Thoughts on Higher Education.

People often ask questions such as "why does college cost so much?" and "What's the ROI on a college education?' along with statements such as "I don't want someone to go to school, they should learn a trade". All of these questions/statements concern me. Let me elaborate from the perspective of one 42-year "veteran" of higher education administration. To the first question, there is a curt, only partially true answer that is, "because it can". The untrue part of that snarky statement is that as any economist can tell you, price and cost are different. Costs go up as all goods and services do in any marketplace. Costs are affected by many different factors including inflation, but price is more fluid. Price and cost cannot be equal or any entity operating in that fashion will quickly close. There have to be "net revenues" to continue operation and re-investment in the enterprise. Note I did not use "profit" as profit is paid out to owners and shareholders. Unless a college is proprietary, it does not generate "profits" but net revenues that go toward new programs, facilities and other projects and programs intended to advance the institution. There is a dirty underside (in my estimation) to costs, but I'll address that later. The price of education obviously is tied to costs, but can also reflect a "buyers" willingness to pay a differential for what may be a similar experience. While I hate using the automotive model it seems to work well here. Two cars have similar options, features, and records, however, one is a luxury German brand and the other an American brand. we can argue the merits of the comparison but the fact remains that both drive, both have safety features, and both use fuel, tires, and other parts. The willingness to pay the much higher price for the luxury brand has more to do with the perception than the reality of the vehicle. This has worked its way into higher education as the phenomenon the "Chivas Regal Effect". the perception that because something is priced higher (note: cost is not in the equation here) it is better. Chivas, in a post-war funk, raised its prices to move the needle on perceived quality. Once acquired by Canadian beverage giant Seagrams, Chivas was marketed aggressively as "top shelf" liquor. Throughout it all, the product itself had not changed. (side note: I am an occasional scotch drinker, not a Connoisseur, but I have had Johnny Walker Blue at $185-235 bottle and other scotches in the Johnny Walker line. Blue is NOT worth $235/bottle.) Colleges have used this strategy to compell families to believe if a college "costs" more, it must be better than the less expensive options. This strategy has been used to move an institution into a new peer group of institutions, based primarily on price. The quality has not necessarily changed appreciably, although faculty generally enjoy being paired with a better peer group. The only substantive change is in the net revenue generated, which, as promised, I will expand on further, albeit by going back to real "costs". My major concern has to do with what I refer to as the "arms race" among colleges and universities in adding "attractions" rather than content. Lazy rivers, climbing walls, multiple dining options, private rooms, individual showers, and massive athletics expenses do not contribute to the university mission of teaching and learning. There, I said it. In the current highly competitive market for traditional aged students colleges have expanded the "fun park" aspects of the institution, often at the expense of adequate investment in its academic core. While I find some of Robert Maynard Hutchins' elitism offensive, it is hard to argue about whether the man who took the University of Chicago out of the Big Ten was serious about academics or not. He found football to be a distraction from the serious business of the university. That brings me to my next sensitive spot; ROI. I find the ROI (Return on Investment) question especially offensive. In an education, value added requires participation and effort on part of the student. Again, Hutchins said that the meaning of an education was not filling minds with facts but teaching them to LEARN. Graduates of truly liberal arts education have the critical thinking skill and the information seeking skills to move them forward through life. I say this tempered with disabusing myself of the myth of meritocracy. If America were truly meritocratic, we would be a very different place. The best and the brightest are not found only among elite institutions. Many of our best and brightest minds are developed at a broad array of colleges and universities. With the fall of affirmative action there should be a concurrent discontinuance of legacy admissions. No one can convince me that all of the Kennedy family are so brilliant as to be all Ivy league educated, all of the Bush family? Donald Trump admitted to Penn on merit?! ROI in these cases is more "return on influence". Asking a college to "get my kid a job" or "get her into medical school", is placing all of the effort on one end. Yes, we in colleges and universities have our responsibilty to work with and encourage/guide the students in our care, but the effort has to be two way. To simply ask "what is my ROI?' has ignored the quality of what has been invested. Silk purse out of sow's ear comes to mind. As one who (is, and) has worked with many first generation students the return depends on your own personal investement, not on the price paid. Perhaps this rant has run too long but I must address the trade school training versus the college education. There is no question that tradespeople are critical. They cannot be outsourced. A carpenter or electrician, a stonemason or plumber, cannot work from overseas making these critical jobs very important to our very infrastructure. But keep in mind costs vs. prices. Is a $5/hour carpenter as good as a $15/20 per hour carpenter? we likely all have had experience with poor workmanship, but are we willing to pay the price, which includes the costs, of the more skilled laborer? Union-busting and Trickle Down economics of the 1980s resulted in wealth for very few and decimatedd the American middle class. Once the $15-20 workers ask for more, what will become of them? Many skilled labor jobs are not unlike athletes, there is a limited time span for a career. My own father left his position as a carpenter when he became the "young guy" in his forties. Climbing and building scaffolds requires physical abilities that wane over time. What will our well trained skilled laborers do if they cannot think critically and look for opportunities that require other developable skills? I raise more questions than I answer, and I have neglected an entire section on declining state support for higher education along with predatory student loan practices. Perhaps another time.