Gates, Buffet, Ellison, Walton, and Koch: Here’s What We Want for Christmas

After 30 years of “greed is good” even Gordon Gekko is having second thoughts. Arguably, the extreme accumulation of wealth promoted by Reagan-style politics is finally producing the first hints of what might be an entirely new age of philanthropy. After the steel and railroad magnates were allowed to amass huge fortunes, they gave back at least a fraction of the wealth to libraries and universities and museums. Something similar seems to be emerging now.

The poster child for the new philanthropy is the Gates-Buffet plans to give away billions, much of it to health and human services programs in the developing world. Whatever criticism you might have of these efforts, they are at least an attempt to get at root causes. As dramatic as the Buffer Gates plan sounds, between them and the other top five billionaires, there’s more than a 100 billion dollars in their hands. I know what I would like for Christmas.

I think that if these new philanthropists really want to create a permanent, long lasting change they should get together and agree to donate at least 10% of their fortunes to a permanent fund for college. They could then browbeat the next, say, twenty or thirty richest people for another 10 or 15 billion. That would create a permanent fund worth 20 to 30 billion or more. The application for funds should be short and simple and leave everything else up to the colleges.

If you can get into the college of your choice, community college to Harvard, the fund will pay. If you can stay in college, that is if you can meet the requirements of full time status at the college of your choice, the fund would continue to pay until you graduate. The only requirement is that you could not work elsewhere for money– internships and the like are fine. The fund would be generous too, paying room and board, a stipend for incidentals, as well as textbooks.

You can use the fund once in your life for an undergraduate degree, but it could be used it at any time in your life. The fund is a sliding scale. If your family makes less than $150,000 a year in combined income, the fund would pay 100%; it would pay less in small increments until your income reaches $300,000. At that point you don’t need any help. In a single swoop philanthropy could lay the foundation of a completely different culture and economy.

Obvious and Not Obvious

It’s nearing the end of the year and so it’s time for the proliferation of top ten lists and predictions for 2011. It’s always both enjoyable and, often, more than a little irritating. I just read a piece in Campus Technology, “5 Higher Ed Tech Trends To Watch in 2011,” by Bridget McCrea. Most of the list is boring and very predictable– cloud and mobile technology dominate– until you get to the very last item: “A Retreat from Technology Overload is Imminent.” It’s an intriguing idea, I think, although the shape of the retreat is debatable.

Arguably, what we are seeing is a bifurcation of the use of communication technologies along class lines. It’s an emerging picture that’s both hazy and complex. On the one hand there’s the emergence of technologies that are either so expensive or so time consuming to master– the I-PAD and many so-called new media technologies might be good examples– that they are difficult to implement outside of elite settings. This sort of bifurcation is aided by the increasing cost of education, of course.

On the other hand there’s some indication that elite institutions may be retreating from new communication technologies. If we wanted to be optimistic, we can hope that this is becuase they’ve realized that certain kinds of learning– particularly those associated with social capital– are facilitated by face to face interaction. If we want to be cynical, we might suspect that these institutions are attempting to strengthen their brand identification by creating a sharper contrast with the ever growing use of technology elsewhere.

The community colleges and for profit schools continue their embrace of educational technologies such as the internet, and continue to serve working class and poor communities increasingly ignored by the elite institutions. Meanwhile, the elite schools seem to be racing away from even the middle classes. In this sort of environment, the use of technology in the classroom may eventually become a sign of a lesser education, rather than the mark of innovative experimentation. Now that’s a trend worth watching.

Class Struggle

It’s a cliche by now to say that Americans don’t discuss or really understand class. It’s more accurate, though, to say that those Americans who profess to have some understanding of American society and economics don’t understand class. It’s a cliche, but it’s still true: class is almost invisible here in the United States, at least in official discourse.

Of course, if you are one of the many getting poorer– or the millions without insurance or unemployed– you know class all too well. Class, as Marx famously said, is always a class struggle for working people, a kind of ongoing, constant battle to keep yourself afloat. Lots of people in the U.S. seemed to believe that by creating a large, affluent middle class we ended this struggle for good.

We haven’t, of course, and we are paying a high price for our complacency. We’ve reached a point, in fact, where the only way we can get the most basic kinds of social support– unemployment insurance, even a temporary raise in our wages– is by paying off the rich. We get a tiny 2% break in taxes and another year of unemployment insurance. The rich get billions.

So the Chronicle of Higher Education’s statistical portrait of the undergraduate population ought to be much less of a surprise. As it turns out, just as wages have declined, and the costs of college have been increasingly shifted to the individual, fewer and fewer students “live on leafy campuses and party hard—many others are commuters, full-time workers, and parents.”

White Elephants

If you spend a little time reading around on the education media, you get a strong sense of impending doom. The private, for-profit universities are facing powerful new regulations that may well shut them down or curtail operations; at least one, Kaplan, is already announcing lay offs. The private, not for profits, long almost completely unregulated, face increasing calls for regulations and accountability. Everything’s up for grabs; the room’s full of white elephants.

The public universities have been in an almost constant state of financial crisis for many years, and even the money-printing athletic conferences are, in fact, often operating in the red. The long festering problems centered around the destruction of tenure and the over reliance on part time faculty are beginning to be reflected in increasingly clear ways in the research into college teaching. Educators love to use the rhetoric of crisis, but it may be justified now.