In my article entitled "Noah Chomsky's Thoughts On Capitalism", I outlined a few of the inherent problems with our current system of what I refer to as "extreme capitalism" -- capitalism that excessively extends itself to aspects of society whose purpose is a direct conflict of interest with the purpose of capitalism -- and I attempted to make the argument that we must reform these societal necessities, assuming we actually care about the continued strength and vigor of the future of our nation.
Disclaimer for intense Republics or anyone who is hesitant and/or apprehensive of any conception of reforming policy: it is my firm belief that altering these institutions and modernizing them would not at all inhibit their ability to also generate economic productivity, and I may even go so far as to say that it would potentially allow for their eventual growth beyond their current levels (which I will explain using an anecdotal modern-day example later). And even further, while it is nearly impossible to quantify (though I have faith that Google has at least tried), when the general populace feels optimistic and contented with the policies that govern them, there is a social benefit that can be felt by everyone in all aspects of daily life. It doesn't take long living in Chicago to keenly understand that this is an especially true statement.
While reading a recent article in the NY-Times entitled "'Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be’ and ‘The End of College’", this idea was once again brought to my attention. We have to figure out an alternative to our current method of higher education through reform. Without government intervention, however, this will not be possible, due to the inherent nature of the way the system is currently designed and operating. In its conception, higher education has served an incredibly beneficial role and can be very reasonably attributed to the strength of our nation as a whole, as it has led to countless innovations and untold financial output. This has worked nearly perfectly throughout the entire history of university in this nation -- which is evident in the idea that Harvard's historic renown and prestige has remained since it was established in 1636 as the first university of America. The idea that the brightest and most capable individuals of our nation are all concentrated in one location, that those individuals are then able to improve their wisdom and refine their abilities, go onto achieve financial success in industries which they have been trained, and eventually donate some of their earnings back to the university, has been brilliant. Historically.
Presently, all of these things have become simply ideals, and the processes of each of them over time have become fatally flawed. And in the age of micro-analyzing Big Data, it seems almost inevitable that all of these processes have become less practical and more bottom-line. Allow me to explain a little further about my reasoning behind how the modern world has adversely impacted higher education.
From a student perspective, there is a tremendously overwhelming amount of pressure on them regarding nearly every aspect of attending university. They must consider so many things, which perceivably could significantly impact their entire lives. Choosing a school, making sure that it is credible or looking for "brand names", considering the financial impact, living and eating situations, choosing a major, determining their career path, making sure their grades are up to par, finding a job, taking placement exams, landing an internship, joining clubs or activities, involvement with Greek life, among many other, more everyday concerns (i.e. social interactions, friends, hobbies, etc.). Simply writing that list is enough to induce a mild aneurysm. How can students prioritize and focus on the ultimate goal of higher education -- gaining knowledge -- when there are so, so many other things on their plate at one time? The fairly obvious answer is that many of them are unable to. Instead, they are stretched thin over their many different obligations, leaving them without much time for prioritizing the supposed purpose of the institution in the first place: gaining knowledge. After all, who gives a $%#& about knowledge, there's no section for that on your resume. But there is for all those programs that you consumed all of your time concerning yourself with, so congratulations, you have officially paid ~100k+, in order to learn how to receive instruction, fill in some bubbles, half-heartedly attempt to align your self-identity with some organization that in reality you likely do not care much about at all, and then write down that you did that thing on your resume. You also learned how to be stressed the $%$% out, which will be a useful tool once you are thrust out into the real-world with your piece of paper signifying your "knowledge", of which you likely actually have very little.
As universities are intended to generate profit, the impracticality and paradoxical nature of their application extends also to the perspective of their professors and institution itself. Universities all compete for governmental funding and assistance, which is provided to them based on certain different metrics which they combine in order to determine the proper amount. Therefore, due to the nature of how the process is set up, they understandably are forced to cater to these various metrics, in order to receive much needed federal resources in the form of grant money. The problem is that, in doing so, they are dedicating their resources and effort into refining minute numbers, which is neither beneficial for their students or for society, simply for the sake of receiving funding. The consequences of doing so inhibit the ability of the universities to function effectively, efficiently, and any sort of innovative way. It directly impedes their ability to accomplish what is, in theory at least, their intended purpose: fostering innovation, productivity, & understanding. This is evident when attempting to put into perspective the role of professors in this modern form of higher education. First, it is important to understand that universities which receive the most government funding are institutions which produce the greatest amount of published research papers per professor. This has led to what some of my professors have referred to as the phenomena of "publish or perish" sentiment amongst university professors, particularly those at institutions of merit. This phrase is intended to highlight the pressure that is put onto professors to constantly churn out research papers, or consequently find a new career. Individuals who are content with their own ability to have succeeded in their chosen career may be tempted to argue that this is the natural order of things, and the best professors will be the ones who are able to retain their position, by churning out papers. However, you can not apply that mode of thinking to industries like higher education, which should not be an industry, and is not in many developed European countries (where it is government subsidized). The best professor is, theoretically, an individual who is most apt at engaging their students in learning and investing themselves into the development of their students and their ability to succeed in life, not the individual who can write the most papers.
From the university perspective, there are also many pressures. They must compete with all other universities for their slice of the grant pie, and resultantly, they must improve their metrics in order to gain a bigger slice, to ensure their own livelihood and sustainability. They must constantly pester their alumni seeking donations, in order to raise more money. They must put pressure onto their professors, to produce as many published research papers as they possibly can given their constrains on faculty sizes and resources availability, in order to attempt to receive even more government funding. They must increase brand recognition, awareness, and credibility, in order to encourage the most capable students to enroll at their institution. They must also comply with the countless different metric systems which attempt to rank and analyze colleges, most notably the U.S. News & World Report Rankings, again to encourage enrollment. Oh, right, they have to teach their students, too. But you can easily see how that ideal quickly becomes an afterthought, as there is no real metric to determine this, and having knowledgable students does not translate quickly enough to meet the financial burdens that they are bound by, and therefore is not necessarily as imperative as fulfilling these other obligations.
In conclusion, the method which we have chosen in governing higher education is paradoxical, impractical, and every aspect of it has become excessively applied to the point that it is almost wholly flawed in nature. Reform is vital to ensure the sustainability and prosperity of this incredible nation. Instead of blindly continuing on our current trajectory, which will only continue to become increasingly flawed, almost corrupt, we must allow ourselves to stop clinging onto the archaic, bureaucratic, profit-driven conceptions of how higher education should function. We are living in a much different world now, and as we have always done, we must adapt our practices and institutions to fit the contemporary landscape of society. The role of the university in higher education has fulfilled its role effectively for hundreds of years, and while we can admire and respect its historical value, it no longer is effectively serving its purpose in any logical sense. It is simply serving to perpetuate the hierarchical and imbalanced nature of our societal structure and increasing the wealth disparity. As my intent is and always will be to serve the greatest benefit for the most people (utilitarianism ideology), there is no argument which would persuade me to believe that the institution of higher education is permitting this, and as I have pointed out in other articles, this is detrimental for the well being of the entire country.
I have more than a few proposals which would allow for both the prosperity and financial well being of the nation as well as an increased standard of living for the people, some of which I may explore in-depth in other articles or if requested, but I don't think it would be beneficial for me to list them here. I think that it will suffice to say that, every time that some aspect of our society changes other aspects, we are able to adapt to it, and eventually over time we are able to improve it beyond its previous constraints. Think about the music industry. With the advent of digitalization and mp3 music, people in the industry were in an absolute frenzy, as they believed that this marked their collapse. But that is not what happened. Things simply adapted; now you can purchase individual songs or albums through iTunes, whereas you previously went to the store and grabbed your favorite album. And, tellingly, the industry of music, despite being more digitally widespread and open than ever before, has not collapsed, but rather, it has expanded to even greater levels of profitability than previously possible.
I will leave this article with recounting the most memorable feedback that I ever received from a professor while attending Loyola University, in my Honors Science and Society class, which was about how our federal government decides to fund scientific research in this country. The professor showed us a graph of some sort, I cannot remember exactly what it was, regarding the governmental contribution amounts to different universities. It may have been regarding lobbying, or something along those lines. In any case, he asked us to analyze and interpret this graph in our own words, upon which I eagerly and emphatically bursted out an idea that had been lingering in my mind for some time, but being a lower-middle class student amongst very upper-middle class, Jesuit private-school conservative majority, I had previously chosen to refrain from saying it: "IT'S A PONZI SCHEME". I will never forget his reaction. He gave me a slight smirk and just sat silent for a moment, allowing my burst to resonate throughout the room, and give the students some time to process the implications of such a statement. After the brief pause, his response was this: "Yes, that is a conclusion that has also been reached by many of those in my intellectual circles." Keep in mind, he is an honors professor conducting research on black holes at a very prestigious institution, so his circles are likely not composed of dull minds. Think about that a bit.
What happened to moderation? Data is good. Numbers are good. Analysis is good. Capitalism is good. Money is good. Applying any of these to all aspects of society is bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment