This paper argues that the focus on graduate-level study in the field of public administration is largely due to the timing of the field’s development and the state of American higher education after World War II. The rapid expansion of access to undergraduate education at a time when the role of government grew considerably to deal with pressing social concerns created both a market for and an interest in public administration in the 1960s and 1970s. It was natural for scholars and students to focus on the specialized, higher order skills provided through graduate education to the neglect of undergraduate education in public administration under such circumstances. Building on the field of curriculum development, it is suggested that sequencing of knowledge for cumulative and continuous learning as presented in Bloom’s Taxonomy is key to properly placing undergraduate programs in the field.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AverchH.DluhyM. (1992). Teaching public administration, public management, and policy analysis: Convergence or divergence in the masters core.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 541–551.
2.
BloomB. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain.New York: Addison Wesley.
3.
CanbyH. S. (1936). Alma mater: The gothic age of the American university.New York: Farrar and Rinehart.
4.
CarverR. H. (1996). Where does policy analysis belong in the undergraduate public administration major?PS: Political Science and Politics, 521–525.
5.
ClearyR. E. (1990). What do Public Administration Master’s programs look like? Do they do what is needed?Public Administration Review, 663–673.
6.
DeweyJ. (1900). The school and society.Chicago: University of Chicago.
7.
DonaldJ. G. (1996). Evaluating undergraduate education: The use of broad indicators.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23–39.
8.
FuhrmanB. S. (1997). Philosophies and aims. In GaffJ. G.RatcliffJ. L. (Eds.), Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices and change (pp. 86–99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
GalloJ. C.SkinnerG. S.GoettleR. J. (1976). Graduate preparation of the undergraduate professor.Journal of Economic Education, 128–130.
10.
HarringtonM.SundeenR. A. (1998). Undergraduate education in public administration.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 215–220.
11.
HenryL. L. (1995). NASPAA history. Retrieved from www.naspaa.org/about_naspaa/about/history.asp
12.
KasperH. (1991). The education of economists: From undergraduate to graduate study.Journal of Economic Literature, 1088–1109.
13.
KellerL. F.LaudicinaE. V. (1982). Coping with diversity undergraduate public administration education in the 1980s.International Journal of Public Administration, 297–326.
14.
KerrC. (1963). The uses of the university.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
15.
KruegerA. O. (1991). Report of the Commission on Graduate Education in Economics.Journal of Economic Literature, 1035–1053.
16.
LeeD. S.CayerN. J. (1987). Recruitment of minority students for public administration education.Public Administration Review, 329–335.
17.
LightP. C. (1999). The new public service.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
MilamD. M. (2003). Practitioner in the classroom: Bringing local government experience into the public administration curriculum.Public Administration Review, 364–369.
19.
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). (2004, October). NASPAA Accreditation Guidelines. Retrieved from www.naspaa.org/accreditation/seeking/reference/guidelines.asp
20.
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). (2009, September). NASPAA Accreditation. Retrieved from www.naspaa.org/accreditation/NS/naspaastandards.asp
21.
OrnsteinA. C.HunkinsF. P. (1988). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22.
PaulsenD. F. (1974). Teaching undergraduate public administration: A survey.Public Administration Review, 595–597.
23.
RaadscheldersJ. C. (1998). Handbook of administrative history.New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions.
24.
ShafritzJ. M.HydeA. C.ParkesS. J. (2004). Classics of public administration (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
25.
SweetD. C. (1998). Making the case of undergraduate education in public affairs and administration.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 209–214.
26.
TabaH. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice.New York: Harcourt Brace.
27.
ThelinJ. (1996). Historical overview of American higher education. In KomivesS. R.WoodwardJ. D. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 3–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
TheonyR. A. (1993). Project Bridge: Linking the undergraduate curriculum with graduate studies and careers in public administration for minorities.Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.
29.
van LierL. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective.Boston: Kluwer Academic.
30.
VentrissC. (1998). The role of an undergraduate liberal arts education and a professional education in public administration: Some enduring dilemmas.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 227–232.
31.
WalstadtW. B.BeckerW. E. (2010). Preparing graduate students in Economics for teaching: Survey findings and recommendations.Journal of Economic Education, 202–210.
32.
WechslerB.BakerD. L. (2004). Going camping: A new strategy for preparing academically diverse students.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19–30.
33.
ZhangL. (2005). Advance to graduate education: The effect of college quality and undergraduate majors.Review of Higher Education, 313–338.
