The canary in the higher education coal mine

Over the past few months, we have seen an increasing flood of articles by supporters of public higher education around the nation sounding alarms about the potential negative consequences of planned cuts in higher education funding.  Heads of public systems provide detailed analyses of the economic importance of their institutions, and of their role in creating social opportunity and mobility.

What seems to be lost in this discussion is that almost everyone in positions of legislative or executive authority appreciates these arguments and believes they are correct.  The choir is being preached to. The problem, simply stated, is that there are no additional funds that can be allocated to higher education in these times of enormously constrained state budgets.   Even when the economy recovers, as it eventually will, history suggests that funding for higher education will not return to previous levels.  Higher education is simply one of a large number of areas of state funding whose growth exceeds state revenue growth.

The reality is that American higher education generally  costs more than society can sustain into the future.  This is true in both the public and private sectors, which have research and education functions that are organized very similarly even though the funding sources may differ. The “canaries in the educational coal mine” , the early warning system, are, in fact, the tuitions of the private sector of higher education.  Those tuitions have grown for over 30 years at a rate that significantly exceeded the growth in either CPI or family income.  It should have been obvious to all that a system that demanded such growth in order to operate would, in the end, crash into a cost barrier.  Although the immediate crisis is in the public sector, the problem is serious in both sectors.

What are needed at this point are not more calls for a larger piece of the public pie for higher education.  The present economic situation makes it highly unlikely that those calls will be answered in a meaningful way.  What is really needed is a hard look at our present model of higher education.  Accepted beliefs underlying the model need to be challenged and rethought. Mission and the societal role of higher education should be reevaluated for the 21^st century.  Faculty roles, organization of research and its relationship to learning throughout the postsecondary experience need to be reexamined.  Administration, which captures an increasing fraction of higher education’s budgets, deserves equal scrutiny.

It is time to recognize that a redefinition of the model of American higher education is necessary.  It is foolish to argue that we already have the best of all possible models – any model can be improved. Nor should we be fooled by the esteem which our model attracts around the world – indeed, it was the dominant model of the last half of the 20^th century, but the 21^st century looks different in any number of ways.  Real educational and research leadership in the 21^st century will require a model that responds directly to the changing realities of the times

Comments

[Trident Online University]

It should be obvious that the present system is not sustainable, and continually raising tuition is not the answer.

[Makalah Pendidikan]

thank you for the information. Greetings from blogger Indonesia. Visit me on
Islamic Higher Education

[Sandra Walker]

I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at Walden University. Technology closes the gaps between the "haves" and "have nots" as it relates to the expanding life long learning opportunities to the masses. I look forward to a career in higher education and really appreciate the opportunity to engage with an informed community.

[Andy Shaindlin]

This is a very clear articulation of something that - for some reason - seems to be hidden in the noisy debate about "increasing public support for higher education." Advocates for state funding of public higher ed have been protesting, advocating, marching, testifying and petitioning for decades, with almost not effect at all. Continuing to beg or plead for more public funding won't make a difference.

I'd be interested to hear opinions about how to address your final point - i.e., how should the American model be "redefined"? What will work? Are there examples we can reasonably emulate or learn from in other national or regional systems?

Lloyd responds: thanks Andrew for the good comment and excellent question. Some of my thoughts on changing the model can be found scattered throughout my posts, but most specifically at http://bit.ly/bGbnnT.