It’s college admissions season, which means it’s time once again for the annual flood of stories that badly misrepresent what higher education looks like for most American students — and skew the public debate over everything from student debt to the purpose of college in the process.“How college admissions has turned into something akin to…
Throughout the past few years, many websites and blogs related to student loans and higher education have released lists of the things that students do so that they can afford their undergraduate education. The items on these lists range from websites like Givling.com, where users pay money to play games for a shot to win money all while funding students’ loans, to students choosing to live in a van rather than college housing.
What I find more than strange and closer to disheartening is a journal article that I came across called “Female College Students Working in the Sex Industry: A Hidden Population.” This article recalls stories from female college students in Australia who pay their way through school by working in the sex industry as prostitutes or porn stars. These women cite factors such as rising tuition, increasing debt load, minimum wage, and decreased federal aid programs as reasons that make working in the sex industry a more attractive option (p. 2). It seems absurd that someone smart enough to attend college would choose this option, but for some they have no choice but to believe it’s the right thing to do.
A theory known as cognitive dissonance created by Leon Festinger can help to explain their behavior. Cognitive dissonance theory works off the accepted principle that individuals seek consistency among their beliefs and actions. Therefore, when individuals hold two or more contradictory beliefs or attitude, they experience discomfort and either change one of their beliefs and actions to avoid the dissonance, or ignore beliefs or evidence that contradict their beliefs to reduce the discomfort (Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Leon Festinger).
Female college students in the sex industry understand the negative stigma associated with their work and the majority believe that what they are doing is morally wrong. Because their actions and beliefs oppose each other, the women start to experience cognitive dissonance. To reduce dissonance, they stop thinking of their actions as wrong, and instead justify them as morally acceptable by convincing themselves that other reputable people sell sex in various ways, so they might as well sell it too. Adopting this mentality allows them to continue to work in the sex industry and alters their morals and sense of right and wrong all so that they can continue to pay for school.
For those of you wondering, this takes place right here in America as well. In 2011, the Huffington Post published an article describing a website that will match college students or college graduates (“sugar babies”) with an older “sugar daddy” who will pay their student debt off in exchange for sex. In 2011, the site’s owner estimated that 35% of its 800,000 registered “sugar babies” were current college students using the site to pay for tuition. That’s 280,000 female college students on one website alone that are sleeping with older men in exchange for their education.
For some people, that is the price of college.
Many colleges consider themselves to be places that guide students to becoming better-rounded individuals and citizens, yet these colleges probably do not realize the hidden population of students living on their campus that use sex to pay for that education. Associations such as the Association for American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) created a Core Commitments Moral Compass report and in the report stated that,”Collectively, colleges and universities across the country have reached widespread agreement that moral and ethical reasoning and action ought to be a significant goal for undergraduate learning” (IX). Not only do colleges agree, but 93% of the 33,000 students surveyed agreed that, ” preparing students for lives of integrity and ethical responsibility is an essential goal of a college education.” Students want leave school with integrity and ethical responsibility, but for some, affording college trumps this desire.
How can a college truly seek to serve as a moral compass that teaches personal and social responsibility, if students attending school pay their way through by prostituting themselves? I do not think it is possible. The massive amounts of student loan debt that burden today’s college students and college graduates puts many in a desperate situation that far trumps any social or personal responsibility lessons gained in college.
For the AACU to truly achieve its goal of fostering personal and social responsibility, it needs to first examine the price of education–not just the ticket price, but also the measures that students take to attend college. I do not think I can take any college seriously that claims to want to create better-rounded citizens when its tuition prices force students into horrific situations. A student, male or female, should never be put in a situation or feel they have to put themselves in a situation where they have to compromise their morals just to afford an education.
College is not worth that price.
When news broke that Oklahoma University fraternity brothers sang a racist chant while on the way to a fraterni
ty event, OU’s president quickly took measures to handle the situation. Not surprising. It’s expected for a college president to take action when a story such as that breaks loose. But why?
Given the amenities provided by many universities, the adaptations that many colleges make to meet the needs of its students , the course evaluations that students fill out, and the large amount of money that students spend on their education, students often adopt a “consumer” mindset. Although this consumer mindset that a student has and that colleges often cater to exists, it leaves me with an interesting question to ponder–why should a college be responsible for its student’s actions if the relationship in many ways appears only consumerist in nature?
For example, I can decide to only purchase goods from Target for four years, but what I do in my free time does not affect the Target company at all. However, given colleges’ responses to students who violate “moral order”, it appears this principle does not apply when considering the consumer relationship between a student and his or her university. As seen over the past few years, and most recently at the University of Oklahoma, the actions of a student can have a huge effect on a college’s reputation.
A college often must go to far lengths to repair its image due to the poor decisions made by its students. The reaction that colleges have seems to indicate the college serves, or at least desires to serve, a greater role in students’ lives than merely providing adequate facilities and a degree. I think that looking at a university’s crisis response strategies can actually shed light unto its values and desires as a mission-driven organization.
To further explore the extent to which colleges go when their students, I conducted a crisis communication analysis of the actions taken by Oklahoma University in the wake of the release of the video featuring fraternity members singing a racist chant. As part of their crisis communication plan, OU added a new faculty position–Chief of Diversity Programs. The Chief of Diversity Programs is responsible for implementing cultural sensitivity programming for the student body and other diversity-related initiatives. The decision to create this position illustrates the university’s desire to be more to its students than just the granters of a B.A. or B.S. degree–just one example of how a crisis communication strategy can help reveal a college’s desires.
You can read my crisis analysis here: Oklahoma University Crisis Communication Analysis
In her book, Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream, Suzanne Mettler quotes Rick Santorum saying, “President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to tests that aren’t taught by some liberal professors” (p. 19). Prior to taking a class on higher education, I would have agreed with Obama’s stance on the issue and would have questioned Santorum’s critique. I think President Obama’s idea has value and symbolizes his commitment to education and equality, or, at least, equal opportunity. However, I now find it difficult to see value in having everyone attend college—especially given the quality of many higher education institutions and the low graduation rates.
Mettler references a recent study that indicated students engage in low levels of learning and studying, which suggests that colleges have begun to dumb down the academics due to the unpreparedness of the students (p.20). Given that research, I do not think increasing the accessibility to higher education would actually change the reality that many students who attend college end up not learning anyways. It also seems wasteful to try to make college a reality for everyone when the reality is that not everyone desires a college education or has the ability to excel in a college setting. To me, it makes more sense for the government to invest more in secondary education so that when students graduate high school, they have more valuable skills to offer the job market or future college. Although this in itself will not increase the accessibility to college, I think it makes more financial and logical sense to put money into a system that affects almost all young people rather than to put money into a flawed system that only affects the few that desire access to it.
If the government invests more money in secondary school systems rather than focusing its efforts on a “college-for-all” model, I think Americans on average would harness more skill sets and competencies. High school students would also have more options available to them following graduation due to an increase in academic rigor, professional development, and other scholarly and extracurricular activities. If we can start viewing high school as a larger milestone that prepares students for a career, or the job market in general, rather than only viewing college as the milestone that prepares students for their careers, we can help to decrease the inequality surrounding education by increasing the quality of education. Making this change would involve a lot of logistics, resources, finances, and, in some cases, an overhaul of how some high schools operate.
One of the biggest reasons why scholars discuss inequality in higher education is because college graduates earn significantly higher incomes over time as compared to those with only a high school education. However, if the government first starts to put more funding into secondary education so that students actually feel prepared to handle a career or to enter college, which would in turn allow colleges to increase their academic rigor, it could make sense then to look into a “college-for-all” model. In an ideal world, our government could invest more money in all forms of education to ensure everyone can access college who desires to and everyone who desires to is adequately prepared to complete a degree. However, since our country has limited funds, as a taxpayer, I would much rather see my money poured into high schools that all Americans attend than I would see it put towards higher education institutions that only a small percentage can access and excel in. I think revamping the high school education system could have lasting effects on the value of a college degree, the job requirements employer set, and the stigma surrounding those who choose not to attend college, in a way that opens up more opportunities for all.
A college-for-all system may work in the distant future, but I do not think it would make sense, or even create positive change, at this time.
Many students that graduate from high school in my area move on to attend our local community college–Lehigh Carbon Community College, or L-Tri-C for short. However, during high school, I quickly learned about the opinions that my peers held about community college and “L- Tri-C” became “L-Tri-Harder.” Due to this nickname for our local community college, I too adopted a very negative view of community college and saw it as a poor excuse for an education.
After spending thousands of dollars on general education courses from a four-year private non-profit institution, I can honestly say that community college seems like it might have been a better financial option. Not only would I have saved on tuition, but I also would have saved on housing and a meal plan. Although community college may not have the prestige of Harvard or Princeton, it definitely gets the job done while cutting costs. Unfortunately, the stigma surrounding it often causes people to shut it down as a viable option.
One reason for this has to do with open admissions policies. In the world of higher education, we often equate selectivity with quality and assume that more selective schools are also better schools. Although this may be the case in some regards, it’s important to realize that it is not always the case. Many community colleges serve as feeder schools to four-year colleges and universities and these students end up doing as well as students who attend the four-year school for all four years (USA Today). The open admissions policy makes the college more accessible, but that does not mean students do not have to work hard to earn good grades.
Along with this, many people assume that community college is only for those who cannot get into other colleges. Attending community college does not indicate that a student is unable to receive admittance to a more selective four-year school. Community college is just a viable option after high school and can help students to save over $20,000 per year–the difference they would pay if they went right to a four-year private college.
Another stigma surrounding community college involves the notion that people who attend community college never end up going anywhere. To some extent, this is true: only 21% of students that started as first-year community college students in 2005 completed their associates degrees on time (College Board Trends). Research from Columbia University also indicates that students who enter community college are less likely to obtain a degree unless they come in with a plan (Jenkins & Cho). Taking a few classes just to start college without having a major or a transfer school in mind often indicates that the student will end up leaving community college without a degree or any certificates. If students do decide to pursue community college, they need to come in with a plan, or at least take steps towards making one during their first semester. Students must look at community college as a stepping stone towards something more, not a gap year.
To help break the community college stigma, we need more states to adopt programs like the state of California. State schools in California offer California community college students a Transfer Admissions Guarantee (TAG). These students take their first year and sophomore classes at a California community college and then transfer to a California state school of their choice for junior and senior year. This type of program encourages students to enter community college with a plan, which helps to ensure they’ll graduate with a degree. Thus, many students in California attend community college, not because they cannot get into state schools, but because they want to save as much money as they can. They take classes they know will transfer to fulfill requirements for graduation. Instead of a gap year guessing game, community college serves as a legitimate first two years of college that keeps a student on track for completing a bachelor’s degree in four years.
High schools should also recommend community college to more students than just those who might have a harder time gaining acceptance to a four-year school. Just because someone earned high SAT scores and good grades does not mean that they should take on the student loans needed to attend many four-year colleges. At my high school, the guidance counselor did not once ask me about what type of school I thought I could afford. All he wanted to do was encourage me to go to the most prestigious college I could gain acceptance to. I hope this is not everyone’s experience, but if it is and guidance counselor’s continue to work like that, the student loan problem will only get worse in coming years.
When considering community college, I also think people should spend time thinking about why they are going to college and what purpose college serves. If college is all about securing a degree and increasing post-graduate return on investment, then community college probably makes the most sense for many people. However, if college is all about the social experience–on-campus water parks, residential living, football games, and Greek life, then maybe community college doesn’t make sense.
I no longer think of “L-Tri-Harder” as an accurate portrayal of community college. I’m more optimistic about community college now than I ever was and I think more students and parents should be too. Just because a student has the ability to receive acceptance to a four-year college does not mean that that is their best move. However, if you want to ensure you’ll end up with a degree, head into community college with a 4-year plan. Don’t use community college to serve as your gap year–you’re likely to end up with some credits, but not likely to end up with a certification or degree.
Right now, 46% of all undergraduate students in the United States are in community college (American Association of Community Colleges). If Obama’s plan to make community college free works, I expect this number will only rise in the coming years. I hope the incentive of free college encourages more people to attend and FINISH school. This will only happen if more people start to see community college as a viable option and use it as a stepping stone to a future degree or career, not just a gap year.
Contrary to the title of this post, the school that I attend does not have a water park (unless students tubing down a creek counts as a water park). However, some colleges do. More and more colleges are attempting to lure prospective students to their schools with amenities–new gymnasiums, rock-climbing walls, lazy rivers, and campus beaches. If you are skeptical, check out the article from ABC News about “Tricked Out College Campuses.”
In my opinion, the most absurd amenity can be found on a college campus in Texas.
In 2009, Texas Tech began an $8.4 million project to upgrade the campus’ recreation center. This upgrade included a 654-foot long lazy river, a tanning salon, snack bars, and, according to the college’s website, the “largest leisure pool on a college campus in the United States.”
Unfortunately, the water park symbolizes a huge problem in the realm of higher education–students no longer value the quality of their education as much as they used to. A study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2013 indicates that students value amenities and this weighs heavily on their college decision.
Ivy League schools can breathe easy because the students they attract still value the quality of their education above all else. These types of institutions will have a better ROI if they put their money towards increasing their academic prestige. However, for less selective schools, catering to student demand for amenities makes the most sense from a financial standpoint–at least at this point in time.
Although this expenditure will appeal to prospective students, particularly out-of-state students who bring in higher revenue to the college, is this really where colleges should spend their money? In the case of state universities, the money to fund such projects comes from students’ tuition and funding from federal and state taxpayers. If colleges exist to better equip students to live professional lives and to engage as active and well-rounded citizens (perhaps I am being too naive with this claim), how does a water park play into this? How is this a responsible use of funds?
Prospective students might look at a school like Texas Tech and think, “Woh, free tanning and swimming? This school is great!” This idea will also be drilled into them when they take a tour of the college. However, I look at this school and think, “Is there something so wrong with your college that you need to win students over with a water park?” That money could have gone to so many other places. Scholarships? New lab equipment? An upgraded media lab? Professional development and research grants?
Sure, from a marketing and financial perspective, the water park distinguishes the school from its competition and thus brings in more students, but should a college focus so much on competition and the bottom line that it loses sight of its purpose? From 1999-2009, spending on student services rose 19% while instruction spending only rose 10% at public four-year research universities (College Unbound, Selingo).
Follow the money and you can see where the priorities of the institution lie.
On Higher Ed. 