Missing the Forest for the Trees

I complain a lot about the monolithic nature of American higher education.  In fact, it probably isn’t monolithic.  A monolith is characterized, for better of worse, as something solid, immovable, and uniform. Higher education is none of these.  It shows marked evidence of decay.  And rather than address the larger issues of structure and culture, it picks away at the symptoms and ignores the disease itself.

The symptoms appear regularly in the pages of trade papers, and on convention agendas. For example, the debate over online education has now dragged on for decades, while the rest of society has embraced technology and its benefits.  There is also now much ado about the value of traditional degrees and whether they are worth the cost.  In addition, there is concern with the rise of alternative credentials and a possible return to “vocational” education. All of these issues are part of the considerable discussion about state of the liberal arts. Specifically, there is apprehension surrounding the value of liberal arts education and its role in higher ed. There is also some divergence of opinion as to whether online education is appropriate to the delivery of the liberal arts.

These issues are generally treated as separate topics to be dealt with by different internal constituencies within the higher education community.  Ultimately, this is a band-aid treatment for a more serious disorder. All of these matters point to a larger condition, namely the failure of higher education to keep step with our evolving culture, and the resulting erosion of its efficacy and relevance.

I have discussed (to death) the issue of online education in previous posts; I won’t bore the reader (and myself) with a rehash here.  But in the very recent past, a number of articles have appeared in the media raising the following questions:

                        Are we devaluing the degree?

                        Is the degree worth the cost?

                        Are we returning to vocational education?

                        Are Alternative credentials the new way?

Let’s consider for a bit the intertwined matters of degrees, vocational education, and alternative credentials.  After World War II (Google it, youngsters), America moved away from a system that included vocational training in favor of a system in which the four-year degree became the gold standard. Professional education became largely devalued and stigmatized.

As society has continued to become more complex, with the need for diversified and technical skills, higher education has not kept pace with the need to prepare students for this new reality. Accordingly, the relationship between success in higher education and success in the workplace, and thus success in society, has eroded.  This in turn has resulted in increased skepticism about the value of the four-year degree and in a reconsideration of American education in general. 

The function of higher education has always been to prepare students to become functioning members of society.  However, as society has evolved and higher ed has not, higher ed finds itself in a position where it is not preparing students for the reality that awaits them. The move toward alternative credentialing is not a move away from traditional values.  It is in fact a move toward the new norm— one in which the value of higher education lies in its ability to produce a well-rounded individual who is not only grounded in the liberal arts but also prepared to fill a role in a complex and competitive world of work. The path here cannot be constrained by a postsecondary degree-based system that ignores the value and practicality of shorter and differently structured learning objects.

In short, the move to alternative credentials is part of a call to higher education that reform is imperative if higher education is to remain a viable part of American life.  The for-profit sector of higher education has led the way in demonstrating the integration of liberal arts and professional education (“profession” sounds so much more acceptable than “vocation,” doesn’t it?).  Whether one is a fan of for profits or not, the sector contains various models composed of both degrees and certificates that demonstrate how this can be done.  It also demonstrates the basic business engine that can drive such models.  The rise of for profits is not a blight on higher education; it provides a glimpse what a healthy system would look like structurally. 

The questions raised above are indicative of the tunnel vision that plagues higher education.  We continue to look at individual symptoms without relating them to the real problem—the system. We look at trees while the forest withers.