For more than a quarter century now the major force for change in American higher education has been the emergence of a linked set of highly competitive markets for undergraduates, for both full- and part-time students pursuing professional masters degrees, and for federal and associated research dollars. In pursuit of the funds and cachet these markets provide, often in abundance, colleges and universities have changed their priorities and altered how they distribute power and authority. Put another way, 35 years of market competition have recast the financial underpinnings of both public and private higher education.
The rules have changed. Traditional values have been eclipsed. While faculty with direct access to research and entrepreneurial funding now have more freedom and autonomy than ever, the same cannot be said of the faculty as a collective whole. On most campuses faculty organizations have withered, often having trouble mustering the quorum necessary to conduct business while attracting to their leadership fewer scholars with external reputations. True, faculty traditionalists still talk about shared governance, but in the day-to-day operations of most universities the cadre of academic managers — deans, department chairs, institute and center directors, along with the heads of purely administrative functions — is firmly in charge.
The question that needs asking is whether the rise of market competition has been good for higher education? Once again, stay tuned.
