No subject

Wed Jun 1 15:13:38 CEST 2016

-------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator's Note: The comment period is now closed. The final comments
will go out over today and tomorrow.]

I greatly appreciate the comments from Allen White and Bill Rees, who in
clear and direct terms laid out the fundamental problem with private higher
education in the US. Higher education in the US mirrors the social-economic
system in which it is embedded. Here are but three obvious examples:

1. Universities seem to equate growth with success, as evidenced by endless
expansion of campus infrastructure administrative overhead, and revenues.
In thirty years I have taught at Clark University (a 130 year old
institution) the number of buildings has probably more than doubled; and I
see that trend on every campus I visit. The urgency to raise larger and
larger revenues from tuition, donations from (hopefully rich) alumni and
from research grants is relentless;

2. The baseline of what constitutes necessary amenities, such as athletic
facilities, health clubs, and so on, has been moving relentlessly upward,
reflecting the lifestyles and expectations of the top socio-economic tier
in the society on which the universities depend for revenues;

3. Income inequality has been dramatically increasing among the faculty and
staff. University presidents earn million dollar salaries and enjoy
tremendous benefits, such as free elegant housing, first class air travel,
and others. Top administrators (whose numbers have visibly increased over
the years) follow at a steady distance. The next tier are faculty members
in high paying professions and those with access to large research grants.
The distance between the salaries of these "haves" and those of the faculty
in the humanities, and office and custodial staff is getting larger every
year.

4. Just like all other private market-driven organizations, universities
compete with each other for "customers" (students) and feel pressured to
offer to these students the type of education they seek in exchange for
very high price they pay: practical, leading to future economic security.
Is it surprising?

At Clark University we have some wonderful interdisciplinary programs, have
relatively permeable walls between departments and disciplines, and are
justifiably proud of the deep and genuine social engagement of many of our
students and faculty members. But the features I outline above are very
much part and parcel of Clark.

The institution of a private university in the US is deeply embedded in the
society around us and it reflects the values and priorities of other
dominant societal institutions. I have not studied public universities in
the US but based my occasional readings I understand that in the age of
decreasing public support their experience is similar to that of private
universities.

No, I do not expect such an institution to be an agent of social change. In
that sense I read Cristina' essay as aspirational. Which is not to say that
individuals who are part of that institution might not become agents of
change. Over the years I have had the privilege to work with students and
faculty who inspired me with their unwavering commitment to social change.
I can only hope that these individuals will be agents of change in our
society. Who knows, perhaps if that happens the universities will join the
movement.

Halina Brown

-----
Original Message
-----
 Transition Network [mailto:gtnetwork at greattransition.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 9:30 AM
 Brown
 Higher Calling for Higher Education (GTN Discussion)