Photo by gardngrlMany of us make much ado about the role and value of higher education. Is its primary purpose to shape well-rounded citizens or is it vocational training? Does higher education teach people how to think critically or does it simply offer a credential? Is it worthwhile for states to invest in higher education? It's this last question that has me thinking today. I don't actually know the answer, but, in all candor, I fear that it may be "rarely."
The argument touted by higher education representatives (of which I am one) and policymakers alike is that a baccalaureate degree confers greater earning potential on its recipients than a high school education alone. Studies of this hypothesis seem to support that, in general, this is true. There are still plenty of people for whom the degree will not make an appreciable difference in earning power, and, recent studies have even shown that the earnings gap between degree-holders and high school graduates is narrowing. But the point is, if there are still any benefits to be had from four-to-six years of post-secondary study, they are supposed to be largely economic.
Where I don't see enough analysis is in the effect of specific career outcomes on the places that subsidized the gaining of the credential. If a state provides financial support and subsidies to its state schools it is presumably with the hope that many students will stay and contribute to the state's economy. But if my own state is at all representative, I worry that this is not happening.
This morning I sorted through a pile of accumulated departmental and institutional documents that were cluttering my desk. In the pile was a Guide to Employers from the most recent student Career Fair. I noticed a disturbing, but not surprising, pattern when I began to peruse the document: the vast majority of employers represented at the fair were national or multinational enterprises. Just 14% (or 12 of the 82) employers represented had any local connection, and most of them were school districts and governmental agencies. This university's career center actively encouraged students to seek employment with distant employers.
Am I the only one to see this as a problem? Although there is a system-wide problem in this country of too few small and local businesses and too many big box and chain employers, there are still thousands of local employers in this state. Why weren't they represented? Are they simply not hiring? Was the vendor fee too high? Is anyone paying attention? If our tax dollars are going to the support of higher education, why are we sending our best and brightest away? They could be applying their problem solving skills to local issues and responding to local needs. Instead we're foisting these students on global financial advising firms, national staffing agencies and insurance underwriters. Is this flagship university all about the short-term financial gain of tuition dollars or does it have an interest in the local community and the state more generally?
I'm well aware that, philosophically speaking, college is intended to broaden, rather than to circumscribe one's view of the world. For that reason it's a challenge to argue for entirely localizing departmental curricula. Nevertheless, I suspect there are countless overlooked opportunities to apply classroom learning in the interest of addressing local problems. Why don't more majors have service learning components, for instance? Asking each student to devote four credit hours of time and energy toward community objectives seems like a very reasonable request. The community benefits from student and institutional efforts. What's more, perhaps a few students will make connections that will lead them to jobs right here.
If we're going to come up with local solutions to local problems, we're going to have to create the infrastructure to make such a reality possible. To avoid doing so is folly.
2 comments:
Thanks for the tip!
I'm pasting in the following comment for someone else who, for some reason, was unable to log into Blogger to leave it themselves:
"Well, first things first. Almost any discussion of Higher Education (imo) has to suffer from one of two ailments (if not both): lack of specificity, or lack of a broader perspective.
The reason is that "Higher Ed." in general now has so many facets, components, segments, goals, constituents, etc., it's hard to briefly cover all your bases, even if you are talking only of truly "public" institutions, as this post seems to imply you're doing. But recall that it's not even that simple. Several schools are a hybrid - take Cornell Univ. for example, where the bulk of the campus is private, but the Ag., Life Sciences, and Labor Relations schools are directly state funded ('statutory').
(http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/97/9.4.97/budget.html)
Likewise, in most states fully "private" institutions, whether non- or for-profit, still receive public student assistance through state scholarship or grant programs.
To add another layer, you seem to be expressing frustration primarily with 4-year publics and grad. programs, given that (generally speaking) public Community or Tech. Colleges typically do have a much tighter focus on serving the needs of their local communities.
Stepping back from that, many schools and states are addressing such issues as these. If I recall my higher ed. history (as gleaned from the Chronicle over the years), Michigan was one of many states where the 'brain drain' of alumni was a significant legislative focus and where the state was putting efforts into trying to harness the "output" of its own in-state grads. Likewise, as rjo notes above, other schools (often smaller, private-liberal arts schools) have made efforts to connect to their local communities. Often this comes in the form of connecting current students, with a lesser focus on keeping alums local post-graduation, but even that is not always the case.
That's not to say everything is roses everywhere else and dross where you are, but as I have some knowledge of the instition and state for whom you work as well as paying attention to discussions nationally over the past decade or so, I can say that part of your frustration can be linked specifically to what's happening in your state (or rather, not happening) specifically, and the vision/direction of your particular school.
Is your post a fair critique of your own state and institution? Yes, I would tend to agree with most of your points. But stepping back, I think in this regard the grass truly is greener in many other places. Said grass may or may not be perfect (as noted most institutions are trying to serve a wide range of constituents all at once), but I do think there is more green to point at elsewhere than in your own backyard. But even there note that for some programs, such as education, students are directly linked to the local community and groomed to have the best shot at stepping out into a local job market post-graduation, albeit that may not be true for business or philosophy (assuming there is a job market for philosophy anywhere ;)).
As for Career Fairs, well, addressing that would require a whole other post. :) As would a discussion of the local benefits created that are not purely economic in nature. But while your concerns are valid don't despair overly much just on what you see right in front of you, and remember that not every state is your current state, and not every school is a 4-year flagship eagerly trying to portray itself as having a national or even international focus even at risk of losing its local place.
It probably bears more thinking about, but this was my first reaction anyway. Sorry for the long post."
Post a Comment