How bad, or good, are our universities?

I am not so much impressed by the faults and failings of the university—they are real enough, but largely the product of frightening trends toward inequality in American society that the universities can combat only to a limited degree. It’s more the survival of the university that amazes and concerns me. It’s one of the best things we’ve got, and at times—as when reading these books—it almost seems to me better than what we deserve.

That is an excerpt from this essay in the NY Review of Books, which looks at four recent books on the state of American higher education.  The author, an Ivy Leaguer for decades, isn't impressed with most of the criticism, including from Hacker and Dreifus, whose book highlighted the university where I work as one of the best returns on the investment.

The author is a tad unfair when he writes

Universities are not so isolated from the tragic past, but they still make a claim to speak with eloquence across the centuries. They often fail, they need reform and course correction, but they are not, at their best, merely venal and self-serving. They deserve better critics than they have got at present.

Unfair to the critics.  And unfair to how much in reality universities have indeed become venal and self-serving.

He does have a great point in noting about the likes of the Ivies:

reminds me of the time I lived in rural Virginia and drove some distance on Sundays to buy The New York Times: the storekeeper would squint at me as I handed over my $5.00 and declare, “‘T’ain’t worth it.” While he was probably right about the Sunday Times, I doubt that many students (or their parents) will really pass up admission to the Golden Dozen for a place at Ole Miss. For both the wrong reasons and the right reasons, America’s elite colleges will continue to be coveted (Harvard just reported a record 35,000 applications for its next freshman class).

Critiquing the likes of Harvard is not only a wasteful exercise, but incorrect too.  Every time I go to a conference, or watch an interview on C-Span/BookTV, I can see so easily the phenomenal game that the Ivy scholars bring to the discussions.  Even if those faculty are rarely around thanks to sabbaticals and other deals (which Hacker & Dreifus, and Taylor write a lot about) they make it possible for the talented and the driven to aggregate at a place called the university.  There are plenty of advantages in such agglomeration, infinitely above and beyond a simple diploma. 

If I had a son or daughter who is college-ready, then of course I would want that child to attend the best possible university based on this academic quality and not based on any cost-benefit analysis.  So, yes, I agree with the author that Ole Miss can't stand a chance against the Ivies.

But, therein lies the issue--an Ole Miss or my own university wasn't set up to become an alternative to Harvard!  These other institutions have missions that are distinct from those of a Harvard or Stanford.  But, even these universities think and work as if they are nothing but a Harvard-lite.  The focus on "research" at third-rung universities is a classic example--most of the research publications that faculty from third-tier universities are in third and fourth rate journals, which seem to have brought into existence only to serve as an outlet for the great pretenders.

It is the mission creep that is awful, and this occurs mostly at public institutions, whether they are community colleges or state universities.  Community colleges, for instance, have gotten to be very expensive because for the past couple of decades they have been hiring faculty with doctorates and awarding them additional pay for that unnecessary qualification.  Should we wonder why they have become expensive then?  It is like going to a heart specialist to get treatment for a common cold!

It is also this mission creep that Hacker and Dreifus point out, though they could have been a lot more focused on this argument.  The proliferation of academic majors and programs at smaller universities like mine, as if we are a Harvard with the capabilities to offer such a vast array of courses and programs is mission creep that arose out of trying to pretend that we are Ivies.