The impact of WWI in higher education and the evolution of higher education

The impact of WWI in higher education and the evolution of higher education as a legitimate option for the masses. Please discuss the impact of World War One as well as the move towards mass appeal and availability in higher education as a driver of social and economic change. What impact did it have historically and how does this historic evolution shape how we see and experience higher education today?

Sample Solution

The AAUP’s dedication to academic freedom was critically threatened by the broader repression of dissent throughout the United States during World War I, as Jorge Tiede has written extensively on this blog and elsewhere. This persecution of dissent, according to a recent PBS series, contrasted sharply with President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which emphasized the promotion of democratic values. In effect, the justification for repression of dissent was that the principles that inspired US involvement in the war were impediments to victory. Beyond the precise scenario that gives Heller’s Catch-22 its moniker, wars are obviously replete of self-contradictory circular logic.

y of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership, Tuckman’s Model of Group Development, Belbin’s Team Theory, and Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory in practice, and how complexities like power and influence shape how they can be applied to best suit the situation a leader faces.

Leadership Contingency based theories of leadership suggest that there is no correct or best way to lead a group, or organisation, due to the significant number of constraints on a situation (Flinsch-Rodriguez, 2019). Fiedler, in his Contingency Theory of Leadership (Fiedler, 1967), suggests that the effectiveness of a group is dependent on the leadership styles of the leader and their favourability to the situation. Much of the theory is established around the least preferred co-worker scale (LPC). The LPC aims to quantify a potential leaders approach to a task on a scale of relationship motivated to task motivated, where the leader fits on the scale allows their most favourable situation to be deduced, and thus allows the identification of suitable leaders for tasks. The favourableness of the situation depends on three characteristics: leader-member relations, the support and trust the leader as from the group; task structure, the clarity of the task to the leader; and positional power, the authority the leader has to assess a groups performance and give rewards and punishments (Fiedler, 1967). If the leaders approach matches what is required from the situation then success is predicted for the group. Fiedler’s contingency model offers a very austere categorisation of leadership, clearly defining which situations will and will not result in success for a potential leader. At the senior management level of a hierarchal structure within an organisation the theory can be applied freely, firstly due to the ease at which persons can be replaced if their LPC score does not match that required of the situation (Pettinger, 2007). Secondly, and most importantly, is to ensure that the senior management are best equipped to lead the organisation successfully. However, further down the hierarchy Fielder’s contingency theory begins to hold much less relevance, it becomes impractical from a organisational perspective due to the number of people at this level of leadership. The logistics of matching the leader with their least preferred co-worker is impos

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.