Wednesday, August 02, 2017


The Public Option

If you haven’t yet seen Jeff Selingo’s thoughts on affirmative action in selective college admissions, the column is worth reading.  Broadly, he argues that while diversifying the student body at some elite schools is a positive step in itself, the real issue is the designation of elite schools in the first place.  To which I say, let’s take that a little farther.

The conflict over admissions to selective places is based on two assumptions.  The first is that the demand for seats there exceeds the supply, which seems pretty clear.  The second is that seats there are worth far more than seats at less exclusive places.  It’s only worth joining a club that might not accept you as a member.

That second assumption strikes me as clearly unnecessary.  We could choose, if we wanted, to invalidate it.  If we did, the first assumption would likely die a natural death.  

In Canada and the Scandinavian countries, broadly speaking, there isn’t the same rigid hierarchy of prestige in higher ed.  Some universities are better known than others, but nearly all public higher education is respected.  If you go to the University of Ottawa rather than the University of Toronto, your life isn’t over.  People can make decisions based on location, or aesthetic preference, or programmatic specialization.  And for-profit higher education simply never gained the foothold there that it has here.

That’s what a strong public option will do.  It will relieve pressure on the elites by offering reasonable, accessible options of recognized quality.  And it will crowd out the for-profits by denying them a reason to exist.  

Put differently, the best way to attack for-profits isn’t to attack for-profits.  It’s to strengthen community and state colleges.  Make the public options high-quality and let that quality be known.  Dissipate the need for for-profits, and the ones that can’t prove themselves will fade away.

When I was at DeVry, we weren’t afraid of Princeton, or even of Rutgers.  We were afraid of Middlesex County College.  The county college offered more options, lower prices, and a locally respected name.  DeVry competed on marketing and specialization; over time, that proved not to be enough.  

The beauty of a strong public option is that it doesn’t rule out private ones.  It just forces the private ones to do a better job, which benefits everyone.  Those that couldn’t add value wouldn’t survive.  Survival would be predicated on adding value -- doing a better job in a given area, like Juilliard with music -- or adding values, such as a distinct religious identity.  

Defunding the publics is a false economy.  It creates a scarcity at the top, which leads to all manner of zero-sum hypercompetition, and it creates room on the bottom for people with other agendas.  Compare the cost of forgiving loans for Corinthian students to the cost of improving the local community college; the latter is less expensive, and does far more social good.

In the community college world, and at non-selective colleges generally, affirmative action in admissions is a non-issue; we take everybody.  And that’s not at the expense of diversity, either; nationally, community colleges are the most racially and economically diverse sector of higher education.  

Straightforward arguments for more funding seem to have landed on deaf ears, so maybe we can try these.  Strong public institutions offer a way out of the admissions arms race, and offer an effective and legally bulletproof way to solve the quandary of for-profits.  Even better, they already exist.  All we have to do is respect them, both verbally and fiscally.  It’s time to rebuild the middle.

I particularly like your comment comparing the cost of loan forgiveness for the victims of failed for-profit colleges to the cost of bringing community college funding back to where it used to be ... or providing parity with universities. With that, I think our tuition costs would be minimal and faculty quality would be superior to the near-100% adjunct population teaching freshman classes at large universities.

The downside of the current system is that even flagship state universities, like the ones you listed, have an in-state cost that is almost as much as Harvard did just a few years ago, while out-of-state students are paying sky high rates. The only thing they worry about is doing whatever they can to limit the number of asian students that would otherwise get in based on test scores and having a tutoring system so their football and basketball teams can remain eligible.

I wonder what would happen if the Justice Department insisted that the football team have the same diversity as the rest of the school, or vice versa.
The Canadian comparison is an interesting one.

for-profit higher education simply never gained the foothold there that it has here

Furthermore, private colleges, even non-profits, hardly exist in Canada. Wikipedia's list of private universities in Canada lists fewer than two dozen, and the only one I've ever heard of is Farleigh-Dickinson. Compare that the US, where of the 22 top-ranked schools on the US News list (dubious, but still revealing of perceived prestige), only Berkeley is state-funded. I suspect that difference has a lot to do with the relative parity between Canadian institutions versus the perceived extreme inequality between Harvard and Directional State University.
you are posting such a new idea is very interesting and give updates.
msbi training in chennai
Thanks a lot for sharing it, that’s truly has added a lot to our knowledge about this topic. Have a more successful day.
Posted by Assignment Help Sydney
Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to There is no fee, I'm simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I liked what you wrote. I'll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. If "OK" please let me kgnow via email.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?