Why is Higher Education Valued? Society seems to have developed a respect, perhaps even an affinity, for many of the particulars associated with higher education. For examnle. . . all thines be in^- eoual. . a eoveinmeat commission will more often seek advire from persons in hieher education than t'rom eauallv . . knowledeeable individuils in the private sector. Opinions on "probiems of the dav" from academics seem to be more desired than others. judging from radio and television broadcasts. The human products of higher education also seem to be highly valued. Thus, the average lifetime earnings of university graduates are demonstrably greater than those of others who did not attend college. Graduates are generally paid more because other people-employers, clients, patients, etc.-believe that the experience of higher education has somehow enhanced the graduates' skills, knowledge, or widsom. Higher education seems generally to be protected by society; for example, i t is often exempt from taxes and its lands are sheltered from the vaaaries of condemnation proceedinas. Why has society created this special condition for almost everything associated with higher education? 'ould arguethar thepesumed qualitiesofacademic life lend a "moral authority" to most of the people associated with higher education. Higher education is seen by many as a source of disinterested (unbiased) learning-a seekine after the "truth." whatever that mav mean. It is the seat ofan apparent selfliss concern for the c&nmon good. I t is a wellsnrine . of knowledee and of wisdom. I t is more detached from worldly matters and should be able to cast a more unbiased eve on the oolitical, economic. and technological aspects ofour everyday life. I t can attempt to illuminate and bring more into focus some of the mvsteries of human life, a s , and science. Clearly, from this pkrspective, the system of higher education has value, and society, through the action of conventional market forces, has assigned amonetary value to some aspects of higher education, for example, the financial edge accorded those who have earned degrees. I t may be possible to amass convincing evidence that the increased earnings of graduates are demonstrably related to their worth to their employers in terms of skills, knowledge, and wisdom. However, much of the value society places on some of the components of higher education is the product of a belief-akin to that found in religion-rather than a reflection of demonstrable benefits. Closer inspection by society of the basis of its beliefs regarding higher education wodd perhaps reveal some seriousdefuct~ihat could undermineits faith in that institution. Indeed. such examinations have beeun in some ouarters. revealing that the system of higher education involves peoole with the usual s ~ e c t r u mof idiosvncratic characteristics. For example, higher education's expenditures per student nearlv doubled in the 1980's without any evidence that the average student is learning more. Very &en the increases can be traced to a burgeoning bureaucracy that contributes
my
little to the educational mission of an institution. Few outside of academia find that explanations for such disparities persuasive. Academicians themselves, on the other hand, appear to believe the myth of the allure of higher education and seem to be able to live apart from the usual rules of obligation. The chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities claims that the typical college senior is "sorely deficient in the most rudimentary knowledge of history and literature" (and others would include science). This condition exists, according to some, because it is rare for colleges to oblige anyone to learn such things. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate that many graduates also lack fairly basic cognitive skills. Some might be tempted to ask, "If higher education cannot be counted on to impact either knowledge or intellectual acumen, what exactly is its purpose?" Increasing numbers of "consumers" of college graduates report that an increasing proportion is unread, uninformed, and intellectually indolent. In general, the current curriculum reform movements have not included persons outside of higher education, which is perhaps a continuation of the reverence with which academe is still held by most people and by itself. Yet, within the system, a few critics are to be heard. Alan Bloom's criticism of the current intellectual norms is well known, and the respected philosopher Sidney Hook has written that "the current crisis of education in the United States may legitimately be characterized as an attempt to politicize the curriculum itself." Elected officials have been increasingly blunt in criticizing higher education. For example, Oregon's governor, Neil Goldschmidt, has observed, "I don't know of any group that more (often) says in response to questions about quality that the issue is money." New Jersey's governor, Tom Kean, noted that several governors "(feel) very, very, strongly that there (has) to be greater accountability, that the goals (had) to he changed a bit, and i t (isn't) just a game of every year coming and asking for either higher tuitions, more state support or both." Academe seems to feel that it is above accountability. For example, measures to improve the scandalous college loan default problem are often undercut by explanations, excuses, and, in some cases, outright refusal to become involved. Academic pork-barrel projects are increasingly taking the place of peer and merit reviews as means of channeling Federal aid to campuses. These are only a few examples, but they illustrate the basis for disillusionment and could easily cause the average person to argue that the qualities of academe do not reflect a higher moral authority. At any rate, if it ever existed, the traditionally held moral authority of academe is badly battered by ignoble and self serving practices. I t is time to rebuild confidence in the value of higher education. JJL
Volume 67
Number 2
February 1990
91
