I thought I would begin my stint at Innovations with an arc of blogs about the current conservative critique of higher education. I chose this topic because that critique has changed dramatically over the last 20 years. Back in the early 1990s, I can remember being outraged by screeds such as Charles Sykes’ Profscam, Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals, and Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education, all of which I felt were rife with misinformation, ad hominem attack and caricature of academia and especially academics. I just can’t get enraged by the new conservative critique of higher ed, because the nature of the arguments are so different, and persuasive to the point that they make me wonder where I, a registered Democrat, stand on the key issues.
So I’d like to focus on two very serious books, Jackson Toby’s The Lowering of Higher Education: Why Financial Aid Should be Based on Student Performance (2010), and my fellow Innovations blogger Richard Vedder’s Going Broke By Degrees: Why College Costs Too Much (2004). These are the most recent books by two very serious figures whose opinions simply cannot be dismissed. Toby is a professor emeritus of sociology who recently retired after years of service at Rutgers. Vedder, an eminent economist at Ohio University, also speaks from decades of experience. And both have transparently conservative connections. Toby’s book received funding from the Olin Foundation, while Vedder holds an adjunct position at the American Enterprise Institute. Nevertheless, I went into this self-imposed assignment determined not to jump to conclusions, not, in other words, to be unduly influenced by leftist assumptions about higher education that I have always embraced.
So here’s what I found: Both authors wrestle with a question essential to the future of American higher education. Is access to a college education a social entitlement, just like Medicare or K-12 education, or is it something else entirely, a privilege that should be available only to those teenagers who display intellectual curiosity and a zeal for more learning—not, in other words, the federal or state governments’ responsibility?
After reading Toby and Vedder, I can honestly say—I don’t know. I began by subscribing to President Obama’s pledge that the U.S. should regain its position as the country in the world with the highest percentage of college graduates (currently we’re seventh—Belgium is number one), and his vow that every American should experience at least one year of education beyond high school.
I came away from my reading much more uncertain about both of those pledges. The stakes are very high. If we acknowledge that we’re all obliged to participate in a knowledge-based economy, that’s an argument for striving for a more educated population.
But to do so we would eventually have to find an alternative to our current byzantine and often life-crushing financial-aid system, so largely dependent on borrowed money. The easy availability of students loans is, I believe, setting the stage for a meltdown similar to the subprime mortgage crisis, as waves of students will graduate unable to pay their debt. The money, if we do consider access to higher education an entitlement, would have to come in the form of grants, or, simpler yet, tuition and fee waivers, so that college would be free, just as public K-12 ed currently is. That would, of course, cost billions of dollars.
The alternative, to restrict college to the most intellectually gifted and ambitious, would mean that a great many of the 17 million students currently enrolled in America’s college and universities would simply be cut out of the system altogether. What would happen to them? Before I turn to Toby and Vedder, let me invite comments on that open-ended question.
24 Responses to The New Conservative Critique of Higher Education
chuckkle - November 27, 2010 at 1:52 pm
1. Many people do get additional education beyond high school, but not in colleges and universities. The military, for example, trains many specialists. People also undertake trade school education and apprenticeship programs.
2. College education functions as well (at least in residential schools) to take people out of the workforce. In terms of large scale policy and economic concerns, that needs to be taken into account. Of course many students also hold down full or part time jobs, especially at commuter schools.
3. Another policy consideration is that employers used to have the responsibility (and expense) for training their workers. Nowadays, much of that training has been shifted over to the public sector or to for-profit education. Could we return to the idea of corporations paying to train their workers? Instead of the state and/or the individual paying for a degree in “hospitality management” we could have Hilton or Sheraton, pay for that training.
Chuck Kleinhans
supertatie - November 27, 2010 at 2:24 pm
This thoughtful question is much like others that we are now facing – medical care, most notably. The third-party payer system was supposed to allow us to pay for ordinary care, and to assist us with extraordinary/catastrophic events. Instead, it created the assumption that “someone else” would pay for EVERY medical visit or situation, and the system is now overloaded and to the point of collapse.
Ditto for student loans. Well-intended, and meant to ASSIST with the price of tuition, the student loan system enabled colleges and universities to keep ramping up their tuition so now it is often something that only the wealthiest of us can afford. And the mountains of debt college graduates leave school with is also skewing the job market, and family choices.
I hate to say it, but like all bubbles, this one must burst. Just as it was in the housing market, tuition has outpaced the actual value of a 4-year education. (In truth, this happened years ago). The economic downturn is forcing families to consider other options: vocational training, junior college, etc. And the shrinking number of Americans attending 4-year colleges and universities will mean that either they will import most of their students (and that will only delay the inevitable for awhile) or else they will have to reduce costs. Those who can do so will survive. Many will not.
eberg - November 29, 2010 at 7:32 am
Before these arguments can be taken seriously by anyone, the issue of rising college costs must be put in its place. Vedder et al and other promoters of the “dysfunctionality narrative” have one view, but there are other more persuasive views of the matter worth considering, e.g.
Why Does College Cost So Much?
Robert B. Archibald and David H. Feldman,
a summary of which can be found at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/college-costs-the-sequel/?scp=3&sq=cost%20of%20college%20fish&st=cse
janeer1 - November 29, 2010 at 8:56 am
“it something else entirely, a privilege that should be available only to those teenagers who display intellectual curiosity and a zeal for more learning—not, in other words, the federal or state governments’ responsibility?”
What makes you think these are mutually-exclusive–a dichotomous choice?
Fix public schools, the college problem will take care of itself.
22086364 - November 29, 2010 at 9:22 am
An educated populace is necessary for our country’s survival. Excellent primary and secondary education, as well as access to higher education ought to be every US citizen’s birthright. If we paid this birthright, I suspect that our nation would thrive, our voters would be more rational (whether rationally right or left-wing), and many of the problems that result from poor education would be mitigated.
quidditas - November 29, 2010 at 9:51 am
“college would be free, just as public K-12 ed currently is. That would, of course, cost billions of dollars.
The alternative, to restrict college to the most intellectually gifted and ambitious”
This is a false opposition. Higher education need not be literally “free” (indeed, adult education should NOT be free) nor need it be “restricted” to the so-called best and brightest (by which we mean, of course, those who can pay since adult education ought not be free).
Apart from that, I am starting to agree with those who believe we need to move off the debt based monetary system. There’s no reason the government couldn’t fund healthcare and education directly instead of turning over Congress’ own money creation function to capitalistic middle men in banking who loan it into existence in order to take their welfare cut in the form of interest on both private loans AND on the national debt.
Then let the banker middlemen compete in the free market for the, say, 80% reduced student loan that is the new tuition rate for adult education (which ought not be free).
If the Chronicle of Higher Education is really associated with the scholarly community, why not find commentators who can really address the question of how we might better go about financing the common public good?
It is entirely likely that higher education cannot continue as it has under the current monetary regime, so academics have a stake in looking at real alternatives. What are they?
As far collecting comments is concerned, it is not likely that people equipped to address this question are sitting around reading the Chronicle.
Does the Chronicle have EDITORS? Can the Chronicle seek out informed commentary, or does it merely solicit casual public opinion? Is there any difference between the Chronicle and the NY Post?
lewisgilbert - November 29, 2010 at 10:23 am
I would be much more comfortable with the “available to talented and motivated” argument if I was confident that talent and motivation would be equally recognized in all of our young people. “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”…
thorstein - November 29, 2010 at 10:50 am
Access to higher education is a means to allow access to opportunity to those who are not naturally endowed with those kinds of privileges…it’s part of making the pursuit of happiness available to all.
However, these authors ask the wrong question from the wrong end. The average public K-12 education in the USA is already sub-par by global standards. The average US citizen is already more than culpably ignorant of their own nation and the world. The USA is already militantly monolingual. The worst college students–by far–are primary and secondary ed students. By contrast, the colleges and universities in the USA are among the best in the world. If we focus on making our public primary and secondary education in the USA better, then the average public school graduates will be able to go to our colleges and compete in a global marketplace. Finding ways for poorly prepared US students to get into colleges that are quite demanding is either setting them up for failure or watering down our college degrees.
tappat - November 29, 2010 at 10:54 am
College, like k-12, ought to be “free.” The real problem is that neither should be compulsory. I mean legally compulsory, not economically or morally or fashionably, etc. All children are not compelled to attend a private school. If all children were compelled to attend a private school, we would see the decline of private schools, as a group. Decline occurs enough when there are other compulsory-like pressures (e.g., economic), as we see in our colleges and universities already. If we do not make the university be something it is not, then we could afford to make it “free” for all. We could afford the same for k-12, if it were not compulsory. We try to make schools do too much, and that’s how we ruin schools for “all.” And when make a by-product of having a school the main purpose of having a school, this also contributes to ruining school (the fact that some economic advantage seems to be gained in an area with a school is a by-product and should not become a value or purpose for having a school; when that happens, the school declines).
msappel - November 29, 2010 at 11:00 am
I am frustrated (and somewhat perplexed by) the focus on the individual benefits of a college education (e.g., better job) to the exclusion of the societal benefits that come from a strong publicly funded system of higher education.
It seems that when we think only in terms of how higher education benefits individual citizens we fall quickly into debate over entitlement, access, and individual merit.
Instead, consider the general good that comes from a strong public institution – not just the standard “economic impact” arguments that impact the surrounding community but the overall common good that comes from the pursuit of new knowledge. This is most evident when we think of the STEM fields, but just as important are contributions to the arts and social sciences. The work done in colleges and universities today will pave the way for innovation that benefits us all in the future.
marktropolis - November 29, 2010 at 11:42 am
I think we also need to keep in mind HOW the financial aid system got so out of wack – it was deregulated by the feds, which in turn made it a source of profit. This isn’t to say that the feds are geniuses when it comes to managing national support systems (case in point, Medicare), but I think there’s a case to be made that something like student financial aid NOT being a source of profit for private companies. If you look at where the largest increases in federal aid was generated, it came out of the for-profit IHEs – and there’s a case to be made that they gamed the system, in part by encouraging students to take out more than they needed, as well as recruiting individuals (and helping them get aid) when those individuals had no chance of any success in higher ed.
Secondly, how about we support the public institutions like we support K-12? The elites (privates) can still be private, have access to federal student loans, etc. Part of the increase in costs – at least in the publics – has to do with the notion that state support for the publics has been relatively flat, if not decreasing, over the past couple of decades.
Furthermore…. Can we separate the discussion of costs from the discussions of who should go? I think that would help. I’m kind of tired of hearing (mostly from conservative) that “we can’t do that because it’s too expensive.” Let’s at least have a conversation about what we *should* be doing, and then we can bicker about how to pay for it.
Here’s my position: Who should go to college? The individuals who have the capacity and ability to benefit from it. We can debate further how you define or measure capacity or ability. But let’s start with some basics.
My problem with Vedder – well, one of them – is that he subscribes to the Charles Murray school of thought: that there are some people who are inherently better “able” to succeed in higher ed. And all the evidence points in the other direction. Not to mention the sheer racism of the position.
cwinton - November 29, 2010 at 11:52 am
One point many seem to overlook is that we have increasingly blurred the line between education and training, I’m sure in part due to the fact that education in STEM disciplines carries with it elements endemic to the training needed for jobs involving these subjects, which in turn has put pressure on all academic disciplines to demonstrate their “relevance” for the job market. Training, as any employer will freely tell you, is expensive, and employees in training are likely to be costing a company substantially more than their presence is producing. Given this fact, it’s hardly surprising that the push in recent times has been to incorporate more training into college degree programs to shift at least part of the expense, and risk, for a new hire’s preparation elsewhere. I will note in passing, that those who think higher education is too expensive should take a look at what a single week-long technical training class costs to understand why employers are so eager to see more and more of this kind of material incorporated into college degree programs.
bcravens - November 29, 2010 at 12:23 pm
As long as entrance is performance-based regardless of income, I say, “Hurrah” and “Finally.” America is essentially anti-intellectual and most go to college to get a good job and see education as a series of hoops to jump through. If it were harder to go to college, it might be more respected. Amp up apprenticeship/technical schools and higher the gate to get into college–and make it free(or less expensive) for students who are motivated enough to work for it.
jamiescrouse - November 29, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Although, I too, like the author, lean left, I have not agreed entirely with Obama’s strategy to get more students into higher education. As with other commentators, I don’t see the question posed here as either/or. We certainly need to have open access to higher ed to everyone regardless of their ability to pay for the expenses up front. To limit college to only those who can afford it perpetuates an elitist, rigid class system. On the other hand, as an educator, I do not see that sending everyone to college will solve our education problems. Higher education ought to be open to everyone who is motivated to learn, ready to work hard, and is intellectually curious. And in my experience, motivation is a much better predictor of success than is innate intellectual ability. At the institution where I teach, I have concluded that about 75% of my students ought not to be in college at all because they have no real desire to learn. They are there because of a vague social/econonic pressure that tells them they have to go to college (and in my case, have parents who can pay for it). This then becomes a collosal waste of money; they don’t really learn much, regardless of whether they get a degree, and thousands of educator’s are wasting their time and energy. And we start lowering our standards, rather than raising them. Regardless of who is paying for it (private or public), this doesn’t create a really efficient use of funds. I think we need to keep entrance standards to universities high, funding those who are highly motivated, while at the same time increasing the number of students who attend trade schools and/or on-the-job training programs (whatever happened to apprenticeship programs). I don’t think we are doing our educational system any great service by requiring (socially, if not legally) students to attend college and then making our universities into overgrown trade schools.
farm_boy - November 29, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I agree that access to higher ed is a right. But I disagree with the liberals who conflate open enrollment with open graduation. Part of the job of a good professor is to weed out the dumb and lazy by assigning the grade F.
11134078 - November 29, 2010 at 5:31 pm
The other day, I took down a couple of scores from a shelf and out fell a sign-in sheet dated 12/6/01 from a freshman gen ed course. About 40% of the enrolled students had bothered to show up. I found this opening of a window into the recent past deeply depressing; it is hard to view as anything other than evidence of a dismal failure as a teacher. I mentioned this at a social gathering that evening. One of the guests, I professor at a prominent “elite” research university said that experiences at his institution were no different from mine at a second-line state college and that neither of us is to blame. Perhaps all courses should begin with the following statement stated boldly in print and through voice: “Hey guys, I know this stuff. So I’m not here to motivate you to learn it from me. You are here to motivate me to want to tell you about. Not that I don’t want to tell people in general about it and explore it with them, you understand. I just want to be damn sure that the people I’m dealing with are interested in joining me this adventure.
jffoster - November 30, 2010 at 7:42 am
You might think that, farm_boy (29). You might very well think that. But of course the administrationists couldn’t possibly comment. You see, the students are “customers” (and customresses). And we can’t “give” F’s to people who are always right.
11250194 - November 30, 2010 at 10:38 am
@janeer 1 (way back toward the top of this discussion, I know) – “Fixing” the public schools can mean many, many things from teacher quality to campus safety to providing healthy lunches. While an improved public school environment is helpful, it will only lead to higher ed taking care of itself if the parenting that goes into the students before (and after) they reach the public schools increases at mach speed.
michaelfox - December 2, 2010 at 3:09 pm
We often fail to make the proper comparisons when we are deciding whether a social program costs too much. Which would be a better way to spend our money… to help young people with the costs of education or to spend larger amounts on endless and pointless wars?
emilyph - December 6, 2010 at 10:39 am
For a substantial number of students, the bachelors degree does not seem to do them any good. They get very little value added from college. Students seemed to resent my efforts to help them improve their writing. They were only interested in getting high grades, “A”s.
I did not have a problem with students purchasing term papers, as I never assigned them (I am a retired economics professor), but how does a student expect to succeed in a professional job when he/she never learned how to write? I have an idea. How about free remedial education for everyone who is numerically and/or verbally illiterate?
infosherpa - December 6, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Today’s problem is not whether college should be free — that ain’t happenin’ any time soon. Rather it is whether college should be the driving force behind high school — as Obama, et al would have it. That has diminished choices in high school, forced dropouts for the first time in our history (up until now an ever increasing number was graduating) and done away with occupational preparation. Higher Ed loves to think it is where everyone belongs — and knows it is wrong as soon as they arrive. A good dose of Shop Class to Soulcraft would help with this discussion.
gplm2000 - December 6, 2010 at 1:04 pm
AUTHOR: “…many of the 17 million students currently enrolled… would simply be cut out of the system altogether. What would happen to them?” Instead of wasting time doing something they neither have the interest or qualifications to do, they would go to trade/vocational schools and find skills that are desparately needed in the US, i.e. plumber, electrician, technicians, etc.
Currently we have a system based on social engineering goals, such as being #1 in college graduates or percentage of blacks in college, it does not work. Instead of useful people, we now have people getting degrees who cannot read or write. But maybe that is the American way?
twilight477 - December 6, 2010 at 5:00 pm
I agree that everyone should have the opportunity for higher education, whether it be through trade, tech., or four-year schools. However, perhaps some of the problems with loans would decrease if universities stopped lowering admission standards, as my current university has continually done. The business model of education that simply looks for enrollment numbers and the money generated from those numbers (most often in the from of loans) has been severely detrimental to both the quality of education offered and the students who have taken out loans to afford a degree they either won’t finish or would not have even started anyway if the admission standards were higher. I’m not advocating an elite system that only admits the best and smartest students. Rather, I’m asking universities to have actual standards for admission and to see people as people, not just dollar signs.
jamescurrin - December 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm
To restrict higher education to the intellectually gifted and ambitious—Ah,that were a consummation devoutly to be wished. Alas, it cannot come to pass, if for no other reason that it would involve the pensioning off many thousands of pseudo-scholars who teach pseudo-disciplines that have been contrived for no other purpose than to provide “access” to the intellectually obtuse. The much maligned “for profit” on-line universities provide a useful alternative by providing useful training, leading to employment for those students who merely seek job opportunities. The student loan business is a total scam. It will lead only to grief.