Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Higher Ed Revolution Cometh

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Disrupted higher ed: Less Harpo, more health care

Robert Tracinski, a Charlottesville writer, provides a concise and incisive overview of how technology will disrupt — if not demolish – the reigning model of higher education in this article in Real Clear Markets. He makes many good points (some of which I’ve made myself), but this is one that struck me:

The new medium will lead to some big innovations in the whole experience of higher education–a field whose basic structure hasn’t changed all that much since the first universities arose out of monasteries in the late Middle Ages.

One of the radical changes I think we will see is the decoupling of the humanities from technical and professional education. As it is, universities package together two forms of education with radically different economics. Scientific, technological, and professional courses teach skills that are judged by objective standards and have direct, measurable economic value.

The humanities, at best, have an economic value that is indirect and difficult to quantify. Perhaps it will make you more creative and a deeper thinker. Maybe Steve Jobs sitting in on classes in calligraphy helped inspire the Macintosh. But then again, the humanities departments are also packed with a bunch of charlatans who will waste your time with things like–well, here’s an example. Check out a hilarious review by Joe Queenan of an impossibly pretentious and utterly nonsensical academic tome on the deeper meaning of that important subject, Harpo Marx.

As someone who came out of the humanities departments–I have a degree in philosophy–I assure you that this sort of thing goes on all the time, and your tuition dollars are paying for it. Obviously, there is no reason why they should pay for it, so eventually they won’t.

— JAB

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I could not find the references article but I believe the sentiment with regard to technical vs humanities is dead on especially when it comes to the proposition that the taxpayer should be paying.

    Why should taxpayers be subsidizing a person who wants to become schooled in some discipline of which there is little direct demand in the marketplace for?

    I would suggest that our current Higher Ed policies are, in large part, just extensions of the philosophy we have with K-12 schools – in that any/every subject of study is encourage/available and considered a legitimate duty of taxpayers.

    If we limited what taxpayers are on the hook for – to ONLY core academic subjects and totally focus of the schools ONLY on the achievement of those subjects it would become very clear to both students and parents what the the legitimate purpose of taxpayer-funded schools are.

    It does not prevent or stop the pursuit of other education – but it makes clear that such areas are optional and not the financial responsibility of others.

    Our higher ed financial model is basically based on the idea that any/all subjects of study are worthy of taxpayer subsidies – and it’s turned our higher ed institutions into very expensive taxpayer-subsidized providers of any/all education regardless of it’s worth in the marketplace.

    When you think about this – keep in mind how this policy has affected things like property taxes, sales taxes, the chronic under-funding of transportation, housing itself, mortgage deductions and 2nd and 3rd mortgages (to pay for college) and the subsequent housing meltdown which now has led to massive tax-payer-subsidized college loans.

    the who “education model” has directly led to ‘anti-growth” policies that limit housing and limit property rights because of the implications of the costs of “services”.. of which in most localities, fully 1/2 of those costs are for “education”.

  2. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    there are rich ironies with those who claim to be fiscal conservatives but have a love/hate relationship with K-12 schools.

    For instance, you’ll hear many fiscal conservatives favor vouchers and magnet schools but they are vague about the costs and who should pay.

    They assume that voucher schools would be cheaper because the salaries of the instructors would be cheaper – as opposed to recognizing the reality that it’s not the salaries of public school teachers per se nor the “bad” teachers per se that is the real problem with public school costs.

    If you just looked at ONLY the costs of public schools for CORE ACADEMIC subjects, you’d see per student costs more like Europe and Private schools because they do not offer all the employee-laden amenities courses that extend far behind core academic.

    People …fiscal conservatives would also realize that class sizes and teacher qualification and performance is much more relevant and critical with respect to core academic courses than all the other courses offered beyond core academic courses.

    I wonder how many of the fiscal conservatives who support using taxpayer money for vouchers …would expect the voucher schools to offer the same comprehensive K-12 courses that extend far beyond core academic and include extra curricular …for the same amount of money?

    So we start his habit in K-12 where we advocate for schools that offer far more than core-academic courses and pretend that all courses are the same in terms of things like class size and teacher performance and that all courses are legitimate expenses for all tax payers.

    This in turn completely distorts tax and taxpayer-funded services in virtually all counties, leading to higher taxes, higher fiscal stress levels including choosing education over transportation and having seriously unfunded pension plans …

    All of this goes back to our attitudes about education and taxpayer responsibilities not only at the local K12 level but at the higher Ed level.

    We want to blame higher ED as an entire institution for this but this all starts back at the K-12 level where we instill the concept that any/all education is a legitimate cost to all taxpayers.

    It not only directly affects public tax moneys – local and state and even Federal, it affects where and how we buy homes and how we treat the equity in our homes and if that equity is not available then we seek govt subsidized loans ….

    I would assert that we’re not about to “fix”any of this until we recognize the real root causes of it.

    we’re just deluding ourselves which seems to be a fairly typical approach to many important issues these days especially as practiced by folks who fancy themselves as fiscal conservatives.

    True fiscal conservatives recognize clearly the real reasons why schools are expensive propositions and its not “bad” teachers or “bad” high Ed institutions…. it’s US.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      LarryG logic:

      Our schools are a mess. They teach things that shouldn’t be taught. They cost too much. The answer? Don’t allow charter schools to compete. Don’t allow vouchers for tuition to schools that compete.

      LarryG – the only way our badly broken K-12 system will change is by allowing others to provide a competing approach. Maybe the problem is not the teachers – although the educational unions they cherish are a huge part of the problem. Maybe it’s the government and the way that schools are managed. Fine. What’s going to change that? A bunch of slimy, slippery, corrupt politicians waking up one morning and saying, “What we’ve been doing for the past 30 years is all wrong.”? Please.

      The only thing that will change our education system is an alternate system that can be seen to be better. For the wealthy, that system already exists – private schools. For everybody else, it’s the monopoly public school or no school at all.

  3. Darrell Avatar
    Darrell

    Humanities? Bah! WE ARE SPARTA!

  4. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I’m ALL FOR competition to the K-12 public schools but are the folks who say they want it ..REALLY …PREPARED for what it really means? But you also ignore my point about the fact that K-12 is expected to provide much more than core academic services – all taxpayer funded – and we carry that mindset to colleges… we EXPECT taxpayers to subsidize college also no matter what type of degree is being pursued.

    If what you want is private K-12 schools funded with taxpayer vouchers what do you expect for the money ?

    Do you expect private voucher schools to provide the same scope and scale of curriculum services beyond the core academics?

    Do you expect the full range of sports, extracurricular and elective courses?

    How would you know that what your child is learning each year is equivalent to what a “good” K-12 curricula / education is (or is not)?

    We certainly ought to have competition – no if, and or buts about it but how would you compare and judge quality and what you get (and don’t get) for the money?

    We should also be smart enough to realize that a high dollar private school is NOT what you’d get from a voucher school. The voucher schools are going to be for-profit and they will be providing no more than what the vouchers pay for …if that much.

    From my perspective – I’d fully support voucher schools that taught ONLY core academic and had to meet the same achievement standards that public school have to meet.

    that would SAVE taxpayers money, take pressure off of local taxation and actually allow for places like Fairfax to have affordable housing stock.

    The 12-13K per kid that Fairfax “provides” comes from taxpayers and it is the driving force behind the higher cost of living costs in the region.

    Fairfax even extracts from the GA – a “cost-to-compete” subsidy paid for both other Virginians.

    All of this to provide the be all and end all for K-12 education.

    Why is anything that is beyond core academic – the responsibility of taxpayers?

    and if you justify it at the K-12 level – how do you not justify continuing that idea into Higher Ed?

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      “Fairfax even extracts from the GA – a “cost-to-compete” subsidy paid for both other Virginians.”.

      Once again, LarryG, you are confused. You believe that the money I earn is the state’s money and the state lets me keep what the state thinks appropriate. That would be right in Cuba but not so much here.

      Fairfax can only receive a subsidy from the Commonwealth of Virginia if Fairfax pays less in taxes than it consumes in benefits.

      I would be very open to reading any analysis that demonstrates that Fairfax gets more back from Richmond than it sends to Richmond. However, that analysis never seems to be written – presumably because it’s untrue.

  5. FreeDem Avatar
    FreeDem

    The revolution in the humanities is going to be very, very interesting to watch. My initial gut reaction is that the role of the humanities in academia is under serious threat due to this revolution in higher education, but in talking to my peers I find a strong desire on the part of affluent suburbanites to defend their desire to take “interesting courses” in college, which means, essentially, courses that will give them something engaging to talk about at cocktail parties. Not something economically productive.

    And I say this as someone who’s courses included “Food and Drink in the Ancient World,” “Tolkien and Medieval Literature,” and “The Conquest of the Americas.”

    If states want to shift away from subsidizing humanities, and the market revolution in higher ad is turning more toward skills and subjects with economic value that can be objectively measured, the next big thing for humanities is adapting and finding ways to meet the market in affluent suburbanites for “interesting courses” without the support of institutions of higher education.

    I’m seeing blogging, ebooks, webinars, and the like replacing a minor in Ethnomusicology. Does this mean that there will be a seamless transition of humanities professors onto the Internet where they will flourish with high paying jobs with the security of tenure? Absolutely not. There will be a lot of creative destruction that will result in consolidation of the industry.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      FreeDem:

      First, I am not sure how much taxpayer subsidization of college courses actually occurs in Virginia. To hear UVA (my alma mater) tell it – they get their allotment cut by the state each and every year. I think the real damage is done by tuitions that increase considerably in excess of inflation year after year. What was once a relatively affordable in-state tuition at UVA has become cost prohibitive unless you have rich parents, a tolerance for lingering debt or some degree that will almost immediately put you in a position to earn a high salary. The humanities are being killed less by societal action than by the fiscal mismanagement of colleges and universities.

      Second, the Commonwealth of Virginia could easily focus what support it does provide to colleges and universities by underwriting only practical courses. Introduction to Computer Science might be free while a three credit hour course in comparative religion might cost a lot. The student and their “suburbanite” parents could take all the humanities they cared to pay for.

      Third, I am not sure of your affluent suburbanites point. I assume that I’d qualify in that category. I have five sons. The oldest just graduated with a BS in Logistics. He got his degree in four years and had a good job lined up with a great company well before he graduated. His four younger brothers are all focused on Science and Math. His mother and I both hold BS degrees in practical majors. When I attend cocktail parties people are very happy to hear that young people can still go to college, graduate on time and get a good job. Nobody questions whether my oldest son will be able to hold an interesting conversation. If there is any hidden reserve of pro-humanities support, I’d suggest it’s among the metrosexuals living in the cities or the “gentlemen writers” / “gentlemen farmers” who seem to congregate in rural locales.

      Finally, we should demand that every student take some form of writing and effective presentation course(s). I hire a lot of young people with technical degrees. Many struggle to express themselves in any language other than Java. Even if society doesn’t need a lot of experts in Medieval literature, every educated person should be able to read, write and speak effectively.

      1. FreeDem Avatar
        FreeDem

        If all you think about is UVA, you’re missing the iceberg of the extensive support the Commonwealth provides to a host of other colleges, ranging from JMU and CNU down to the community college level. It’s this part of the iceberg that is most vulnerable to the revolution of online learning, digitization, etc. You’ll always have an elite that wants to flaunt their elite status by sending their children to a brick and mortar college, just like boarding schools continue to exist today for primary/secondary grades.

        College affordability is more of a failure of school administration, not the state, although you can argue that the state has failed to adopt the reforms necessary to keep costs under control. The overhead at today’s colleges is entirely unnecessary, management is bloated.

        The cost of attending UVA is only a few thousand more than attending JMU. JMU says $21,214 for 2011-2012 (http://www.jmu.edu/finaid/coa.shtml), UVA says 24,344 for 2011-2012 (http://www.virginia.edu/financialaid/estimated.php). And average in state for four year public universities is estimated at $21,447 (http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/pf/college/college_tuition_cost/index.htm).

        Are UVA students really going to bitch and moan to me about paying a little bit more every year, relative to the national average, for such a highly ranked public university? Please!

        The problem is the spoiled mentality of the overwhelmingly Northern Virginia based demographic of helicopter parents who believe their child is the most special child in the world and deserves the very best … and they want the state to pick up as much of the tab as possible.

        When, not if, the Commonwealth begins to target its assistance to economically important courses and departments, the reaction will be a withering away of humanities until they are found at the few brick and mortar colleges remaining.

        If your son is entering into a career when being interest at cocktail parties isn’t a concern he’s not a member of the new creative class elite that folks like Bacon here are always blogging about. If he starts worrying about the latest food trend, or what’s on HBO or Showtime, or understanding the deeper meaning of the latest bestseller on the New York Times, then you have the demographic most likely to pay for the humanities in the future.

  6. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    If voucher schools ONLY taught core academic AND they developed a reputation for delivering a quality basic but solid foundation education that would get you into college or a good technical school – and parents had that choice and it would be 100% covered by voucher…

    here’s the question:

    what would happen to the public schools especially in terms of all the electives, extracurricular and sports programs?

    What would happen? The parents of kids who lived in the parts of town where the schools continued to have poor results especially for the demographically at-risk kids… could just opt out and put their kid in a voucher school that did nothing but focus on core academics …

    what would happen is that the public schools will receive less and less tax money and have to start cutting programs…and the programs they cut would likely be the same ones that many parents advocate for – beyond core academics.

    The public schools in order to “compete” would have to start cutting the programs that were “extra” and focus their remaining funds on the courses that they were competing on with their competition – the voucher schools.

    Is this what you really want DJ?

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      “The public schools in order to “compete” would have to start cutting the programs that were “extra” and focus their remaining funds on the courses that they were competing on with their competition – the voucher schools.

      Is this what you really want DJ?”.

      Yes, that is exactly what I want – choice. Choice for people who can’t afford the choice of sending their kids to private schools.

      Take a “typical” high school with 2,000 students. Why not two high schools with 1,000 students each? They try different approaches and the parent / taxpayers get to see which one is working better. The school that is “losing” need to reform itself or see it’s funding cut and survival threatened.

      Why is that wrong?

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    So, according to the Bacon-centric view of knowledge, we are supposed to spend time only on STEM like Robotrons that can earn some kind of profit, the hell with Humanity.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      No. You should take whatever courses you choose to pay to take.

      The question is whether the taxpayers in general should subsidize esoteric humanities.

      History of Rock at UVA?

      http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=9085

      Fine. Just don’t ask me to pay for it.

  8. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I’m not advocating against any/all non-STEM education, K-12 or higher ED but I DO advocate that we confront the reality of what we are doing in terms of the costs and in terms of what are legitimate recipients of taxpayer dollars.

    Right now, we basically have a any/all approach and that any/all approach is causing IMHO significant impacts to tax policy and priorities of what we spend tax money for.

    and that we be “eyes open” in terms of what voucher schools will cost and what they are supposed to accomplish in their “competition” with K-12 public schools.

    On this issue I’m from the POGO school – which is – we – both libtards and those who fancy themselves as fiscal conservatives – both refuse to deal with the realities.

    We spend one hell of a lot of money on K-12 and higher ED and yet we have our academic clocks cleaned by our European and Asian competitors and we play ideological blame games in response.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The reality is that the teachers’ unions actively resist any and all change including any change that would allow competition in public education.

      That, to me, is the biggest problem.

      Call it the blame game, call it what you want.

      I watched as Michelle Rhee tried to reform the truly horrible and astronomically expensive DC public schools. BigEd opposed her every move. She was eventually run out of office. Today, fewer than 60% of DC students graduate from high school on time. The national average is about 75%.

      “The city’s four application-only high schools, Banneker, McKinley, School Without Walls and Duke Ellington, are at the top of the revised list. At Banneker, 100 percent of students graduated one time in 2011. The other three had rates between 91 and 93 percent.

      Of the city’s open enrollment schools that serve high school students, the top seven were public charter schools: Washington Math, Science & Tech; SEED; Booker T. Washington; Friendship (Woodson campus) Cesar Chavez (Capitol Hill and Parkside campuses) Perry Street and Thurgood Marshall. The rates range from 91.3 percent ( Washington MST) to 75.4 percent Thurgood Marshall.

      Seven of the bottom 10 high schools are run by DCPS: Dunbar (60.25) Coolidge (59.8) Woodson (57.1) Ballou (48.1) Spingarn (47.7) Roosevelt (46) and Cardozo (39.9) An eighth DCPS high school, Anacostia (42) is operated by Friendship under a contract with the city.”.

      Bottom line – if you go to a non-traditional school in DC you get a shot at a good education. However, if you attend a typical “teachers’ union controlled” school you do not.

      As an aside, LarryG, the Perry Street charter school in DC fields one of the best high school rugby teams in the United States. So much for there being no extra-curricular activities.

  9. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the reality is that teachers “unions” in Va have virtually zero impact on the costs of schools nor the achievement levels.

    this is pure Blame Game BS that cherry-picks teachers unions in another place as a proxy for what is wrong in Va.

    re: sports in Private schools. SURE but it does cost money and if you think for profit voucher schools will offer sports (or other non-academic programs), you’d be smoking something illegal.

    the whole idea of purporting that Voucher Schools would become the “private school” equivalent for the non-rich is laughable….and self-deceiving.

    And that’s the problem that we have overall. We refuse to face the simple truths and prefer to play irrelevant blame games and totally whacked out visions of the future.

    no one wants to actually deal with the real issues.

Leave a Reply

Read More