Hoping to start a debate over priorities and principles, Professors Nathan Tublitz and James Earl wrote an guest commentary in The Register-Guard criticizing the University’s “preoccupation with athletics.”
Signed by 92 tenured faculty, the commentary piece observed that in recent years Athletic Department funding has dramatically increased, while academic needs have been neglected. This is true, but it is not a matter of priorities.
The funding gap between academics and athletics does not reflect the University’s priorities, but the priorities of private donors. As public funding of higher education has decreased in Oregon, the University has reached out to private individuals to fill the gaps. These donors often choose to give money to the Athletic Department.
Personally, I would rather see money directed towards education than a fancy football locker room. But people have the right to choose their own charities.
This debate is entirely about money. If the faculty felt the University was adequately funded, they would not object to lavish athletic spending. But they do not believe funding is adequate, so the relatively rich Athletic Department is a convenient scapegoat.
Clearly, a large contingent of faculty is unsatisfied with the University. Last week’s commentary in The Register-Guard suggested that in comparison to other public institutions, the University is mediocre. In order to combat this mediocrity the faculty have an idea: increased funding. Whether it comes from the Athletic Department or the state of Oregon, the faculty believe that more money will translate into a better university. In his response to the faculty in The Register-Guard, President Frohnmayer agreed, noting that the state only provides 13 percent of the University’s operating budget.
Of course, more money would help. The University struggles to hire and retain elite faculty, and a larger budget would lower class sizes and upgrade campus facilities. Everybody in the class agrees, more money is the answer.
But every class has a contrarian – the unsavory character who tries to demonstrate his cleverness by disagreeing with everybody else. He has a capable mind, but seems to lack a soul. In fact, he would probably tell you that there is no such thing as a soul. Last week the Wall Street Journal published an essay by social scientist Charles Murray, an eminent contrarian.
While it may be conventional wisdom that public universities ought to be both better funded and more accessible, Murray takes a different view. Arguing that too many people attend college, Murray questions the very structure and mission of American universities.
According to Murray, most individuals lack the IQ to attain the education that college should provide. While acknowledging that “there is no magic point at which a genuine college-level education becomes an option,” Murray asserts that “anything below an IQ of 110 is problematic” and “if you want to do well, you should have an IQ of 115 or higher.”
It should be noted that Murray’s argument is crude and simplistic. An individual’s IQ is only one measurement of his or her potential, yet Murray uses it as the ultimate test of a person’s ability to succeed in college. He does, however, make some valid points.
Many jobs do not necessitate a college degree, and people who will fill these jobs may be better suited to a less formal, vocational education.
The U.S. Department of Labor projects that over the next 10 years the U.S. economy will demand more and more service-oriented jobs. Among the jobs expected to grow most are retail salespersons, janitors and waiters and waitresses. For many of these service-oriented jobs, a college degree is simply not necessary. And as Murray notes, “The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason [. . .] is difficult.”
A plumber can make a fine living without taking a single University course, yet this fact is often overlooked. Attending a four-year institution is a major investment of both time and money. Undergraduates can pile up significant debt, and still graduate without a secure future. Although a college degree can open numerous doors, many young people would be better off skipping the four-year experience and pursuing a vocational education. And we should not stigmatize people for making this decision.
We ought to reconsider our current higher education system. Our colleges and universities, this one included, are being asked to do too much. Rather than trying to squeeze more students into universities, we should expand the options for higher education. The University should cater primarily to those students who seek a rigorous education in the arts and sciences. Recognizing that many people neither want nor need a university education, community colleges and vocational schools should be better funded. A shift towards more customized education options will ease the burden on universities, while preparing workers for careers more efficiently.
As our economy continues to demand more service workers and skilled craftsmen, our educational system should adapt to meet these needs.
[email protected]