中国A片

“Rankings are indicative of the quality of education.”

“Rankings do not reflect the quality of education.”

“I don’t want to study history/philosophy/humanities because I won’t be able to get a job.”

“Getting a broad base of knowledge in humanities will allow you to understand the world.”

“Being able to think critically is important.”

“I want to study business and make a lot of money.”

These remarks and snippets of conversations may sound familiar to any college counsellor.

Wrestling with students and parents over the validity of rankings, appropriate majors to study and the purpose of college education seems to be a perennial yet begrudgingly accepted part of the job. It’s almost as if we are speaking different languages – we understand each other, but the message does not penetrate. Why is this so?

I believe this wrangling reflects an underlying conceptual difference in the perceived goal of education. Specifically: do you see education as transactional or transformational?

Is education transactional or transformational?

The transactional-transformational dichotomy was originally developed to describe leadership styles. Transactional leadership focuses on regulation and organisation, as well as performance. Compliance is enacted through reward and penalty.

Transformational leadership focuses on inspiration, stimulation and self-development. Modeling and articulating your vision results in loyalty among your followers.

But these two categories can be applied to education as well.

Transactional model of education

The transactional model of education aims to equip students with the skills they need to achieve socially accepted measures of success. These outcomes are tangible: a high salary or a prestigious work placement.

In this model of education, rankings are touted as a trustworthy measure of a university’s capacity to produce successful graduates. Study pathways that aim to create students to fill a clearly delineated role in society (such as pre-professional courses of study) are drawing from this view of education.

Transformational model of education

The transformational model of education aims to develop individuals who are able to think critically and independently. Naturally, the outcomes are less tangible than those of the transactional model of education as it is decidedly less straightforward to measure the success of critical thinking.

The transformational model of education does not avoid (and even sometimes encourages) raising individuals to challenge what a society dictates. This is why proponents of this view eschew commonly accepted measures of success, such as rankings. An exemplar of this model of education is the liberal arts education common in the US.

Meeting basic needs

It is important to point out that it’s easier to develop and adhere to a transformational model of education when one’s basic needs have been met. This can overlap on to , where lower-level needs (safety, acceptance) correspond to the measures of success of the transactional view. Meanwhile, the upper-level needs (self-actualisation) can loosely map on to the measures of success of the transformational model.

Some of our students' parents grew up in environments where resources were scarce. If your aim is to make enough money to be able to create a comfortable life for yourself and your children, then developing capacity for critical thought is unlikely to be at the forefront of your mind.

Given the large sums of money that parents often invest in their children’s education, it’s easy to see why they can lean towards a transactional model of education, where the benefits are more tangible and immediate.

Bridging the gap

Tensions in college counselling arise when the other party across the table is constantly citing seemingly unimportant variables when making one of the most important decisions in a student’s life.

As counsellors, we need to be able to bridge this gap, in order to promote more effective conversations and, ultimately, find the right fit course and college for the student. Fostering a holistic rather than a dualistic model – thinking in terms of both/and, rather than either/or – should be our aim.

So, how can one move towards recognising and reconciling this difference in attitude?

Practical strategies

1. Examine your own internalised model of education. As the college counsellor, it’s especially easy to fall into the trap of feeling that your view of education is the correct one, but this is not helpful in facilitating effective communication. Reflecting on how culture and generation helped to form your worldview may help you to understand that the other party is not necessarily wrong, even when they hold a different opinion from you.

2. Have an open discussion with students and parents about the purpose of education. Introducing the educational philosophies of universities – which often incorporate both models – can be a good way to raise awareness of the validity of both approaches.

3. Consider both models of education when pitching universities and programmes to students and parents. University representatives already do this, by highlighting graduate outcomes and internship opportunities as well as areas where the ability to think independently is valued. Collaborate with them to pitch the rationale and outcomes of both approaches to students.

4. Share stories of alumni who have successfully bridged the gap. For example, you may know of an alumnus who became a successful consultant after studying a humanities course. Outlining various narratives helps parents and students to understand that there is more than one path to success.

5. Consider interdisciplinary majors that incorporate both approaches. Many universities already have and are creating programmes that touch upon both models of education, so that students do not necessarily need to choose one over the other.

6. Have regular conversations and build trust. Given the deep-seated nature of these ideas, getting the other party see the value of a different model of education requires trust built up over multiple conversations.