 |
| collegemoneymaker.blogspot.com |
Rather than working to improve an educational system that allows students to receive extremely high GPAs while learning just about nothing, most schools simply focus on ways to market themselves to prospective students, because that's how you make money. The University of Oregon, for example, is spending an estimated $68 Million on a new football operations center. Take a look at a tour of their locker room below. This makes their football program a top choice for recruits, improves their on-field performance and, as a result, significantly increases their applicant pool. I'm not going to lie, the quality of Michigan Athletics certainly played a role in my decision process.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1NyaTVUhFQ
President Calvin Coolidge once said that "The Business of America is business" (check out the funny video below) and colleges/universities are certainly not exempt from this. This is what Menand fails to identify. The purpose of college can be to sort people out, educate, and prepare students for jobs all at the same time. That's why college is such a successful business. It fulfills the needs of just about all types of students and, as long as you can pay, it doesn't matter why you decide to attend.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10MyrfoYrA
Despite the fact that the Oregon video is about four years old (Dennis Dixon and Jonathan Stewart are in the NFL now), I do agree with your theory...to a certain extent. America is business, plain and simple. It's what has made our country the most powerful in the world. Yet, this business aspect is also what has enabled us to have such fantastic education. I wouldn't call this a separate theory on its own; it's more of an underlying concept that is overlooked. In other words, money is not a reason society or people go through college (especially since they are the ones paying). Regardless, I agree and disagree with this concept. I do agree that schools are all about the big bucks. Michigan is no exception to this. They realize that so many people want to come to this fantastic school, and thus, jack up the out-of-state admissions price tag. This is a basic supply and demand economic idea. Michigan is no stranger to marketing either. Our "M" logo is one of the most marketable in the world. Football revenue alone is in the millions. Yet, the the difference lies in where the money goes. This is where I disagree with you. At Michigan, and other top universities around the country, a lot of this money isn't pocketed or given to the people running the university. Millions of dollars are spent on EDUCATION. The primary goal of the University is to educated its citizens, and money is necessary to achieve this. Much of the money goes to fantastic professors at the top of their fields, libraries and resources, new courses, technology, and research. Research is a key component of education, as it allows us to discover new things and advance our knowledge through a variety of fields. There is a reason the most brilliant minds in the world come out of these universities and give back to society with their contributions. As I said before, the "M" brand is recognized across the world. Universities like Michigan bring in thousands of international students who flock to the best educational system there is, even if that means traveling halfway around the world to do so. The hope is that this creates acceptance and diversity, and students bring their fantastic experiences back to their home countries. As you can see, the goals of the American higher education system are not centered around money; I firmly believe they are focused on creating educated citizens of the world. I'm not oblivious, however. I understand that a ton of money is needed to achieve this, and therefore, the university NEEDS to act like a big business in order to gain revenues to feed their mechanisms of learning. In the end, there is a huge difference between the typical big corporate company and the university: companies will simply give the consumer what they want if they pay. On the other hand, universities do not just supply education; it lies on the consumer in this system, and they have to earn the degree on their own.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI will agree that a main motivator of universities (and students!) is money. It is true that universities often act as a business, but (as Josh says) this may be necessary to fund things such as technology services (like state of the art computer labs), professors' salaries, and research. I also agree that it is very likely that Universities are very concerned about getting a large applicant pool and subsequently a large student body and subsequently a lot of money. But, I think they do care about the work we do while we attend their school. At the very least they want us to be successful in our lives post-graduation so that we can potentially donate even more money to them. However, I like to think that they care at least a little bit about our motivations. I think it'd be extremely hard to just wander into Harvard Yard because society thinks it is appropriate for us to attend school. The students who attend highly prestigious schools most likely care about their education. (That's how they got there, they were excellent high school students.) Schools like the University of Michigan want students who will be contributors to their university and to community in general. One other comment: Our education depends largely on our professors and GSI's. We all know this; we all check ratemyprofessors.com to make sure we're getting the best professor for the class we wish to take. Even if we were to accept that a university is content once they get students into their systems, there are still many professor who dedicate a large amount of time to our knowledge. They could easily lecture twice a week and then write a midterm and a final exam. But, many professors hold extra office hours, provide extra study material, and hold review sessions that they are not required to do. I just think it's very important that we recognize the professors as somewhat separate from a university in this sense.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the concept of college as a business. The most interesting thing is you can trace academic universities emerging in prominence academically with their emergence in athletics. A few examples off the top of my head would include USC (20 years ago it was not a prominent university, now it ranks higher than U of M), Penn State (the money from the football program has driven advances in academics and now Penn State is a very reputable university, and Wisconsin (similar reasons). This is because the money produced by these schools allows them to build institutions that are more attractive to a prominent high school student, and as the applicant pool increases, colleges get to be more selective and the process carries over year over year. The concerning thing about college's profit margins are that they generally come from athletics, which leads to immoral practices of recruiting and paying players. Also, on the business side of the student, the dramatically rising cost of tuition (it is significantly outpacing inflation) leads to a rising opportunity cost to going to college. When government subsidies to college students and financial aid begin to run out as they inevitably will with budget cuts, there will be few students who will honestly believe they will make the $500,000 necessary to go to college in 20 years (current expectations based off rise in college prices in the past 20 years), and when there is less opportunity there is the opportunity for dramatic change. I see a transition towards prominent, reputable ONLINE universities in the next 20 years as students begin to realize any professor can put his lecture online, and probably profit from doing so. There is no reason to think given current advances in technology that a student should need to travel to a particular place in the country to learn, thus removing the living expenses that are so dramatically underestimated in the grand scheme of college costs. If you could spend an extra 15k a year because you weren't living half way around the country, yet you could still look in on the polisci 101 lecture twice a week, would you not consider that? I think there will be new demand for online universities in the coming years and the advances in tech in addition to the rising cost of education will be the driving force behind it.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of money being the main focus in universities today. Universities technically do not HAVE to charge a tuition, and the book, "DIY U" by Anya Kamenetz states, "Free tuition was a tradition in public colleges and universities from California to New York in the 1970s." Tuition is just a ploy to make money through the institution of higher education, but I don't blame them, why not make the money if you can? Furthermore, I would like to add that really the only reason we come to college is for the money. We aren't here to get a better education and be a better, more well-rounded citizen, we are doing it to attain a better, higher paying job. Reading this post and pondering these ideas leads me to thinking about Hobbes, and his assertion that humans are generally selfish over altruistic. The Universities aren't going to make tuition free in the betterment of society, they are going to further jack up the prices to make more money. If students could all get the same jobs without going to college, no one would care about a higher education, as they are only here for the furtherance of themselves.
ReplyDeleteYes, we see University of Michigan professors that value the miracle of students learning as much as the students themselves. Yes, we do end up using most of that money into furthering the university's desire to teach students in progressively better environments. But I believe that this article is more focused on the bigger picture than we perceive it to be. For instance, not all professors are as whole-heartedly concerned for students as many of the other replies portray them to be. Inevitably, there will be professors who may actually despise their job or just be teaching for the money. (which ironically relates back to the article's main point) Simple evidence to support this is that not all professors on ratemyprofessors.com get average to high ratings; there will be teachers that students realize are just there to do their job to help the university make money. And for another fact, this article isn't exclusive to only the University of Michigan, we have to incorporate other colleges' conditions as well. Also, you must realize that even though most universities are labeled as "non-profitable", tuition does not cover all the costs universities have to incur to perpetuate thousands of students' educations; that is why government plays a role in "assisting" these universities with government funding. In addition, students eventually are going to make money themselves, eventually off-setting their "debt" they had to pay for education, and universities get money to do whatever they want. It's somewhat a win-win situation, and who doesn't love money anyway?
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteThis is an awesome post! You bring up a point that I’ve always thought about. Universities are an amazing business. For example, look at the University of Michigan. They have accumulated so much money over the years, that they are finically deciding to spend it all on renovating the college. Almost every housing and dining hall across the campus is being renovated. You bring up a good point about athletics and the business aspect of college. Many people disagree with the fact that college football players get a free tuition while some of us students are paying upwards to $50,000 a year to attend a public university. Many students don’t think it’s fair that athletes get free college because we’re the ones who had to work hard in high school to get into college. I disagree with this because it all ties back to the business theme that Menand fails to explore. Every Saturday in the Fall, Michigan Football Stadium seats over 100,000 screaming (paying) fans. The university generates a lot of money off these games which makes it perfectly ok to give the athletes free college. I really like the business aspect of college that you chose to explore. You should email Menand and inform him that he’s missing a crucial aspect of a potential theory about college. With so many students across campus, you can assume that colleges don't really care about all of us. I'd like to think this isn't true, I've met some great people so far who are all caring and looking out for my best interests.
I agree with you to some extent, but I think major research universities such as our own are not primarily focused on making money; there are however great examples of American higher education being profit oriented that would better fit with your thesis. I'm referring to for-profit educational institutes, many of which make up Fortune 500 companies. Most of these (eg ITT Tech, Devry) try to compete as essentially alternative community colleges, preying on lower income students who are looking to further their education. They are unfortunately, only concerned with their own profit, which has led to them being described as diploma mills or even scams. The degrees received from them are essentially useless (the credits don't even transfer anywhere) and they charge an absurd amount for them. So while I think your supporting evidence doesn't really hold up, your point is still correct in the case of for-profit colleges.
ReplyDelete