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.

research blog #7- counter argument -

Recently, there are striking changes in higher education. Economic troubles of the last decades, and an unwillingness to fund higher education on the federal government's (and the state's) side paved the way for private capital to be involved in higher education. Although, for-profit colleges (private institutions) made up only a small number of universities in the US, their numbers are ever increasing. My question is whether this privatization is part of the natural evolution of higher education (institutions evolve just like living organisms to suit the needs of their time) or an intrusion of its natural course by foreign forces, private capital and the corporate world. One way the corporate world gets 'involved' with universities is the utilization of universities to train skilled workers for the industry. In his article Are Universities and University Research Under Threat, Martin Ben talks about the recent changes in universities. He dubs the recent involvement of the corporate world in university sphere as the universities' forgotten third mission. This third mission, he argues has been there since the beginning; universities have been involved with their surroundings and locale, and served as centers of knowledge assisting their host country and city in many ways, including training of skilled workers for the industries. In his article, he promotes the recent privatization saying the universities should not be isolated and should be more involved with their surroundings as to accomplish their third mission. I, however, disagree with the promotion of privatization. Even though I agree that universities should be involved with their locale, state and economy by assisting them with their expertise (and sometimes with its mere presence since a university makes its host city more active socially and economically, just like New Brunswick during semesters), this involvement does not and should not require loss of autonomy and character on the university's part. I believe that a university can assist society without bowing to the demands of private capital and business interests. It is a university's autonomy and academic character (rather than a proposed corporate or business character) that makes a university beneficial for society. Otherwise (under private control), it is just another company doing business in the city that does no good to society if it is not in its interest to do so.

research blog #6

My paper is concerned with the evolution of the higher education system. In my research, I found out that institutions evolve, just like living organisms, to survive and meet the demands of their environment. With regard to universities, their evolution is shaped by the external pressures and demands put on them. As a case, I am taking a look at the recent privatization and subsequent corporatization of the higher education system. The recent change mostly happened due to financial pressures on our universities stemming from our economic system's adherence to capital and profits. Things of concern within the recent trend are outsourcing of university jobs, increasing significance of the management at the expense of the academe and mass-low quality education (similar to the introduction of mass production in industries at the expense of high quality hand-crafted products). Another sign of corporatization is increased salaries for managers (executives) in universities. The increased pay reflects the tradition in the corporate world where managers, despite not contributing physically to the institution, get paid the most. The question is whether this recent trend is part of the universities' evolution for the better or its invasion by 'capital' and corporate world, yet another sphere of life overtaken by money. One article about the increased pays for executives can be found here : http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/971374-196/nh-higher-ed-salaries-rose-in-decade.html