The scientific process is broken. The tenure process, “publish or perish” mentality, and the insufficient review process of academic journals mean that researchers spend less time solving important puzzles and more time pursuing publication. But that wasn’t always the case.
In Great Britain, as in the United States, a growing moral consensus and a lack of political diversity among faculty and administrators is moving higher education away from the pursuit and transmission of knowledge in favour of the promotion of politically correct values. Bad as that problem is in the U.S., it is at least as bad on this side of the Atlantic; perhaps worse. While in America there is strong pushback against those who want to change universities from places of open inquiry into places that tell students what they should think, there is less of that in Britain.
An especially pernicious brand of environmentalism—”sustainability”—is on the verge of becoming an unstated, but very real, part of North Carolina State University’s mission. University leaders are developing an aggressive public relations campaign and curriculum change that could create a system in which students are inculcated in social justice, environmental justice, and progressivism—all of which are tenets of sustainability. Left unchecked, this seemingly harmless movement (which has a strong presence at other North Carolina universities, too) could sow the seeds of social upheaval by turning hearts and minds away from the principles of a free society.
As a liberal who grew up near California’s Bible Belt in Orange County, I was brought up to believe that the enemies of reason were the Christian creationists who taught that the world is 6,000 years old and that biologists can’t explain the evolution of complexity without invoking a divine creator. While I still believe creationists are wrong, I have come to see their progressive academic counterparts as a bigger problem. I’ll call them the New Creationists. They use Darwin as a bludgeon against the old creationists, but then reject scientific conclusions when they conflict with their political convictions.
We have come to ignore what has always been understood as a primary goal of education: the formation of reflective and responsible citizens. We are paying the price for that neglect today. All too many Americans, even nominally well-educated ones, do not understand their own political and economic systems, and are appallingly ignorant of the American past. They are bereft of any sense of love for, or profound connection to, their own nation and its traditions. Needless to say, such citizens will have neither the intelligence nor the heart to meet the rigorous challenges of a very demanding future. We will have to do better, and start doing so very soon, if we are to maintain a republican form of government.
The multi-billion dollar college athletics industry is under attack. While there is no shortage of reports on academic and financial abuses, a new problem is emerging: evidence of long-term neurological effects caused by high-impact head trauma in football. This problem has gained notoriety from a new movie, Concussion, which tells the story of a doctor trying to link previous head trauma to uncommon deaths in professional football players.
Many students and their families are starting to wonder about the value of going to college at every expense only to come back home afterwards and settle into a mundane job that high schoolers could do—a growing problem that Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa examined in their latest book, Aspiring Adults Adrift. That being the case, colleges that can point to successes in preparing students for careers and helping them land jobs that actually call for higher education have a big advantage over those that can’t. As a result, the last decade has seen a surge in college programs intended to integrate study and work.
We’ve all heard the refrain: “college graduates make a million dollars more in their lifetimes than high school graduates.” The “college premium,” as it is called, is used to justify a wide variety of personal and policy decisions. But the real college premium is an exceedingly complex concept that cannot be captured by a single number. As Margaret Spellings takes the leadership role in the University of North Carolina system, let us hope that she does not fall for the simplistic rhetoric concerning the benefits of college attendance that has led her predecessors to push for expanded enrollment—and that she has at times fallen for as well.
Higher education’s gains from productivity should be put to better use. As it stands now, amazing innovations in teaching and education delivery are benefiting the system instead of the student. Universities should take advantage of the efficiencies that exist by decreasing administrative staff and insisting that faculty teach more. Only then will students benefit from the recent innovations in higher education.
The Pope Center’s latest report, The State of the State University 2015: Critical Facts about the University of North Carolina System, is a must-read for students, parents, taxpayers, and policymakers who want the UNC system to achieve its highest potential—and its peak efficiency. Here’s hoping that, in 2016, North Carolina leaders, instead of sugarcoating the shortcomings identified in this report, choose instead to address them head on.
