Henry Giroux published an article in Salon on October 24th in which he addressed the attack by neoliberalism on higher education. While he does a good job addressing many of the issues facing our colleges and universities from attacks from the right, I think he could have done a better job of explaining how a business mentality has shaped higher education. In particular, I think he could have done a better job of describing the structural problems in higher education.
In higher education, the norm is something referred to as “shared governance.” Under this system, the faculty has control of the curriculum, making decisions about what courses will be offered and what are the degree qualifications. The Board of Trustees, on the other hand, make the decisions regarding all other aspects of the institution. It decides the budget, salaries, promotions, tenure, buildings and maintenance. So while the faculty has nominal control over the curriculum, in fact the Board has a great deal of influence since they determine who will be hired and which programs will be funded.
Complaining about the business aspects of higher education is nothing new. Thorstein Veblen subtitled his The Higher Learning in America (1918) : “A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men.” His critique has lost little of its punch and, in many ways, the situation is worse. The comments I present here are based in large measure on my own experience. While I spent most of my career in the classroom, I have a Master’s degree in Higher Education Administration and served for several years as my institution’s director of assessment.
Influence of Donors
Almost all small institutions of higher education are tuition driven. Their endowments are not large enough to supply an appreciable portion of the yearly budget. As a result, tuition revenue accounts for almost all of the operating budget. Anything over and above requires extra revenue sources, such as contributions from donors. The need for contributions gives large donors exceptional clout.
Donors are especially attracted to contributing to things on which they can put their name. In fact, in a fundraising drive, the biggest prize are the naming rights which frequently go to the donor who contributed most to the project. Curiously, donating funds to support faculty salaries is quite rare.
Faculty are Liabilities
As Giroux points out, the number of full-time, tenure-track faculty is shrinking rapidly. They are replaced by low-wage adjuncts. Because they are tenured, full professors are frequently called on to represent the faculty. Adjunct faculty, on the other hand, rarely have any say in institutional governance and most would be reluctant to say anything against the administration because they are on a semester by semester contract.
It is not merely that the administration wishes to decrease faculty power, they also see faculty as a financial liability. Tenured faculty are expensive compared to adjuncts. Full time faculty have retirement benefits, health benefits, an office and perhaps a research or academic meeting stipend. Adjuncts get none of these benefits. Part of the difficulty is that professors cannot demonstrate their financial worth to the institution.
Unless you are exceptional, most professors will not have reputations outside their own disciplines. Few professors ever get to host a PBS documentary or have a book make the bestseller lists. They aren’t interviewed on the late night talk shows and they are not featured in Oprah's book club. As a result, for most faculty members at most institutions it is impossible to determine how many additional students were attracted to the institution because of a desire to learn from a particular faculty member. It certainly might be the case that once students are on campus they may choose to remain because of one professor, but that, too, is difficult to quantify.
As a result, no special worth is attached to any particular professor, except, of course, for those few superstars. So why not replace high priced tenured faculty with low priced untenured one? If there is an acceptable answer to this question, it will have to be found in intangible things like experience, contacts within the profession, knowledge of the institution. But it is very difficult to put a dollar value on these traits. From the businessman’s point of view, there is no difference.
Marketing
If one thinks for the moment of residential colleges and universities and leaves out for the moment online institutions, the vast majority of schools have much in common. It takes 120 credit hours to graduate. Those 120 hours will be divided among general education, major and elective courses. While the particular arrangement will differ, the general education program will consist of courses in mathematics, writing, the arts and the social and physical sciences. The major programs will most likely be areas in which students can find employment, although some schools still have--for the time being--majors in areas like English, history and philosophy. Some institutions might have more modern dorms or dining facilities. Each school will have a different mix of sports teams and extracurricular activities, but most will be very similar.
Because schools are so similar, it is difficult to entice a student to attend your institution as opposed to some other. Hence the importance of marketing. Through its marketing department, the school creates a uniform and pleasing view of the school. Marketing materials feature the new library and not the long-neglected chemistry lab. It showcases the refurbished dorm and not the faculty offices with the leaky roof. I was inspired to attend Syracuse University in part because of a lovely picture of students on the Quad. Some were playing frisbee, others were gathered around a guitarist. It looked so pleasant. Little did I realize that it would snow during finals week in May.
Branding and Cancel Culture
Faculty members are frequently blamed for the censoriousness on campus. Critics commonly complain that fire-breathing professors have goaded students into punishing anyone who makes the smallest violation of tenets of political correctness. But I would argue that it is the administration which forces out offending faculty and students.
In the very competitive world of higher education, establishing one’s brand is very important. To be quite frank, there is, generally speaking, little difference among most of the smaller institutions of higher education. Schools will be distinguished by the religious denomination they are affiliated with, the part of the country in which they are located and perhaps some program or sports team which is especially noteworthy. Faculty members are rarely included in the branding efforts. Students are not attracted to a school because of its faculty, except in the case of top tier schools which can point to Nobel Laureates or Pulitzer Prize winners.
When a scandal arises on campus, it is important for the problem to be addressed quickly so that the school’s brand is unblemished. If the school goes into a lengthy process of investigation, the more publicity the incident receives and the more damage is done. Better to address the problem quickly, even if an injustice is done. What appears to be a zero tolerance policy is better seen as a way to stop damage to the schools reputation.
Assessment
The Board of Trustees has to make important decisions about such things as tenure and promotion. The problem is that they have no idea what actually happens in the classroom or how to evaluate it. How can the average businessman make an informed decision about whether or not a physics professors is accurately presenting the Standard Model or a language professor is pronouncing words in Mandarin correctly?
This is why in making these judgements, the boards have to rely on such indirect evaluation tools such as student evaluations and citation indices--this is where you try to determine how good a scholar is by seeing how many times her work is cited by other scholars. As a result, the board simply accepts the recommendation of the faculty personnel committee. But if the board can’t make a self-informed decision, why should it have the final say?
Long Range Planning
I don't think there is an aspect of university life in which economics plays a larger role than in long-range planning. The process usually takes around a year and involves hiring a team of consultants. Essentially, the process is to identify how much each program costs the institution, cut back or eliminate those programs which do not cover their costs and add new programs with the hopes that these will attract new students. Note that the decision is not based on the academic value of the program or the relation of the program to the school’s mission.
To decide what programs should be added, the consultants will look at Labor Department projections of what occupations will be growing in the next few years. They will then look at what programs are being offered by other schools in the area. If no other school is offering that program, it may get the administration’s approval.
Conclusion
There are countries where an educated citizenry is valued and people are willing to pay taxes so that everyone can get the education they need. The United States is not one of these. So long as business and the business ethic dominate higher education, learning will be valued only for its ability to get someone a job. Changing higher education means changing the institution’s structure and removing the board of trustees from its dominant role in shaping higher education.