Academia's Golden Age

Abstract

This book examines the evolution of American universities during the years following World War II. Emphasizing the importance of change at the campus level, the book combines a general consideration of national trends with a close study of eight diverse universities in Massachusetts. The eight are Harvard, M.I.T., Tufts, Brandeis, Boston University, Boston College, Northeastern and the University of Massachusetts. Broad analytic chapters examine major developments like expansion, the rise of graduate education and research, the professionalization of the faculty, and the decline of general education. These chapters also review criticisms of academia that arose in the late 1960s and the fate of various reform proposals during the 1970s. Additional chapters focus on the eight campuses to illustrate the forces that drove different kinds of institutions--research universities, college-centered universities, urban private universities and public universities--in responding to the circumstances of the postwar years.

Commentary: Variegated gentrification?

“…Here, the exploration of processes of gentrification connects to a broader narrative of disenfranchisement in which housing assets and the dynamics of housing markets are driving a wedge between the propertied and the property-less, between the asset rich and asset poor in cities (Forrest and Hirayama, 2015). It also resonates with critical and popular references to the rise or re-emergence of economic elites as symptoms of a globalised financial capitalism in which a new superrich seem to have little apparent allegiance to place or civic responsibility (Freeland, 2012; Urry, 2014). As with gentrification, however, these broader narratives have to be highly sensitive to ethnocentric conceptions, assumed meanings and to the particularities and specificities of time and place (see discussion in Koh et al, 2015).…”

Where Politics Is a Blood Sport

“…Three trends permeate the history of higher education in Massachusetts: the strength and prominence of private higher education, the "second class" status of public institutions, and the high level of interaction of public higher education with politics of the state. Even nonelite private higher education has enjoyed a comparative advantage over public higher education (Freeland, 1992). As former Governor Michael Dukakis explained in discussing why public higher education seems to be especially political in Massachusetts, Well, I think because we started out with a very strong network of nonpublic institutions.…”

“…1 The University of Massachusetts (UMass) was not formally established as a state university until May 6, 1947 when the legislature authorized its creation, in part due to the influx of returning veterans and the incentives provided by the G.I. Bill (Freeland, 1992). 2 Despite its late arrival and despite the state's reluctance to support it, UMass has demonstrated great ambition to catch up with its counterparts from other states.…”

“…A "golden age," because of the belated political support for public higher education in Massachusetts, the dramatic growth of the sector, and the influx of resources to the campuses. This was followed by a decline in state support due to a declining economy and a lack of public enthusiasm for public higher education, both of which would significantly challenge the institutions moving forward (Freeland, 1992).…”