Father Guido Sarducci's "Five Minute University"
What is the purpose of higher education? As economics professors Sandy Baum and Michael McPherson observe, "Sometimes, in some subjects, the mastery of specific subject matter is precisely what is at stake" ("Guido Sarducci and the Purpose of Higher Education." Chronicle of Higher Education. 14 Mar 2011). However, most of the time, this has not been the intention of higher education. To acquire a particular set of skills in order to master a certain trade has been more the goal of what have become known as "for profit" schools, such as DeVry or ITT, and the intention of true higher education has been, as Baum and McPherson correctly write, "to induce people to think hard about complex problems, to learn to sustain attention to challenging material, to learn how a disciplined body of thought can come to make sense, and so on." However, the costs of living (to be) and the costs of higher education pose a powerful question for many would-be students today: what good will it do to raise so much debt if the resulting career raises comparatively so little income?
Here's some data to consider: the cost of raising a single child in the United States today is roughly 22% higher than it was in the 1960s. The cost was roughly $12,500.00 in the 1960s; the cost now is over $200,000.00. (You can
 |
| "The Cost of Raising Children: 2009 vs. 1960" (The Problem Solver, Chicago Tribune) |
calculate the costs of raising a family with theUSDA Calculater.) Costs of tuition for higher education (both public and private colleges and universities) is an additional burden that most families cannot afford, even though the demand for post-secondary level degrees is higher than ever.
 |
| "College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S." (Tamar Lewin) |
But before you jump to the conclusion that the tuition increases are going directly to the so-called "fat cats" running universities and college, understand this: costs for running higher education institutions--particularly public institutions--have also risen dramatically. According to the 2008 biennial report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, most tuition hikes for public universities have been a direct result of declining support from state funds. Public education at any level costs more because of already dramatic budget cuts made prior to those being made this year. As Stanley Fish observes of both the U.K. and the U.S.:
Higher education is no longer conceived of as a public good — as a good the effects of which permeate society — but is rather a private benefit, and as such it should be supported by those who enjoy the benefit. “It is reasonable to ask those who gain private benefits from higher education to help fund it rather than rely . . . on public funds collected through taxation from people who have not participated in higher education themselves.” No one who has not been to a university has any stake in the health or survival of the system. ("The Value of Higher Education Made Literal" New York Times, 13 Dec 2010)
This observation is further supported by a Princeton University study, funded by the Mellen Foundation which "shows that expensive college degrees are not necessarily worth the lofty price tags in the long run when you take into account one's natural ability" ("Forget Harvard and a 4-Year Degree, You Can Make More as a Plumber in the Run, Says Prof. Kotlikoff"). Boston University economics professor, Laurence Kotlikoff, argues that the cost of higher education is not necessarily a guarantee to a rise in income: doctors, for example, may have larger salaries but they also have larger debt (due to the cost of education) that can take years to eliminate, reducing the livelihood of a (fiscally responsible) doctor to that of a plumber. (Visit Kotlikoff's Economic Security Planning, Inc. website to try his software that helps with financial decisions ranging from purchasing a house to making a career change.)
 |
| Gary Larson |
When I was in graduate school, back in the '80s, I had a thing for buttons--lots and lots of buttons on my jean jacket: "Pay no attention to the invisible midget" read one; another read "Lobotomies for Republicans; It's the law!" Another button I had was from the 1930s, from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's campaign to fight polio. One button was one of many parodies of the "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner":
Data, data, everywhere, And not a thought to think.
This is is akin to the cry I often receive from my students, particularly those in my College Writing II classes, in which they must work to develop argumentative skills--claims of fact, judgement or policy that are supported by logic and research. They often seem bewildered by all the available data to sort: which is truthful; which is not; how do I know if the writer is an authority? But, most of all, they seem overwhelmed by the fact that there is so much data available to them. I sometimes pity them (shhh, don't tell them)! When I was an undergraduate, my studies were extremely limited by the physical boundaries of what was contained within the walls of my campus library. I would have been in a kind of utopia if the internet had been available for me back then. This causes me to wonder if the cart has been put too far in front of the horse: learning to use the internet before learning to appreciate what qualities of information might be provide.
The explosion of information that has occurred since the early '90s, since the World Wide Web has gone public, often makes me think of that button. So much data, so much meaning that it becomes meaningless? College is not for everyone--no question there. Indeed, not all "smart" people complete or even go to college, either. I usually tell my students that I am trying to teach them to teach themselves (and to do so well), a level of thinking for one's self that allows for a continued process, hopefully for the rest of one's life.
It's the big picture--the picture of life, not just of one's career in life--that matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment