Thing a Day 3: Notes on the Corporate University

 

As I was in the car today, I listened to the latest Power Line Podcast, with Steve Hayward and Phillip Magness — of yesterday’s Thing a Day. In the course of the conversation, they discuss the idea of the “neoliberalizing” of the university, subjecting the university to the market, and some similar ideas. In particular, they discuss the death of the humanities being accompanied by an increase in humanities professors and more humanities requirements — even as humanities majors decline. They also discuss the idea that the university is being undermined by exposure to the market — which they do not agree with.

I don’t know whether neoliberalizing is the right description — I definitely don’t think the problem is “exposure to the market” given how regulated the higher education sector is. However, I would like to push back a little in a couple of places.

1.) The niche elective

Magness and Hayward discuss the courses being taught by faculty, and how very few faculty want to teach the intro survey courses — instead preferring to teach esoteric upper-division courses.  The adjuncts then teach the surveys.  This may be true in the R1 schools where Magness and Hayward work, but I would remind them that there are entire systems of schools -public and private, state regional comprehensive and liberal arts -where this is not the case.  In fact, in my department, we recruit based on the fact that the majority of our classes are taught by professors -adjuncts are usually reserved for off-hours (as Magness mentions), and specialty courses.  If you take a POL 101 class during normal business hours, you will have a tenured professor teaching it.  This is our business model as a regional comprehensive.

There are a lot more of us than of the R1s, and a lot of the problem in education policy stems from applying solutions to the problems of R1s (excessive use of adjuncts in introductory surveys) to the regional comprehensives (who use adjuncts an entirely different way).

2.) Subject to the Market

I don’t necessarily disagree that market discipline can be good for higher education.  I would, however, ask critics to understand how our business model works.  We have inputs — teachers, labs, classrooms, equipment — that cost money.  Students pay us tuition.  Most universities are created as non-profits because, at least officially, they have a mission to create educated citizens, defined by the university in some way.  A state school might talk about educated in the arts of government, agriculture, and mechanics; a religious college might talk about soul-craft.  The key point, though, is that the school is not — officially — selling classes.  We sell a degree based on a mission.  We don’t charge based on the cost of the class, but rather set a flat tuition, and then allocate money between the departments based partly on their costs, but also on how much revenue the students bring in.

The trend for many years has been to ignore the mission and focus on the finances of the university.  This has been driven partly by states not increasing their allocations to their universities (it is rare for allocations to be cut, but they do stagnate quite a bit).  Money is allocated to the programs that bring in lots of students and have very low costs to operate.

This makes sense as a business strategy — invest in the low cost, high return departments.

Alas, I have bad news for Hayward and Magness.  Those are the Studies and the Business Schools.  Feminism, Ethnic Studies — all those require is a teacher (and there are a lot of them, so they are cheap) and a space to teach.  Business schools are the same.  The courses are a bit more expensive (MBAs have options outside the classroom), but especially the graduate level courses are so in demand that schools can charge a premium.

I’d half-seriously suggest that exposing the university to Market Discipline is pretty much how we got Woke Capital.

Markets do not support science courses.  Science courses are hard — few students major in them.  Science courses are expensive — keeping the labs stocked isn’t cheap.  The space is even expensive, because lab space is so specialized it can’t be used for other courses -so the science buildings’ costs land entirely on the science departments.  These make them very hard to justify, financially.  They are kept around — most of the time — because of explicit anti-market forces, such as state mandates to increase enrollment in STEM fields.  All of that is paid for by the money raked in by Business and the Studies.

The Social Sciences don’t fare much better.  Economics requires access to computers and software and databases — the subscriptions of which all add up.  And most people who would major in Economics — if subjected to market pressures — will just major in Business.  Sure, they take a few pre-req econ classes, but they don’t get econ degrees.  My own discipline of Political Science has the same pressures.  Some social sciences even have labs.

3.) Administrative Bloat

Much of the administrative bloat can be tracked back to what I call “Everybody wants to be Harvard” syndrome.  Here is where some market discipline might be helpful.  Harvard is so prestigious and so rich, it can pretty much do whatever it wants.  US News and World Report rankings — which drive so much of university admissions — will come close to admitting that Harvard always has to be number one because no one would accept the rankings otherwise.  In some ways, this results in the metrics being more akin to “Harvardness” of the universities being ranked than to the actual education missions.  Similar to how quality of life indices often measure “Swedishness” as much as quality of life.

This causes universities to spend money to emulate Harvard or other highly ranked schools.  This drives the rankings, which drives the enrollments.  The rankings actually punish schools that find ways to educate students more cheaply.  Thus, just to keep up with their competitors, universities have to spend wildly to make themselves look like Harvard to applicants.  That’s where you get building sprees, student affairs, and all the other bloat on campuses.  If that was cut out, USNWR rankings would fall, enrollment would drop, and the tuition money would dry up.

4.) The Need for more Institutional Diversity

Which points to my take on how to reform higher education: we need to acknowledge that the mission of a school matters — not just the “market.”

If we leave everything to the market, deformed as it currently is, we get Everyone Wants to Be Harvard, with cheap Studies and Business schools, where the professors don’t want to teach intro survey classes.  My institution doesn’t do this precisely because it wasn’t set up to do that.  And as a result, is currently getting punished by the state for being the best performing, cheapest, state school we have.  All the money goes to the major state schools which are designed to goose USNWR numbers, and spend huge amounts of money on undergraduate education — taught by adjuncts.  But, they look more like what the market wants.

Published in Education
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 15 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    A well reasoned, briskly detailed post, Ricochet at its best. Plenty of conservatives are having second thoughts about “let the market work its will” in education and culture, not because it’s a bad idea in general, but in specific areas or cases because it has, or can have, obviously counterproductive and culturally destructive effects. In 2012, Ricochet might have had a big fight over that statement. Now, I’d guess it would be grudgingly accepted by most of us former free market, free trade absolutists, if the borders of it are well defined. 

    Universities are more subject to economic pressure than conservatives fondly hope, yet the results don’t reflect it. Posts like this go a long way towards explaining why. 

    • #1
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Indeed. Good work.

    Any comments on the Forbes ranking alternative?

    • #2
  3. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    I have in the past proposed Student Loan reform and making it more subject to political accountability.

    Foundational premise:  We as a society have made the decision that investing money through subsidized student loans will have a positive effect on the nation as a whole, as such some form of subsidy is likely to proceed as there is no real will to eliminate the program.

    So high level architecture of reform.

    We have 2 dials we can turn here:  The total amount lent, and the interest rate.

    I would like to see that there is some way for congress to set priorities on how this expenditure and subsidy is applied.  I also believe that I want there to be a role for the secretary of education to judge the risk on that investment.

    For instance.

    We may decide we wish to subsidize math and science more (people are trying to cram art into stem, and I don’t agree with it as all), and the eponymous underwater basket weaving less.  These priorities should be set by congress.

    We should also then judge the viability of the school to produce candidates who are capable and go to work in their fields, and that the investments are actually going towards that education.

    So things like ratio of tuition spent on operations versus administration.  would be a good metric.  Other performance of the schools metrics.

    Its not a perfect system, but I think adding politically accountability and discretion to the program would be the best way to fix education, and then have the second order effect of kind of closing down the crazy factories.  And heck probably even make college sports more honest.

    There has to be a department of afro american studies to have a series of throw away courses for UNC footballers to take…  There aren’t enough athletes to maintain the departments.

    • #3
  4. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    This is a great supplement to the Magness discussion on PowerLine (I was listening yesterday, too).  I think your analysis of the current market forces driving mediocrity is spot-on.  I also think that the only market force that could compensate for that would be making universities responsible, in whole or large part, for the losses in student loans — after we make them bankruptible again.

    • #4
  5. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Sabrdance: If we leave everything to the market, deformed as it currently is, we get Everyone Wants to Be Harvard, with cheap Studies and Business schools, where the professors don’t want to teach intro survey classes. My institution doesn’t do this precisely because it wasn’t set up to do that. And as a result, is currently getting punished by the state for being the best performing, cheapest, state school we have. All the money goes to the major state schools which are designed to goose USNWR numbers, and spend huge amounts of money on undergraduate education -taught by adjuncts. But, they look more like what the market wants.

    I’ve got a couple of questions here, because it seems you are arguing against letting the market influence colleges any more than they do already, based on the argument that the market would kill off anything but woke studies and MBAs.  But you are then presenting evidence that colleges emphasize MBAs, woke studies, and “Wannabe Harvardism” because of the horrible market distortions of state funding and USNWR rankings.

    Consider:

    1. You say your school is being punished by the state for being the best, cheapest, etc.  Is this not actually an argument that your school is geared not around surviving off of tuition and endowments?  It is, after all, a state school.  So is it not fair to point out that being a state school in the first place, and thus itself a market distortion, is its real problem?  Shouldn’t colleges be untethered from the State at this point?
    2. Why the quest for USNWR rankings?  How is it that they are somehow the sole arbiter of college rank?  There used to be other rankings in circulation (hell, USNWR itself used to be in circulation itself).  Princeton Review still exists to rank schools, and there are others.  National Review used to rank liberal arts schools, for instance, which was how I found my own Alma Mater of Grove City College.  So it perhaps a case that the state schools’ use of USNWR rankings is itself yet another market distortion brought about by being a state school?  There are after all colleges (like Hillsdale and GCC) which operate quite happily apart from USNWR rankings.

    It all sounds to me that the problem is that the state schools themselves are already a market distortion unto themselves, and therein lies the problem.  So long as politicians hold the purse strings, of course the schools they sponsor will be distorted.  And so long as states and the fed pay for such schools to exist, the market is further distorted by keeping indy schools on the fringe.  And if the revenant USNWR can still hold clout over rankings, it too is subverting the market.

    • #5
  6. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I have had a theory about K-12 schools that would apply to all schools of every kind, including colleges and universities. If schools would focus on identifying and developing their students’ individual talents and strengths and abilities, those schools would far exceed every other school that doesn’t do that. And most schools don’t. They operate backward. They extol themselves rather than their students.

    This idea came to me during long school committee sessions when I was attending them as a “concerned citizen,” trying to help our local school committee improve its financial situation. As I was sitting in the room night after night, I began to realize what was wrong with public education. It is focused inward, on itself, rather than outward, on its students.

    Towns in Massachusetts compete with one another financially. It’s not a coincidence that the better the schools, the higher the tax rates and the wealthier–that is, better able to afford those high taxes–the residents. People with money to spend on real estate look at the city’s or town’s schools as indicators of civic prosperity and the safety of their real estate investment.

    We rank those schools based on many factors, the most prominent of which are, of course, standardized test scores. Thus it is a fact of municipal life that we towns and cities are competing with one another.

    So are colleges. Harvard succeeds not because of its buildings but because its graduates succeed. Similarly, the wealthy cities and towns succeed in Massachusetts because their students succeed.

    So lets turn our focus around and start developing the students. Let’s look for talent.

    If I had my own school or classroom, I’d start by getting to know the students, just the way I got to know my own kids. Here is a person designed by God. He or she is a gift to the world. What talents does this person have? How do I help him or her achieve his or her dreams?

    I was once at a field day for my daughter’s sixth-grade class at the end of the year. Lindsay, one of Kate’s friends, was running in the 50-yard dash, and she ran so fast that she left all the other runners behind. It was wonderful to see. She loved to run. I got to thinking that this should be the joy of being a teacher: “Hey, look at Lindsay run. Wow. How can we help her get the equipment and coaches she needs to shine in this particular sport? Whom do we know in our network of schools and sports and coaches who can turn this obvious talent into a talent Lindsay can build at least some part of her life around?” Teachers see the kids in groups, which means teachers can see the kids’ natural abilities and talents better than anyone else. Discovering those talents should be the reward and fun of teaching.

    • #6
  7. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Sabrdance

     

    Consider:

    1. You say your school is being punished by the state for being the best, cheapest, etc. Is this not actually an argument that your school is geared not around surviving off of tuition and endowments? It is, after all, a state school. So is it not fair to point out that being a state school in the first place, and thus itself a market distortion, is its real problem? Shouldn’t colleges be untethered from the State at this point?

    I’m not actually sure we disagree.  Yes, my position is that most of the current efforts to apply “market pressure” to the university have backfired because universities are heavily regulated, and therefore market pressure is distorted.  This would be true whether the school itself took state money (we are at this point 80% tuition funded) or not, due to the federal take-over of the student loan industry.

    1. Why the quest for USNWR rankings? How is it that they are somehow the sole arbiter of college rank? There used to be other rankings in circulation (hell, USNWR itself used to be in circulation itself). Princeton Review still exists to rank schools, and there are others. National Review used to rank liberal arts schools, for instance, which was how I found my own Alma Mater of Grove City College. So it perhaps a case that the state schools’ use of USNWR rankings is itself yet another market distortion brought about by being a state school? There are after all colleges (like Hillsdale and GCC) which operate quite happily apart from USNWR rankings.

    At this point, it feels a lot like “we’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here.”  USNWR is the arbiter of rank because everyone treats it as the arbiter of rank.  Why does everyone treat it as the arbiter of rank?  Because everyone treats it as the arbiter of rank.  It isn’t just the universities.  Parents, grant underwriters, students, even some state agencies all use USNWR rankings.  Yes, other rankings exist, but they lack the breadth and popularity, so everyone gravitates back to USNWR.  It’s social media of rankings, I guess.

    It all sounds to me that the problem is that the state schools themselves are already a market distortion unto themselves, and therein lies the problem. So long as politicians hold the purse strings, of course the schools they sponsor will be distorted. And so long as states and the fed pay for such schools to exist, the market is further distorted by keeping indy schools on the fringe. And if the revenant USNWR can still hold clout over rankings, it too is subverting the market.

    I mean… yes?  That’s sort of the problem.  And why idiotically “subjecting the university to market forces” without addressing the state control of the finances has been such a bad idea.

    It’s like when California only partially deregulated energy, and ENRON scammed them.

    • #7
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    I’ve got a couple of questions here, because it seems you are arguing against letting the market influence colleges any more than they do already, based on the argument that the market would kill off anything but woke studies and MBAs.

    I’ll let Sabrdance explain himself, but whether or not he meant it that way I took his comments to apply not to the quantity of market influence but the quality — where it should be allowed and encouraged to operate and within what constraints. 

    • #8
  9. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Sabrdance (View Comment):
    At this point, it feels a lot like “we’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here.” USNWR is the arbiter of rank because everyone treats it as the arbiter of rank. Why does everyone treat it as the arbiter of rank? Because everyone treats it as the arbiter of rank. It isn’t just the universities. Parents, grant underwriters, students, even some state agencies all use USNWR rankings. Yes, other rankings exist, but they lack the breadth and popularity, so everyone gravitates back to USNWR. It’s social media of rankings, I guess.

    I’m curious now as to who really does the rankings under that banner then.  US News and World Report, as a news organization, is dead, and has been for some time.  I’d love to know how their rankings actually work, as it seems the whole thing is an unaccredited house of cards.

    • #9
  10. Misthiocracy secretly Member
    Misthiocracy secretly
    @Misthiocracy

    Post-secondary education has always been a market, and schools have always had to cater to the desires of their customers.  What has changed is who those customers are.

    Far back in the mists of time, very few students paid for their own university education.  Either they won a scholarship, or their education was paid for by their parents or some other benefactor (e.g. The G.I. Bill).  The proportion of students who worked their way through school was phenomenally low.  As such, the student was not the school’s customer.  The person paying for the student’s education was the school’s real customer, and schools catered to the demands of those customers.

    Then student loans became a thing in 1958.  Rather than a third-party paying the school to educate the student, the student gets a loan to (nominally) pay for their own education, which means that the student is now the customer rather than a third-party (who inevitably has different priorities than the student does) being the customer.  This is one reason why schools are often quick to buckle to student demands.

    • #10
  11. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    A well reasoned, briskly detailed post, Ricochet at its best.

    I second the motion.  All in favor?  Aye!

    • #11
  12. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Sabrdance (View Comment):
    USNWR is the arbiter of rank because everyone treats it as the arbiter of rank.

    Exactly.  Just like the MSM treats the Southern Poverty Law Center as the experts on hate groups . . .

    • #12
  13. Misthiocracy secretly Member
    Misthiocracy secretly
    @Misthiocracy

    According to this article at aier.org, student enrollment in the humanities and social sciences is trending downwards.  If post-secondary education is a market, then schools will have to change the way they do business if they want to attract customers.

    https://www.aier.org/article/why-students-are-fleeing-humanities

    • #13
  14. GFHandle Member
    GFHandle
    @GFHandle

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    Shouldn’t colleges be untethered from the State at this point?

    Does that include remove the tax-exemptions?

    And, alas, can anything be untethered from the State at this point?

    • #14
  15. GFHandle Member
    GFHandle
    @GFHandle

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    It all sounds to me that the problem is that the state schools themselves are already a market distortion unto themselves, and therein lies the problem. So long as politicians hold the purse strings, of course the schools they sponsor will be distorted.

    Ironically, the First Amendment applies to state schools, so freedom of speech may have a better chance there than at a lot of the undistorted market schools. But I take your point.

    • #15
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.