Literature Review #4

1.
2. Newfield, Christopher. "Reinventing Public Universities: From Funding Deadlock To Bootleg U." Western Humanities Review 65.3 (n.d.): 6.
3. The article is about American higher education system. The author talks about what he calls the 'broken funding model' of US higher education. He notes colleges' dependence on private contributions, which he claims puts all the financial burden on the students and their families rather than research sponsors and companies as some claim. He notes the overemphasis of money in the society and an unwillingness to invest in one's country on the part of the rich as the main reasons behind the fall of US higher education. Public universities, he argues, are doomed to lose their traditional character and mission because of their recent 'privatization'. He develops plans for two types of universities, Golden U. and  Blue U., which can offer cheaper education in the future.
4. Christopher Newfield is professor of American culture at UCSB. He has published numerous works on higher education and its effects on society.
5. Devolutionary Cycle: What he calls the situation of US higher education system. The cycle is as follows:

1-Falling state funding-->Focus on philanthropy and endowments-->More sponsored research, losing more money-->Larger tuition increases-->Lowered educational levels-->Less social investment for more diverse publics-->Austerity and unproductive cuts--> (back to) Falling state funding.

Gold U.: One type of university Newfield predicts to exist in the future. This university exists solely because of the grand research sponsors it has. Existing through research, however, doesn't mean it will give high quality or cheaper education. 
6.
Q1 "

U.S. public universities have locked themselves into a funding model that had been slashing public contributions off and on for thirty years and has forced

public universities towards an ever-growing dependence on private funds.

This funding model rests on (though is not limited to) the "high tuition / high

aid" paradigm, in which tuition is to be pushed up rapidly—it's now between

$15,000 to $20,000 for in-state students at many leading public universities—

with offsets for needy students that come through financial aid, and a

vast pool of student loans whose total volume last year surpassed the country's

ggregate credit card debt” (6).

University dependence on private funding has been a long process. Facing flat/falling public funding, universities increased tuition to make up the loss. Not shying away from investment, of course, they spend recklessly. Lax budgets strain their finances further, causing higher tuition rates as a result. Students, unable to pay for school out of pocket, are then forced to take on enormous loans to attend college, all for a chance climb up the social ladder. Today, tuition costs -and the corresponding loans students must take-are so high that benefits of a college diploma do not make up for the cost to get it.Students who aspire for higher education to better their lives end up starting their careers with enormous debts to still pay for. That is where privatization contradicts with the purposes of higher education.

Q2“To put it another way, education itself does not appear in the

devolutionary cycle. Everything is about money—raising it, but mostly cutting

it. We now rarely define educational needs and then work out budgets,

but start with budgets to which we repeatedly adapt education” (10)

Although financial health and budget discipline are important for a healthy university, money's overemphasis diverts institutions from their true goal. American higher education system is at a point where money is the central issue in its universities decision-making process. In the higher education sphere, it swapped roles with education itself; money became the goal of university administrators while education turned into an expense that must be trimmed for acquisition of more money. Diminishing significance of quality higher education for the sake of money is unacceptable in a civilized society.

Q3Talking about the American funding model and the shift to private sources, "Voters are often told that the shift means that wealthy donors and sponsors have picked up a big part of educational bill, but this is simply not true. The AFM means shifting educational costs from the overall population to students and their families" This quote, although I do not know how I'm going to implement it to my paper, is striking. In my opinion, the shift from public funding to private funding --and the fact that voters are either okay with it or ignorant of its effects-- mirrors the change of attitudes towards education; the fact that people don't consider education a public good anymore. It is seen as a private good, a commodity one can buy for 'his' own sake. Public's wellbeing and the ideal of an educated-intellectual society

(fundamental goals of higher education)

are out the window

7. This article is helpful for my research because it explains the significance of money in our higher education system and how its overemphasis have decayed universities themselves and the people's take on education.