The Department of “While Rome Burns”

There’s quite a lot of discussion about crisis in my book, both in terms of the two historical crises (the Great Depression and World War II) that had such a profound effect on the teaching of English, and in terms of the contemporary crisis, which I argue is less about pedagogy than it is about institutional power. Academics have allowed others to control our professional lives.

There’s not a fundamental crisis in funding, or in the market for English majors, or the use of part time labor, or the rising costs of tuition. (See this “Redesigning Today’s Graduate Classroom” for a recent example of these misconceptions.) The crisis is symptomatic of working people in academia who no longer believe in the power of organizing together towards collective goals.

The attacks on unions in Wisconsin should be instructive to academics. The budget crisis wasn’t caused by the unions, and it won’t be solved by breaking their power. The attacks on the unions is about trying to shift power away from democratic control so that money and capital can be moved out of the public sphere and into private hands. It’s simply a redistribution of wealth.

Markets are not natural phenomena; they are shaped by more or less explicit policy decisions. We can’t reshape the market for liberal arts graduate students simply by teaching them differently. We have to seize control of the mechanisms of policy and create a market that suits our goals. The only way to do that is to organized ourselves into unions. Right now, the rest is fiddling.

More on the Goose

I keep mulling over the sometimes deserved bad reputation of the proprietary education sector where I work. It’s not easy to get the facts straight. Our students have loan default rates that are significantly higher than other kinds of institutions. (You can see a chart with the numbers, here.) That’s a serious problem. Administrators, like administrators everywhere, work the numbers to make their schools look better. That’s not likely to change.

Default rates are high and going up everywhere, as are tuition and fees, and we still have an unemployment rate of nearly 10%. I do think that the costs of education ought to be tightly regulated, but I don’t know how to figure in the premium you pay for the ability to study from home. Eventually, the for-profits will have to compete with the community colleges and other public institutions for these ‘at home students’ and the for-profits will be forced to lower their prices.

That’s long term and it doesn’t help students now, myself included (my loans are from public schools). If the economy were stronger and so the deficit smoke screen less effective, I think there would be increasing pressure for some sort of relief program for student debt. After all, far more students in default went to school in the public sector. (We have more in default proportionately, but fewer in absolute numbers.) That’s not likely to happen soon either.

What really bothers me is that I don’t feel the public schools have much moral ground for their disdain of the for profits. It’s hard to see the public sector as any more or less exploitative than the private sector. Can we say, for example, that the public sectors’ sometimes wasteful use of public money on president’s salaries or multimillion dollar athletic programs, is any more or less corrupt than the private sectors’ sometimes ugly recruitment policies and high costs?

Guard that Goose

The for profit education sector, where I work, grew out of two historic circumstances. First, the public sector’s inability to expand beyond their traditional demographics and technologies. (This might be finally changing, if this Western Governors University Indiana is successful.) And second, the existence of government insured– and easily available– student loans.

The public universities left a gaping hole in the market, and the student loan system made it profitable. I wouldn’t want the private system to take over the entire system (we are only a small part of the market) but if the for profits aren’t careful, they will kill the goose that laid their golden egg. (See “Many For-Profits Are ‘Managing’ Defaults to Mask Problems, Analysis Indicates“.)

Regulations shape corporate behavior, so it’s not surprising that schools are creating policies that make the data (on two year default rates) look good. They’ll do the same when the policy shifts to three year default rates. Schools won’t remain profitable, though, if their main story– that an education is worth the investment–begins to seem like a weak sales pitch.

Part of the default rate has to be related to the fact that our students are less affluent, although that is not the only explanation. The rates will improve as the economy improves, too, but that is not going to eliminate all defaults either. In the long run, the rate will only decline if all schools– for profit or otherwise– are tightly regulated, and if we rely less on loans and more on grants.