College 2020 - What We Can Learn From the Movie Accepted

Last night I watched Accepted, featuring actors Justin Long, Blake Lively and Jonah Hill among a wide cast of others. While this movie may not have ever been on anyone's Oscar list, it did make me think about higher education as a whole. Along the lines of PCU (1994), it pokes fun at some of the traditions that seem to persist on college campuses across the country. More importantly, it asks the very real question of why we do what we do from an academic perspective.

The local ivy league 'character' of Harmon University sounds like schools we know or have heard about. It is steeped in traditions revolving around Greek life and a need to be classic. The dean of the school is focused on expanding the campus to include a beautiful quad similar to UVA. Never mind the fact that deans don't really engage in such projects, but clearly learning is not his priority. He is more consumed with being (or looking) powerful. A rant in the beginning talks about rejecting students rather than accepting them – according to the dean, that this is the key to success in the academic arena.

Hesitating to recap the movie, let's just talk about what results from what was supposed to be a temporary fix to a parental disappointment in not getting into college. A “school” emerges with some of the elements you would expect from many North American colleges; rooms to sleep in, food & beverage options, extracurricular activities, school colors, and eventually a mascot. So beyond that, what about classes? They choose to ask students what they want – what they dream of doing in life. The notion is that students are seldom asked what they want to do in life and instead they are force-fed knowledge they don't know if they even need. It challenges the idea of core education and foundational classes most students are expected to take in their first or second years. What results is a comical list of courses on a giant white board; e.g. Taking a Walk and Thinking about Stuff, Rock Your Face Off.

So many years after this movie was released (2006), I think the movie stands up. In fact, I think it may have inspired some of the courses in our catalogs across the country. Some schools have perhaps always celebrated free expression with loose major requirements and nondescript degrees, but so many have not. One of the characters 'Monica' (played by Blake Lively) describes wanting to take a photography class but not being able to because only certain majors can take it. In fact, there are two photography classes in two different majors, but neither count towards a photography major. On top of that, her advisor says she shouldn't pursue photography anyway.

The way Monica expresses her disappointment is so familiar to conversations I have with students each semester; “you can take this course, but the only section open is for nursing students” … “you can't take it because you need a prerequisite which isn't being offered this term.” Justin Long's character “Bartleby Gaines” on the other hand, explores the 'traditional' institution with the goal of finding a blueprint for his fake school. In order to make South Harmon function better, he poses as a potential transfer to Harmon College. He ends up sitting in on classes that are over-enrolled, under-taught, all lecture, and just plain boring. One class has a speaker set up in the front of the class, because the teacher is in another full classroom. Sadly these are not uncommon descriptors for what's still going on in classrooms across North America.

What I like about the white board is that it allows us to tap into areas that should be addressed but aren't. We're supposed to be preparing students for jobs and careers that don't yet exist, yet we continue to push them into traditional majors with rigid sequencing. In the movie a course evolves with Uncle Ben at the helm, the dean of South Harmon (played by Lewis Black). As the crowd grows from day to day, Ben is spewing life's realities from his perspective. It gives students the straight stuff. Why are we afraid to tell students the truth? Orientation, FYE courses, first-year programming in the halls – they should simultaneously provide students with an instant support system and ground them for the next few years as a student. They should be faced with certain realities – college debt, employment challenges, managing finances, etc. Now some will say it's too early, that they should be able to have fun without worrying about life's realities. That's fair. I just think we do students a disservice by waiting. Besides, let's be honest – they are far more aware than we give them credit. So many of them have a live feed to news and events, more than any other time in history.

Even though Justin Long's character makes some great observations about too many college courses (hundreds of students, all-lecture, etc.), I do believe that students should take key classes. Courses in the first year (FYE) should set the tone for their time in college. As the first taste of college, the caliber of education they receive should be better than usual. Pedagogically speaking, the first-year courses should engage and illuminate. These classes should instill good writing skills and model the application of book knowledge to practical use. After that they should take a certain number of liberal arts classes to open their minds, but these too should be incredibly well taught and abundant (no prerequisites, capped in size, seats available). Of course some readers will say “but that's the core!” - but is it? My impression of the core in many schools is letting every department have at least one class so they can maintain their existence. What if instead there was a process of identifying liberal arts through excellence in teaching and student interest?

So given the criticisms illustrated in the movie, how do we satisfy our need to manage enrollment while being innovative? How do we make sure that courses are addressing the level of understanding that students have without ignoring the pieces they need? We shouldn't blow up every course each year, but it's not fair to the students if the syllabus is exactly the same in 2015 as it is 2020. Who's responsibility is it to make sure that courses are relevant, appropriate and don't negatively impact students? Why has it become okay to say to students “you will definitely have some bad classes taught by bad teachers”?

In thinking further about this idea of the white board catalog, I looked around for schools that emphasize self-direction and freedom from too much structure. Almost 1000 allow for DIY majors; sometimes listed under interdisciplinary or general studies. The most notable private colleges are Swarthmore, Oberlin and Morningside, while bigger schools like the University of Minnesota also provide the option. According to Sue Shellenbarger in a 2010 Wall Street Journal article entitled "Can't Pick a College Major? Create One," these types of degrees “allow students to plunge into emerging fields.” So this solves not one, but two problems in higher education. First, it allows students to study what they are actually interested in; and second, it prepares students for careers of the future. Why haven't more schools adopted the 'choose your own adventure' approach to higher education?

There is a difference between creating your own major and creating your own curriculum with courses you want to take that may not already exist. What if we went a step further than the colleges and universities that offer custom majors? What if students could create courses based on the best modules they've been exposed to? This is what the white board in Accepted was really doing. It was giving students control in the curriculum process. To illustrate this idea, let's look at Google's Project Ara based on Phonebloks concept.

This was a smart phone project where the user could put a device together using pieces that make sense to them. Depending on the kind of phone you need, you can add different modules. Want better audio, get a new block. Want more outputs, add another block. What if we did something similar to courses? What if students were engaged to “up-vote” things they wanted to learn, leading to new courses?

Sustainability + Marine Biology + Entrepreneurship = STU 235: Startups of the Sea

Granted, you would need a culture on campus where students feel engaged and that their decisions matter. That's a hard enough hurdle for some colleges already. But if you did have the right environment, coupled with an opportunity to see different modules taught by professors (open classrooms?), students could create their own classes. The result: “at (insert name here) college I created a course that is still taught today.” Logistically, this can be done using a selection process out of the dean's office, housed under the most appropriate department or General Studies. I should note that I found one college that has dabbled in this concept. Middlesex Community College in Massachusetts apparently has tried this, though I could not find it on their website.

So now that we've explored the academic potential of the white board, let's switch gears and talk about the student life aspect of the movie. Clearly the founders of the school embraced the fun part of college. They created a vibrant housing option with colors and community built-in, activities students want (half-pipe, swimming pool), food & beverage (maybe too much of the latter), and social events in the evenings (concerts, parties). As a former Greek advisor and hall director I certainly recognize the risk management issues (and they did as well). Still, with a little tweaking there's a lot of what they did that could be embraced. I particularly like the half-pipe as not just an outlet for skateboarders, but for design and engineering education. As a hospitality professor, I love the creative kitchen being tied directly to what the campus eats. A jewel for any culinary program is the learning lab where students can apply what they've learned.

As a fraternity member and former Greek advisor, I don't love the depiction of Jonah Hill as he seeks membership in fictitious BKE. However, sadly I do recognize chapters still exist like that. The community that (thankfully) many fraternities and sororities create is actually better illustrated in the common bond felt by students who enroll in the fictitious South Harmon Institute of Technology. Bartelby and company created a family where they learned from each other, looked out for each other and co-existed to become their better selves. This environment can be achieved with some intentionality about the space we create on campus, the roles/responsibilities we establish for faculty and staff, and the kinds of programmatic opportunities that are initiated.

I'm not going to ruin the ending for people, but it was good to see the fictitious accreditation board recognize that learning can take place in a variety of ways. Bartelby makes the point loud and clear; “you don't need teachers or classrooms or fancy highbrow traditions or money to really learn.” On one hand this pays tribute to the countless schools that exist around the world (and in history) without amazing facilities. On the other hand it underscores how some innovative institutions have approached course scheduling and delivery. People forget that some of the finest learning institutions started in the basement of a church or other non-desirable space (e.g. Morehouse, Spelman). As for innovation, I applaud the colleges that have embraced 8-week, boot camp, hybrid and other alternative course scheduling. Take for instance Maharishi International University where courses are taught one at a time over a month. Think of your school or others you know – how many can you honestly say would teach that way? If the way we live our lives is drastically changing, then why are semesters and class schedules still the same as 1950? Perhaps that's an exaggeration, but the gig economy is real. For those of college-attending age, fewer and fewer are looking for a traditional schedule. So why haven't more universities adapted?

The movie does a good job of hyper-expressing what's wrong with some colleges. From Greek life to academics, it portrays Harmon College as everything that's wrong with academia. What if we could start over with the resources we have? Granted in many cases those resources are diminishing. But even with the real estate and existing budgets, would colleges approach learning the same way? Would professors have tenure? Would we require the same number of credits? So many variables. It's hard to justify what we are doing when student debt is rising, tuition keeps increasing, and schools are not really changing. How can we justify six figures of debt for a degree with no real guarantees – versus a 15-week program that guarantees placement in a much higher paying job doing what you actually want to do? I'm referring to programs like the Flatiron School and Fullstack Academy, bootcamp programs that take individuals with almost no coding experience and costs less than $20,000 for 12-15 weeks. So in the equivalent in one semester, you get a credential to work in companies with some of the highest paying jobs. It's a wonder why people still go to traditional colleges.

So what can we learn from Accepted? Here are my take-aways...

1. Let's stop telling students that they will have a better life automatically if they go to college. What they become is up to them, but they have to make the most of opportunities given.
2. Let's be admissions counselors not recruiters. This should not be a sales function. We don't need any more lawsuits to point this out.
3. Let's be transparent about the cost of education. If a student is not in a position to afford going to college, maybe they shouldn't enroll right away.
4. Let's put more effort into career exploration. If students knew what they were getting themselves into, maybe they would make better decisions early on.
5. What if we gave students the opportunity to author their own courses? Many departments have 'special topics' classifications. What's stopping us from doing campus-wide engagement/contests to come up with trend-based courses? Break out the white board!
6. We have admissions, we have financial aid. Who helps the student map out how they might be able to afford $100k in student debt?
7. What if we had more 'realistic' administrators like Uncle Ben? Sometimes we do our students a disservice by not giving them the straight stuff.

In the end I am happy to have watched this movie again. It was a good reminder that alternatives are good and that we have room to grow. The Harmons of this world will continue to exist, and their deans. That will still be a good choice for some people with certain life goals. It will still be a place to work and perhaps make things a little bit better. However given the changing landscape of education, cost, enrollment pressures – perhaps we should all be a little more like South Harmon?