In which a veteran of cultural studies seminars in the 1990s moves into academic administration and finds himself a married suburban father of two. Foucault, plus lawn care.
This piece by Jeff Selingo offers an upbeat, if largely accurate, profile of students who take long and winding college pathways through multiple institutions. It implies that we’re on the cusp of a brave new world in which students will “swirl” from here to there, compiling a customized educational experience.
One person’s “swirl” is another person’s “churn.” It’s hard not to notice that the glorification of “swirl” is coming at the exact same moment that institutions are being judged by graduation rates. A student who “swirls” through four institutions on the way to a degree counts as a dropout at three of them.
It’s easy to move rhetorically from “institutions bad” to “individuals good,” without noticing that those individuals need healthy and effective institutions from which to cherry-pick.
Perhaps “churn” isn’t quite the right measure anymore...
Speaking of healthy and effective institutions, this piece suggests that many small New England liberal arts colleges may not be much longer for this world.
I was struck, first, by the NIMBY effect shown in the poll of presidents. Apparently, private college presidents largely believe that other private colleges are facing existential threats, but that their own college will be fine. The same dynamic applies to members of Congress. Perhaps I’ll just leave it at that.
More broadly, though, I can’t help but wonder about the fate of expensive but undistinguished colleges in regions with flat or declining populations of young people. Admittedly, “undistinguished” is in the eye of the beholder to some degree, and a college that may not be considered strong across the board may have a program or two in which it’s recognized as a national leader. And presidents aren’t known for admitting that their own colleges are undistinguished.
But still. I understand how the elite institutions justify their cost. I understand the value proposition of affordable, high-quality public education (hi!). I understand the recruiting methods of for-profits, and I understand the role of colleges with distinctive niches, whether by religion, program, or gender. I understand, and think that many others are about to understand, the appeal of affordable and flexible competency-based education, such as at College for America at SNHU. But I really don’t understand private tuition at a nothing-special school in a program that everybody else also offers. And I can’t be the only one.
I’m in Slate! Check it out. And thanks, again, to Rebecca Schuman (@pankisseskafka) for the initial discussion.
The Boy’s schedule, this weekend:
Friday night: baseball practice
Saturday morning: 5k Lego run, followed by a trip to the Lego store
Sunday afternoon: baseball game
Sunday night: Weird Al Yankovic concert
Baseball, running, Legos, and Weird Al. That’s how we roll.