Their
talking points resonate with many of the conclusions we have settled on in Room
6117 over that last three months. That, for example, the development of a
well-rounded citizenry as an educational goal has lost footing, students have become
increasingly focused on how their education translates into job prospects and
universities are becoming more preoccupied with filling classroom seats.
They lament that as
we reduce higher education to a market commodity, we have become less
sentimental about it, viewing it as simply a “steppingstone to a job and
prosperity”. And that when viewing higher education through this lens, universities
focus on beating competing universities, treat students like clients and
customers, and engage in student-amenities arms races. And as tuition has
climbed and economies have tightened, students’ families have become
increasingly focused on the bottom line, and politicians increasingly insist
higher education focus on the demands of the job market.
Everyone
interviewed in Pérez-Peña’s article is sympathetic to the view that higher
education should be about much more than just producing workers. And so I
decided use his article as an opportunity to explore possible countervailing
perspectives, by reflecting on the Robert Kohler article we discussed in
January and the perspectives of my grandpa and the host of the TV show “Dirty
Jobs”. First, my grandpa. He is a conservative, retired dairy farmer and one of
my best friends. But I’m pretty sure he harbors serious doubts about my
academic path, need for Ph.Ds and, I suspect, would strongly support restructuring
higher education to more narrowly focus on preparing students for jobs. I can
relate, at least in part with some of these sentiments.
The doubts someone
like my grandpa might have about whether some of the demands of an
undergraduate degree are primarily designed to benefit students, rather than to
perpetuate the school system and create more academics, for example, do not
feel entirely alien to me. Kohler’s account of the rise of elective courses in
American higher education in The Ph.D. Machine, for example, depicts concrete the benefits
for schools and academics, while the benefits for undergraduate students, remain
mostly theoretical. The proliferation of elective courses allowed schools to
push for more faculty with specialized training, to justify graduate courses by
doubling them as electives for undergraduates and often coincided with growth
in new university programs (p. 646 – 648, Kohler).
Electives are said
to allow students to become the architects of their own education and allow
them to discover their inner genius (p. 647, Kohler). But I think that they can
also discourage students from committing to any particular path, unless they
feel sufficiently excited. Dwelling on this point, brings to mind a former
opera singer named Mike Rowe.
He now hosts a Discovery Channel television show called “Dirty Jobs”, a show
that valorizes blue-collar workers doing dirty jobs. Rowe is often quoted as saying,
“Don’t follow your passion. You take your passion with you and you
go out into the world passionately looking to make your way.” He says the show
is about “people
who have figured out a way to love what they do, not because they had a dream
of doing it.” I think Rowe’s sentiments probably captures what someone like
my grandpa might feel about why a more job-focused, practical education might
have over a “well-rounded” education that is supposed to teach you lot of
interesting things.
Finally,
Pérez-Peña’s article blames economic factors for cornering higher
education into adopting market values, heightening the already strong American
tendency to “evaluate practically everything monetarily”. But someone who does
not sympathize with the views espoused in his article, may not necessarily be thinking
only about money. Perhaps, they are also suspicious of the claim that somehow
“better personhood” or the “best citizens” are cultivated in the ivory tower.
As
Daniel said during our discussion on academic capitalism, the notion of
personal growth has been a powerful selling point for universities. But not
everyone may be sold on the university as the place to go for personal growth. Some
may even believe dwelling too long in a university setting can make a person
out of touch with and of less use to the real world. Maybe that’s why saying
something is “academic” as a synonym for a moot point or something irrelevant.
While I’m playing
chameleon in my response to Pérez-Peña’s article, I do ultimately sympathize with the view that the
university should be more than a factory, churning students in and out. I
value the university as a place where you can have deliberation, expert-amateur
encounters and where teaching and research interact. And if we just think of
higher education as a profit and loss sheet we very quickly loose all of that. But
I also feel it is important to continually give all perspectives room to be
represented fairly. I don’t fault Pérez-Peña’s article for not exploring opposing perspectives. That wasn’t
the point of the story. But I think it is our responsibility to keep this kind
of narrative running in the back of our heads at all times, and it’s a
responsibility I shoulder happily.
Question:
(Posed by Greg during seminar):
To what degree is money a barometer
of what we need?
(My reply):
Maybe not particularly accurate,
but perhaps the clearest and most convincing.
No comments:
Post a Comment