I sit here, safe and isolated, brooding about the world,
about the devastation that the virus is causing, about police murder of black
men and women, about the millions of Americans being driven even further into
poverty, and since I spent my entire life in the Academy, my thoughts turn to
the future of higher education. I am terribly fearful that this virus will
accelerate trends that have been long evident and extremely distressing.
The discussions about the prospects for higher education, of
which there have been many, tend to focus almost entirely on a handful of elite
institutions with large endowments. But the most damaging effects of the virus
will be felt in the hundreds, or even thousands, of institutions lower down in
the pecking order, private colleges that depend almost entirely upon tuition
and state university campuses that, although ostensibly publicly supported, in
fact get most of their funds from other sources.
What do I foresee? A large number of small private colleges
will simply go under, unable to survive even a semester or two without the
tuition flows on which they depend. State university campuses, pressed for
funds, will start firing tenured faculty in the humanities and perhaps also in
those branches of the social sciences that are unable to raise significant
grant funds. The long-standing rush to replace full-time faculty with adjuncts
will accelerate and senior professors will either be forced out of their jobs
or required to take early retirement. Independent humanities departments will
be amalgamated into a single humanities division providing introductory survey
courses and little else. Graduate programs will be closed, journals will fold,
and the glory days – those four decades or so after World War II – will only be
a memory, rather like the days of silent films in Hollywood.
Even the elite universities with a billion-dollar endowments
will face problems. Columbia has recently embarked on a multibillion-dollar
expansion campaign to build a new campus devoted to the hard sciences. The
humanities and social sciences, the fond memories of which prompt alumni to
make large donations, depend very heavily on the fully 30% of their student
body who come from overseas. In the last 50 years or so, these elite schools
have raised their tuition five or 10 times as rapidly as the rate of inflation,
relying on the willingness of parents to go deeply into debt in order to
shoehorn their young sons and daughters into the stratosphere of the gilded
jobs in the American corporate world.
The problems facing the United States are now so great that
the future of higher education must rank low on the order of our priorities,
but as someone who has spent 70 years as a student and professor in higher
education, these prospects saddened me.
On the other hand, there are glimmers of good news. Several
extremely left-wing candidates won Democratic primaries in which they defeated
establishment members of the House of Representatives. And this morning, on Morning
Joe, the thought was first bruited about that perhaps Trump, confronting
sinking poll numbers, would choose not to run again. I am, I realize, clutching
at straws, but that is the way with drowning men.
What is the most influential force contributing to the dominance of STEM funding? Is it a historically enacted policy? Is it just the most marketable aspect of any university in today's higher education industry? Who does it appeal to and where do the expected returns come from? Immigrant and middle class families with bourgeoise values hoping their kids will make more money than they did? Or is it an international force of "new money" coming from students overseas hoping to get an American education? Why STEM in particular?
ReplyDeleteTrumps polls and/or approval rating could be at zero percent and he would still run again as he wouldn't believe it. He would think he was 85/90 percent approval which would be fantastical. And the blame for failure would always get deflected to a conspiracy or something not associated with him. Its never his fault, and he will run again. The embodiment of the American dream now has America by the balls, and theres nothing we can do about it.
ReplyDeleteDonnie Deutsch, on, "Morning Joe", might finally have said something right: in 2016 Trump was looking merely to profit from his candidacy. Now, having failed to find a way to profit satisfactorily from his Presidency, he's eyeing again the private sector---loose the election, win big with somehow monetizing his fanatical 35%.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans have to be thinking...if Trump dropped out and we Repubs nominated a halfway sane "moderate"....Sleepy (I prefer "Creepy") Joe would suddenly be in trouble, given his baggage and his charisma-challenged campaign ability.
ReplyDeleteRegarding "extremely left-wing candidates" who won: Given that they won against Dem establishment endorsed candidates, I would prefer to say that they were sensible, mainstream candidates who beat extreme corporate radicals.
To Jerry's comment:
ReplyDeleteThere are not any even halfway sane moderates in the Republican party. The Republicans drove out the somewhat sane members over the past several cycles. Most chose not to run again, or lost primaries. In addition, Biden's baggage pales in comparison to that of any republican nominee. It is a party that is primarily fascist in orientation.
They have nowhere to go except down to a landslide defeat.
On a more pragmatic level, Trump needs to win to avoid a myriad of legal problems, so dropping out seems unlikely.
'On the other hand, there are glimmers of good news. Several extremely left-wing candidates won Democratic primaries in which they defeated establishment members of the House of Representatives.'
ReplyDeleteOh I get it, that's a glimmer of good news.