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?
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.
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?
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.