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.
