First Semester — Final Thoughts

Well, the semester has come to a close (for this blog, at least), and my students are looking forward to the Thanksgiving holidays and, most likely, dreading final exams. Since the semester represents the maiden voyage of this blog, some final thoughts concerning the experience seem appropriate.

Our class this semester focused on health care policy – populated by seniors in the Bachelors of Science in Public Health program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The class was principally divided between scheduled in-class debates on significant issues of health care policy and the articles published here. Neither formal debates nor published blog articles are normal fare in academic settings. As assignments, both represent oddities at the undergraduate level. My students, however, were enormously flexible and accommodating and, in general, seem to enjoy this exercise in practical creativity. Was their knowledge of health care policy expanded? I think so. Beyond the impressive diversity of subject matter covered in their articles, the debates hit on all the major health policy challenges – augmented by their readings in the required text. In other words, the introduction of creativity does not necessarily represent a degrading of academic quality. That, at least, is my fervent hope.

As for the debates, I found them tremendously interesting. The students were divided into 5-person teams and assigned to take pro and con positions. Each team confronted two debates this semester – taking a pro position with one topic and a con position on another topic. As the students noted, it is far easier to poke holes (the con position) in a proposal than it is to sell an advocated policy (the pro position). In other words, the cynic and the pessimist enjoy an easier existence – because it harder to build a structure than to tear it down.

Another interesting outcome from the debates was the recurrent theme of position change by individual students. Because the issues and the positions taken were assigned, the students often had no choice but to advocate positions opposing their personal beliefs. This is, after all, what attorneys are paid to do… to say nothing of lobbyists and death-row clergy. At the end of each debate, I asked for a show of hands by the participants on the question: “Based on researching the subject, did any of you change your personal position on the question?” While I did not track this quantitatively, roughly 20% raised a hand.

Indeed, throughout the semester, I was repeatedly approached by students telling me that the debate topics were enormously difficult and complex. Many asserted that neither side of the issue was clearly right or the other side demonstrably wrong. Instead, for most, the choice boiled down to a question of which side was more right than the other.

Since my students are undergraduates, it may be assumed that their politics and ethos are more liberal than average – especially, in this year of national politics. As the articles on this blog should suggest, however, most occupy the political center, with a slightly greater number of conservatives than expected.

Among those that I would categorize as politically “liberal,” it would be a mistake to describe them as “idealistic.” Instead, they seem to have a firm grasp of the realities and challenges and an understanding that practicality is a requirement for any advocated position. They are a different breed from the 1960s liberal (when I was a teen).

As for my more conservative students, I noticed changes in them, as well – specifically, a softening of rhetoric and a realization that the difficult challenges confronting us are more nuanced and intricate than the partisan pundits would have us believe.

In short, if there was a shift in politics during the semester, it was toward the center. But make no mistake, these are serious and earnest students, grappling to the best of their ability with topics that defy political definition.

As with any valid critique, opportunities for improvement are unavoidable. In this case, there are two.

First, I would urge my students to pay closer attention during their liberal-arts coursework. The human condition today is not appreciably different than the human condition throughout history. Our goals, challenges, and aspirations may be influenced by modern considerations, but Dante’s “Seven Deadly Sins” still inform, and Shakespeare may be dead but the utility of his writing is not.

Indeed, former North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin was revered for his wisdom during the challenges associated with Watergate.  He was known for the parables he recounted and the memorized quotations from literature he used to frame issues of politics, policy, and ethics. The liberal arts are not just a jobs program for university professors. They are a roadmap to a life well lived and decisions fully considered.

Second, with this blog, I’ve urged my students to employ “lateral thinking” – the use of ideas and concepts from seemingly unrelated disciplines. Perhaps no other challenge confronting them was more difficult, and, while many described it as inordinately “hard,” more than a third were ultimately successful. Not only does this make me abundantly proud, I suspect it would please Senator Ervin, as well. Both those who succeeded at this and those who attempted it have cracked the door of wisdom and now confront the choice of whether to open it more fully. I hope they will.

I should note that this blog contains one fewer article submission than originally planned. With the Thanksgiving holidays looming and having moved up the deadline prior to Winter Break, our last class was devoted to “elevator pitches” – where the students were given 90 seconds to advocate a position based on a previous article. Because this was in lieu of a blog article, the effort and grading was led by Lindsey Haynes, my graduate teaching assistant this semester and the editor of this blog. Lindsay also taught one of our classes (teaching is an aspiration), and both went without a hitch. I mention Lindsey and her work this semester because, theoretically, she was a shared resource between two classes – mine and Professor Chris Shea’s. In other words, teaching assistantships are part-time efforts, and our work together this semester was supposed to represent less than a quarter-time commitment. Instead, having come from the same program as our students, Lindsey’s commitment to them and their success was clearly a full-time effort. The success of this blog and its exponential readership growth is largely attributable to her. Please consider me her biggest fan.

Lastly, this blog will continue in future semesters. Unfortunately, budget cuts related to the economy will force us to alter the frequency of publication between now and when the class is taught next year. Rather than representing a compelled assignment with other classes, I will seek and post the best efforts of students in my other classes (with their consent, of course). So, please add us to your RSS feed for updates when they occur.

Robert Crawford

Managing Editor