There is debate regarding the purpose of higher education –
is it to get a job or get an education? My philosophy of higher education is
that we are not preparing our graduates for their first job, we are preparing
them for a lifetime of jobs. So, the short answer for me is the purpose of
higher education is to get an education… or more precisely, to learn how to
learn. Unfortunately, this answer is all too simplistic and deserves more
attention and depth.
Rising costs of higher education have caused many to
question the value of traditional degrees. This has been particularly true in
recent years as graduates have struggled to find relevant work in their field
of study. Certainly, there are fields where this is less of an issue, and we
have seen placement rates rise in recent years, but it is still more
challenging to start a career following college than it is to simply find a
job… and a career is what graduates are seeking.
To justify the tuition and other costs associated with
college, graduates are seeking to embark on a career and earn a living wage with
enough resources to pay back their student loans. To be sure, I am not one who
fully buys into the media hype regarding student loan debt. However, according
to Forbes, the average student in the Class of 2016 graduated with $37,172 in
student loan debt. But these numbers are somewhat skewed by the heavy debt load
of some students. When you dig into the numbers, roughly 66% of borrowers owe
less than $25,000 and 37% owe less than $10,000.
Now, before you post your angry response because you are a
graduate who has borrowed significant amounts of money to pay for your
education, I too am concerned with these rising numbers. I am simply making the
point that rising costs, and the subsequent rising debt, should not alter
one’s thinking about the purpose of higher education. It is still more about
the learning than the job. But it does call into question one’s expectation
when they enter college. Have we in higher education created an unrealistic
expectation for both our students and the community of constituents who hire
our students?
Practicality, not true learning, is becoming the norm so
higher education institutions can confidently report meeting the needs of the
workforce in communities across the nation. Designing degrees and creating programs
that represent the local workforce has long been the purview of community and
technical colleges, but now we are seeing state universities and private,
liberal arts colleges jumping into the fray trying to beat the competition to
the next great degree. And when you throw for-profit institutions into the mix,
the dizzying array of degrees, programs and micro-credentials is almost
alarming. Can higher education sustain this pace of change?
But all of this is an interesting discussion in the context
of the purpose of higher education. In a 2016 report by the organization
Imperative, it is suggested that the current generation of college students are
more purpose-oriented than any previous generation. Not necessarily more driven
to succeed or more intelligent, just more interested in pursuing learning
defined by purpose rather than the traditional academic major. Generation Z
students seem to understand the value of an education for the sake of learning.
Of course, these students do not represent the majority attending college
today, but wouldn’t it be interesting to transform our programs and curriculum to be more purpose-driven?
Historically, higher education has been focused on advancing
knowledge and learning through faculty research. But this focus seems somewhat
outdated with the growing population of post-traditional students who seek more
relevancy and autonomy in their learning and the newest generation of students
seeking purpose. The “sage on the stage,” who teaches what is relevant to them
or their research, is fast-becoming a thing of the past; replaced by
instructors who seek to teach and learn with their students. Discovering
knowledge in creative ways is the new learning – both for students and
instructors. Precisely defined learning outcomes and connecting students with
real-world problems seems an exciting way to help students find relevancy and
purpose. But we still think in terms of teaching and learning, a dichotomy that
sets the instructor apart from the student. When I facilitate a class, I often
learn as much as my students. I certainly have knowledge and experience to
share, but so do the students. A vibrant learning environment allows this
two-way exchange to occur.
I do buy into the idea that higher education should
vigorously strive to develop in all parties a capacity for creation, change and
innovation. This is consistent with my idea that the purpose of higher
education is to prepare graduates to learn how to learn. When reading on this
topic, I am often overwhelmed by the aggrandized language used to define this
purpose. Language built around the idea of achieving the American Dream,
diversity and inclusion, citizenship and democracy and other equally
interesting, yet overstated ideas. Don’t misunderstand, I think these are all
valuable outcomes of a college education and certainly central to social
mobility and being productive members of our society. However, I think we
over-promise and under-deliver. If we simplified (I know, this may come across
as “dumbing it down”) our purpose to be clear and to-the-point, like learning
how to learn, then does this not represent all the other articulated purposes
out there? Would it not be more consistent with the relevancy and purpose our
students are seeking?
