The Future of College Education in the United States

By Jeremy Wells

Introduction

[1]	In 1973, feminist writer Caroline Bird observed in her notable essay "College is a Waste of Time and Money" that students were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the state of higher education (Bird 325-328). Students felt hopeless, angry, and confused; not only because of the controversies of the Vietnam War, but also because of their distress with the oppressing nature of higher education itself. They expressed their frustration through public demonstrations or even violent protests (Bird 326). While students of today share many of the same concerns of the students of that era, today's students also face many new challenges and circumstances. Our universities and colleges have undergone quite a few changes since the writing of Bird's essay, and naturally they continue to change today. So with this never ending process of change, what lies ahead for higher education in the United States in the future? What role will colleges and universities serve ten years from now?  While the future is unpredictable, what lies ahead for college education in the United States will likely depend on changing demographics, university funding, technological progress, and the increasing corporate influence on the nation's universities.

The role of the traditional university

[2]	Universities have traditionally served as society's center for scholarship, culture, discovery, and intellectual inquiry.¹ Lately, however, the role of the university seems to be changing: It seems as if many universities are beginning to take on a role which is more akin to that of a business enterprise than an institution of higher learning (Singleton-Jackson 203). This phenomenon is apparent upon observing several trends emerging in many universities. The increasing corporate intrusion onto universities, the prioritization of research over education, and the inflation of university administration all signify this new theme (Singleton-Jackson 203). 

[3]	Universities devote a large portion of their energies into conducting research and raising revenues. Because research is a significant source of university revenue, it has become an overwhelming priority for many universities (Singleton-Jackson 194, 203). Billions of federal dollars are spent annually on university research (Lee 29). Since around 1980, corporations have also become a substantial source of research sponsorship (Bridenthal 36). However, many critics contend that corporate-sponsored research has fostered a strong integration of corporate interests with university management.² In addition to corporate-sponsored research, universities also use several other strategies (which are unrelated to delivering education) to conserve and increase funds such as outsourcing services and selling sweatshirts and consumer goods (Lee 28-33; Scheuerman 10). Lately, they have also begun to charge different prices for degrees in different fields. A degree in engineering or business, for example, is frequently more costly than a degree in English or History (Vedder, "Differential Pricing"). These changes reflect a new theme in which universities are beginning to adopt a more market-driven, corporate-like model of operation.

[4]	In order to coordinate research deals, manage contracts, and market products, universities employ additional non-teaching staff and administration personnel (Lee 29). This has progressed to such an extent that administrators and non-teaching employees now outnumber employees in the classroom (29). Coincidently, the administrations of universities are giving themselves a larger portion of the available funds: Salaries for university administrators and presidents are accelerating at a rate far beyond those of other professions, and at a rate beyond what inflation can reasonably account for (Vedder, "Rent-Seeking"). Up to one fourth of federal research funds aren't even used for research - they are used just for administrative overhead expenses; and grants from the Department of Education, which are intended for teacher quality enhancement, may instead be used for administrative purposes (Lee 29).

[5]	The corporate ideology and emphasis on research which seems to be intruding our universities leaves educational instruction as a low priority. Attention to teaching, which is expensive and unrelated to patentable research, has diminished (Singleton-Jackson 194). The lack of concern for education is exemplified by the extraordinary trend in universities of hiring more adjunct (part-time) faculty or graduate students to provide instruction and granting tenure only sparingly to faculty.³ By hiring adjuncts, schools are able to save money because adjuncts are cheaper. But instruction suffers as consequence, and adjuncts suffer from lack of job security, benefits, and compensation (Singleton-Jackson 195). Because research is now such a high priority for universities, professors are awarded with prestige, tenure, and financial compensation for conducting research, but not for teaching (195). Thus, professors are often more preoccupied with their research endeavors than with providing student instruction. Universities also divert funds intended for education towards research projects instead: tuition increases in universities are often used to finance research rather than improve instruction (Calhoun 12).

[6]	In the near future, the corporatization of universities may have significant consequences for students, faculty, and society as a whole ("The Corporatized University"). As noted before, the big deficit of tenure not only harms adjunct employees, but it also threatens academic freedom (Scheuerman 7). Corporations also threaten academic freedom because as part of the terms of research contracts they often prohibit faculty members from sharing their research findings with the academic community.² Corporations may coerce, bribe, or require university researchers to produce only favorable results or distort research results so that they serve the interests of the corporation.² With a large lack of tenure to facilitate academic freedom coupled with increasing corporate intrusion on our universities, how are we to progress scientifically as a society with benevolent, unbiased, genuinely useful research? Considering these discontenting trends, the future of our universities as well as our capacity for scientific progress may not look very promising.

The role of the for-profit university

[7]	Alongside the increasing intrusion of market forces on non-profit universities, another notable occurrence is underway: the emergence of the for-profit university. While for-profits may not be concerned with research, they are concerned with profits (Berg 30). For-profit schools differ from traditional schools in that they are run strictly as businesses (30). With a business model of operation, the profit motive compels these schools to provide a desirable consumer product, while at the same time operating with economic efficiency (Symonds). They tend to operate more efficiently because they cut out unnecessary expenses (Symonds). Accredited for-profit universities such as Devry, University of Phoenix, ITT Technical Institute and others are a relatively new phenomenon, and they seem to be quickly gaining popularity (Symonds). Decades ago such institutions were virtually unheard of, but today, for-profit universities are quickly gaining a significant market share (Cronin 18; Symonds), and enrollment rates in 4-year proprietary universities have more than doubled those of non-profit universities during the past decade (Lee 25). So why are these universities gaining such prominence now?

[8]	One reason for their success seems to be their concern with directly serving student interests. With a primary motive of serving and expanding their customer base, these schools are very concerned with customer satisfaction (Berg 33; Symonds). Thus, customer needs dictate their operation, rather than the other way around. To provide a quality product, for-profit universities are compelled to hire skilled and qualified instructors, and there is typically a very favorable student-to-teacher ratio (Symonds). In consideration of student needs, they offer flexible schedules and convenient online courses, and they allow students to work at their own pace (Thor; Symonds). The curriculum is standardized and tends to focus more on career-relevant knowledge and skills and less on liberal arts (Berg 33; Symonds). For-profits emphasize the "bottom line" of education, which is particularly appealing to many students who view education primarily as a means to advance their career (Farrell; Symonds).

[9]	Another reason for their success is that for-profits are designed to appeal to a specific subset of the population, which is their targeted customer base. This population includes ethnic minorities, nontraditional students, first-generation students, and older adults (Berg 31; Thor). By specifically targeting an under-served, underrepresented population of prospective students, they are able to fill in a niche in the education marketplace which was previously untapped (Thor; Symonds; Farrell). 

[10]	For-profits are also known as innovators of distance learning modalities, such as online education (Thor; Symonds). Online education is a trend in education that seems to be quickly gaining popularity (Cronin 18; Romano A06). For-profit schools seem to have been especially keen on exploiting this trend, controlling "41% of the $3.5 billion online-degree market, which has tripled since 2000..." (Symonds). Using online courses as an alternative to real-time instruction cuts expenses because online courses do not require the additional facilities and overhead costs of real-time instruction (Singleton-Jackson 199). Online education also opens up new opportunities for students by increasing accessibility and by accomodating students whose inflexible  schedule previously would not permit them to attend real-time instruction. Ideally, distance-learning modalities will provide a convenient and economic alternative for students who would otherwise have difficulty attending college and may even "resolve the crises of access, cost, and flexibility" in obtaining a college education (Singleton-Jackson 198).

[11]	Despite their apparent benefits, for-profit universities are not without drawbacks, however. Skeptics of for-profit schools contend that the profit motive undermines the traditional institution of education (Berg 28-30; Symonds). With classes frequently delivered online, in business suites, or even in a shopping mall building; for-profit schools tend to be lacking in any genuine campus or intellectual culture (Singleton-Jackson 139). Students may miss out on the college experience of face-to-face interaction with peers and professors (139). Another concern is the subordinate status of faculty. One writer notes: "Much of the cost-effectiveness of [for-profit universities] comes at the expense of faculty members through lower compensation rates, lack of tenure, and less influence on the management of the university. In that sense, the for-profits seem to privilege corporate interests over those of workers" (Berg 34).

[12]	Another concern with the for-profit sector is a potential increase in unaccredited schools which offer fake degrees through the internet. Dr. Agnes Tuska, Professor of Mathematics at California State University Fresno, is concerned that the online education trend may result in an abundance of "education factories" and "nonsense education" from substandard schools (Tuska, Interview). This may be one unfortunate consequence of the growth of online education because it provides a convenient niche for fraudulent "degree mills" to exploit (Romano A06; Santovec 3). These "schools" offer misleading degrees in exchange for a large sum of cash but generally require little or no coursework (Santovec 3). They are often operated as scam operations and lack any real facilities, but an online presence may allow a degree mill to pose a superficial appearance of legitimacy. Inexperienced students may be taken advantage of and lose out on both money and genuine education if they enroll in one of these schools (Romano A06).

[13]	For-profit universities have both benefits and drawbacks. They also vary from school to school; not every for-profit is the same (Kinser 70). Some are more expensive than others, and the curriculum, delivery mode and organizational model is different for each school (Kinser 73-74). Whether they are seen as a positive or negative addition to education, for-profit universities represent an alternative model of education that is likely to expand in the near future.

The role of the community college

[14]	The community college also serves an important role in higher education. Community colleges traditionally have served a similar student population of low-income youth, ethnic minorities, and non-traditional students which the for-profit universities are now serving (Berg 33; Singleton-Jackson 197). Considering the current trend of rising tuition and expanding demographics, it is reasonable to assume that community colleges are likely to play an increasingly significant role in higher education in the near future (Boone).

[15]	The amount of people attending college has expanded greatly in the past several decades, and an even greater influx of people desiring a college education is expected in the near future (Lee 21; Carnevale 5). Many of these students will come from minority and low-income backgrounds. Immigrants and ethnic minorities are projected to become a much larger proportion of the college-attending population in the next few years (Carnivale 8). By 2020, demographers estimate that students of color will constitute almost half of the nation's college student population (Seurkamp 47). Unfortunately, a large portion of these minorities come from families with suboptimal incomes, so obtaining a college education may be difficult (Carnevale 6). 

[16]	With the price of attending college continuously increasing, the situation is made even more difficult for these low-income students. For the past several decades, colleges and universities have been charging more and more tuition, with the average cost of attending college more than doubling between 1976 and 2003 (Lee 26). In addition to the tuition increase, college textbook prices are steadily rising as textbook companies release new editions to maintain profits. Students must spend large sums of money - on average $900 dollars per year - on outrageously priced textbooks (Dawkins 30). To add to the burden, state and federal financial aid for students has not risen proportionally to compensate for rising costs (Lee 27-28). Instead of disbursing more grant money, the government is now emphasizing loans (Georgianna 15; Lee 27). As a result, non-affluent young people have few options but to either go in debt from student loans or work heavy hours in part-time jobs in order to finance their education (Georgianna 20; Lee 27). Community colleges, which are generally less expensive than 4-year universities, present a reasonably economic solution to this financial quandary.

[17]	The curriculum of the community college is also shifting to accommodate the new influx of students. The K-12 system has continuously failed to academically prepare a large portion of the minority and low-income student population for college, and consequently, many colleges and universities - community colleges in particular - are greatly expanding their curriculum of basic skills remedial courses (Singleton-Jackson 196-197; Yankelovish). If these obstacles are not remedied, community colleges may continue to emphasize remedial-level courses at the expense of college-level education.

Conclusion

[18]	As the roles of traditional universities, for-profit schools, and community colleges continuously adjust and evolve; changes for students, faculty members, and higher education in general are sure to follow. Students may become immersed in the increasingly corporate, impersonal, technological world of universities, or they may have trouble obtaining a college education at all due to rising expenses. The profession of teaching might change in reaction to these new circumstances. With the progressive deficit of tenure being granted by traditional universities and its complete lack in the growing for-profit universities, college-level teaching may become a less attractive career prospect. College curriculum, under increasing influence from the corporate ideology, may eventually lose its cultural heart of the liberal arts and humanities (Bridenthal 36).

[19]	With all of the various interacting factors summarized above, the ultimate future of college education may not be easy to predict. Will academic freedom continue to diminish as universities succumb to corporate influence? Is for-profit education on it's way to becoming an impersonal, automated, mass-market product distributed by "education factories"? Will community colleges be the only option for our low-income youth? Or will higher education maintain its traditional place as the cultural and intellectual center of society? Only time will tell.

Word Count: approx. 2400

Notes

1. The historical and philosophical foundations of the university are discussed in Scheuerman 12, Singleton-Jackson 201 and also "How Higher Education Differs from Corporate America" by Simpson.

2. The harmful effects of corporate influence on universities are discussed in numerous books and articles by various authors. Check Bridenthal 35-37; Calhoun 8-18; Scheuerman 14-15; Weissmann 44; and Washburn's book "University, Inc."

3. The overwhelming shortage of tenure and its harmful effects are discussed in Singleton-Jackson 195; Lee 31; Scheuerman 7-10. 

Works Cited

Berg, Gary A. "Reform Higher Education with Capitalism?" Change 37.3 (2005): 28-34. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007 

Bird, Caroline. “College is a Waste of Time and Money.” In Outlooks and Insights, 4th Ed. Eschholz and Rosa ed. New York: St. Martins, 1995.

Boone, Edgar J. "National perspective of community colleges." Community College Journal of Research & Practice 21.1 (1997): 1. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Bridenthal, Renate. Rev. of University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education, by Jennifer Washburn. Radical Teacher 73 (2005): 35-37. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Calhoun, Craig. "Is the University in Crisis?" Society 43.4 (2006): 8-18. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.ssrc.org/staff/president/IsTheUniversityInCrisis-1.pdf>

Carnevale, Anthony P. and Richard A. Fry. "Economics, Demography and the Future of Higher Education Policy." Southern Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators 2004. 19 Nov. 2007 <http://www.sasfaa.org/docs/training/ManagementInstitute/2004/presentations/8_Suggested_Reading_by_Don_Heller.pdf>

Cronin, Joseph M. "Higher Education Trends and Opportunities." Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education 20.5 (2006): 18-18. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Dawkins, Wayne. "Textbooks: The Big Squeeze." Black Issues Book Review Sep/Oct. 2006: 30-31. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 19 Nov. 2007

Farrell, Elizabeth F. "For-Profit Colleges See Rising Minority Enrollments." Chronicle of Higher Education 49.38 (30 May 2003): A35. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Georgianna, Daniel and Robert T. Jones. "Privatizing the Benefits from Higher Education and Its Effect on Access." American Academic 3.1 (2007): 9-24. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Kinser, Kevin "A profile of regionally accredited for-profit institutions of higher education." New Directions for Higher Education 129 (2005): 69-83. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Lee, John and Sue Clery. "Key Trends in Higher Education." American Academic 1.1 (June 2004): 21-36. 19 Nov. 2007 <http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_academic/issues/june04/Lee.qxp.pdf>

Romano, Lois. "Online Degree Programs Take Off." Washington Post 16 May 2006: A06. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501496.html>

Santovec, Mary Lou. "Diploma Mills Hurt Distance Educationís Image" Distance Education Report 10.1 (1 Jan. 2006): 2-6. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Scheuerman, William and Thomas Kriger. "The Concept of Corporatization: A Useful Tool or Feel-Good Slogan?" American Academic 1.1 (2004): 7-20. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_academic/issues/june04/Scheuerman.qxp.pdf>

Seurkamp, Mary P. "Changing Student Demographics." University Business 10.10 (Oct. 2007): 47-48. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Singleton-Jackson, Jill A. and Ron Newsom. "Adapt, Adjust, Respond: Perspectives on Current Trends In American Colleges and Universities." Higher Education Perspectives 2.1 (2006): 192-206. Nov. 19, 2007 <http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/hep>

Symonds, William C. "Cash-Cow Universities." Business Week 17 Nov. 2003: 70-74. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.businessweek.com>

"The Corporatized University." Editorial. Multinational Monitor, 18.11 (Nov. 1997): 5. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.multinationalmonitor.org>

Thor, Linda. "Understanding the Appeal of For-Profit Colleges." Community College Week  12.12 (24 Jan. 2000): 7. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Tuska, Agnes. Telephone interview. 17 Nov. 2007

Vedder, Richard. "Differential Pricing Grows in Popularity." The Center for College Affordability and Productivity 8 Aug. 2007. 19 Nov. 2007 <http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com>

Vedder, Richard. "Rent-Seeking, Rip-Offs, and Research." The Center for College Affordability and Productivity 29 Nov. 2006. 19 Nov. 2007<http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com>

Yankelovish, Daniel. "Ferment and Change: Higher Education in 2015." Chronicle of Higher Education 25 Nov. 2005: B6-B9. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.fldoe.org/OSI/meeting_2005_12_07/pdf/article1.pdf>

Works Consulted

Edler, Frank H. W. "Campus Accreditation: Here Comes The Corporate Model." Thought & Action 19.2 (2004): 91-104. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www2.nea.org/he/heta04/images/w04p91.pdf>

Longanecker, David A. "Exploring Trends In Higher Education." Broadmoor Roundtable. George K Baum & Co, PCL Construction Services Inc. 30 Nov. 2007<http://www.wiche.edu/PPT/Baum_Sept04.pdf>

McPherren, Ann C. "The Commodity Market and the University Education." University Business Oct. 2007: 61-62. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Rhodes, Frank H. T. "After 40 Years of Growth and Change, Higher Education Faces New Challenges." Chronicle of Higher Education 53.14 (24 Nov. 2006): A8-A20. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Simpson, Ronald D. "How Higher Education Differs from Corporate America." Innovative Higher Education 26.4 (2002): 231-233. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007

Vedder, Richard. "Colleges and the Minimum Wage." The Center for College Affordability and Productivity 31 July 2007. 19 Nov. 2007 <http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com>

Vedder, Richard. "Completing the Doctorate: The Biggest Scandal in Higher Education." The Center for College Affordability and Productivity 17. July 2007. 19 Nov. 2007 <http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com>

Vedder, Richard. "Over Invested and Over Priced: American Higher Education Today." The Center for College Affordability and Productivity Nov. 2007. 19 Nov. 2007 <http://www.collegeaffordability.net/CCAP_Report.pdf>

Washburn, Jennifer. University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education New York: Basic Books, 2006. 29 Nov. 2007 <http://books.google.com>

Weissmann, Robert. Rev. of University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education, by Jennifer Washburn. Multinational Monitor; 26.5 (2005): 44. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Reedley College Lib. System. 10 Dec. 2007