Thelin Reading Guide
Jillian Haag
Baylor University
Thelin Reading Guide
1.1 The five course themes of curriculum, students and student life, finance, access and religion all have an effect on the other. The curriculum of the colonial era was fluid and constantly changing. While requirements were published, added instruction was offered to include students who did not meet the admissions requirements and to increase revenue (Thelin, 2011, p.18). Because curriculum did not play a large role in the colonial era, students enjoyed learning about topics outside of the formal course of study such as law, medicine, and the physical sciences (Thelin, 2011, p.19- 20).
By the mid 1700’s, however, the privileged young men who generally attended colonial colleges had become critical of the college curriculum (Thelin, 2011, p.22-24). In response, students formed debate and literary societies such as Phi Beta Kappa (Thelin, 2011, p.22). While some students conducted all of life together, like those at Yale, others chose not to live at the college if it impacted the student financially (Thelin, 2011, p.8 & 10).
As finances began to affect everything from curriculum to the student experience, it also began to affect the religious aspects of a university. While religion played a central, but confined role in the colonial colleges, disputes between donors over religious beliefs would often drive some groups away (Thelin, 2011, p.13 & 29). By the time of the Revolutionary War, however, many aspects of the colonial colleges had begun to change, including the college mission’s shift away from religion (Thelin, 2011, p.28).
Collegiate finances were like the seasoning in a meal. They leaked into all aspects of college life. For example, missionary zeal for Native Americans, was linked to desires for increased funding, but left no support for African Americans or for women (Thelin, 2011, p.30). Aspects such as this created clear reminders of social class at most institutions, except for the College of Rhode Island (Thelin, 2011, p.23). By 1750 or so, college had become inaccessible and unaffordable for the majority of the colonists (Thelin, 2011, p.24-25). This resulted in a “colonial elite” who experienced all the positive features of the five course themes, while others were left by the wayside.
2.2 Colleges founded between 1785 and 1860 differed in many ways from the colonial colleges, including innovation in curriculum and diversity of students. The colleges founded during this period attempted to be unique and to appeal to students in different ways than the colonial colleges did. One college that succeeded at being distinctive in this time was the University of Virginia. The University of Virginia curriculum included topics such as science, architecture, and modern languages and had no ties to a religious denomination (Thelin, 2011, p.51).
The innovation of the University of Virginia’s curriculum did create positive and long-lasting affects. The University of Virginia struggled with student behavior and ended up creating a distinct culture of local elitism, rather than an upper tier of talent (Thelin, 2011, p. 52). Other schools that struggled through curricular innovation include the University of Nashville, who failed to attract a healthy number of students (Thelin, 2011, p.51), and Transylvania University, who ended up alienated from the rest of the state in which it resided (Thelin, 2011, p.47).
Colleges founded during this time were not only diverse in curriculum, but also in student body. At New England colleges such as Amherst and Dartmouth, the median age of students tended to be higher than the traditional college age (Thelin, 2011, p.53). This new demographic of male students typically worked throughout their time at college and tended to be the second- and third-born of their families instead of the first-born (Thelin, 2011, p.53). These earnest and enthusiastic students, differed from the privileges, white students of the colonial colleges, just as the curriculum differed (Thelin, 2011, p.53).
3.2 The Morrill Act of 1862, proposed by Justin Morrill in order to further access to public higher education was an intricate partnership between the federal government and state governments (Thelin, 2011, p.75-76). The funding that was raised through the states’ selling of Western lands was intended to go towards practical studies such as agriculture, mechanics, mining, and military instruction even though the Act did not specify specific courses of study (Thelin, 2011, p.76).
While the Morrill Act did benefit higher education in some ways, the true cause of the Act was to settle Congress’s debate over what to do with unsettled lands (Thelin, 2011, p.78). The issue at hand was not about higher education, but rather if federal land should be used for commercial development or to promote settlement (Thelin, 2011, p.78). In the end, the Morrill Act prevented commercial exploitation and promoted advanced education programs as by-product (Thelin, 2011, p.78).
While the Morrill Act first purpose was federal land policy, it was also the federal government’s entrance into public policy dealing with higher education (Thelin, 2011, p.74). Because the Morrill Act’s first purpose was land, not higher education, institutions suffered from an ill-thought out plan to kill two birds with one stone. According to Thelin (2011), state colleges connected to the Morrill Act of 1862 remained underdeveloped for several decades (Thelin, 2011, p.109).
Even with this downside to the Morrill Act, it is still seen as advancement of federal support for higher education (Thelin, 2011, p.76). The main contribution that the Morrill Act made to American higher education is that it helped state colleges transition into a university model (Thelin, 2011, p.104). Despite the negative effects, it left a legacy of accessible state colleges and universities with comprehensive and practical curriculums (Thelin, 2011, p.76).
3.3 American higher education between 1860 – 1890 was resilient. Somehow, in the midst of national and local events, these institutions survived and eventually thrived. At times, it is a mystery how these institutions made their annual operating budgets work (Thelin, 2011, p.98). Student tuition fees were low. Even if every student paid tuition in full, the revenue would not have been enough to cover expenses and construction (Thelin, 2011, p.98). Even institutions that were given large monetary gifts were tuition dependent and often in need of more funds.
One solution to this budget crisis surrounded tuition charges. If a student registered early, he or she was charged the full tuition rate. If the institution did not meet the enrollment quota by the time the next term started, applicants were given discounts in order to fill seats (Thelin, 2011, p.99). While tuition varied across the country, with the Middle Atlantic and New England areas being the most expensive, no student was prohibited from going to college because of cost. The true obstacle was that students wanted to pursue other adventures besides higher education, and a bachelor’s degree was not yet a prerequisite for most professional pursuits.
In conjunction with adjusting tuition rates, outside philanthropy was also a factor in helping institutions meet their annual operating budgets. Colleges relied on small gifts from the community who viewed the local college as a vital piece of the culture (Thelin, 2011, p. 100). This support from the local community, in the form of students and donors, was essential to institutional survival (Thelin, 2011, p.107). Colleges also relied on monetary support from religious foundations, estates, and trusts that were formed to emphasize particular issues (Thelin, 2011, p. 100). During this time in the American economy, colleges and universities overcame financial obstacles by partnering with the local community and with religious groups, even when concessions had to be made (Thelin, 2011, p.107-108).
4.1 The time between 1880 and 1910 has various names such as the Progressive Era, the era of university-builders, and the university era (Thelin, 2011, p.111. The purpose of these various names is to describe how prolific colleges and universities were during this time. Many factors contribute to this rapid growth, three of which include industry, religion, and philanthropy.
During this time period, industries across the United States were booming. This created discretionary income that could be given to higher education, as well as provided models for structure that academic units had not had before, such as offices for faculty and staff and a hierarchical organization (Thelin, 2011, p.112). It also allowed industrial leaders to serve as trustees on university boards, where there was a push for colleges to run more like businesses.
While some may argue that the influence of religion was waning during this time period, Thelin (2011) believes quite the opposite (p.113). Religion was a driving force in the industrial and corporate character of the time, which bled into the forming of American higher education. Institutions such as the University of Chicago, Vanderbilt University, and Trinity College would not have been formed if it was not for the strong religious influences (Thelin, 2011, p.113).
Each of these three factors that contributed to growth build on each other. Industry was affected by religion and thus affected higher education. In the same way, industry and religion influenced large-scale philanthropy. Doctrines known as the “gospel of wealth” and “stewardship of wealth” encouraged religious members of the business world to support the cause of higher education through large donations (Thelin, 2011, p.113). The philanthropic giving was so large, that in this era colleges surpassed charities, libraries, parks, museums, public improvements, and religious organizations as beneficiaries of giving (Thelin, 2011, p.114). The university boom between 1880 and 1910 can be attributed to optimal timing between industry, religion, and philanthropy.
4.3 The boom of great American universities was bittersweet for women. At first, highly publicized new universities were committed to the coeducation of men and women. This commitment, however, did not continue once women were on college campuses. Female students were often siloed off from campus life and certain courses. The women who went to coeducational institutions despite adversities considered themselves pioneers and lone voyagers (Thelin, 2011, p.143).
Another way of describing this sidelining of women, coined by Maresi Nerad, is that women were restricted to the “academic kitchen” of American higher education (Thelin, 2011, p.143). Women were accepted at higher education institutions, but only to a certain point and only for a certain period of time. It was not about free access for all, but rather about making sure women were controlled (Thelin, 2011, p.143-145). It was clear that a woman’s place was in the “kitchen”, or in this case, a particular area of higher education that did not allow full freedom of choice like men experienced.
One example of this marginalization to the academic kitchen is Agnes Faye Morgan of UC Berkeley. Morgan was a successful researcher of vitamins and nutrition that gained credibility and honor nationally. She was given the task of fostering home economics to become an essential scientific field. While Morgan was given this task, she was hindered time and time again from being truly successful. Her program was not sufficiently funded, and the program was not acknowledged on her home campus (Thelin, 2011, p. 143). Eventually Morgan and her home economics program was so disparaged that it was moved to UC Davis. In an act that can only be considered ironic, UC Berkeley named a building after Morgan seven years later (Thelin, 2011, p. 144). Women such as Morgan were often given tasks that pushed them out of the way of the men and into a siloed-off area of academics.
5.2 One of the biggest administrative changes that occurred between 1890-1920 was the advent of selective admissions. For years colleges and universities had continuously expanded enrollment to meet demands after previously having trouble filling classes. At some point, due to the success of American public high school, the growing number of applicants from cities and schools outside a school’s typical orbit, and nationwide improvements in college preparatory studies, facilities across campuses became congested and administrations had to decide who to admit instead of accepting everyone (Thelin, 2011, p.196).
Methods across the country to determine if an applicant could do college level work via the College Entrance Examination or certificate arrangements with approved high schools were still in use, but now schools could be selective in which students they admitted in order to compose a student body that fit the size and social structure each university desired (Thelin, 2011, p.196). This meant that instead of social exclusion happening within the student culture, it was happening in the admissions office. The problem with the selective admissions procedures is that instead of favoring aptitude, these new methods were used to increase the social uniformity of the campus by excluding those who did not fit the campus culture (Thelin, 2011, p.197).
On top of the advent of selective admissions, new administrative positions were being created. This included a growing number of positions dedicated to policing student conduct, due to unruly student culture, such as deans and assistant deans. As this need enlarged, a new type of administrator, student affairs officials, who was dedicated to policy enforcement and mediation between students and faculty was created (Thelin, 2011, p.198). Due to the introduction of selective admissions and the introduction of new administrative positions, higher education structures and practices were experiencing a nearly complete renovation.
5.3 Due to generous endowments, wealthy young women, and a shared sense of being social and academic pioneers, that culminated in a strong educational mission, women’s colleges were one of the most positive aspects of American higher education between 1880–1920 (Thelin, 2011, p.180-181). In the early 1900’s, however, the culture of women’s colleges shifted to include an elaborate student culture of organizations and honors known as “The Life”. Highly organized and highly demanding, these women’s colleges emphasized form, conduct, participation, and conformity that created a culture similar to the culture of men’s colleges (Thelin, 2011, p.182).
While the culture of women’s colleges was called “The Life”, at mainstream four-year institutions is was called the “college system” (Thelin, 2011, p.163). This system was an intricately laid out hierarchy based on age and talent that became based on the connections and money that a student had. Similar to women, the men saw extracurriculars as the real education and those who chose to take their studies seriously were socially exiled (Thelin, 2011, p.164). The “college system” was created for and by male students. Those who thrived were judged based on what they did outside of the classroom, not on academic work (Thelin, 2011, p.167).
While all male four-year institutions and women’s colleges had many striking similarities, the biggest difference between males and females occurred at coeducational institutions. While the aim of coeducation was to provide equal opportunities for men and women, women were often treated unequally on campus (Thelin 2011, p.182). For example, women paid the same fees as men, but were excluded from most campus organizations (Thelin, 2011, p.182-183). The similarities between men’s and women’s college culture was strikingly alike, but women were often disparaged at coeducation institutions (Thelin, 2011, p.186).
6.1 After World War I the American public became more interested in higher education and its extracurricular activities (Thelin, 2011, p.205). There was an increase in institutional pride and alumni loyalty, and collegiate athletics became a draw for outside constituents (Thelin, 2011, p.206 & 208). While collegiate architecture and athletics drew the attention of the American public, colleges and universities also became known for the self-indulgent behavior of students and alumni (Thelin, 2011, p.211).
The image of the “college man” was changing. The stereotyped activities of the roaring twenties became associated with university traditions and campus culture (Thelin, 2011, p.211). Minimal standards of academics were accepted and exalted, such as the “gentlemen’s C” or the celebration of flappers and the “new woman” (Thelin, 2011, p. 212). Women, especially, were known for insinuations of promiscuity. The American public savored the tales of collegiate debauchery (Thelin, 2011, p. 212).
What now seems like an odd acceptance of poor collegiate behavior has been explained by David O Levine. Going to college had become a deep part of the American culture and desire to succeed. The debauchery and indiscretions of college students was tolerated and encouraged
as a way to climb the social ladder (Thelin, 2011, p.213). The college elite became those students who bought into the pranks and shenanigans of campus life (Thelin, 2011, p.214). Parents wanted their students to be a part of this elite group, and thus indiscretions were encouraged (Thelin, 2011, p. 217).
Due to this social acceptance of immoral behavior, academics became a repulsive part of the college experience. Riffs between the administration and students further exacerbated this issue (Thelin, 2011, p.163). College was more about the social status one gained and less about the education one received. The American public’s perception of college life only perpetuated this belief.
6.2 Between 1920-1945 college access for those who were not white, male, and wealthy decreased significantly. Women, African Americans, and the poor were at a severe disadvantage even though the actual numbers of people attending colleges and universities had risen (Thelin, 2011, p. 226). While more women’s colleges were established, these schools were restricted to white women (Thelin, 2011, p.228). Schools that allowed coeducation continued to restrict women from certain degree tracks and deter women from pursuing advanced degrees. Women’s loss of access during this time period can be attributed to the desire for women to not forfeit their prospects for marriage and motherhood (Thelin, 2011, p.229 & 231).
While women’s access to higher education was in flux, African Americans’ enrollment prospects continued to be limited lag behind white students’ access. In this period, a college-aged white person was four times more likely to enroll in college than a college-aged black person (Thelin, 2011, p.232). This racial exclusion was seen across the country, to the point that black students were forbidden from living in campus housing and were often restricted from athletics games when playing against Southern states (Thelin, 2011, p.233). African Americans fought this exclusion with black fraternities and sororities, resulting in “inclusion without integration” (Thelin, 2011, p.234).
On top of restrictions based on gender and race, tuition prices increased significantly during this time period. This is significant because the increase in price came at a time when earned income was declining due to the Great Depression (Thelin, 2011, p.251). This increase in price affected students more so than it would today, because scholarships and other forms of financial aid were few and far between (Thelin, 2011, p. 252). Even though more people were participating in university life, it was still seen as a privilege, not a right (Thelin, 2011, p.254).
References
Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education, 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.