There has been very little discussion of the notion that we should strive to become the best land grant university. Those who favor this goal seem to think it is perfectly clear, that we know what it means to become the best land grant university. They also believe they know how we should get there.

Those who question the meaningfulness or the wisdom of gearing up this institution for this goal are dismissed as luddites. “Do you think our goal should be to be mediocre or worse?” But this is surely a red herring.

Nobody I know advocates this view. Nobody who wishes to clarify this goal is against the idea of striving to improve ourselves individually and collectively.

The issues must lie elsewhere, despite the rhetoric that suggests discussing the goal critically is tantamount to a plea for mediocrity or stagnation.

In the first place, we should distinguish between the goal of striving to improve ourselves and of trying to become the best. Every semester, I try to be a better teacher than the last time around.

But I don’t know what it would mean to be the best teacher. The best philosophy teacher? Where? In my department? I know this will never happen because I have colleagues who are better instructors than I will ever be. In my profession? This is absurd. I could try to be the best teacher I can be. But how I shall I know when I have achieved that goal? All I can do is to try to get better and better.

There are lots of philosophers who are regarded as major thinkers, but I doubt there’d be agreement among professional philosophers as to who “the best” philosopher is. Hegel, Plato, Aristotle? Was Muhammad Ali the best boxer, or was Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey?

Yale Law School is regarded as the best law school in the country. Harvard and Stanford are regarded as second and third.

What does this mean? How is this judgment made and by whom? Does it mean every faculty member at Yale Law is the best teacher and scholar in their field? I rather doubt it.

Does it mean every student and alumnus of Yale Law School has a higher GPA, or is a better or more successful lawyer than the graduate of every other law school? I very much doubt it.

Williams College is supposed to be the best liberal arts college in the country. Again, what does this mean? There are surely faculty, students and departments at Grinnell that are just as good as some students, faculty, and departments at Williams. Are Williams and Yale incapable of getting any better? Surely not. So getting better seems to be important even for “the best.”

The criteria that U.S. News and World Report relies on to measure law schools may determine who gets called “the best,” but that’s not the same as judging who IS the best. Having the reputation for being the best is not the same as being the best.

My skepticism stems from the fact that advocates of this goal seem to equate the two. I’m skeptical about our ability to justify that we are the best because I have no idea how that can be known or proven even in cases like Yale, where I’m perfectly happy to agree that it is the best law school in the country.

How can one set out to be the best? Did Michael Jordan set out to be the best basketball player of all time? Or did he strive to become the best he could be, which was better than any other player?

It may make sense for an individual to have the goal of becoming the best, but what about ISU? Does every department on campus have to be the best? Does every faculty member, professional and scientific person, merit employee and student have to be the best — and in comparison to whom?

Not every department at Harvard is the best in the country. Yet many would argue that Harvard is among the two or three best universities in the world.

The goal of becoming the best makes some sense in the context of recent developments in higher education. Universities are now major corporations, students are now customers and constituencies are now “clients.” The goal of becoming the best land grant university is bound up with the need for universities to attract students, funds, sponsors, faculty and so on.

It is also true that it makes sense to try to embody the ideals of the land grant mission more adequately than other land grant universities.

This is an admirable goal, and it may be related to the corporate developments. Or the two may conflict in some ways. I am not sure.

It certainly makes sense to argue that Iowa State is unique in many respects and should strive to be not just unique in the particular configuration of programs and activities that make us what we are, but to be as excellent as we can in carrying out that configuration of programs and activities that distinguishes us from all other land grant universities.

But now we need to have a campus-wide discussion to clarify what makes us the unique institution that we are striving to become and how to achieve this goal. I do not believe the measures being used to make these judgments are quantitative or capable of giving us a totally adequate set of objectives and strategies.

What is left out of account are qualitative and normative measures. Discussions about improving undergraduate education do not address questions that get at any normative notion of a quality education. I certainly do not have the answer to this question or others that bear on the crucially important questions concerning the future of our university.

I would like to see this and other issues discussed and debated. I would like to see students express their opinions about what a quality education means to them and how we who are here to help students become better educated can work towards this goal.

If students want to be wise consumers, they owe it to themselves to think about these questions and make their views known.

I daresay student opinions on these questions are worth at least as much consideration as the opinions of the people engaged in long-range strategic planning.

I would hope that faculty and students could work together on making undergraduate and graduate education better. Let the bureaucrats and public relations officers worry about whether it is “the best.”

---

Bob Hollinger is a professor of philosophy from New York.