Just a short post in reply to the discussion below between Mark and Eric about "cynicism." We've been using the category "Economics of Higher Education" for these discussions, but that hides the political dimension of public higher education, so I'm adding a category for that.
What do I mean by "politics of [public] higher education"? I mean that dimension of public higher education whereby the people of a community instruct their elected representatives to establish institutions of higher education for the purposes of forming the next generation of citizens. I take such citizenship training to be based in development of critical thinking in the following areas (non-exclusive list): 1) analysis of evidence and arguments; 2) understanding of rhetoric [the classical trio of logical, ethical, and pathetic appeals]; 3) a grounding in literary and visual culture to understand how those appeals can be embedded in many different forms of cultural production; 4) a grounding in principles of political economy, so that terms like "monetarism," and "stimulus" are understood, as well as figures such as Friedman, Hayek, and Keynes are recognizable.
What I would stress is that this political, citizenship dimension need not be in conflict with the economic dimension whereby students seek employable skills. And we shouldn't overlook the way in which those very skills are marketable in an age in which "information economy" and "immaterial labor" are key concepts.
But the problem I think comes with a neoliberal "universal acid" that sees all human relations as market transactions.
Then public universities are ONLY credentializing agencies, and a vicious downward spiral sets in: if public higher education is not a public good (which is the root concept of the political dimension sketched above) but is only a provider of atomized goods (the degree and the differential prestige it confers), then it's not just inefficient to provide such services in a public institution (because private enterprise is by credo more efficient [the dogma of "Marketism" as theology]), it's actually immoral, since you're asking people who do not directly benefit from a public institution (those w/o degrees from the school, or kids at the school) to support an institition that benefits ONLY degree holders.
So it's not the ever-present co-existence of the political and economic dimensions of public higher education that's the problem. The problem is the neoliberal denial of the existence of the political dimension. Now if you ask me how best to combine the two, that is, what is my vision of the political economy of higher education, I'd say I want to treat public higher education as a public good and thereby eliminate user fees for it. I'd say we should treat public higher education as an infrastructure issue, and pay for it out of tax revenues, the way we pay for roads.
Recent Comments