I have been pondering the Op-Ed printed in the Mankato Free Press written by Eric Anicich titled “Colleges oversold education. Now they must sell connection” since it’s publication in the Mankato Free Press on Dec. 17, 2025 — reflecting on my own teaching and experiences working in higher education. “Connection” seems like a more worthy and enduring aim than the market-driven taglines used to sell higher education today.
Coincidentally, last semester I designed and taught a course around the theme of “connection.” The content, how the content was delivered, my engagement with students, and how students engaged with one another, centered “connection.” In order to make ALL of these “connections” happen, the conditions needed to support the creation of “connection.”
The most basic of “connection” in the classroom is referring to one another by name. It takes concerted effort to know the names of ALL of your students from semester to semester, becoming increasingly difficult and eventually impossible as class sizes increase.
The right physical space is essential for creating “connections.” Last semester, I walked the halls of mutiple buildings on campus to find a classroom conducive to creating the conditions for “connection.” Unless the classroom is a specialized lab space, most of the classrooms are packed spaces with tables and chairs or desks configured in rows.
Concerted effort must be made to “connect” students to the subject matter from class session to class session. Each session of my new course designed around “connection” began with harvesting of student learning. I use the technique of “harvesting” in all of my classes. For each assigned source there was a corresponding prompt for students to respond that formed the basis of the harvesting. This approach helped students “connect” to the material before I put my stamp on the subject matter. The harvesting occurs within small groups of students. Each student sharing with one another first, before sharing seminal learning with the entire class. This process helped students learn with AND from one another — creating deeper “connections” with the subject matter AND with one another. Harvesting is a very effective teaching and learning approach. But, it is also a very work-intensive approach and a time-consuming process.
The push in higher education is to use digital and open-sourced materials, steering away from physical materials and books as a cost-saving measure. Of course every professor should give careful consideration to the course materials required in their classes. “Cost” should be a factor, but it should not be the determining factor. “Connection” is a better benchmark to inform the selection of course materials. In most instances, I give or encourage my students to access physical copies of books and other reading materials. Hard copies create a 3-D “connection” with the subject matter — a physical “connection” that cannot be replicated using an online version.
The seminal reading in the course centering “connection” was Johan Hari’s book “Lost Connection.” “Connection” to “Lost Connection” and to one another was enriched through book club-style discussions. Rather than assigning excerpts, which is becoming commonplace in higher education, students read the entire book. Rather than just sharing learning with the professor, 17 students shared the “connections” they made to the subject matter with one another. They also experienced the satisfaction that comes from reading an entire book and making “connections” that were meaningful to them. It took a lot of planning and skill on my part to pull-off book club with 17 students, but it was well-worth the effort.
“Connections” were also made through visits to local organizations where students learned directly from community leaders in the physical spaces where they operate. Creating these experiences takes time and community “connections.”
Unbeknowst to me at the time, in my own small way, I was meeting the challenge that Anicich put forward: deliberately designing an environment that fostered social connection alongside academics. I know that what I set out to do was achieved. In part, because of how students actively engaged in the 4-hour class. But also because students did something that, in my experience, rarely occurs — each of the 17 students in the class signed a “with sincere gratitude and warmest thanks” card and wrote a personal message attesting to the impact.
Today, those of us who spend our careers in the higher education classroom are navigating a contradictory, turmultuous, and often hostile workplace environment. The work of the modern day professor is distilled down to numbers — our value is measured in metrics.
Higher education administrators use buzzwords like “transformational” and “high impact” learning — but their “words” often fail to match their “actions.” In my 25 years teaching at my current university, there is only one time that someone in administration — a former dean, has actually seen me in action in the classroom. It is highly unlikely my experience is an outlier. Regardless of pedagogy or impact, the university’s chosen metrics — the number of students enrolled — are the deciding factor for courses making the cut in any given semester. It is demoralizing and exhausting to have to defend our programs and our pedagogy over and over again — endlessly redesigning our courses to accommodate shifting class sizes.
If we want to create the “University of Social Connection,” as Anicich asserts we should, then we should start with centering, building upon and investing in the seminal learning environments on college campuses — the classroom, not all of the other ancillary experiences that are increasingly the focal point of our campuses. This means that the decision-makers need to look behind and beyond their chosen metrics.
The reality is that everything I did to design and deliver the course centering “connection” was of my own volition and making. The system is not designed to incentivize, recognize or reward such efforts.
Next week I teach this course for the second time. Instead of 17 students I will have 27. Apparently, the University’s metrics did not support the offering of two sections of this senior-level course. How will “connection” be impacted? Time will tell.
Nancy M. Fitzsimons (PhD, MSW, LISW) is professor of social work at Minnesota State University.
About the Author
