Out of control student debt (and the withdrawal of financial support for education that helped cause it) was one of the main problems that developed in higher education during my lifetime. I entered college in 1960. I was from a working class family that couldn't afford to fund me but I got a first rate education at public institutions (Rutgers then UCLA) paying my own way and not having to take out loans. Right through to a Ph.D. The change in funding that cut public funding and put the burden on the individual student was especially hard on adult students who didn't have families to foot the bill or good financial aid support. It broke my heart to see them loading up credit cards and taking out loans. Biden's actions aren't perfect but they're a step in the right direction and a recognition that it's not good for society to put the burden of education on the individual student. Education is good for society. It wasn't just a post WWII GI bill idea either. Abraham Lincoln started the land grant colleges in the middle of the Civil War because he, and other politicians, saw that an educated population was needed to build the country and save the union. It was an economically smart thing to do and it was a necessity for a democracy. What made our generation so stupid that we (or our "leaders") couldn't see that?
Of course, one of the reasons that the GI Bill was passed in 1944 was the fear that all of these military veterans would come back to the US and be unemployed and unemployable, in part because of their war experience, and in part because they had missed the transition into work that normally happened in the teenage years. Graduating from high school wasn't the norm in the 1930s, much less going to college. But honestly, I think it is time to reassess the whole project of higher education, and think about what kind of investments make sense. For my money, it is public education that is the future.
Agreed, about the GI Bill. But a recognition of the importance of higher ed for the non elite came before that with the land grant (teaching mostly agriculture and engineering) and teachers colleges. And the UCBUs--Tuskegee and Hampton etc. Going to college wasn't the norm and it wasn't easy but it was possible. Did you ever read John Williams' Stoner?
When are we (as a profession? as a collectivity? ) going to take on what are basically predatory humanities MA programs that have mushroomed post 2007/8? My experience with them as an onlooker who pretends they are on board is that in some depts they operate as a slush fund for the dept’s other programs and faculty enrichment. At issue is that faculty are mobilized to leverage their mentoring relationships with bright undergraduates-many of whom are first generation (and who are led to believe that more credentials =better job prospects). Faculty then benefit bc the MA tuition revenue fund PhD students/fellowships, research $, and reduced undergraduate teaching loads. Amidst institutional budget cuts, it is an easy means of getting revenue for these projects without having to fight the university’s admin. This structure essentially externalizes the cost of myriad forms of the aforementioned faculty enrichment onto young people who are saddled with the loans for the MA. Given the cost of these programs, even a 6-month non-paying internship would probably go farther to achieve what the MA student wants at far less expense. And yes, some MA programs can be a gateway to acceptance at a fully funded humanities PhD program. But if the student isn’t a candidate for those as an undergraduate, is it honest to steer them into an MA program and tons of debt on the grounds that they may end up one day have a minuscule chance at becoming a tenure track professor making less than six figures to pay back that debt? It all feels like kicking the can down the road. And that it won’t get discussed bc it enables depts in R2 and R3 to hobble along post crash.
This is such a good comment I hardly feel the need to add to it, although I would say that the standard was set back in the 20th century to have capacious MA programs that then winnowed the pool that was sent on to the PhD. Other than the fact that it was four blocks from my apartment, one reason I went to grad school at NYU rather than Columbia in 1983 was that Columbia was clearly paying for its PhD program by admitting three times as many MA students as they would allow to continue on--doctoral programs at my own university still do this.
It is also very hard to shake even progressive faculty out of the mindset that education is a positive good that should not be denied to anyone. I had this encounter on Twitter just the other day when I argued that the poor schlub who took out over 100K in loans ti be in a PhD program should never have been encouraged to enroll in a program they could not afford. There is never an aggressive "NO"--even when we know students are taking out unrepayable loans to enroll in our school.
Thanks for your reply. I’m not a recent grad but I still don’t yet have the long-term experience in the academy to realize how far back this stretched. At my own uni,/dept where I am yet tenured and was chastised by my chair for critiquing this (oops I thought academia meant you could say what you thought), it was a post 08 creation. Hence my anonymous substack name. At the time of my on campus they mentioned teaching in the new program but having come out of a program that did not take MAs* but fully funded the PhD, I did not understand the dynamics of this. (* except for the pernicious BA/MA which seems to me to be another version of this, albeit shortened to one year). You make excellent points about the mindset of progressive faculty. I admit it’s a fine line to walk-when undergrads ask me about MA programs I try to lay out the facts and try to be far more strident with the many students at my uni who are on scholarship about what this means in terms of debt and what are the alternatives…still that feels wrong too in the ways you laid out about the all-or-nothing position that education is a positive good, even though it is not still a public good! Helen Ann Peterson had written about this in her substack and has included the writing mfa as a backdoor to publishing/journalism in her analysis.
I think the 2008 date is what everyone reaches for because the crash then seemed catastrophic: I actually remember going to AHA that year, and Wesleyan was one of very few schools that hadn't cancelled their searches. But it was a rolling castastrophe: once public education was defunded, and students were asked to pick up a substantial tab for it, their eyes turned to private schools which--with a good scholarship--were sometimes cheaper. But the other thing that changed after 1980 was the ubiquity of credit cards, as well as other debt instruments. and with that, Americans' whole attitude towards debt became malleable. I mean, think about what caused 2008: people being assured they could afford houses and renovations that they couldn't afford.
Oh wow! I didn’t realize the extent of this (but I’m of in my own little early modern world) as related to, what, the popularization of debt instruments? Who could I read on this? Would be an excellent counterpoint in the US survey that uses the Foner textbook and a liberal narrative of freedom.
Out of control student debt (and the withdrawal of financial support for education that helped cause it) was one of the main problems that developed in higher education during my lifetime. I entered college in 1960. I was from a working class family that couldn't afford to fund me but I got a first rate education at public institutions (Rutgers then UCLA) paying my own way and not having to take out loans. Right through to a Ph.D. The change in funding that cut public funding and put the burden on the individual student was especially hard on adult students who didn't have families to foot the bill or good financial aid support. It broke my heart to see them loading up credit cards and taking out loans. Biden's actions aren't perfect but they're a step in the right direction and a recognition that it's not good for society to put the burden of education on the individual student. Education is good for society. It wasn't just a post WWII GI bill idea either. Abraham Lincoln started the land grant colleges in the middle of the Civil War because he, and other politicians, saw that an educated population was needed to build the country and save the union. It was an economically smart thing to do and it was a necessity for a democracy. What made our generation so stupid that we (or our "leaders") couldn't see that?
Of course, one of the reasons that the GI Bill was passed in 1944 was the fear that all of these military veterans would come back to the US and be unemployed and unemployable, in part because of their war experience, and in part because they had missed the transition into work that normally happened in the teenage years. Graduating from high school wasn't the norm in the 1930s, much less going to college. But honestly, I think it is time to reassess the whole project of higher education, and think about what kind of investments make sense. For my money, it is public education that is the future.
Agreed, about the GI Bill. But a recognition of the importance of higher ed for the non elite came before that with the land grant (teaching mostly agriculture and engineering) and teachers colleges. And the UCBUs--Tuskegee and Hampton etc. Going to college wasn't the norm and it wasn't easy but it was possible. Did you ever read John Williams' Stoner?
Agree completely--and yes I did!
When are we (as a profession? as a collectivity? ) going to take on what are basically predatory humanities MA programs that have mushroomed post 2007/8? My experience with them as an onlooker who pretends they are on board is that in some depts they operate as a slush fund for the dept’s other programs and faculty enrichment. At issue is that faculty are mobilized to leverage their mentoring relationships with bright undergraduates-many of whom are first generation (and who are led to believe that more credentials =better job prospects). Faculty then benefit bc the MA tuition revenue fund PhD students/fellowships, research $, and reduced undergraduate teaching loads. Amidst institutional budget cuts, it is an easy means of getting revenue for these projects without having to fight the university’s admin. This structure essentially externalizes the cost of myriad forms of the aforementioned faculty enrichment onto young people who are saddled with the loans for the MA. Given the cost of these programs, even a 6-month non-paying internship would probably go farther to achieve what the MA student wants at far less expense. And yes, some MA programs can be a gateway to acceptance at a fully funded humanities PhD program. But if the student isn’t a candidate for those as an undergraduate, is it honest to steer them into an MA program and tons of debt on the grounds that they may end up one day have a minuscule chance at becoming a tenure track professor making less than six figures to pay back that debt? It all feels like kicking the can down the road. And that it won’t get discussed bc it enables depts in R2 and R3 to hobble along post crash.
This is such a good comment I hardly feel the need to add to it, although I would say that the standard was set back in the 20th century to have capacious MA programs that then winnowed the pool that was sent on to the PhD. Other than the fact that it was four blocks from my apartment, one reason I went to grad school at NYU rather than Columbia in 1983 was that Columbia was clearly paying for its PhD program by admitting three times as many MA students as they would allow to continue on--doctoral programs at my own university still do this.
It is also very hard to shake even progressive faculty out of the mindset that education is a positive good that should not be denied to anyone. I had this encounter on Twitter just the other day when I argued that the poor schlub who took out over 100K in loans ti be in a PhD program should never have been encouraged to enroll in a program they could not afford. There is never an aggressive "NO"--even when we know students are taking out unrepayable loans to enroll in our school.
Thanks for your reply. I’m not a recent grad but I still don’t yet have the long-term experience in the academy to realize how far back this stretched. At my own uni,/dept where I am yet tenured and was chastised by my chair for critiquing this (oops I thought academia meant you could say what you thought), it was a post 08 creation. Hence my anonymous substack name. At the time of my on campus they mentioned teaching in the new program but having come out of a program that did not take MAs* but fully funded the PhD, I did not understand the dynamics of this. (* except for the pernicious BA/MA which seems to me to be another version of this, albeit shortened to one year). You make excellent points about the mindset of progressive faculty. I admit it’s a fine line to walk-when undergrads ask me about MA programs I try to lay out the facts and try to be far more strident with the many students at my uni who are on scholarship about what this means in terms of debt and what are the alternatives…still that feels wrong too in the ways you laid out about the all-or-nothing position that education is a positive good, even though it is not still a public good! Helen Ann Peterson had written about this in her substack and has included the writing mfa as a backdoor to publishing/journalism in her analysis.
I think the 2008 date is what everyone reaches for because the crash then seemed catastrophic: I actually remember going to AHA that year, and Wesleyan was one of very few schools that hadn't cancelled their searches. But it was a rolling castastrophe: once public education was defunded, and students were asked to pick up a substantial tab for it, their eyes turned to private schools which--with a good scholarship--were sometimes cheaper. But the other thing that changed after 1980 was the ubiquity of credit cards, as well as other debt instruments. and with that, Americans' whole attitude towards debt became malleable. I mean, think about what caused 2008: people being assured they could afford houses and renovations that they couldn't afford.
Oh wow! I didn’t realize the extent of this (but I’m of in my own little early modern world) as related to, what, the popularization of debt instruments? Who could I read on this? Would be an excellent counterpoint in the US survey that uses the Foner textbook and a liberal narrative of freedom.