The Hidden Costs of Tenure
In effect, tenure is a barrier to entry in the academic job market that makes it difficult to replace poorly performing faculty with better alternatives.
In effect, tenure is a barrier to entry in the academic job market that makes it difficult to replace poorly performing faculty with better alternatives.
Wharton School professor Peter Cappelli has taken a careful look at the relative costs and benefits of college and concludes that going to college can be a terrible decision for many young Americans. He objects to “unqualified statements about the big payoff to a college degree.” His book, Will College Pay Off?, also provides some insight into the crucial question: What are employers looking for?
To hear some policymakers talk, one would think colleges and universities exist mainly to enhance economic growth rather than to educate.
The emergence of a holistic, individual-centered approach to guidance, which informs students of alternate paths, is promising. New innovations are addressing an issue that public high schools have been straining to solve. Raising awareness of alternate careers, apprenticeships, and earning non-degree certificates will allow more students to enter the workforce early and without amassing debt. That may not be the right path for everyone, but more high school graduates need to be aware of those options and more. Any progress in this long-neglected area is welcome.
Today, the system is faced with an important existential question: how to “right-size” the system itself, which may include reducing the number of campuses. This question badly needs to be addressed, and soon; as Harry Smith, the chair of the Board of Governor’s budget and finance committee, admitted in March, “[P]eople have been ducking this conversation for a long time.”
The most important decision that the University of North Carolina system’s Board of Governors will make this year is the selection of the next system president. Board members have an excellent opportunity to find someone willing to initiate a badly needed departure from the university establishment’s status quo.
If certain subjects are studied less in the academy, they will be studied more outside of it, and by those who are seriously interested. And that may turn out to be for the best. After all, many top poets, such as T.S. Eliot and Wallace Stevens, and many important thinkers, from John Locke to Edmund Burke to John Stewart Mill to Eric Hoffer, had non-academic day jobs when they produced their greatest works. A shift to the life-long learning model, using resources both inside and outside the academia, may very well initiate a flowering of culture instead of decay.
Every economist will tell you about the benefits from specialization. We have known about that since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. But for some reason, this knowledge is thrown out when it comes to specialization in academia.
Strong cultural momentum—strengthened over several generations by parents, teachers, guidance counselors, and elected officials—has fostered an unwarranted faith in college’s benefits, raised attendance to irrational levels, and yielded an oversupply of graduates.
We ought to send more people to college. Our country is rich enough, our lives are long enough, and our economy is productive enough to justify the costs of providing more opportunity for our citizens to think and read and learn a little longer.