February 1, 2014
LEAVE US PAUSE AT THE THRESHOLD:The End of Higher Education's Golden Age (Clay Shirky, January 2014)
Part of the reason this change is so disorienting is that the public conversation focuses, obsessively, on a few elite institutions. The persistent identification of higher education with institutions like Swarthmore and Stanford creates a collective delusion about the realities of education after high school; the collapse of Antioch College in 2008 was more widely reported than the threatened loss of accreditation for the Community College of San Francisco last year, even though CCSF has 85,000 students, and Antioch had fewer than 400 when it lost accreditation. Those 400, though, were attractive and well-off young people living together, which made for the better story. Life in the college dorm and on the grassy quad are rarities discussed as norms.The students enrolled in places like CCSF (or Houston Community College, or Miami Dade) are sometimes called non-traditional, but this label is itself a holdover from another era, when residential colleges for teenage learners were still the norm. After the massive expansion of higher education into job training, the promising 18-year-old who goes straight to a residential college is now the odd one out.Of the twenty million or so students in the US, only about one in ten lives on a campus. The remaining eighteen million--the ones who don't have the grades for Swarthmore, or tens of thousands of dollars in free cash flow, or four years free of adult responsibility--are relying on education after high school not as a voyage of self-discovery but as a way to acquire training and a certificate of hireability.Though the landscape of higher education in the U.S., spread across forty-six hundred institutions, hosts considerable variation, a few commonalities emerge: the bulk of students today are in their mid-20s or older, enrolled at a community or commuter school, and working towards a degree they will take too long to complete. One in three won't complete, ever. Of the rest, two in three will leave in debt. The median member of this new student majority is just keeping her head above water financially. The bottom quintile is drowning.One obvious way to improve life for the new student majority is to raise the quality of the education without raising the price. This is clearly the ideal, whose principal obstacle is not conceptual but practical: no one knows how. The value of our core product--the Bachelor's degree--has fallen in every year since 2000, while tuition continues to increase faster than inflation.The other way to help these students would be to dramatically reduce the price or time required to get an education of acceptable quality (and for acceptable read "enabling the student to get a better job", their commonest goal.) This is a worse option in every respect except one, which is that it may be possible.
Note that the product we are asking educational institutions to produce is not better-educated but students with diplomas that will help them get higher paying jobs in the workplace. Given that the credential has value but the education has none, why not just sell degrees directly at a considerable discount.
Posted by Orrin Judd at February 1, 2014 8:00 AM