With the swirling national dialogue about college affordability and student debt, there has been no shortage of ideas and pronouncements made by political leaders, pundits and experts. Many of those statements are illustrated with examples from the personal experience of the speaker.
But what role should personal experience play when it comes to making policy decisions about the important changes ahead for U.S. higher education?
The short answer is, not much.
Because while the buildings may look the same — and even some of the people who teach and lead the institutions may be constants — for the most part what higher education does, and who it serves, is dramatically different than it was only a few decades ago.
Many of our political leaders have recognized that new approaches are needed. Some are helping to strengthen community college systems across the country. Others are advocating for performance-based funding to help students complete their degrees faster and more affordably. But more needs to be done, and here’s why.
Thirty years ago, America’s economic capacity was driven by manufacturing, and its global prowess in finance and the service sector was near its zenith. Our position in the world was largely defined by conflict with the Soviet Union. And our social and cultural lives were framed in large part by television and the limited programming available through three TV networks.
In the post-World War II/GI bill era, higher education in the nation was democratized. It changed from a system that served the privileged few to one that served increasingly larger groups of people. Still, in the early 1980s, no one could have predicted how critical higher education would become, with nearly two-thirds of all jobs requiring some form of postsecondary education and with demand for higher levels of skills driving debates about everything from immigration to economic policy.
Technology changed a lot of things. In 1982, the Commodore 64 computer had just been introduced, and Time magazine declared the computer as its Person of the Year. Yet few could have envisioned how dramatically and fundamentally technology would change how we live and work.
The effect of technology on the demand for higher education and how it functions has been profound — with one important exception.
Technology has spawned online learning and money management systems as well as virtual content/project management, not to mention Wikipedia, the use of cellphones and smartphones, and remote access for those who previously have been shut out of higher education. Social networking has changed higher education as well, especially the student experience, with much more peer interaction taking place virtually.
Yet, with all of this innovation and growth, what hasn’t changed significantly is that pedagogy has remained the same. It’s the one area where “when I was in college” is probably still a safe bet. Of course, that raises all kinds of other issues given that collaborative coursework, remote learning and real-time feedback are seen by many of the insiders as icing when, in a knowledge economy, they need to be the cake.
Who higher education serves has also changed dramatically. Today, fewer than 1 in 5 college freshmen graduated from high school in the prior year and immediately enrolled in a residential four-year institution. Today’s student runs the gamut racially, ethnically, socially and economically.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.