Alexandra Tashman
Concerns surrounding the future of higher education have found their place in popular debate for decades.
Since around 2005, it seems the focus has shifted to one debate in particular: the value of a traditional four-year undergraduate education in light of newly available online options.
Among those casting their lot in this discussion are Barry Glassner and Morton Schapiro ““ the presidents of Lewis & Clark College and Northwestern University, respectively. In a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed, they attempt to address some of the many issues facing higher education today, including the rise of for-profit, online colleges.
But their arguments get stuck in a conversation that has been played out before. The debate between proponents of an economically attractive, alternative format of education and a traditional four-year model seem to be caught in a loop, debating the merits of both on two wholly different criteria. We need to stop debating whether convenience and financial feasibility trump romantic notions of a liberal arts education and start talking about the quality of the students each produces. Only then can we truly evaluate the state of higher education in America today.
In essence, the argument over the future of higher education has become a waste of time. There is something to be said for the more classical form of study oriented toward the liberal arts ““ it places emphasis not only on academic development but also on supporting the personal growth of students.
Despite the many merits of this system, it can be costly and slow, and calls for less expensive and time-consuming educational formats also have a great deal of logic behind them.
As Glassner and Schapiro note, many critics view the classic model of undergraduate education to be the “equivalent of eight-track tapes,” which will be soon replaced by “more technologically advanced online and for-profit models.”
Supporters of the classic collegiate model say that features such as in-classroom learning make it the most student-friendly option. On the other hand, proponents of accredited online universities say they serve as an excellent academic resource for those seeking a degree well after finishing high school, or those already mid-way into their career.
But arguing back and forth about online education’s convenience, and what makes a traditional education a more “real” experience, is ultimately unproductive if we don’t establish a measure of quality we can apply to both types of college.
What measures can we apply, then?
In California’s 2012-2013 budget, passed in late June, Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators introduced restrictions to the allocation of Cal Grants, setting a new minimum for graduation rates and a maximum loan default rate.
Institutions that do not meet these requirements ““ and are not granted an exception ““ are disqualified from access to Cal Grants.
While these may not be ideal or foolproof standards with which to judge a university, they do provide an efficient measure of the institution’s quality.
By measuring the success of a college’s students, perhaps we can have a more informed discussion about the values of both models, both of which have much to offer to certain students.
Two such measures could be the rate of an institution’s post-graduate employment or the speed with which former students repay loans ““ though both criteria will be affected by the poor economic climate.
Comparing these rates among schools for an extended time frame might give different types of universities a good idea of whether or not their education resulted in practical skills and knowledge applicable in the job market.
The debate over online versus traditional teaching methods has its place. At the end of the day, however, the gauge of an institution’s worth should be in the quality of the students it molds, and whether it imparts valuable lessons that allow graduates to make meaningful contributions to society.
Legislators, with the ability to impose graduation and student default-rate caps, such as those instituted by the Cal Grant program, should find new measures of institutional quality they can regulate in a similar way.
At the same time, administrators should work to identify, establish and enforce standards to judge institutional quality from within ““ perhaps by implementing in-depth course surveys.
Glassner and Schapiro acknowledge throughout their piece that skepticism toward traditional education systems has existed for years, and the pair appear to be continuing the same tired debate, which pits liberal arts education against a challenger.
It is now time to break from this framework and shift the discussion toward establishing standards that may be used to concretely evaluate how much students learn under different instructional models, from the classical to the digital.
Email Tashman at atashman@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.