At the heart of the new institutions rested a simple premise: American democracy depended on an educated, satisfied and socially mobile yeomanry. To supporters of the land-grant movement, established colleges, mostly on the Atlantic seaboard, had become bastions of privilege. Wealth or birth served as necessary prerequisites for entrance and these restrictions prevented the children of the industrial from assuming meaningful positions in society. Long-existing schools had come to serve as de facto gatekeepers to the upper classes. They both provided the veneer and connections to achieve business success and guarded admittance to law, medical and theological schools.For land-grant colleges and higher education in America generally, the past two decades have been a time of heightened introspection. Popularity of Total Quality Management and other management systems have compelled land-grant colleges to justify themselves and their distinctiveness. At the same time, states have demanded “accountability” as legislators attempt to justify significant state expenditures. These schools have been called upon to identify distinctive visions for themselves for clarify their central missions. In many cases, land-grant colleges have determined that a commitment to the public weal—engagement in the affairs of the state and its citizens—marks them as distinct from other American colleges and universities. But what exactly the terms of engagement entail has been left for each college to describe and define through its actions and programs.
Uploading links
Depositfiles links
Mega links
No comments:
Post a Comment