fbpx

Taking Scott Walker to School on Higher Education

University of Wisconsin-Madison

University of Wisconsin-Madison

What to think of Scott Walker? I’m not necessarily against the Governor’s proposed budget cuts for Wisconsin’s higher education system. Certainly it is good to hold colleges and universities more accountable than they currently are, so they’ll be more effective. And yes, there surely are faculty everywhere, and probably in Wisconsin, who could be “teaching more classes and doing more work.”

And it’s true that the tradition of “shared governance” in American higher education has impeded administrations “from directly running things.” (See Joe Knippenberg’s excellent recent posts about this.) Administrations increasingly think of the out-of-touch faculty as a force that has to be deftly managed to accomplish needed reform; disruptive innovation could doubtless occur more rapidly if a unitary administration could rule directly, without any checks or required consultation.

It might be, though, that the Governor himself is out of touch. He’s perpetuating the illusion—popular not only among college administrators but some conservative reformers, too—that the main cause of the higher ed “bubble” is a lazy tenured faculty. The truth is that tuition and other costs have risen far more rapidly than faculty compensation. In fact the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty is on the decline.

On the rapid rise, in contrast: the number of credit hours generated by adjuncts and other temporary faculty. They, of course, aren’t insulated at all from direct administrative supervision and usually have little job security.

The savings that would come from having tenured faculty teach “one more class,” as Governor Walker recommends, are thus rather minimal, for, in the real world, the slack would generally be picked up by a badly paid adjunct. And we know that administrators who want control over the details of instruction often prefer adjuncts. Understandably enough, they are far more amenable than tenured faculty to complying with what the experts believe are the latest, most efficient, and most effective “best practices,” not to mention (to ladle on the buzz words) competency-based assessment.

Moreover, as more and more college courses are delivered online, the administration’s strong preference is to move to instructors who are basically independent contractors, whose employment is contingent on market forces.

The cost of instruction isn’t the main source of the rather shameless cost hikes presented to students and their families (and to the state governments, in the case of public institutions). Administrative bloat is on the rise, and it flows from 1) often pointless bureaucratic compliance with increasingly intrusive governmental and accreditation requirements, and 2) the institution’s interest in attaining questionable goals (often, but not always, of the “politically correct” variety) that have at best a marginal connection with learning.

Then there’s the increased sensitivity to the student as consumer. The competitive marketplace for the scarce resource of the full-time student (especially the residential kind) has produced what we could call an amenities arms race. Few institutions dare opt out. The result is hotel-style dorms, shiny health-club gyms, gourmet food, the proliferation of nonrevenue-generating Division III athletic teams, and student-affairs staffs that function like concierges. Typically, these innovations are the product of administrative initiatives in which “shared governance” does not come into play.

The excellent economist Glenn Reynolds is so disgusted by such developments that his modest proposal is for campuses to be honest, and market themselves as luxury cruises. That means spend, and spend more, on the amenities and cut, and cut more, the cost of actual education by reducing the ranks of career faculty and replacing them with various forms of online instruction and MOOCs. No college or university, so far, is going quite that far. But many are pretty far down that road. And even the small colleges that talk up the presence of real faculty have begun to describe these worthies as agents and advocates for students—in a way, just another amenity offered to the discerning consumer.

Generally, the evolution has been away from “faculty governance” in the direction of rule by administrators (facilitated by accrediting agencies). The latter function increasingly as, and are often compensated like, corporate CEOs. That this evolution has not lent itself to efficient or effective cost-control apparently has not come to Governor Walker’s attention.

But let’s be fair. Faculty share lots of the responsibility for this irresponsible change. Too many tenured professors have become careerist specialists without spirit or heart, knowing more and more about less and less. That’s as true in the social sciences and humanities as it is in the more technical or techno-light fields. Such faculty have lost interest in the broader purposes of higher education, including the indispensable function of a content-rich “general education” or “core curriculum.” They have been willingly complicit in the surrender of such comprehensive concerns to temporary and adjunct faculty, and to the administrators who hire and supervise them.

Too often, it’s not been the case that “shared governance” has been wrested away from faculty; it’s been surrendered, and all too often without a fight.

To be sure, tenured faculty have, here and there, roused themselves from their complacent and dogmatic slumber to defend their turf. But they’ve done so on the administrators’ terms, by trying to talk the talk of skills, competencies, and measurable outcomes. Such efforts are typically both inauthentic and too little, too late. It’s just starting to be noticed that an important factor in the recent rapid decline in majors such as history and English has been the pervasive trend toward truncated, competency-based general education—a trend driven by the administrative thought that educational reform should obey the priorities and methods generated by accreditors.

The result is the emptying out of the content or substance of liberal education and the proletarian-ization of the faculty. Professors are more and more subject to soft-despotic forms of assessment, induced to justify their salaries through the submission of reports based on “time on task.” When it comes to assessment measures allegedly required for accreditation, for example, faculty are involved in what amount to pointless time sucks that distract them from their real vocation. It’s the least lazy faculty who are most reluctant to comply.

Contrary to Governor Walker’s impression, I think the key to cost-cutting in higher education is to regain clarity about what higher education is and is for. And to dispense with all the amenities, regulations, administrators, and techno-gimmicks that have nothing to do with the main event.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on February 06, 2015 at 10:12:25 am

I struggle to find a framework for understanding the higher education market.

True, the list price of higher education has increased at a rate faster than inflation for years. I'm less confident about the rate of increase in the price that students and their families actually bear. As I understand it, high list price functions as a progressive tax, causing affluent students to contribute more than poor students. As society grows more stratified, I would expect this kind of progressive taxation mechanism to result in ever higher list prices, and ever steeper discounts for the majority of students. Is there a problem here?

If colleges design themselves to appeal to these list-price-paying students, and the cost of these amenities (that are enjoyed by all students) are borne by these list-price-paying students, is there a problem here?

If the actual cost of a college education has grown as college education has grown more remunerative, is there a problem here?

I have a framework for understanding market failure. Can we describe the alleged problems of higher education in these terms?

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on February 06, 2015 at 10:26:31 am

"It’s just starting to be noticed that an important factor in the recent rapid decline in majors such as history and English has been the pervasive trend toward truncated, competency-based general education—a trend driven by the administrative thought that educational reform should obey the priorities and methods generated by accreditors."

Really - and here I was thinking that they were replaced with gender (nowadays a somewhat fluid concept) studies.
Comes news today that a course will be offered at some bastion of brilliance on the importance of QUEERING AGRICULTURE!!!!

I wonder if this is in obeisance to the "accreditors."

Also, Nobody:
I guess you must pay an awful lot for your lattes as you seem to have found those recent graduates for whom college has proven far more remunerative than the past. Of course, I suspect that you are a very good tipper - that must account for the barristas high pay.

But now a serious question:
Peter, do you think that the situation, both financially and educationally, would improve if the faculty had real input into institutional decisions?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on February 07, 2015 at 00:39:47 am

One of the most eloquent critics of higher education of this age, or any generation. Thank you PL.

read full comment
Image of Scott
Scott
on February 13, 2015 at 16:41:21 pm

[…] Peter Lawler on the flaws of Scott Walker’s opinion of higher education. […]

read full comment
Image of Friday Links | Historical Conversations
Friday Links | Historical Conversations
on February 23, 2015 at 23:03:02 pm

[…] Taking Scott Walker to School on Higher Education […]

read full comment
Image of Corruption: The Week in Review | Freedom's Floodgates
Corruption: The Week in Review | Freedom's Floodgates

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.