The increasing costs of attending a higher education institution in the U.S. have in recent years deterred many students from pursuing a college degree, especially low-income and underrepresented students. In spite of federal government efforts to making college education available to all, the reality of today is that affordable four-year college education is unattainable for many students.
Tuition increases are a common denominator not only in for-profit institutions but also in public higher education colleges and universities. It is not surprising that the for-profit college industry continues to recruit students; this industry has applied and utilized a business-corporate based model that inherently perceives and treats students as commodities and consumers. Consequently these institutions have destroyed the fundamental humanistic and democratic values of public education.
Education is a public good and thus so essential to a democracy. The State (government) should guarantee access to education to all its citizens. An educated citizenry will benefit society at large and the economy. However, the “era of affordable four-year public universities heavily subsidized by the state may be over.”
How then do we provide opportunities for underrepresented and low-income students to have access to college? How do we instill in these students the value of an education without the fear of eternal college debt?
One of the most prominent thinkers of our times, Noam Chomsky, in a recent speech (delivered this year at the University of Toronto at Scarborough) on the rapid privatization process of public higher education in the U.S. points out citing economist Dough Henwood that “it would be quite easy to make higher education completely free. In the U.S. it accounts for less than 2 percent of gross domestic product. (The nominal GDP of the U.S. economy was estimated to be nearly $14.9 trillion in 2010), The personal share of about 1 percent of gross domestic product is a third of the income of the richest 10,000 households. That’s the same as three months of Pentagon spending. It’s less than four months of wasted administrative costs of the privatized healthcare system.” However, he also acknowledges that the introduction of these facts into an electoral campaign would be “suicidally insane” How then do we impede the increasing trends of state budget cuts in higher education?
As an advocate for social justice and public higher education I suggest that all stakeholders (government officials, policy makers, faculty and college administrators) should seriously debate the social and economic consequences of the current situation and take action to rescue the fundamental democratic values of our public education institutions.
Derrida suggests that “when higher education is engaged and articulated through the project of democratic social transformation it can function as a vital public sphere for critical learning, ethical deliberation and civic engagement.”
Thus, democratization or should I say, re-democratization of public higher education is essential to continue providing a forum for critical thinking, embracing ethical values and taking collective action(s) in defense of social justice
Given the urgency of the times, Toni Morrisson suggests the need for all members of academia to rethink the purpose and meaning of higher education:
“If the university does not take seriously and rigorously its role as a guardian of wider civic freedoms, as interrogator of more and more complex ethical problems, as servant and preserver of deeper democratic practices, then some other regime or ménage of regimes will do it for us, in spite of us, and without us.”
In the wake of the rapid implementation of the neoliberal ideology and corporate culture in our higher public education institutions, it is essential that all members of academia take action to protect and preserve the democratic values of public education.
While I strongly agree that higher education opportunities are limited to underrepresented groups for various reasons, it is insane to blame this on the expense of college. True, federal and state support may be decreasing, but it is always possible to get loans. In fact, receiving loans for college is one area where low-income and underrepresented groups actually have a leg up. Whether the loans are from private lenders or are Federal Direct loans, the fact remains that if someone wants money to go to college they can get it. The idea of being scared of student debt is ridiculous. There has to be some risk assumed by the student in their pursuit of the ultimate reward. In this case that reward is a college degree. While the average student debt is increasing the Obama Administration has actually taken large steps in making sure students are able to pay back loans. Some of these steps include limiting the amount that a student is required to pay per month based on their income and even forgiving the balance of loans after a set number of on time payments. Money is available to put anyone through college. We should be focusing our efforts on ensuring they actually complete the journey.
ReplyDeleteAldo’s statement that the attitude of for-profit institutions regarding customer satisfaction “destroyed the fundamental humanistic and democratic values of public education,” is powerfully worded yet fails to appreciate that the United States is a country founded on capitalism and private industry. When it comes to managing finances, for-profit schools definitely have the advantage.
ReplyDeleteThe private sector may also have the better attitude towards educating those students who are unwilling or unable to pay for the traditional four, or more, years of an undergraduate college education. Those who choose an alternative route may receive the role of “customer” or “client” better than the “student.” My student affairs colleagues at those institutions have readily made themselves available via email or text messaging for students at all hours of the day. This sets the for-profit school aside from other businesses, such as health insurance or cable providers, by offering communication with a human outside the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
I concur with Aldo that educating the general population would positively affect the rest of our country’s welfare in the long run. Citizens with increased knowledge would be in a better position to receive health care and plan their retirement savings and would also make informed decisions regarding who represents them in the government. Therefore, making higher education available and more accessible through loans and grants would benefit the entire society.
However, I disagree with the need for our government to make higher education free for everyone. Jason's comment regarding students taking on a debt to earn an education is closely aligned with my personal pragmatic philosophies. As Warren Buffett has stated, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” I believe students who recognize their need to take on a burden earn more than the minimal academic education. They earn the value of time and money well spent. That being said, offering a completely free education to all eligible students in our country would be detrimental to their acquisition of knowledge because they would not have the same appreciation or respect for the education. It is not only about the destination (graduation) it is also about the journey and the effort that goes into completing the trip.
The ongoing debate about access and cost in higher education is one that is incredibly complex. One must also account for the incredible diversity of students that are being served by institutions of higher education - adding to the complexity of the debate. The National Center for Educational Statistics is predicting that between 2009 and 2020 there will be a 25% increase in black students attending college and a 46% increase in hispanic students attending college
ReplyDeletehttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2020/sec5c.asp.
The majority of these students will be the first in their families to attend college and many will also come from limited income socio-economic backgrounds. Many also will be first generation Americans.
I don't believe the original post was making an argument for a no cost system of higher education but rather using that extreme point to illustrate the need for stakeholders to have a real debate about the mission of American higher education in the coming decades. As the demographics of entering college students change the old arguments must be critically examined - without critical examination we find ourselves doing "business as usual" with a client base that has drastically changed.
The quote from Toni Morrison,“if the university does not take seriously and rigorously its role as a guardian of wider civic freedoms, as interrogator of more and more complex ethical problems, as servant and preserver of deeper democratic practices, then some other regime or ménage of regimes will do it for us, in spite of us, and without us,” illustrates the consequences of not fully engaging in this complex debate. It also illustrates what happens when we see this debate as something more simplistic then what it truly is.