The
Cost of Efficiency
Years ago the University of Phoenix spooked higher
education. What does it mean to have a for-profit university (a subsidiary of
Apollo Group, NASDAQ: APOL)? Despite drastic enrollment declines
recently, it boasted some 600,000 students in 2010 (founded in 1976). Will this
new model change the face of higher education?
The answer is a definite
yes! Labor costs are low since faculty members are underpaid, and quality
learning is less important than the coveted degree at the end of coursework.
With many online courses offered at competitive prices, this model is thriving.
By contrast, large
public universities, whose budgets have been cut because of financial
constraints, saw something they liked about this model that lowered labor costs
and managed to do away with tenure. Our state funds about 5% of the CU budget
and about 75% of it is allocated to faculty and staff compensation.
There is only so much
“green savings” out of operating budgets. Tuition increases have a tolerance
threshold for students and their parents as well. So, to lower costs, why not go
after faculty and staff, the largest portion of the budget? Staff members are
protected by state legislation, the jobs of tenured faculty are protected by
law, so the wages of non-tenured faculty remain targets.
Additionally, large
campuses instituted large courses with enrollment in the hundreds. A professor
gives a weekly lecture, and graduate students meet with sections and grade
assignments. Graduate students are cheap labor when compared to having to hire
more professors to lecture and grade.
Moreover, when a faculty
retires, passes away, or resigns, replacement is always at the part-time level with
huge salary savings ($80,000à$20,000). Universities’ reliance on the army of under-employed and
over-educated young teachers has been so great that overall less than 30% of
all courses are taught by tenure-track professors.
Should this worry us?
The quality of education remains the same with good guidance, mentorship, and
highly qualified faculty members who cannot find full-time employment. Are they
more transient? Not necessarily, because opportunities are equally thin around
the country. Are these part-time employees less committed? Not at all: their
good behavior could translate into a full-time job in the future.
With the advent of
technology, this business model has been perfected. What in the past were
additional course materials—lectures by great experts and scholars, videos of
faraway places, films of historical significance—have been recently proposed as
a partial replacement of faculty. MOOCs (massive online open courses) have been
developed by private companies and are offered to universities, private and
public alike, at various fee structures. Once adopted, are professors needed at
all?
Perhaps this is part of
the ongoing trend towards greater (digital) productivity; perhaps partial
replacements will become permanent. According to the Economic Policy Institute, economic productivity grew 80%
from 1973 to 2011; it grew 23% between 2000 and 2011. Digital technologies have
much to do with it, and therefore we are facing a jobless recovery. Are MOOCs a
natural wave of the future?
CU President
Benson welcomes the introduction of MOOCs but proposes hybrid courses, where
some time is still spent in classrooms. This model, however implemented, misses
the point of trying to increase enrollment without the need for faculty or
classrooms—a virtual academy.
It’s not
simply quantity vs. quality. Nor is this a self-serving rant about professors. Instead,
this constitutes a rethinking of what the university is all about. When President
Kerr of the California system promised industry that his campuses would prepare
students for future jobs, he promised skill sets and discipline (1963/2001).
But is this really what businesses want?
Paypal founder
Peter Thiel offers high-school graduates $100,000 not to go to college (because
the real world is where lessons are learned) as a bold retort to Kerr’s agenda:
why waste money on higher education at all?
Instead of only
framing the discussion of MOOCs as a debate over labor rights and assault on
faculty tenure, we should also frame it in terms of what future citizens we’d
like to live with. Where do we teach team-work or leadership? Where do we learn
about our history and values? Where is the balance between individual rights
and duties examined?
Without
these fundamental lessons, we’d be lost to fear and greed; without these
experiences, we’d be careless and thoughtless. Do businesses want that? Or do
they want instead creative and challenging employees that one day will change
the world? The jury is still out on whether MOOCs are up to the challenge. If
the ire over for-profit online learning is not directed in the right place,
neither the university nor the business world is served.
Raphael
Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who wrote A Sanctuary of Their Own: Intellectual Refugees in the Academy. Contact:
rsassower@gmail.com; Other: sassower.blogspot.com
