Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

1

The Crisis of Higher Education John Evans It was bound to happen sooner or later with only four directions for expansion: a larger population buying the same amount of stuff, an equivalent population buying more stuff, companies that sell stuff fighting for a greater percentage of the market share, or, taking a path of lesser resistance, entering new markets so as to market stuff yet-to-be-marketed. Thus the public becomes the private, late stage-capitalism permeates present-stage academia, the Socratic vision of the university starts to smolder, students become consumers and knowledge becomes a commodity, (in more ways than one), that is measured, first and foremost, in terms of return on investment, as are matters of large and small scale education policy alike. Its a realm where hyperbole is almost impossible; the situation such that it displaces equal volumes of ridiculous and inevitable, rendering nearly any conceivable thesis, short of a necessarily far-flung solution, somewhat less insightful than the observation that the sky is blue. The crisis of capitalism is the crisis of education, only more so, as the relationship is self-reinforcing and cyclic, one lending momentum to the other only to receive its own dividends in terms of additional mass and velocity. There are no frictional losses for an object in freefall in a vacuum. Liberal Arts education is doomed; elite university business schools have become the de facto mode by which meritocracy replaces eugenics; tenured economics professors are the 21st centurys new prostitute superheroes. One has a better chance of changing the color of the sky than of slowing this rocket-powered glacier. What began as a morbid curiosity that prompted me to start reading the Chronicle of Higher Education on a daily basis has developed into a full-blown depression bordering on despondency. Steven King would nauseate himself to the point of dry heaves trying to write those articles. Never mind the fact that I am currently, at age forty, paying for three college educations simultaneously - my wifes (the only one with a practical economic application), one begun nearly a decade ago on the other side of the planet, and the one currently in progress all while employed at a private university. Not only do I not want to write this paper, I dont even want to be a student right now. Or a teacher. Because what kind of person goes to great lengths to research a subject, then substantiate and document the futility of that exact same research? And yet, Ive chosen my subject in much the way that a motorist who is neither firefighter nor paramedic slows to observe a traffic accident. Obviously, the irony is wasted on me, and thats more than a little ironic. A smattering of theses: 1. Universities sell earning potential, not education. This is a market-driven decision. 2. For-profit universities often behave in much the same way as speculative financial instructions. 3. An incestuous, self-reinforcing relationship has developed between speculative financial institutions and academia at large. 4. With a glut in direct government funding, public universities are forced to employ policies wherein market forces and the academic interests of students are perpetually at odds.

5. University diplomas and Nike shoes are made in much the same way. 6. The spectacle of education is at an all-time high, but in Hong Kong its upside down. 7. The university is an ideological state apparatus that instructs via both prescribed learning material and example. Given present trends, we can anticipate that universities will begin to turn out a less-informed electorate unlikely to forgo its own short term goals for the greater good of the community as a whole, i.e., by design, universities will be both financed and populated by people too selfish and dumb to vote in accordance with societys best interests. 8. For those who do not enter with a substantial lead already established, the best way to win the student game is to change the rules, or ignore them completely. 1. When one considers that in the United States a typical employee might work at as many as 13 jobs before the age of 30,1 it becomes evident as to why many learning institutions currently find themselves in a reactionary position, pressured to identify trends in the evolving job market as quickly as possible so as to supply increasingly specialized programs of study. In the most developed economies, agricultural production can employ less than 3% of the population, manufacturing is giving way to service-oriented industries that, in turn, are becoming more and more knowledge based with the increasing infiltration and influence of financial capital. The three traditional roles of education: knowledge creation, knowledge transmission and knowledge conservation2 are in danger of a 2/3rds reduction, as, due to austerity measures, larger class sizes and greater demands made of professors, research programs suffer; and knowledge conservation most notably culture-specific forms of knowledge fall victim to the proliferation of objective ranking systems and their attendant levels of standardization.3 In much the same way that a German bank might mandate austerity measures to the detriment of social programs within the EU, the purveyors of student loans are now eradicating the humanities via a system wherein a universitys ranking is based on its students ability to repay their school loans. Just as in the case of the EU, these measures are peddled under the guise of a post-ideological economic necessity in which the only definition of value is financial value. According to neo-liberal economics, the provision of education as a public good paid for through taxation is unjustified. It is replaced by an argument for placing education on a user-pays basis, and deregulation educational institutions so that they can vie for the educational dollars of students (or clients).4 This oftentimes leads university administrators to believe that in order to survive they must become customer-focused business enterprises so as to appease the

1 2

Neubauer, 8. Ibid, 17. 3 A inquiry into the impacts of the Bologna Process in particular, though beyond the scope of this paper, nonetheless represent a promising avenue for additional research in this area. 4 Tiffin, John and Rajasingham, Lalita. In Search of the Virtual Class: Education in an Information Society . London: Routledge. 1995. As referenced in Yang, 276.

educational marketplace.5 With students as consumers, market forces influence, if not dictate, policy, and courses with low enrollment are often cancelled while any course with sufficient student interest, no matter how inane the subject matter, is deemed economically (and therefore academically) justifiable, as economic standards become the new academic benchmarks.6 2. If one can make the allowance that the United States is the most complete model we have, thus far, of late-stage capitalism run amuck, or at least that it serves as the epicenter for many worldwide economic trends, by virtue of such things as the extortive nature of private health insurance, the disproportional voice of giant corporations in terms of political influence, the dissolution of discourse and diversity of opinion through consolidation of the news media, the ability of banking interests to actually procure public funds as a safeguard against privately assumed risk, etc., one might also accept that the phenomenon of American, for-profit colleges exemplify an extreme example of these similar market forces influence on academia. There is anecdotal evidence within the generalization, of course, like the story of a 14-year-old A student pulled from the floundering Detroit public schools who was contacted by a for-profit recruiter and encouraged to falsify his age on his enrollment documents. In less than a year he ran up $13,000 in debt.7 There is the example of Bridgepoint Education, owner of Ashford University and the University of the Rockies, whose amazing profitability, which increased from $4 million in 2007 to $216 million in 2011, can be attributed largely to aggressive telemarketing and a labor model in which 50 fulltime faculty members instructed in the neighborhood of 90,000 online Ashford students, while at Bridgeport as a whole, in 2009 for example, less than $700 was spent on each students instruction, (for comparison, a nearby public university spent over 17 times that much).8 The profitability of the low-overhead labor structure is easy to explain, but the effectiveness of the recruiting can be attributed, in no small part, to the fact that many of these for-profit colleges actively recruit former sub-prime loan marketers to target a demographic that closely resembles many of their former clients. So how is this allowed to continue? The first hint might be that 75% of students enrolled at for-profit colleges are enrolled at for-profit colleges owned by Wall Street banks or private equity firms, and, like a Wall Street bank, these for-profit colleges enjoy the sort of regulation (or lack thereof) that allows them to continue to collect government grant money (almost entirely from the GI Bill) regardless of student graduation rate and to simply purchase financially failing, yet accredited, universities to circumvent the accreditation process themselves.9 Like many other industries, for-profit universities have a revolving door wherein former legislators are appointed to the board of directors and employed as lobbyist many, well-paid lobbyists, as the industry as a whole spent over $16 on lobbyists in 2011.10 Campaign contributions were difficult to track due to Americas
5

Currie, Jan. Globalization Practices and the Professoriate in Anglo -Pacific and North American Universities. Comparative Education Review. 1998. pp 15-29. Ibid. 6 Docherty, 1. 7 Parker, 2. 8 Ibid, 4,5. 9 Ibid, 9. 10 Ibid, 8.

pivotal Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, but it goes without saying that they are influential. For example, during the Republican primary in 201?, Mitt Romney complimented one of his major donors and the co-chairman of his Florida fundraising team, Bill Heavener, (the owner of Full Sail University), for helping to hold down the cost of education. It should be noted, however, that a 21-month degree in video-game art at Full Sail costs more than $80,000, and that this level of tuition is not uncommon. 11 3. It might be noted that not all of this behavior is specific to for-profit universities. For example, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Americas 34th president, served as president of Columbia University following his role as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. But during his time at Columbia he was criticized by faculty for his involvement with large business, and neither accepted campaign contributions from the university nor, while president, received representatives lobbying for legislation favorable to the university. His salary was, one might assume, commensurate with or slightly better than other university presidents of the period. He had no financial incentive to increase enrollment or minimize the teaching staff. He held no stock in the university. But by 2008, even Columbia University had begun to slip. In that year, its current president, Lee Bollinger, took home $1.38 million in total compensation, becoming the Ivy Leagues highest paid president. Two years later, he began serving double duty as Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank board of directors in New York.12 For comparison, The CEO of the for-profit University of Phoenix received $25 million in 2011. His counterpart at Strayer Education collected $41.9 million, while the former CEO of Kaplan University left with a $76 million severance package.13 If these sorts of salaries seem reminiscent of those often scrutinized by the Occupy movement, one might venture that the relationship between banking and education is sufficiently incestuous to as to render the correlation somewhat more than coincidence. Once again, the relationship goes two ways: just as banking and finance propagate the spread of for-profit universities, many reputable, even esteemed, institutions of higher learning are playing a role in the legitimization of highly-leveraged, speculative, casino investment. In what has become widely known as the Inside Job Effect, the scrutiny surrounding one particular professor featured in the documentary has led to a closer examination of how objective research conducted by many economics professors might be skewed by personal financial interests. This effect, as summarized in the Columbia Daily Spectator: In 2006 the Iceland Chamber of Commerce paid Columbia Business School professor Frederic Mishkin $134,858 to co-author a report on Icelands economy and banking systems. In the report, titled Financial Stability in Iceland, Mishkin painted a bright picture of the countrys economic future, but he did not disclose who was paying him to write it.

11 12

Ibid, 7. Lee Bollinger, Wikipedia.org. 13 Parker, 8.

Although Icelands economy does have imbalances that will eventually be reversed, financial fragility is not high and the likelihood of a financial meltdown is very low, Mishkin wrote. Two years later, Icelands economy collapsed. Its major banks failed, its currency lost much of its value, and thousands of citizens lost their jobs.14 Of course, it is extremely doubtful that a more pessimistic report would have made a substantial contribution toward preventing the crisis, but the implication of a conflict of interest a way to skew research for a known profit while those farther down on the socio-economic food chain assume more resultant financial risk is clear. And this potential conflict of interest is, it would seem, fairly widespread. The dean of Columbias business school, Dean R. Hubbard, once an economic advisor to George W. Bush, currently collects $250,000 a year as a member of the board of directors Metropolitan Life. This friendly relationship between bond raters, bankers and regulators and the objective academic economists who are trusted to assess and evaluate their decisions has, at the very least, an air of subtle collusion, but without a mandate to require the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in academic papers, those who review the academic work (for example other academics, politicians, the news media, etc.) are at a severe disadvantage when evaluating the objectivity of the analysis submitted. And as for self-policing by other academics in the field, here are the results of an informal study in support of a push for non-binding guidelines presented and adopted at the American Economic Association annual meeting in January of 2012. They are, undoubtedly, sufficiently shocking to quote at length. (Gerald) Epstein and (Jessica) Carrick-Hagenbarth analyzed the public appearances and commentary and scholarly writings that were produced between 2005 and 2009 by 19 prominent economists 18 from academe and one from a research institute. [] They found that, of the 19 scholars studied, 13 did some work for private financial institutions. Two were cofounders and held key positions in such firms. Another economist worked for two banks as president of one and director of another. Eight served on the boards of directors of private financial firms, whilst two were identified as consultants or affiliated experts for firms.15 Given that these were prominent economists, the implication in the text being that many held positions at Harvard, Princeton or Stanford, with the potential to influence, if not world-wide or national economic policies, at least the economic policies of the private (profit-driven) institutions with which they moonlighted, it seems clear that full disclosure of vested interests would be a top priority. It was not: Seven of the economists including a president, several trustees and those who served on the boards of directors of private financial firms failed to mention their relationship to these firms during nearly 80 media appearances. While one economist divulged his or her dealings in all 25 appearances, three others did so only occasionally in one-third of the 63 op-eds and interviews.16
14 15

Poliak and Roth, 1. Barret, The Inside Job Effect, 2. 16 Ibid, 3.

All of this, unfortunately, prompts the question of why when the American Sociological Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Statistical Association have long had ethical codes that demand avoidance of conflating influences, and the resolution of situations that even appear to promote bias17 did the American Economic Association adopt nonbinding guidelines concerning disclosure only, begrudgingly, over eighteen months after the release of an embarrassing documentary that severely damaged public trust? One explanation might be that it didnt happen earlier because, in the case of economics, the stakes are far higher in terms of money and influence. However, the most common argument against, as presented in op-eds in the New York Times, among others, is that guidelines would be meaningless without the ability to sanction.18 The argument, so it goes, is that economics is the study of incentives and how they affect human behavior, and why, in the absence of incentives, would a bunch of economics professors be expected to behave contrary to their best financial interests? Why would the gurus of an academic field in which much of human behavior is reducible to mathematical modeling behave so as to create an outlier in their own data set: In this case the ideology justifies the behavior that substantiates the ideology. 4. Obviously, external market forces can influence internal university policy. The temptation here, in this context (a philosophy paper) is to try to systemize these interactions into some sort of structural relationship, but the best I can do right now is to try to highlight the similarities between this structural relationship and a pile of spaghetti wherein each intertwined pasta strand possesses one academic end and one financial end. The economic answer (and one that Marx would appreciate), however, is that these market forces are amoral, and doing exactly what they are designed to do. Heres another brief example. The Charles G. Koch Foundation, a philanthropic foundation spearheaded by the same billionaire brothers who, in large part, underwrite the Tea Party, has a little-known history of making long-term contributions as large as $10 million and more to public universities such as the University of West Virginia, Utah State University, George Mason University, Clemson University and Florida State University. What strings are attached to these gifts? In at least three of these cases, the text of the grant agreements gives the foundation a say in reviewing applicants for faculty positions.19 According to an article on the subject in Inside Higher Education: The goals and objectives of these grants were to support research into the causes, measurements, impact and appreciation of economic freedom, with faculty hired with this money expected to advance the understanding and practice of those free voluntary processes and principles that promote social progress, human well-being, individual freedom, opportunity and prosperity based on the rule of law,

17 18

Marshal, 2. This logic is great. Another popular example: Why introduce gun control measures when 100% enforcement is clearly impossible? 19 Berrett, Not Just Florida State, 1.

constitutional government, private property and the laws, regulations, organizations, institutions and social norms upon which they rely. 20 This same article goes on, as one might expect, to document numerous cases in which university officials denounce the implication that the Charles G. Koch Foundation might have any influence on specific hiring decisions or research findings. Cary Nelson, the president of the American Associations of University Professors, had another take on wording of the grant agreement summarized above and the Koch brothers potential agenda, however. Although the Koch Foundations objectives are written so as to sound upbeat and cheerful, they amount to code words calling for the dismantling of the welfare state. [] Economic freedom. Sounds like mom and apple pie until you realize it means the government shouldnt collect taxes, and free voluntary processes means buy health care on your own if you can afford it.21 This is how Robyn Blummer, a columnist for the St. Petersburg Times, assessed the context of the Florida State grant in an editorial that was republished in the Huffington Post: Their ultra-conservatism needs a veneer of intellectual credibility, which is why for decades the brothers have lavished resources on a host of think tanks and academic institutions that are willing to make a case for anything a billionaire without a conscience would want.22 But what of innovative, self-initiated policy choices that exceed the domain of what might be considered ethical university governance? It is pretty much common knowledge that the threshold for entry into the most selective universities is that the applicant must be either extremely smart (regardless of background), rich and smart, or extremely rich (and potentially dumb as a bag of hammers).23 Legacy, cronyism, the promise of financial contributions none of these things are exactly breaking news. For every rich kid that gets into a selective university, theres a corresponding poor kid who doesnt. Again, thats not news. Whats news is that now the dumb rich kids are actually being recruited using the smart kids money as matter of policy. A 2012 survey of affluent students and their parents asked the question Which attributes would make me consider a school that was not my first choice? The first place response was Offers a good scholarships and financial-aid packages.24 In general, there are need-based scholarships, academic achievement scholarships and merit scholarships; this is where the merit scholarships come in. Though there is no universal definition for a merit scholarship25 one might make the assumption that one component criterion is academic merit. However, a 2011 U.S. Department of Education study found that almost 20 percent of full-time college students who were receiving
20 21

Ibid, 1. Ibid, 1-2. 22 Ibid, 2. 23 George W. Bush went to Yale. 24 Carey, 2. 25 Leadership scholarship seems to code word for a scholarship used to recruit exceptional athletes of mediocre academic achievement to Division III athletic programs. This is pretty standard practice among small colleges in the American Midwest.

merit aid had entered college with a combined SAT score below 700, and forty-five percent of had scored below 1000.26 A feature in the Chronicle of Higher Education summarized the situation nicely. And when colleges need to decide exactly how much money to throw at which stupid sons and daughters of the rich, for-profit consultants with sophisticated pricing algorithms are standing by. In marketing its services, one industry leader, noel-Levitz, cites a client college that generates more than $10,000 more per student from freshmen with the lowest levels of academic achievement than from those with the highest.27 But, unfortunately, this is not a new trend, and even at public universities the percentage of students receiving non-need-based aid is rising faster than the funds set aside for students who actually require financial help. The article continues: In 1995, 43 percent of students attending private colleges received needbased aid. By 2007, that percentage had declined slightly, to 42 percent. The proportion receiving so-called merit aid, by contrast, jumped from 24 percent to 44 percent, nearly doubling in just over a decade.28 In the end, and in the absence of an institutional (corporate) conscience, simple market forces prevail. With the ability to redirect federal subsidies made to the university itself, thereby redirecting taxpayer funds to replace institutional funds, $5000 invested in the direction of an academically limited student of means willing to pay the full balance of his or her tuition bill is going to yield a greater return on investment than the $20,000 that might be required to subsidize a student of limited means with needbased aid. This forces lower-income students to borrow more, work more at the expense of study time or, predictably, attend lesser universities. And thus the gap continues to widen 5. It is difficult to discuss the impacts of globalization on higher education without an analysis of various trends in global population dynamics, but that is exactly what I am going to attempt to do, not because these dynamics lack importance, but because, at this point, the scope of this paper has gotten a little out of hand and I need to try to limit my analyses to only the most direct relationships. Popular discourse also includes an ongoing discussion about things like ebbs and flows in information, feed-back and feedforward loops, simultaneous convergence and divergence, complex systems and accelerated change, but lets try, once again, to limit the scope to that of the overwhelming propensity for increasingly larger sums of accumulated capital to affect higher education in increasingly horrifying ways, full stop. Enter globalization (negative definition). According to Manfred Stegner, in his book Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, the third stage of globalization, which much of the developed world is currently exiting, consisted of the transformation from manufacturing economies into service-oriented economies dominated by finance; the extension of integrated regional economies; and the widespread dissemination of neo-liberalism as a dominant

26 27

Carey, 2. Ibid,2. 28 Ibid.

ideology. His analysis, as it appears in Ten Globalization Challenges to Higher Education Quality and Quality Assurance 29, continues: The fourth stage, which we appear to be entering, is characterized by greater parity in the movement of finance capital and labor application (but not necessarily labor itself) through the globalization of service functions; higher functional interdependence of both nations and regions; a re nationalization of identities and re-definition of people mobility rights; and persistent engagements of national, regional and global authorities to deal with systemic issues, such as environmental threats. Given that one might take the English language as the de facto means of communication for global business, and thus neo-liberalism, the particular instance of English language instruction (and more specifically the instruction of English as a second language) might make for an interesting case study of globalization in action. The situation is this: Given that the neoliberal agenda has placed more emphasis on institutional autonomy, in that it treats higher education as a commodity in a competitive marketplace, public institutions are subsequently stripped of state or national funds (traditionally excised from income tax), and, thereby forced to reduce overhead costs, search for other sources of funding (as previously discussed) or prioritize some programs to the detriment of others so as to compete for private grants or better meet the evaluation criteria for various objective ranking systems. Enter, by way of illustration, a living example, a young graduate from a prestigious university with a degree in Creative Writing. Even with a large scholarship and full-time employment, he is still deeply in debt, a product of income inequality: his Ivy League tuition costs constitute a much greater percentage of his income than that of many of his classmates, (who have the financial resources to simultaneously pursue various unpaid internships at publishers and magazines). Though his degree is a terminal degree in the arts and would have been sufficient for a tenure-track position fifteen years previous, various rating systems that tabulate the percentage of a university staff with PhDs now exclude him from this particular marketplace, a marketplace that, one should note, is currently shrinking faster than the polar ice caps. He is, therefore, relegated to the position of adjunct lecturer at a community college, paid by the classroom contact hour so that the college can avoid the overhead cost of private health insurance. He moves to South Korea, a country with socialized healthcare and a strong national university system, so as to pay his school loans. He looks on in horror as a university rating system heavily influenced by financial institutions initiates the elimination of the German, French, Dance, Political Science, Traditional Art and Philosophy departments from his university. Class sizes rise as colleagues in other departments are encouraged to teach additional classes for an overtime rate less than a third of their salary wage. Seeking other options, he is accepted to a PhD program in Australia, assured that a full scholarship plus stipend is forthcoming, only to watch his scholarship fall victim to austerity measures. Meanwhile, a branch campus of his university hires Philippine instructors to teach Basic English courses at a still lower pay rate. When these instructors complain about living conditions and mandatory curfews, their numbers are reduced and a portion of their course content is relegated to video interaction with
29

Neubaur, 7.

10

Philippine instructors still residing in the Philippines.30 Our subjects in-progress philosophy degree, in a marketplace soon to be devoid of philosophy departments, represents expenditure with almost no chance of a return on investment. Still, he pays it gladly. It could happen. The theoretical motivations for this hypothetical, perpetual student / teacher will be discussed in 7. With the motivations and mechanisms for low-overhead established, the systemic propensity toward falling pay rates substantiated and promises of a metaphorical equivalence with Nike shoes (as worn by sports stars such as Michal Jordan and Wayne Rooney) delivered, enter a discussion of commodity fetishism (later Debord definition) in education. 6. Question: Who got the best grades and test scores, went to the most prestigious university, landed the highest-paying job, married the most beautiful woman and now lives in the largest apartment in all of Korea? Answer: Your mothers best friends son. Sometimes what makes a joke funny is that it takes the truth, then makes it even more true. Of course, the important part of this sequence, its catalyst, is the grades and test scores that lead to just the right university -- as it has long been known that universities are brand names in and of themselves. The average person off the street here in Korea could probably name three or four Ivy League schools, or the SKY universities, or at least affirm that Oxford and Cambridge are very old, gothic and impressive. A sweatshirt with Princeton on the front will do almost as much to establish ones social status-on-a-glance as a car with a three-pointed star on the hood. Couple the desire for these status symbols with a healthy dose of parental anxiety and its all the explanation you need to understand why 72% of high school seniors in Hong Kong go to private tutors and over 90% of primary school students in Korea attend hagwans.31 But how, in a world of commodity fetishization, with Oh Sung Sik on the downside of his franchise career, does one go about differentiating between tutors? In Hong Kong, where they have actually taken a page out of the K-Pop playbook, the most successful tutoring franchises are marketed in accordance with the teen-idol image. The celebrity Tutor Kings and Queens dress in designer clothes with elaborate hairstyles and can be seen driving Italian sports cars. They adhere their images to busses and billboards, sometimes dressed in black ties and ball gowns, at others posing with machine guns, rocket launchers and other sophisticated weaponry. Their status has been compared to that of rock stars: students purchase pens, ring binders and folders with their faces on them.32 It is the ultimate inversion of status acquisition. Image is purchased; education is delivered.

30

Not that I mean to pick on the Philippines here, or to imply that Philippine teachers are any less qualified, only to highlight that, given the prevalent wage disparity between Korea and the Philippines, Philippine instructors can be employed, or even outsourced, in much the way that many call centers for American-based companies are located in India. Additionally, it might be noted that many students choose to visit the Philippines for their English language instruction. According to McGeown, over 24,000 people applied for study permits in 2012, up from just 8,000 in 2008. 31 Sharma, 2. 32 Ibid.

11

Meanwhile, and again, families spend a substantial portion of their income to subsidize this glamorized academic arms race, and social inequalities continue to widen as lower income households struggle to keep up. 7. Most dangerous is the prevalent assumption that public education is not a vital component of cultural identity and social stability, but a private economic matter of personal choice. There is no short-term economic return on investment from a wellinformed electorate, only an effectively manipulated one, and a vital component of this transformation is the packaging of systematic inequalities, or grossly skewed realms of opportunity, as innate, natural parameters within an inalterable, inevitable capitalistic society. Furthermore: Behind this view stands the model of education that devolves the responsibility for the common good to the aggregate of atomized individual choices. This approach breeds a spirit of completion among the different higher education sectors, driving institutions toward the supposed rewards and incentives of the market place and away from the traditional concept of an academic community of scholars dedicated to the pursuit of learning.33 Gone is the metaphorical equivalent of the separation between church and state: the separation between unchecked capitalism and higher education. The subject matter, of course, was always present in the past for example the virtues of self interest within the context of capitalist society and the concept of institutionalized inequality is nothing new, but the difference now is the level of interaction and mutual reinforcement. The fact that fathers and mothers who go to Oxford breed children who go to Oxford is a well-documented social progression, which, historically, has always had an intertwined, self-reinforcing, economic component.34 The difference now is that this component has infiltrated academia to such a large extent as to exaggerate already existing inequalities and, through its very structure, actually validate the inevitability of these inequalities in the process. Because, to draw upon our friend Ranciere a bit, Who is the student to be in a position to question the teacher? Zizek explains it thus: The reduction of higher education to the task of producing socially useful expert knowledge is the paradigmatic form of Kants private use of reason that is, constrained by contingent, dogmatic presuppositions within todays global capitalism.35 Furthermore, not all students are limited to the text at hand; institutions instruct, first and foremost, through example. Do as I say, not as I do has evolved into Do as I both say and do, i.e. perpetuate social / economic inequality. What academia has become is both a microcosm of the larger crisis of capitalism and a sub-system serving to reinforce the greater atmosphere. The student, as subject, (or the typical instructor, for that matter), now has far diminished means at his or her disposal to resist this exploitive arrangement specifically because the means of resistance (or even identification) have become the sole property of those who benefit most from the current system.
33

Smolicz, Jerry Jaroslaw. Globalisation and Higher Education: A Comparison of Educational Privatization in Poland, Iran, Australia and Philippines. World Studies in Education. 2000. As referenced in Yang, 279. 34 Honestly, I got pretty tired of reading articles on this subject. If one craves a bit of entertainment, the 7 -Up documentary series does a good job of humanizing the phenomenon. 35 A Permanent Economic Emergency, p4.

12

In the end, soft repression in the form of indoctrination is far more cost effective than other forms more easily identified and opposed. This is the point where economic self-interest and the concept of ideological indoctrination overlap. 8. Call it globalization, privatization, austerity measures or just the impacts of market forces and the neo-liberal agenda in general, or all of the above, but one thing is for certain: the concept of a traditional university is a thing of the past. The humanities are fading and entire departments are disappearing; social security nets in Greece have a brighter future than Philosophy departments in America. Professors are being replaced by adjuncts, and adjuncts are being replaced adjuncts from other countries, or online learning options, or online learning options employing adjuncts from other countries. The campus is no longer a public space. How does an adjunct with little or no job security resist these trends, via the internet, from another part of the world? Or conduct meaningful research? Or represent a diversity of opinions while employing standardized teaching materials? To rehash an old refrain, this is a systematic problem that originates outside of academia, and yet academia has lost much of its ability to catalyze material (or even conceptual) change. The first step, one might argue, as more of a stop-gap or band-aid measure, would be to isolate academia from market forces to the largest extent possible: regulate or even abolish for-profit universities (both where they already exist and where they inevitably someday will); enforce anticonflict-of-interest measures for all university staff; establish something akin to an academic minimum wage corresponding to different levels of research, education, and teaching experience; enforce a system wherein all non-need-based merit aid awards are made on an income blind bases, independent of any knowledge of family background, blah, blah, blah, the list goes on. Fat chance without some kind of Socratic philosopher king running the show, and it just so happens that the system isnt turning out philosophers any more. Whats necessary, therefore, is to redefine success on the personal level, so as to, therefore, redefine academic success and broaden the scope of reasonable academic pursuits. Give this a try and maybe the philosopher kings will begin to develop in a generation or two. As it stands, the current system: does not necessarily cater to non-economic needs. The need to provide for ourselves, to give, create and invent, to do things for ourselves and one another [arguably, the marked does not encourage selflessness (giving to others, doing good to others), unless it is also profitable] all this is subverted by the market, since such profound needs cannot be expressed through the markets crude calculus.36 But what about a different sort of calculus, one that does not rely upon the neoliberal sequence of education leading to wealth leading to options in the marketplace leading to happiness? Because, as it stands, this sequence could more reasonably be reduced to one in which a student, burdened by the impending doom of school loans, is left with little option other than to choose both the university and the major that are statistically most likely to yield the quickest return on investment: its not a case in which the goal is to explore the myriad options of the marketplace, but to place academic bets so as to minimize the possibility of financial ruin. Needless to say, in this system, the smart money is not on the arts or humanities and, therefore, not in a
36

Yang, 274.

13

diversity of knowledge or the varying points of view necessary to initiate the sort of discourse that might lead to long-term change.37 To exacerbate matters, there is a considerable movement within the American legislature that specifically target majors such as sociology and political science for a reduction in federal funding and the system wherein Korean universities are effectively rated by banks based on students ability to repay school loans in a timely manner is well known.38 In short, if one capitulates to the reality that economic criteria are the basis on which most matters of academic policy are currently being made, one must necessarily recognize that the economic criteria necessary to justify a diverse spectrum of fields of study is also missing. This is where the idea of public works and equivalent costs enters the picture: for example what personal increase in income would be necessary to offset the loss of a public good that can be used for free such as a park.39 Only, in this case, the public good is not a matter of social programs or infrastructure, but that of a socially engaged society, or at least a civic-minded, politically engaged electorate. How much more would the average person pay in order to have a vibrant artistic presence in his or her community, or a diversity of opinions so as to initiate lively, informed debate? Likewise, what material rewards would a serious student be willing to forgo so as to explore a more holistic approach to education, (and its attendant immaterial benefits and quality of life rewards)? In much the same way that the loss of clean air or a public park can be quantified in terms of personal opportunity costs, a re-prioritization of the allocation of funds in higher education based on a system in which a monetary valuation of a diverse population in which individuals well-educated in the arts and humanities are represented is necessary. It has been demonstrated in numerous studies that the correlation between a countys per-capita income and the happiness of its citizens is either non-existent, or, at best, does not yield a greater correlation than the link between happiness and the countrys emphasis on (i.e. tax commitment to) education, healthcare, social programs and public works.40 How, then, does one explain why governments and universities have become so willing to embrace an ideology wherein the value of education is assumed to correlate directly with the magnitude of future earning potential? One explanation might be that the crisis of capitalism and the crisis of higher education are one in the same.

37

Obviously, this is a bit of a generalization: the idea of a human rights lawyer able to repay her school loans, or of a social worker with a graduate degree is not unheard of, but even in these instances a homogeneity of (privileged) socio-economic background is the rule. I would be extremely surprised if a top-tier American university has turned out a modest-means PhD level graduate in Special-Needs Education since the bankruptcy laws were changed so as not to excuse school loans, though there could be an instance or two. Likewise, no one is making the case that a civic-minded stockbroker is a categorical impossibility, just a relative statistical improbability. 38 Baskin, 1. There are countless other articles on this subject, but after a while reading them just got too depressing. 39 The ideas to follow are to a large extent a recontextualizaton of those expressed in: Davis, The Political Economy of Unhappiness. 40 All agree, however, that rising income inequality is sure source of unhappiness on a national lever. These studies are everywhere. One is Frank, Robert, Income and Happiness: an Imperfect Link. The New York Times, March 9, 2008.

14

Basken, Paul. Senate Moves to Limit NSF Spending on Political Science, The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 21, 2013. http://chronicle.com/article/SenateMoves-to-Limit-NSF/138027/. Berrett, Dan. The Inside Job Effect. Inside Higher Education. April 19, 2011. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/04/19/economists_start_probing_their_own_ ethics Berrett, Dan. Not Just Florida State Inside Higher Education, June 28, 2011. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/28/koch_foundation_gifts_to_colleges_an d_universities_draw_scrutiny Bidwell, Allie. Online Programs Reject Students to Avoid Costly State Approval, Report Says, The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 20, 2013. http://chronicle.com/article/Online-Programs-Reject/138021/. Carey, Kevin. Too Much Merit Aid Requires No Merit. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 18, 2013. http://chronicle.com/article/Too-Much-Merit-AidRequires/137365/. Davies, William. The Political Economy of Unhappiness. New Left Review 71, September-October 2011. Dillion, Ariel. Education in Platos Republic. Paper presented at the Santa Clara University Student Ethics Research Conference, May 26, 2004. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/dillon/education_plato_republic.html. Docherty, Thomas. Margret Thatchers Legacy Divides British Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 12, 2013. http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/margaret-thatchers-legacy-divides-british-highereducation/32157 Frank, Robert, Income and Happiness: an Imperfect Link. The New York Times, March 9, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09view.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Kolowich, Steve. Faculty Backlash Grows against Online Partnerships. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 2, 2013. http://chronicle.com/article/Faculty-Backlash-GrowsAgainst/139049/

15

Marshall, Lewis. Disclosure= Resolution: Academic economists and the global crisis. The Stanford Progressive. July, 2011. http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgibin/?p=1685 McGeown, Kate. The Philippines: The worlds budget English teacher. BBC News, Philippines. November 12, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20066890 Neubauer, Dean. Ten Globalization Challenges to Higher Education Q uality and Quality Assurance. http://www.eastwestcenter.org/education/international-forum-foreducation-2020/education-leadership-institute/current-institute Parker, Chris. For-Profit Colleges Only a Con Man Could Love Barbarians in the Ivory Tower. Village Voice, August 1, 2012. http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-0801/news/for-profit-colleges-con/. Poliak, Shira and Roth, Sammy. Inside Job sparks three separate reviews of disclosure policy. Columbia Daily Spectator. April 14, 2011. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/04/14/%E2%80%98inside-job%E2%80%99sparks-three-separate-reviews-disclosure-policy Robinson, William I. Global Capitalism: The New Transnationalism and the Folly of Conventional Thinking. Science and Society, Vol 69, No. 3. July 2005, 316-328. Sharma, Yojana. Meet the tutor kings and queens. BBC News online. November 27, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20085558 Yang, Rui. Globalisation and Higher Education Development: A Critical Analysis. International Review of Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1025303303245#page-1 Zizek, Slavo. A Permanent Economic Emergency. New Left Review 64, July-August 2010.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi