Higher Learning? More Like Higher Earning

Where did college go wrong? Many people consider these former institutions of higher learning to be the new high school, in more ways than one. When did “higher learning” itself change from something with meaning to just another canned phrase used by those in charge? In the bloggingheads video, William Deresiewicz of Yale University and Mark Edmundson of Virginia University postulate that part of it comes from the fact that universities no longer focus on the “big questions”, but on producing workers.

As William Deresiewicz states, college used to be something much different than it is today. For one thing, he says, they were religious institutions; this means that they were much more focused on religious ideals, which generally are about morality, being a good person, and answering such big questions as “what is the good life” and “what is the good society”. The colleges of today, however, are, with few exceptions, extremely secularized; this is a good thing in many ways, yet it does beg the question of how and where these questions are being asked.

Colleges truly are becoming the new high school. While this is not touched on explicitly in the video, it can be inferred with a few examples. High school talks about answering big questions, helping students become better people, and so on. It has a slew of general education classes with electives that focus on topics each student might wish to pursue; for example, a Photoshop class. Yet most students know that this is rhetoric and ignore it for what it is in favor of moving through the system as quickly as possible to go on in life. Is this sounding familiar? It is what college has become.

No longer is college focused on answering these questions, it simply says it is because they think if they don't point out the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room, no one will notice it. What it is focused on is money, money, money. As the video states, the claim to be non-profit yet they are shifting more and more towards not only making money, but producing workers who make even more money, in the hope that they will give some of that delicious money back to the school.

This is tied into what they also mention in the video, that colleges are not interested in creating thinkers, they are interested in creating “leaders”. That word is in quotes because no one, as William and Mark mention, really knows what it means. Certainly it cannot mean someone who leads, because if there were so many leaders, no one would have anything to lead. As stated earlier, it is simply another bumper-sticker phrase that actually means someone who will make money, and who “makes their way up the institutional pole, no matter how greasy it may be.” It is someone who embeds themselves in the system and plays by the rules, in contrast to a thinker.

A thinker, on the other hand, is much more easily defined, and isn't obfuscated by professional lingo. It is someone who is critical of themselves and their surroundings, of where they are, of their school, and of many other if not all other things. This is the kind of person that colleges used to create. No more, though. The colleges, want obedient workers. The government wants obedient workers. Society likes obedient workers. Therefore, colleges and universities do not want philosophers and people who can actually tackle the big questions they claim to want to answer themselves. No, they want to make game designers and lawyers and doctors and businessmen and famous musicians. They aim to produce little more beyond obedient workers.

What about Chapman? Is it a culprit in these shifts away from “institution of higher learning” to “obedient worker assembly line”? Let us go down the checklist: Does it claim to want to help students answer the big questions and make them into good people without actually achieving this? Yes. In fact, it has monuments across the campus dedicated to the “four pillars of education” or some such, yet how often do those come up in classes? Not often. Does it want thinkers? I've already heard of various situations where students or even teachers have been caught in the web of bureaucracy when they tried to ask questions or submit ideas on how to make things better. That doesn't look too good for Chapman's case. Does it want leaders? Most certainly. It obviously has a huge focus on the school of law and the school of business, both incredibly worthwhile professions to invest in, as a school. Half the campus seems to be built from donations from graduates of these facilities! It would appear that Chapman is indeed part of the problem.

What does it all mean, then? Are colleges corrupt institutions that no one in their right mind should send their children to? Of course not. Many are still great places to learn about subjects that you could never learn about otherwise. Some still adhere to the old standard, and those that do not are still wonderful for those who want to actually make above thirty thousand dollars per year, and in this day and age a Bachelor's Degree is the new high school diploma when it comes to applying for a job. This makes them a godsend for young adults who want to make it in the world; it is simply responding to the demand of society. This doesn't make it right, though, and doesn't mean it should remain this way. It is foolhardy to say that colleges are still the pristine centers of higher learning they once were, and it is for that reason that something has to change.