American universities might be their own worst enemies. Joshua Spodek analyzes self-defeating habits on twenty-first century campuses. He cites relatively impartial evaluations from Moody’s and S&P. These evaluations consider the financial status of postsecondary institutions, but Spodek notes that “financial issues usually aren’t root problems but point to them.”
He identifies ten self-destructive patterns in American higher education.
First, “the most successful students leave American universities.” While this is certainly debatable, the examples of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Dell are at least thought-provoking. Why did they leave?
Second, colleges are filled with “expensive, shiny distractions from education.” From gourmet cafeterias to social action groups, postsecondary institutions hope to lure students to their campuses, and keep them there for four or more years, with everything except intellectual competence.
Third, misallocation of resources: universities preside over millions and even billions of dollars, but “significant amounts” are “going to non-teaching administrators.” Bureaucrats find endless ways to spend educational dollars, but education itself is sometimes a small fraction of the budget. By comparison, in other nations, universities spend their funds on activities which are more directly related to academic work. Our universities face global competition: in other nations, universities allot their funds primarily toward their core mission of education, and less toward the other pet projects which many American universities favor.
Fourth, colleges are “blaming politics and politicians.” Universities have significant control over their actions and are not the victims of political trends.
Fifth, colleges have been “ignoring domestic competition.” Various institutions have arisen in recent decades which offer direct competition to traditional colleges and universities. A number of software companies offer certifications; the learning which earns these certificates doesn’t take place on a college campus and isn’t associated with a university. An increasing number of online schools, community colleges, and other forms of postsecondary education, including for-profit models, are providing types of education which traditional universities either couldn’t provide, or couldn’t provide at a reasonable price.
Sixth, Joshua Spodek notes that American universities are “delivering 20th century value” in the 21st century. Instead of curiosity-driven intellectual inquiry, the bureaucracy of the higher-education complex (not only the colleges and universities, but the state and federal officialdom which interfaces with them) foster an ossification which doesn’t nimbly redesign itself in a high-tech world which requires precisely such morphing: “Government funding since World War II degraded universities’ purpose of knowledge, scholarship, and reason in favor of professors’ self-serving pursuits of creating centers and and institutes.”
Seventh, the phrase “well-rounded” has been used so often that its meaning has been forgotten. Instead of the university’s athletic department being a small number of elite athletes, sealed off from the vast majority of students, postsecondary institutions could foster physical fitness for the broad majority of its campus: exercise opportunities and recreational sports. Spodek suggests: “Let's separate individual athletic activity from big athletic programs.” The same is true of the arts: encourage large-scale participation by amateurs instead of highly competitive programs for a microscopic number of would-be professional artists. Why? “Sports and art involve performance, which involves motivation, emotions, and other people - how we learn the social and emotional skills that adulthood and citizenship demand.”
Eighth, Spodek calls for a dialogue between academic learning on the one side, and practical, vocational, job-oriented learning on the other side. These two aspects of education can inform each other, encourage each other, and provide a sort of intellectual cross-pollination which benefits everyone. The have competed for too long. They should now collaborate.
Ninth, Spodek sees the universities as “not heeding history.” Perhaps modern universities are too caught up in short-term social and political trends, and have not paid enough attention “to what students, their families, society, and culture demand of institutions transforming youths into responsible, thoughtful, mature adults and citizens.”
Finally, he sees too much emphasis on generating diplomas, certifications, and credentials. Students quickly learn to do what’s necessary - and nothing more - to get the desired documentation. On the academic side, curiosity is not fostered this way; on the practical side, employers learn that the credentials mean less and less. Indeed, some employers are paying less attention to those diplomas, and more attention to their own testing and interviewing.
To be sure, Joshua Spodek’s article is but one among the thousands of pages of critique directed at the modern university. His is not the only one with some merit, and his is not flawless.
His contribution is that he has characterized the university as self-sabotaging. This insight accurately characterizes a problem. Many postsecondary institutions spend lots of energy on their twin obsessions: entertaining students and engaging in socio-political activism. Both pursuits undermine the university’s ability to be taken seriously.
The university harms itself when it fails to direct students primarily toward challenging the mind and toward wrestling with formidable texts.
