Two Steps Forward, One Back

Grand Canyon University, Inside Higher Education reports, has taken the unusual step of giving nearly 100 adjuncts full-time positions (“Adjunct Promotion at a For-profit“) in hopes that “having a cadre of long-term online professors will prove a competitive advantage.” It’s another sign of the ways that the for-profit industry might realign itself in the face of an increased regulatory presence.  Grand Canyon may be the first to try to reorganize by redefining the dominant casualized labor model.

In the old lax regulatory environment the schools made money simply by competing for the huge pool of students who were ignored by the public academic industrial complex. Competition without regulatory supervision led to the abuses which (finally) reawakened the regulatory political will. It remains to be seen if the emerging regulatory regime will have any teeth. Meanwhile the for-profit universities have begun to shift their focus away from the now loosing numbers game and towards building institutional capital.

It’s no small thing to get a full-time job, with benefits, in your chosen profession, in a stalled recovery. That’s a form of employment that capital seemed determined to drive off the face of the earth. On the other hand it’s a deeply paranoid model that only a control freak could love: the teachers are asked to adhere to a specific schedule (8 to 12)  and to work in  a designated work space. On yet another hand, you can organize in that sort of space in a way that was difficult if not impossible with everyone working at home…

Redesigning Markets

In the age of the market religion– the Reagan age– corporations pretended that the “invisible hand” shaped markets becuase that allowed them to shape markets.  That underwrote market practices that in more ordinary times would be considered illegal or unethical or both.  Capitalism needs, well, capital, so allowing the  financial corporations to shape the financial markets doomed the economy.

It’s possible to imagine a ruling class/oligarchy that had very different assumptions but, at least in our time, the wealthy and powerful seem almost freakishly unconcerned with the long term. In the market that they shaped, the next quarter mattered and little else. This “damn the future” attitude isn’t just limited to finances. The university powers-that-be, e.g. the administrations, have no monopoly on long term thinking.

They shaped their markets by destroying full time employment, shifting costs to individual students via loans, and raising their salaries.  Greed is the order of the day. They loved the corporate marketing models that made athletic sports so important. They’re no better than the financial sector. This is the environment that birthed the for-profit universities and so it’s not surprising that they too created a market that lacked scruples.

Now that the regulatory machinery is starting to come alive again, we can at least  hope for some democratic input into the ways that certain markets work.  In Higher Education, the point of the  regulatory spear seems to be the for-profits, which makes a certain amount of sense, given the sentimentalism that tends to surround public education. The public universities, though, can’t expect to stay out of the fray for long.

The Secret Life of the Market Religon

The Republican Party, and far too much of the Democratic Party, are market fanatics. That’s an ideological statement, but I think it’s also a fact with a lot of substantive supporting evidence. Fanaticism is both demonstrable and dangerous. You can see it in action simply by watching the Tea Party caucus in Congress. The impasse is a conscious and often explicit strategy and it’s rooted in the market religion.

I’m no fan of liberals, and too often the liberal solution to any given problem is horrible, but the current Democratic Party, the party of President Clinton, is pragmatic to a fault and so willing to compromise.  Arguably, they are too willing to compromise. So the governmental impasse that is slowing down the economic recovery isn’t symmetrical, even if each side is ideologically more similar than is too often assumed.

The Republican strategy is different because it is founded in an irrational faith in markets that may or may not be cynical or self-serving. Do they really believe that the economy will take off if  we were to eliminate environmental regulations?  Is it simply that they get paid to say these things? It’s hard to say. What is clear is that the audience for the market religion has been consciously cultivated over the last three decades.

The idea of a “free market” is no more substantive than “creationist” theories; markets are many things but they are never free. Yet groups like the Koch brothers, and their allies in higher education, like the ACTA, continue to insist that any  “exchange of ideas” about economics must treat the market religion as a rational system and not a faith. I think their creepy desire to collect email is a hunt for converts to their cult.

The Rabbit Takes a Hit

Each of the companies has recently taken steps to reform their student-recruiting practices and reduce their dependence on federal student-aid funds. Mr. Marshall, in an interview, dismissed those moves as mostly “window dressing” that don’t deal with deeper challenges. “We don’t think the reforms are going to work,” he said. “The culture within these companies is not changing. (“Firm Says Poor Governance Puts 3 Higher-Education Companies at Risk of ‘Outright Failure‘”)

There’s more evidence this week that the fast rabbit for-profit universities (where I work) may be loosing their advantage against the slow-moving tortoises of the public sector.  This seems particularly serious, because it could impact a company’s ability to attract new investment as well as borrow money at a reasonable rate.  It also suggests the  economic dilemma that will dominate business in the next decade.

For the last two or three decades, and especially in the last decade, a clever company or university could thrive  by taking advantage of the Republican ideology that disabled regulations.  No one was watching. As the regulatory apparatus slowly and unevenly comes back to life, these companies and schools will have to adapt. The pubic schools will no doubt survive but some for-profits may well go out of business.

The line between public and for-profit is blurry, though, and neither side has a monopoly on ethics or effective governance. The for-profits are so reliant on public money they are arguably not really private at all. That’s why the emerging regulatory system is going to have such an impact. And many of the public universities, like Penn State, are as corrupt and greedy as anything on Wall Street.