The WSJ reports bad news for education because any worry about decreased revenues, in my experience, leads to less education. You can read my argument, either as a comment on the article,(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579055332692755074.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle) or here:
Oh, no, here we go again. In the 50’s and 60’s higher education became accustomed to a great influx of revenues. Every school had to have a graduate program – with researchers, grad students and reduced course loads. In the 70’s, the money dried up; but, once a nice lifestyle for professors and administrators has been reached, they, like most of us, will do anything to not go backwards. This led to marketing to student consumers and a steep decline in actual education. As David Riesman said, “…the “wants” of students to which competing institutions, departments, and individual faculty members cater are quite different from the “needs” of students…” (There is an excellent description of what happened by Murray Sperber in “How Undergraduate Education Became College Lite: And a Person Apology”. The essay is in “Declining by Degree: Higher Education at Risk” Edited by Richard H. Hersh and Robert Merrow.)
No one should think for a minute, that left to their own devices, the university estate won’t find the easiest path it can to maintain it present position – no matter what it costs Americans in education and jobs.
Recent Comments