|
YES.
 A sink falls from the wall from the wall in a scientists' 40-year-old laboratory.
The faculty member assigned to the teaching/research laboratory must generate the
money to restore the sink, even though when the building was constructed, the
sink and its supports were part of the building infrastructure paid for with state money.
A large lecture hall with fixed seating has many unusable broken chairs.
Replacement will take six months because money is not available for classroom
maintenance, though teaching is a priority mission of the university.
Those signs of corporatization happened this fall at FSU. Imposing a business
model on a public university means academic units are considered "cost centers"
like private business units.
The trend to corporatize the public university by infusing fewer public
dollars and substituting for-profit cost centers is a sign of the larger shift in
our social values about higher education.
The great public universities in America developed with an emphasis on
educational quality to prepare the nation's future leaders, scientists, teachers
and other professionals. Under corporatization, the dominant social value driving
public education is cost efficiency.
Thus, if it isn't cost-efficient to repair the sinks and the chairs now,
because they bring in no additional revenue, we do something else instead --
perhaps build a better stadium.
Less public money does not mean education costs less; costs simply shift to
students and their families. We rely on generous donors to pay for scholarships
and augment faculty salaries or research.
Imposing the business model on education also means that the business sector
shapes the priorities and goals of public education instead of leaving the design
for learning to the faculty. This is in contrast to private donors who give money
to universities but leave the intellectual form of higher education to scholars.
Adoption of the business model for higher education is a priority of our
elected representatives, largely business people, as they pass laws governing the
intellectual form of public universities.
We see an emphasis on faculty productivity using quantitative measures such
as FTEs generated, and rationing education measured by numbers rather than by
students' intellectual attainment.
Recall that in the last two years the Legislative has mandated graduation
with 120 undergraduate credit hours and limited liberal study to 36 credits. This
rationing of education is the antithesis of taking the long view, generating
knowledge and fitting educational experiences to the needs of learners.
We can compare the reshaping of higher education with recent corporatization
in health care.
It would have been scandalous 20 years ago to suggest that laws would be
required to allow women to remain in the hospital more than 24 hours after
childbirth. The emphasis then was on whether the mother and baby were ready to go
home.
Managed care for the chronically ill results in sicker enrollees than the
traditional fee-for-service health system we all grew up under. Similar trends in
higher education are evident in the emphasis on maximizing the number of students
who complete the system in a "one size fits all" model.
Is this fixation on cost savings the message we want to send our youth about
the learning needed to lead society?
The traditional model of the public university provides the best education
in the world, as evidenced by peoples of all nations who come to America to
study. We have no evidence that the profit model will improve the quality of
education. Quite the contrary.
Where are our priorities for higher education? Do we place them on immediate
cost savings and efficiency, or on assurance that learning has occurred to
prepare graduates for a lifetime of social contributions?
Murphy's Response
I certainly agree with Dr. Cowart that teaching is a priority mission of the
university. But applying elements of a model in the operation of a university
does not necessarily threaten a good faculty member's ability to deliver
qualitbusiness model in the operation of a university does not necessarily
threaten a good faculty member's ability to deliver quality education or a
student's ability to learn.
In an ideal world, none of us would have to be concerned about the
competing costs of society's needs. But this is the real world, and we must not
only be concerned but seek solutions to the problem of the underfunding of higher
education.
As long as Florida State University keeps its missions and goals in the
forefront, cost efficiency and business alliances can benefit the university and
give some relief to the taxpayers who support it as well as to the students
and/or parents who pay tuition.
Appropriate alliances with business and industry can yield another
beneficial byproduct. As a former newspaper and magazine editor and as a
communications director for state and national associations, I have hired many
young folks fresh out of some of our best universities. Fortunately, I was able
to hire well educated and talented people.
However, in too many cases, the applicants were all show and no go --
they had credentials from top universities but little understanding of how
business really operates. It seemed they had earned their degrees on some
isolated island. I believe that closer ties with industry might keep
universities, teachers and students in closer touch with the real world.
|
