It’s faculty! Soylent Green is faculty!

18 07 2011

Over the weekend, I saw this story about a crazy band of kids near Pittsburgh who are putting a show on in the old barn out back starting their own college. When I tweeted that story, Jonathan Dresner (who is apparently the Kevin Bacon of all historical tweeters) pointed me to a similar, entirely intellectual exercise that Tim Burke wrote a long, long time ago. I wish all these folks well in their respective endeavors, but I’m afraid Burke put his finger on the problem right out of the starting gate back when he wrote up his vision of college for the 21st Century:

I’m serious about it: if you happen to know where there’s 500 million dollars lying around, I’d very gladly try to be part of building this institution for real.

The main problem here is not that Burke would have trouble finding $500 million lying around (although he would). The problem is that even if he could find $500 million dollars lying around, anyone who might give him that kind of money would not be interested in the same kinds of things that Burke cares about; most notably actually teaching anybody anything. In a capitalist system, investors want a return on their investment and crazy notions like actually teaching people things like the liberal arts are not a real priority.

I don’t want you to think I’m writing entirely about for-profit education here. You don’t have to start an entirely new college from scratch in order to recognize that anyone with capital to invest in education (including the public sector) now expects a return on that investment sooner rather than later. As one of those “sky is falling” articles explained just recently:

The bottom line is that we’re likely to face a future where students and their families pay a lot more of the cost of a college education out of pocket. Without grants and loans as a safety net, students are probably going to make different choices than they do now (read: less expensive choices). We’re likely headed toward a future where smaller, struggling colleges need to move to new models of doing business, while elite, wealthy colleges continue to support the current model.

Why is it that whenever I read the Chronicle these days I feel like I’m living through a scene out of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine? If we all cower in the corner and administrators get to remake the university unfettered by the interests of the professoriate, they are going to eat us for lunch. Soylent Green is faculty! Our salaries will be gobbled up by infrastructure costs that aim to make our universities competitive in the 21st century and they’ll tell the students that they’re implementing the latest in educational technology even as that technology destroys the value of the education they provide.

Unfortunately, nobody is going to hand the faculty $500 million to remake the university from the ground up because in their view we are the cost center. Here’s my pal Music for Deckchairs summarizing Dean Dad better than Dean Dad originally made the point:

As Dean Dad explains, universities are currently having a problem with something called Baumol’s cost disease. In any service industry where the value or benefit of the service provided doesn’t increase much over time, but the delivery cost has to rise in step with the overall labour market, then something has be done either to manage those rising costs, or to justify them. Casualisation is a familiar strategy to try to cut back on actual costs while delivering the same service, ideally concealing the strategy itself from the customer.

Our job then is to be like Charlton Heston and tell the truth. We don’t even have to tell them that Soylent Green is faculty. We just have to explain why Soylent Green isn’t particularly nutritious. Seriously, the primary reason that I don’t go totally Luddite on this entire profession is that if given the opportunity, I don’t think the average bean counter is going to remake the university very well at all.

If I remember my English labor history well enough (and it has been a while since I last read my E.P. Thompson), the Luddites started breaking machinery not just because the power loom was driving them into unemployment, it was driving them into unemployment while producing more of a superior product. Raise your hand if you think the academic equivalent of an automatic checkout machine is going to be a superior product? I don’t think so. When only eight of the jobs expected to see the greatest growth between 2008 and 2018 require a college degree, getting an actual education when you go to college will be more important than ever if you want one of the few good jobs left in America.

If faculty fight academic deskilling and technological unemployment not just for ourselves, but for education’s sake, maybe – just maybe – we can actually save higher education better than the people trying to make a buck off of selling our corpses to the highest bidder.


Actions

Information

5 responses

18 07 2011
Historiann

“[T]he Luddites started breaking machinery not just because the power loom was driving them into unemployment, it was driving them into unemployment while producing more of a superior product. Raise your hand if you think the academic equivalent of an automatic checkout machine is going to be a superior product? I don’t think so.”

I don’t think so either–but perhaps more importantly, the same people who write those condescending articles about the so-called high cost of higher education and question the value of the liberl arts are desperately scheming their kids’ ways into the nation’s elite colleges and universities. I still say that when the ruling class stop applying to HarvardYalePrincetonStanford etc. in favor of Bill Gates’s online university or the University of Phoenix, then I’ll believe them. But until then, I can’t take them seriously. They all sound to me like so many middle-class strivers who don’t want their kids to have to compete with working-class kids to get into the unis of their choices.

18 07 2011
Trota Campos

I want to think that Campaign for Higher Ed shares that goal ~ actually saving higher education ~ but suspect they are just moving the deck chairs around, The band plays on

20 07 2011
Middle Seaman

We spend way too much time deflecting the insults from rich people instead of planning way to grab their riches for public use, e.g. cheaper higher education. Liberal arts don’t imply sitting on your hands.

As for universities as they are today: Sorry, universities today are anachronisms. There were basically no changes to university education since FDR (an arbitrary time). We started with minimal technology, different art, different literature and different world structure than we have now. Did it affect education? NO! We have to change. Money should be sucked out from Citibank, we should provide the road map for change (not Obama style god forbid).

3 04 2012
I’m only paranoid because everyone’s against me. « More or Less Bunk

[…] summer, I wrote: [T]he primary reason that I don’t go totally Luddite on this entire profession is that if given […]

7 05 2014
Tell me how you teach and I will tell you who you are. | More or Less Bunk

[…] * Amazingly, I’ve actually made a “Soylent Green” joke on this blog already, “It’s faculty! Soylent Green is faculty!” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: