I was browsing through the Atlantic on my phone and I came across a piece by Noah Smith from the ingenuous Noahpinion. It was about something I often wondered many times. Why are there no Federal universities in the United States of America? [which is (still is!) the beacon of higher education in the world?]
Is it because the state system works so well, is less complicated and functions without the hassles of bureaucracy? Probably, but what happens when there's a gradual crisis in tuition cost and overall quality?
Drastic measures = Drastic solutions; which is why the probability of something like this happening in such a politically united government (ahem!) is...well...almost zero.
Firstly, Noah says that the rise in tuition that is often talked about is misrepresented because the majority of it has been in the "display price" rather than the "actual cost" [factoring aid/scholarships etc].
Still, the rises are substantial enough to warrant concern and when one throws in the rapidly increasing burden of student debt you start to draw connecting lines by remembering just what household debt did to the economy.
It seems obvious to me that during a crisis period, and in an economy characterized by uncomfortably high unemployment, the increased costs wouldn't serve as a deterrent to one who decides that a college degree is his/her only hope to a secure job.
With a problem of rapidly rising demand, one would look at increasing supply (college seats). And here's where the private/public sector roles play out.
Smith labels the private sector participation (cue: University of Phoenix comparison) as a failure and reminds us of the crucial elements that will always be missing from an online education - human network, mentoring, personal growth etc.
The question then, is why federal instead of state and I think this is where there's a lot of room for constructive discussion. Essentially, Smith says that state spending will focus on the existing university systems and might simply displace funding (alumni or tuition) thereby having a restricted impact.
One need only look at other models of success such as the IITs and the Japanese universities which "annually produce superb graduates in technical fields". A national system would combat the tuition increases and also attract, as well as accommodate, highly skilled immigrant kids/parents. Furthermore, it would provide a way out in terms of research spending which is all too important to ignore.
There's a sense of reality here, however, that not even Smith can deny. A concept like this, which involves significant amounts of will, planning and money (and most importantly, a public good), will be shot down by the right faster than an injured moose on hunting day in Ohio.
But it's an intriguing thought nonetheless.
Is it because the state system works so well, is less complicated and functions without the hassles of bureaucracy? Probably, but what happens when there's a gradual crisis in tuition cost and overall quality?
Drastic measures = Drastic solutions; which is why the probability of something like this happening in such a politically united government (ahem!) is...well...almost zero.
Firstly, Noah says that the rise in tuition that is often talked about is misrepresented because the majority of it has been in the "display price" rather than the "actual cost" [factoring aid/scholarships etc].
Still, the rises are substantial enough to warrant concern and when one throws in the rapidly increasing burden of student debt you start to draw connecting lines by remembering just what household debt did to the economy.
It seems obvious to me that during a crisis period, and in an economy characterized by uncomfortably high unemployment, the increased costs wouldn't serve as a deterrent to one who decides that a college degree is his/her only hope to a secure job.
With a problem of rapidly rising demand, one would look at increasing supply (college seats). And here's where the private/public sector roles play out.
Smith labels the private sector participation (cue: University of Phoenix comparison) as a failure and reminds us of the crucial elements that will always be missing from an online education - human network, mentoring, personal growth etc.
The question then, is why federal instead of state and I think this is where there's a lot of room for constructive discussion. Essentially, Smith says that state spending will focus on the existing university systems and might simply displace funding (alumni or tuition) thereby having a restricted impact.
One need only look at other models of success such as the IITs and the Japanese universities which "annually produce superb graduates in technical fields". A national system would combat the tuition increases and also attract, as well as accommodate, highly skilled immigrant kids/parents. Furthermore, it would provide a way out in terms of research spending which is all too important to ignore.
There's a sense of reality here, however, that not even Smith can deny. A concept like this, which involves significant amounts of will, planning and money (and most importantly, a public good), will be shot down by the right faster than an injured moose on hunting day in Ohio.
But it's an intriguing thought nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment