuition has to be weighed against the product to be meaningful. I think that the full-time faculty members are what make the program ultimately well worth its salt. That leads me to the last program strength: Quality of Learning.
The MPA Program's accreditation by NASPAA this year was no small feat, but really not unexpected given the credentials and dedication of the faculty. In the classroom, this translates into worthwhile learning outcomes. I feel the theories and concepts I have been exposed to have broadened my world view and, even, taught me a little humility. The truly educated person needs not know it all--just know enough to become effective. Much more than that would be superfluous. Given the gargantuan breadth of topics that we must cover, eventually one must say enough is enough. Depth is a more a matter of individual study. This brings me to the touchy part. Inevitably, program design and reality part ways lots of little ways. I will only touch on what I perceive as ones that represent opportunities for positive change.
Program Weaknesses
Of course, depth of study is a function less programmatic and more academic. In other words, depth happens in the classroom and has more to do with the syllabus than the curriculum. Besides, an MPA is a generalist degree: it is not intended to create experts as much as administrators (though it can do both). Nevertheless, it might be possible to build in more depth into the curriculum by adding a few advanced courses as electives. In fact, it would be quite nice to have a few more electives from which to choose at enrollment.
The timing of certain classes also seems to be an issue for some. I have had problems scheduling a 5:00 pm class when I work full-time and do not have a sympathetic boss. Obviously this affects primarily part-timers like me, but we do make up a third of the students.
Another serious weakness/strength in the program has been the use of adjuncts. Obviously, it must be difficult to find and retain good instructors. The good ones seem to be drawn away by other more lucrative offers. To make matters worse, the bad ones seem to stick around. Even so, I have had the opportunity to learn from some outstanding "pracademics." That is why this qualifies as both strength and a weakness. I guess it might be nice if we witnessed some more accountability based on our Spots, but then we as students would never know it if there were. Thus, the subject does not deserve more elaboration.
In the classroom, it would benefit students like me to see a little more diversity: both economic and ethnic. I realize that much of this is way beyond even your control, but I was thinking that some of that responsibility must lie within the program. I think it is fair to say that some more efforts ought to be made to increase minority enrollment without breaking either the bank or the law.
Beyond this, I have heard a great deal of criticism of the types of things we learn in some of our classes. Most of it centers around two things:
- Theory vs. application
- Over reliance on peer evaluation
We, as working practitioners, would benefit more from learning that has practical applications, versus just theory. Do not get me wrong: theory is the basis for applications. It would be nice if more balance between them is preferred. Perhaps a needs assessment of graduates might help.
Many students have commented to me how they feel that peer reviews cause them stress and that the tendency is to not say anything bad to avoid some kind of knee-jerk reprisal by the instructor. Thus, social factors may cast some doubt on their validity as an evaluation tool. Furthermore, they are not standardized across the program like the Spots are. At least we might be able to be more comfortable with a generic form that we know and love, like the Spot form.
Recommendations
It would not be fair to cite the above criticisms without mentioning some solutions as well. They represent opportunities for positive change--we are talking about evolution, not revolution. Of course, it is difficult to make recommendations untainted by subjectivity. Perhaps they should be thought of more as jumping off points. Anyway, here it goes in no particular order.
- Evaluate and hold adjuncts accountable. Reward the good ones and coach the poor performers more closely. If that fails, cut poor performers loose. The program will be stronger for it, rather than having a portion languishing because of sheer inertia. I do see some positive signs of this happening now.
- Standardize peer review so that the instrument is more valid. Instead of the hodgepodge of forms that exist now, scores from multiple projects and classes can be coalesced into an overall score for each student. Also, prohibit their use for class-wide service projects. Maintain their use only for teams.
- Offer a Saturday class every semester. It would seem a student needs assessment could easily gauge interest in the current student body.
- Since our department is supposed to be on the administrative cutting edge, make it a model of IT efficiency. I recommend that the department look into Blackboard or some other IP-based form of classroom collaboration that would have ties to the department's master database. If the Program were producing nothing but technofiles (which it is definitely not) it could make a name for itself even though the interuniversity competition for academic outcomes is fierce. I'm thinking that a series of elective application courses would help out here: Working with Data, Statistical Applications, Internet Applications and so on.
- Offer direct assistance to prepare papers for publishing and presentation at conferences. It would be difficult indeed for us to arrive at the conclusion that, yes, this paper is a good enough candidate. Many of us are so busy that it would take some extra incentive as a teacher's encouragement and advice. Otherwise, we all just assume our work is passable and nothing more.
- Seek to encourage students to integrate skills learned in multiple courses in projects other than the Capstone. Of course, this could be difficult if students are at widely different points in the program. The use of teams for projects can encourage this kind of cross-pollination. In particular, I think there needs to be more emphasis on integrating basic scientific research skills.
- Okay. Many students are cash poor nowadays, but some are worse off than others. I'm not convinced that it is a rule and not an exception. Thus, offer tools to help lower income and minority students apply to and succeed in the program. More financial incentives, such as departmental scholarships and outreach efforts to traditionally minority colleges and universities might help here.
No comments:
Post a Comment