College For All?

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.

 

My School Has a Water Park. What Does Yours Have?

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.

Photo from: http://www.depts.ttu.edu

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.