|
Hire education: Which came first, the university
or the economy?
June 2013
SHARING OPTIONS:
On the contrary, some trade publications argue there is a
glut of Ph.Ds trapped in a perpetual motion machine of low-wage postdoc and
adjunct teaching positions. The disparity of opinions is a reliable sign
that
there are ambiguities. This is, in part, accounted for by the very broad
disparity of what we call higher education.
Once there were the Ivy League, a few prestigious
independent universities and a network of private colleges. Many of these
institutions originated with religious sects back in the 18th
century and thereafter. Most were focused on religion, philosophy,
history/classics and law. Greek and Latin were favored. A few of them provided
military skills such as surveying. Science and engineering accelerated as
a
topic for higher education after the Morrill Act of 1862, although such
institutions were disparaged well into the 1970s as "cow colleges."
Education is not (or was not) training, although the
distinction is fuzzy. Private colleges and
universities were once the place for
a few good men and even fewer good women.
They were where we went to be sequestered from physical work, to
learn,
to mature, to develop communication skills and leadership confidence. Everyone
else got calluses. No mammalian species could afford to take more
than a few of
its offspring, at the height of their fecundity and physical prowess, and
isolate them to study Greek.
In the 19th century, many didn't live much beyond
50. Had we sequestered significant numbers from the age of 18 to 26 to pursue a
doctoral degree in 1850, this would have converted their value proposition into
an unsustainable expense. The popular terminal degree into the early
20th
century was an eighth-grade diploma and for a very good reason. Families needed
pairs of hands and strong backs. Colleges and
universities did not drive the
economy, but rather were able to expand as the result of industrialization and
mechanized agriculture which improved the
output of labor.
In just over 150 years, the likes of Michael Faraday, Thomas
Edison, George
Westinghouse, the Wright brothers, Henry Ford, Bill Gates,
Richard Branson and Steve Jobs changed the world, but they were far from
credentialed
scholars. Still today, the innovation economy is driven as much by
enthusiastic, stubborn and impatient dropouts as by the credentialed. The
imaginative and courageous accomplish more. The credentialed often check boxes
in a regulatory role or debate rather than do.
So what's the problem? One problem is recognizing that
academia follows
the economy and doesn't lead it. Globalization has tightened
economies and margins have flattened; yet the cost of meeting expectations
(credentials,
entitlements) has accelerated. Growth in the numbers of youth
impounded from productive work has put higher education at a tipping point in
the United
States. Campuses now compete based on food quality, recreation
facilities, single rooms with private baths, research excellence, athletic
facilities
with skyboxes and ratings from magazines operating in the same mode
as the Oscars.
Where
economies are expanding rapidly (Asia), higher
education again follows as a priority. If history repeats itself, there will be
overexpansion, and costs
will accelerate. There seems no quantity discount in
higher education. In a different context, but with the same result, are
examples where autocrats
made universities showcases, to offer political
appointments and even to build monuments to themselves. In these examples, Egypt
comes to mind—academia
was intended to improve the economy. That this idea is
wrong-headed left graduates with little to do but riot, and these economies
remained in
shambles.
A knowledge-based economy cannot thrive with frictions
imposed by millennium-old
constraints. At the limits where no one has a degree
or everyone has a degree, the consequences are clearly dire. Too much of a good
thing is a bad
thing, and perhaps that's where we are today in the United
States.
There are 160,000 members of
the American Chemical Society.
Let's presume they represent 50 percent of practicing chemists. The 320,000
then is 1 part per 1,000 of our population,
or 0.1 percent for a science that
drives energy, pharmaceuticals, diagnostic medicine, environmental science,
plastics, adhesives, agriculture,
cosmetics, construction materials and
climate. This is no doubt great leverage for society.
Where
we undershoot workforce requirements is with technical
skills, where supply is as short as encouragement and respect. Some call this
the "skills gap.
" These opportunities have been drowned out by the "college as
an entitlement" crowd. If you think higher educations is to be focused on
avocation,
consider that a commercial truck-driving certificate will pay more
per year than degrees in art history or elementary education. That's OK. That's fair.
There are many of
these middle-skill positions that make an economy go, just as the sergeants
make an army go.
We are at the end of a season of commencement, or beginning,
which reminds me of Churchill's 1942 phrase, "Now this is not
the end. It is
not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the
beginning." Near the end of these ceremonies, comes the familiar
refrain, "I
hereby confer upon each of you the XYZ degree, with all the rights, privileges
and responsibilities thereunto appertaining." It is my
hope that graduates will
focus on the last of these three, and be responsible for returning to society
the huge investment made by them and in them.
The tassel on the mortarboard hat
is then moved from right to left at graduation as a symbol that graduates have
passed through exposure to ideas which
apparently lead them to vote against
their own self-interests.
In conclusion, affordable higher
education follows innovating
economies, and doesn't create them. Education is a catalyst for exercise of
neurons, and that has value far beyond
avocation. If we continue to stifle
innovation by regulatory frictions and confiscatory taxes, we will not soon
recover from the higher-education
bubble of rising costs and reduced
opportunities. The problem is now recognized. The acceleration of college costs
must stop so more can take their
economy class seat at community colleges or
first-class seat at the most selective and costly few. Just remember, the most
productive dropped out and
created value for those who stayed. Thank them for
making your education possible.
Peter T. Kissinger is
professor of chemistry at Purdue University, chairman emeritus of BASi and a
director of Chembio Diagnostics, Phlebotics and Prosolia.
Back |
Home |
FAQs |
Search |
Submit News Release |
Site Map |
About Us |
Advertising |
Resources |
Contact Us |
Terms & Conditions |
Privacy Policy
|