February 21, 2012

Obama asks higher education, "What are we getting for our money?"

The aggressive push of the Obama Administration to make higher education accessible, affordable, and effective is stoking a heated debate. In an Associated Press article posted today on msnbc.com, the author described the Administration's position on the role of higher education in American society.

Federal student loan funding is being used to fund students who are unlikely to graduate or get a job in their field. Some critics say some of those students should never be allowed to go to college in the first place because they can't read and do basic math. In his State of the Union address, Obama expressed his intention that every family in America should be able to afford to go to college. He didn't say that every person should go to college.

It seems to me so much of the disagreement between factions stems from a basic question: What is the purpose of a college education?

If you are a leader in a publicly funded institution of higher education that offers degrees in fields like art, music, and philosophy, you might be worrying that so much focus on "gainful employment" is the kiss of death for your liberal arts programs.

This saddens me. I can relate. If I had been left to pursue what I loved, back in the 1970s, I would have studied painting. I would never have listened to people who said I would never be able to survive as a painter. I would never have switched my major to graphic design (commercial art), which ended up to be a hopeless endeavor for me, because I am constitutionally unable to produce "art" to order.

I think of the artists and musicians and other creatives who are being allowed to study what they feel passionate about, without the threat of future unemployment looming over their shoulders. I'm sure they think about their career prospects. But vocations choose you sometimes. If you don't bring forth what is within you, what is within you will destroy you in its efforts to come forth. Ignore your art at your peril.

Vocational education and liberal arts education are different things—they shouldn't have to compete. Unfortunately, they are being forced to compete because taxpayer dollars are being used to fund both "useful" occupational programs and "useless" pursuits such as art and theater. The value of higher education, then, has become all about the money, and the measure of a quality education has become simply whether or not the student graduates and pays back his or her student loans.

I am a believer in lifelong learning. I hope I never stop taking classes somewhere to expand my skills and my mind. But I don't believe that everyone should have a college degree. I think there should be multiple definitions of higher education, multiple avenues toward learning. Certificate and diploma programs should focus on the job skills demanded by industry. Let academe offer four-year and advanced degrees.