My Ideal College

And My FU (Fantasy University)

I’ve long had a variety of ideas about how colleges could be better structured, but never worked them out. This is a first shot. Its still less then fully worked out and I’m eager to hear your thoughts about it and what might be better. (I’m not interested in claims about political difficulties.) What I propose is obviously an extremely different vision than what exists as the ETCU, multiversity, or omniversity. It’s my FU (Fantasy University).

It should be noted that this relates both to my previous posts on Anti-Intellectualism and curiosity (especially here) and my posts on current and past universities (links throughout). I think college, much like K-12, has to do better in encouraging curiosity. The number of students who have told me they haven’t had other classes in which they were encouraged to develop their own views constantly amazes me. (Admittedly, many or even all of those students may not have been as truthful as I’d like to think they were.) The ideal college must not stifle curiosity. Perhaps college should channel curiosity, but channeling and stifling are very different.

In K-12 education, students are—and perhaps should be—only beginning to think seriously. Especially in earlier years, they do not have enough knowledge or experience to know what they are really interested in. Hence, teachers must just encourage them to explore what they are curious about. By the time they reach college, though, students should have at least some sense of what they are curious about. I don’t think most college students today do (I don’t think they have for the last several decades—that is, I don’t think it was true in CBUs or ETCUs and I doubt it was true in GMUs). If students are encouraged to let their curiosity wander in K-12, this would likely change. Still, I will say something about what to do if they do not come to college with some idea about what they want to study.

To return to a theme of other posts, we need people able to follow their own curiosity because we need that in order to innovate (see this post). I mean that in the broadest possible way. It was in the “Romanticized Colleges” of ancient times that people came up with the idea of democracy. Others developed in the “German Model Universities” which lead to “Centralized Bureaucratic Universities,” where many of the most important scientific advances—including those in medicine and in technology—were developed. And even “Early Twentieth Century Universities” continue to contribute, despite their very significant flaws. (Note: I failed to mention Medieval Universities at all. In some ways that is unfortunate, but I think it’s forgivable.)

So what should colleges be?

The first thing I would insist on is that secular colleges offering bachelor degrees should be recognized as having a purpose. (I’m here largely setting aside colleges of law, med schools, and other post-bacceleuriate programs, but suggest they could be done similarly.)

As I’ve discussed before (see especially here), the purpose of college is to help young adults become well-developed, well-rounded, rationally autonomous persons, capable of understanding truth, justice, and beauty. This means it will not be for everyone. Some will prefer not to develop this way—it is, after all, developing into a cosmopolitan—a citizen of the world—rather than someone firmly rooted in their birth town, state, or country. It will also not be for those interested only in “making a buck.” There should be (already are) suitable alternatives for those with these non-collegiate preferences. And none of that should be taken as derogatory: we need non-collegiate members of society as much, if not more, than we need collegiate members.

I concede that there will and likely should be non-secular colleges. Religious schools have a long and impressive history. They should, I think, develop clear statements of their own purpose. I assume these will differ from what I offer above, though I also expect most would overlap with it. Perhaps they seek to help young adults become well-developed, well-rounded, rational persons, capable of understanding truth, justice, and beauty in the context of their religious tradition. Some might also seek to help their students be rationally autonomous.

What, then, is it to be “collegiate”? It is to be a member of a community in which one seeks to grow as a human being (in the moral, not biological, sense), recognizing that one has a mind of their own and so can reason, instrumentally and theoretically, and decide what to do, not only amongst existing alternatives but amongst options that do not yet exist. This is what distinguishes humanity from other animals. We are all human in this sense but not everyone wishes to work on that to the extent that the ideal college would allow. Many prefer to choose among paths already laid out by existing institutions. How does one grow in the way suggested here?

My experience in college was not perfect, but I think it was good in many ways and think it can be useful in explaining my ideal college (I do not think it was uncommon). Importantly, I grew as much because of the conversations and relationships developed in my college dorm as I did because of my college classes. That’s not to say the classes didn’t help. They very much did. In my ideal college, that would be true for all students: they would grow, intellectually, personally, even spiritually (if that’s a thing) from engaging and challenging classes and from engaging and challenging conversations and relationships with other students. This leads to my first suggestion: have classrooms and dorm rooms in one building. This happens sometimes now, but rarely. (An extra: given the lower administrative overhead of my ideal college, it may be that the administrative office could be in the same building. Yes, “office,” not “offices.”)

These college buildings might be small with a dozen or so students, but I suggest something larger: a building that (a) houses ~100 students with (b) ~5 classrooms for 10 students, 2 for 30, and 1 auditorium for all of them, and (c) offices for ~10 faculty and one administrator. A (d) kitchen with storage and cooking space would also be needed. With most text now available digitally, a library is not likely needed. The classrooms can double as eating spaces. Given what we know about ideal sizes of community (i.e., how many people any individual can know well), this seems a good size. At a maximum, I’d say 150 students, 15 faculty, and 1 administrator. (I’ll note that I think the costs can work well with these sizes: say, for example, the tuition for each student was $50,000/year, including room, board, and supplies; at 100 students that’s $5 million which should be sufficient for the building and the faculty.)

What follows from what we have so far? This sort of ideal college can not only teach, but also preach, the values of unfettered freedom of speech, personal integrity, and reason (critical thinking, logic, science). Each of these is necessary for the development of well-rounded, rationally autonomous personhood and for the pursuit of truth, justice, and beauty. Since those attending such colleges are looking for this, there will not be any worry about those who might be offended by speech that disagrees with their own; all will be interested in maintaining their own integrity and developing their rational abilities. (Of course, those in the college that wish to argue against those values would be able to do so!)

Let’s consider those values a bit more:

Free speech. In an academic environment, as I’ve argued elsewhere (see also here) students and faculty are not only free to follow their own curiosity wherever it leads, but to learn the most they can from each other without fear of where they are lead. They will, for the most part, be leading themselves. Each student contributes to the dialogue, helping others learn, but they all have their own perspectives and the combination means they are not at all likely to end at the same conclusions. They test their conclusions against each other and the faculty help by introducing the students to things they would not otherwise be exposed to and helping them avoid mistakes in reasoning and fact. (Think St. John’s College.)

Personal integrity. Everyone in the college wants to learn. They do not want to hear claims parroted and they are not interested in parroting others. They are want to know if what they believe is true. They want to determine, understand, and appreciate truth and beauty. They thus consistently expose their actual views to each other—for criticism and even ridicule, but also for refinement. No facades here!

Reason. This should be obvious. College is not a place to learn only about science, technology, engineering, and math. Indeed, underlying all of these is the ability to reason clearly. When one can reason clearly, one can grasp mathematical truths and their beauty and apply them to science, technology, and engineering. But reason also underlies the humanities and the arts. It provides a means of reaching beyond what we experience, to grasp truth, justice, and beauty.

How would these values impact the IC’s curriculum? Readers of this Substack will not be surprised to hear that I think the College Faculty make those determinations. See, for example, this post; see also this longer piece.) The students, of course, do not yet know enough to do so (which is not to say the faculty should not listen to their requests!). They and their parents, presumably, would choose the college at least in part based on what the college offers—so neither can partake in the decision-making. No one else should be involved. Some will doubt that.

I’ve been talking about students and faculty and mentioned administrators. In a previous post, I also spoke of staff, learners, degree seekers, and outside powers (esp. donors, trustees, and legislators). As with RCs, there would be little need for staff. Faculty and students could handle much on their own—scheduling, cleaning, etc. (Think Berea College.) Perhaps they would also cook. If not, perhaps they would contract with a catering business or hire staff for that purpose. (Perhaps some would have parents who would be interested in working for the college in exchange for a reduction in tuition.) Perhaps some more expensive colleges would provide more. All of the faculty and students would be learners; there would be no degree-seekers.

Outside powers may be the hardest to do away with. Absent a few faculty able to fund the beginning of the college on their own (perhaps with loans guaranteed by tuition), donors or legislators would be involved. They should, though, be completely on board with the college’s mission as the faculty conceive it and thus not seek to interfere with its operations—especially not in determining the curriculum. (Any multi-millionaires or billionaires interested should let me know!)

There we have the basic scheme of my ideal college. I said, though, that I would address those that arrive in college unprepared for it. I suspect that most of these—if they are truly learners—would adapt quickly. Those who are not truly learners would likely drop out just as quickly. After a few generations of students have gone through the ideal college system, everyone would know what to expect and those running K-12 institutions would be forced, by standard market pressure, to adapt if they want to send students to these schools. Much of that might be simply recognizing that they are not preparing people for college and being honest about it. In other cases, though, schools would work to encourage curiosity, as I suggested in a previous post.

What sort of indicators would students at the ideal college receive to decide if they should stay or not? Here, talk of grades is important. Mostly, grades have become meaningless in ETCUs—grade inflation is long out of control. My proposal here is simple: these colleges would do well by having only 3 possible grades: fail, barely pass, really pass. All the rest is a waste and makes grade inflation inevitable. With the 3 grades, those that don’t care can get what they want (a degree, I assume) and those that do care are relieved of pressure so are free to experiment intellectually. Those that fail, of course, would be forced to leave (either by the school or by the recognition that they are wasting their time and money); those who that “barely pass” would have to decide if it is worth it to stay; I’d bet many would leave but some would stay out of sheer desire (which might help them improve).

Finally, a word about the relationship between the ideal college and the ideal university. Many or most of these colleges might remain stand-alone institutions. Some might be set up as part of a larger institution—a university—or might find it useful to join with one. If so, that university—call it my Fantasy University—would simply be a collection of these colleges, linked in whatever ways are helpful for their purposes. Perhaps each could have its own specialty (a college of law, a college of medicine, etc.)

To conclude: in a good college or university (not only my IC or FU), professors are the main employees and administrators and the customers are likely parents of students, though sometimes students themselves. Our problem is that we have for too long accepted and contributed to the view that we sell degrees. We don’t (or shouldn’t). Degrees are byproducts. Education is part of the raw material we use, as are the students. Our product is (should be) well rounded critical thinking humans capable of appreciating truth, justice, and beauty.