next »

[betterslac]

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/new-report-describes-how-to-cut-college-costs-through-greater-efficiencies/34180?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

It is useful reading because it pushes to its logical conclusion the main street, business-oriented view of most higher education.

--Colleges mainly = places where students are taught.
--Students should be taught at the least cost given their need to master certain skills important to the business community. This means that classes should generally get bigger (with small classes reserved for particular skills, such as writing) and that "unproductive" programs would be eliminated.
-- No public service or research for any faculty not in the largest of research institutions. Time and effort spent on research doesn't help students, in this view, nor does public service.
-- Reduce faculty numbers, increase teaching loads
-- Decrease administrative overhead.
-- No need to get rid of big time athletics
-- But cut back on other student services

There is some nuanced discussion here and some standard ways of thinking about productivity-- it is clear that no institution can survive with all faculty teaching 8 students a semester. But the cost analysis here is governed by a few very clear themes:

-- Education is mainly about training students for jobs that private businesses provide
-- Everything else should be ruthlessly eliminated except for athletics, fancy dorms and cafeterias. I think these have to do with satisfying students as customers. These are things that most students associate with college life, therefore they must be kept, but everything else that contributes to education outside of class can be cut.
-- As places where students are educated, colleges occupy a narrow niche that do not contribute anything else to the community. They are like pizza places except they serve up students rather than double pepporonis.

Insofar as the business community becomes more and more involved with higher education, both public and private, this is the model I think they are gravitating towards. If government is to support higher education, it is only to educate students as cheaply as possible for business needs. If businessmen are to be on boards of trustees, it means they will push colleges must churn out students like products at the least possible cost and with the narrowest of missions (I witnessed this when I was faculty rep to the board of trustees at one place where I worked)

Except for athletics, which business types love.

[sciencegrad]

It's easy to sympathize with the mentality of a college degree serving the purpose of obtaining a higher salary, but I think that universities should try to educate students on the whole picture of the purpose of the university.  So many schools have mandatory 1 credit courses to help students acclimate to the culture of the university.  Perhaps in these classes, they should give a brief history of higher education and make it known that the university does not see its role as training students for jobs but, rather, to educate them.  Perhaps this will also remove some of the pressure on students to only consider lucrative majors.

[lhbphd]

If college is all about training students to be more productive employees, why are employers attempting to shift the cost of this training to taxpayers and prospective employees?  By conceding the framework of the debate: How efficient are colleges at training future workers?, you've practically lost any debate worth winning in the first place. 

I'm assuming that businesses pay little taxes and that employees don't get to keep anywhere near the benefit of the additional Marginal Revenue Product that derives from their training education.