Thorough and interesting discussion of what higher ed is facing at this moment, and I don't say that just because it discussed my book in some detail. chronicle.com/article/can-hi…
I'm classified as one of the "utopians," which is fair enough, though I'd call myself a realist in that within the article's taxonomy, the utopians are the ones who advocate for the necessity of structural change to shift the status quo.
The author thinks that the most important reform institutions should pursue is a focus on delivering quality and meaningful instruction. That's at the core of my argument. I attack the structures of the institution because of how they stand in the way of that.
Why They Can't write argues for a shift in pedagogy, but at the same time, the biggest boost to quality of writing instruction would be to make sure that no instructor carriers more than the maximum # of students (60). Instructors often double that. That problem is structural.
The closing paragraph suggests that the utopians are naive to believe that that the structural change that could be brought about by free college is possible because, well, government is never going to do that. This demonstrates one of the chief barriers to change that I cover.
I open my book talking about the problems of the "political economy" using @KBAndersen's Evil Geniuses as a frame. The author of the Chronicle piece is demonstrating the cost of the dysfunctional political economy, a belief that change is desirable, but also impossible.
There has been a 40 year campaign to seed and develop this narrative by @KBAndersen's "evil geniuses," so it's not surprising that it is so strong, but it's the very thing that needs attacking, and there's plenty of signs that it can be overcome.
The fact that we are even discussing a debt jubilee, and it's been supported by the Senate Majority Leader would've been unfathomable even two years ago. The $15 minimum wage is having trouble in the legislature, but it's overwhelmingly popular in the public.
People are fed up with the bullshit. To believe that government can be responsive to the needs of the public, which is all I'm arguing for in my book, should not and need not be viewed as utopian.
Calling someone who believes structural change is necessary "naive" is a dodge from addressing some of the core questions we have to be wrestling with. Should government act to fund and nurture public goods like public higher education or not?
This is both a philosophical and practical question. Philosophically, it's a no-brainer for me. But even practically, a public good system of public higher education would be cheaper (in aggregate), more accessible, more efficient, and more effective.
Is that naive? I think it's necessary.
Seriously, though, read the article. Very worth your time. Plenty to think about and wrestle with. chronicle.com/article/can-hi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
