Higher Education Strategy Associates

Category Archives: the state of universities

April 27

New Economies, New University

Yesterday, we looked at how the economy was being increasingly divided into a successful, productive globally-traded goods sector, and a more sheltered mostly public-service focused sector. I also noted how certain parts of the university such as engineering, computer science, biomedicine, and finance/management have tended to adopt the views of people involved in the first group of industries, while arts, education, social work, etc., align with the second.

This matters because, increasingly, governments are getting concerned about productivity. Due to a combination of fiscal and demographic pressures, there is an ever-growing need to increase tax revenues and reduce expenditures. Governments need more companies to succeed in exports and they need to find productivity gains in the public sector. This attitude defines how the public service approaches program reviews, including support for post-secondary education.

In terms of teaching, we’ll probably hear a lot of rhetoric about how STEM subjects need to be funded, at the expense of arts, humanities, etc. I don’t think that’s likely; the sheer cost of teaching STEM subjects will likely act as a deterrent to any significant expansion. There will, however, be a lot of pressure to see graduates from the fields that feed the public sector (primarily arts) contribute to the productivity revolution needed to keep public services affordable. And here, I think, there are some interesting curricular possibilities.

In his new book, The Coming Prosperity, Philip Auerswald argues that the key skills in the new economy are what he calls the “three C’s”: connecting, creating and contributing. Now, it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of university educators – especially in the humanities and social sciences – to create a curriculum designed to teach and promote these values. In fact, many of them claim to foster exactly such skills already.

The problem is that currently, the system of subject majors forces students into subject specializations (e.g., history, philosophy) that require a mastering of skills that are much narrower than what graduates in the labour market actually need unless they are headed to grad school. But why not return to a broader, pre-WWII liberal arts approach (which also happens to be a more financially efficient one), suffused with a program of encouraging the three C’s? It would be a curriculum at once traditional and modern, and more importantly one which could plausibly be described as being productivity-oriented.

There could be big first mover advantages to the institution that is the first to work out how to do this well. Who’s up for it?

April 26

Two Economies, Two Universities

There’s an interesting debate going on in American policy circles based on arguments Tyler Cowen advanced in his recent book The Great Stagnation, one with enormous relevance for thinking about the future of the university.

The argument is that there are two economies in America today. The first (call it “Economy I”) is composed of the sectors dealing in globally traded goods, which are required to be extremely inventive and dynamic because of the pressure of foreign competition. It is producing a lot of cash, but precisely because it is under relentless pressure to produce productivity gains, it’s not adding a lot of new jobs. The second economy (“Economy II”) is the stuff you can’t easily move around – government, health care, education and some non-government sectors like construction. Not being subject to competition, productivity gains are lower, job creation is higher, but these costs are passed on to the end-user and so they are taking up an increasing fraction of our collective consumption, both public and private.

In a recent article David Brooks pointed out that political coalitions in the United States are increasingly coalescing around these two economies. Republicans think they can improve public services in Economy II by importing the values Economy I, while Democrats want to tame the excesses of Economy I by importing the values of Economy II.

It seems to me that there is a parallel here within universities. To generalize a bit, the parts of the university that have closest links to Economy I (basically: engineering, computer science, biomedicine and finance/management) tend to favour an interpretation of the “mission of the university” which involves lots of research and close links with industry. The parts of the university that are more closely linked to Economy II (arts, education, social work) tend to be much more hostile to that outlook and talk much more about education as a public good, its benefits to citizenship, etc.

On the whole, the tension between these two views is a healthy one. But there’s no doubt about where new money is going; the university’s paymasters in the public sector have been fairly clear that they want universities to concentrate on Economy I. Some have interpreted that as a slap in the face to the values embodied in the rest of the university. But that’s pretty defensive; another way to look at it is that governments are satisfied with how universities are supporting Economy II, but want that level of excellence applied to Economy I, please.

That’s not a crazy request – it’s actually very much in the Humboldtian tradition. And tomorrow, we’ll see how this trend is likely to play out over the decade ahead.