Honest and Empty

\ Leave a Comment \ by

“There will always be some leaders who choose to manage for the short term … particularly when they hold the highly liquid equity stakes that the leadership of private-sector institutions sometimes receive as part of their compensation. This isn’t a theoretical issue; it has happened.”

Andrew Rossen, quoted in ‘Change.edu’ and the Problem With For-Profits by Robert M. Shireman

I work in the proprietary sector, and I think that Rossen is correct. You cannot offer huge salaries and bonuses for short=term profitability and expect executives and managers to think long-term. In such a situation, as Shireman rightly points out, “The temptations to do ill are unrelenting.” Interestingly, Shireman calls Rosen’s ideas both “refreshingly honest” and “empty.” It’s hard to disagree.

What I don’t like about Shireman, though,  and other critics of the for-profit sector, is that they do not go far enough. This is a systemic problem of neoliberalism’s relentless market religion. It’s certainly true that our sector of the education system needs strong regulation.  At this point in history, though, it should be obvious that the entire system, profit or not, needs similar reforms.

Posted in: Economics, Professional, Writing

Pots and Kettles

\ Leave a Comment \ by

As someone who works in the for-profit higher education, I am often dismayed at what happens in my little corner of the economy. I think our industry emerged in an economic culture that was far too unregulated and far too greedy. I think we need more regulation and I think that our industry doesn’t need to be so narrowly focused on short-term profits. We share all the problems of modern U.S. capitalism, in other words.

I am also often dismayed at the way problems in the for-profit sector seem to be used as cover for the more profound problems in the public sector.  These problems are dwarfed by the exploitation of adjunct labor, bloated  administrative salaries, the weakening of tenure, the corruptions of big college sports, and the rise of student debt, to name only a few, that have characterized the public sector for the last three or four decades.

These problems in the public sector are more profound because they set the standard for the culture at large.  For-profit schools will come and go– that’s the nature of a market– but without a democratic, service oriented public university system we might not have a democracy or a functioning economy at all. I think, too,  that the for-profit sector will not flourish without profound reform in the public sector.

Posted in: Autobiographical, Economics, Professional, Writing

Corruption Studies, University Sports Division

\ 1 Comment \ by

I can’t decide if the ongoing stories about coaches and administrative salaries (“From the Sideline to the Bottom Line“) are going to have a Lenny Bruce effect– if you repeat something often enough it looses all power to shock– or an “occupy” effect of  driving protest by emphasizing just how profoundly greed shapes what are supposed to be institutions devoted to public service.

It makes me wonder if we ought to be advocating for Corruption Studies as a new form of cultural studies;  here, we would be studying one of its main branches, the University Sports Division. I think that Corruption Studies would begin with a discussion of the history of the ongoing rise of tuition and fees on the one hand, and student debt on the other, over the course of the last three or four decades.

This history would then be contrasted or juxtaposed with the rise of big time university sports programs and, more specifically, the fantastically inflated salaries of coaches.  As the sports programs grow larger– supposedly, at least nominally and at first, as a way to support the universities academic missions– and generate more money, tuition, fees, and debts rise. That’s corruption in a nutshell.

Posted in: Economics, Professional

Higher Education at Ben Tre

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Another end of the year piece– this time in the Washington Post (“Guest post: Eight thoughts on higher education in 2012,” Daniel de Vise)–decrying the state of Higher Education in the U.S. and calling for reform, if in a very vague fashion. The main point seems to be that “we” (meaning the administrators in control of universities) need to think differently. I don’t know how these guys avoiding saying “outside the box.”

In this piece– written from deep within the reality distortion field–everyone is doing their best, gosh darn, except that there are these “conditions” that seem to be causing so much trouble.  We (those administrators again) can only raise tuition so far, for example, because, well, there’s a “practical ceiling”– e.g. people run out of money, especially when the few is growing so rich at the expense of the many.

In the optimistic view of Masters Clark and Eyring the university is experiencing the “short-term disruptions” of innovation.  All will be well if we (administrators) embrace the “profitable opportunities” of online education. In other words, business focused models have nearly destroyed the traditional university so only business focused models can fix it. You have to burn the village to save it.

Posted in: Economics, Professional, Writing