June 2011 marked a significant, albeit controversial period for academics in Great Britain when the New College of the Humanities (NCHUM) was unveiled to the public as the country’s first private institution of liberal arts (Gopal, 2012, p.383). Some, such as professor Grayling of Birkbeck College London, supported the college’s defense of the humanities courses through privatization, while many academics viewed the NCHUM as a business opportunity in response to students who sought an end to the public funding of liberal arts (Gopal, 2012, p.383). The controversy surrounding this establishment illustrates a number of concerns that have sprung from the seeds of the neoliberal policies for higher learning. These issues include the shift in education from a social right to a market interest, the unintended deemphasis of teaching, a lack of subsidy for humanities courses and the reduced quality of student education. If these issues are branches of modern-day academics, then neoliberalism is the root.
Before the concerns about neoliberalism’s affect on higher education can be addressed, it must first be understood what constitutes neoliberal policy. According to Martinez and Garcia of the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, neoliberalism “is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so” (n.d., p.1). These policies support a number of points including, but not limited to, a liberated free market, reduced government regulation on services that decrease profits, and the privatization of public goods and services (Garcia & Martinez, n.d., p.2). What this all amounts to is a an economic shift in control from the public to the private sector, meaning more profits for the corporate...
... middle of paper ...
...a more critical perception of the humanities, but one that is nevertheless shared by many neoliberal policy makers.
the cutting in the liberal arts departments represents a trend that has manifested since the 1970s (Beech, 2013, p.1). However, the details of this ‘attack’ on the humanities were planned over the preceding 40 years by cultural economists (Beech, 2013, pp.1-2). It was not enough to simply apply the concept of neoliberalism to the arts, as the field of cultural economics emerged in order to expose culture to the dictating market forces (Beech, 2013, pp.1-2).
Authors Baumol and Bowen published the first novel-length study of economics and art in 1966 (Beech, 2013, p.2). That same year also observed the United States-based Endowment of the Arts, and was followed by a period of increased interest in the humanities from economists (Beech, 2013, p.2).
Colleges and community colleges have their share of faults, and these three writers express what should be done to repair the broken system; if Carey were to attempt upholding his view that for-profits have their place in education, the result would be complete annihilation. Yes, for-profits benefit those who reap gains from the system, but Hacker and Dreifus and Addison would tear apart this view with the true meaning of education. Educated graduates with jobs that help create a better society are essential to the function of societies all over the world; therefore, colleges exist for the purpose of producing these graduates capable of making a difference. Students need education—students are the purpose of education. Although Carey’s claim—the government should not interfere with the success of for-profit owners—has integrity, Hacker, Dreifus, and Addison all believe that it is not in the right place. In their view, for-profits have no value to anyone but the owners. In sum, Carey would be shut down with the reality that an education system with the central purpose of earning profit does not value providing an education that benefits both students and society—the main focus is money. In turn, what is available could hardly be considered an education, according to Hacker, Dreifus, and Addison. However, the marketing scheme of for-profits still successfully entices people to enroll by offering accessibility with quick and easy degrees, which would infuriate Ungar and
The article, The Value of Higher Education Made Literal by scholar Stanley Fish focuses on sharing his opinion of higher education and what it has become in recent years. Mr. Fish’s argument is essentially over the “logic of privatization” where students are pictured as “investors” or “consumers” in courses of study that maximize successful employment outcomes. He also believes arts, humanities, and social sciences are overlooked while study courses in science, technology, and clinical medicine are prioritized. Fish also strongly believes the value of higher education has changed due to the desires of students over time, desires of becoming extremely financially secure enough to buy more than needed to justify years of money and hard work applied when in school.
Higher education has continued to evolve just as society has in its accessibility and purpose in surviving its students. In Mark Edmundson’s On the uses of a liberal education: 1. as lite entertainment for bored college students, he discusses how consumer culture has turned every aspect of higher education into a buyer’s market which students feed into. William Deresiewicz’s The Neoliberal Arts: How college sold its should to the market expands on this idea from the 90’s through a modern interpretation. Deresiewicz uses the term neoliberalism to discuss how universities are at fault for succumbing to societal influences of ideals based on monetary value. Deresiewicz’s definition of neoliberalism expands on Edmundson’s prior ideas of consumer
Mark Edmundson’s essay really resonated with me. His essay “On the Uses of a Liberal Education,” explains that at Universities, college students and teachers who are at these universities, focus on how much the students like the classes, rather than the information found in the class. For example, he explains this when mentions giving his students the course evaluations. Some of the comments were, “the teacher was interesting”, or, “he was funny”. Not one student commented on the information they got in the class. He describes how students have become like customers. The teachers accommodate them and are willing to do anything that meet their needs. This is consumerism. Colleges are concerned with attracting the wealthiest
Instead, Sanford J. Ungar presents the arguments that all higher education is expensive and needs to be reevaluated for Americans. He attempts to divert the argument of a liberal arts education tuition by stating “ The cost of American higher education is spiraling out id control, and liberal-arts colleges are becoming irrelevant because they are unable to register gains i productivity or to find innovative ways of doing things” (Ungar 661). The author completely ignores the aspects of paying for a liberal arts degree or even the cost comparison to a public university. Rather, Ungar leads the reader down a “slippery slope” of how public universities attain more funding and grants from the government, while liberal arts colleges are seemingly left behind. The author increasingly becomes tangent to the initial arguments he presented by explaining that students have a more interactive and personal relationship with their professors and other students. Sanford J. Ungar did not address one aspect of the cost to attend a liberal arts college or how it could be affordable for students who are not in the upper class.
Sanford J. Ungar, a journalist and president of Goucher College, is one of those faculty members actively trying to disprove the accusations against liberal arts colleges and educations. In his February 2010 article from the academic journal The Chronicle of Higher Education, Ungar gives readers many examples of common misunderstandings about liberal arts and then informs them why those examples are incorrect. Appropriately titled, Ungar’s “7 Major Misperceptions About the Liberal Arts” is an easy go to guide when a person wants to learn more about liberal arts. These readers, mainly students and parents looking towards a higher degree of education, can read Ungar’s essay and find new knowledge about the liberal arts discipline.
In his essay, “The New Liberal Arts,” Sanford J. Ungar advocates that the liberal arts should be everybody’s
“A high school graduate who has acquired Hirsch’s core knowledge will know, for example, that John Stuart Mill was an important 19th-century English Philosopher who was associated with something called Utilitarianism and wrote a famous book called On Liberty. But learning philosophy in college, which is and essential component of a liberal education, means that the student has to be able to read and understand the actual text of On Liberty”. (Murray
In the article “The Neoliberal Arts: How college sold its soul to the market,” William Deresiewicz describes how our modern day era of neoliberalism has impacted education. William Deresiewicz makes many valid points about our current education system. For example, he states how a larger percent of students are now majoring in fields that provide you with financial stability compared to that of fifty years ago. In this article there are some ideas I agree with and some I don’t.
the arts maybe “frivolous” to those who build bridges to nowhere, but we need to prevent them from trivializing the debate. Spanning the bridge between now and our cultural-economic future is no smaller.”(Stelluto) “fine arts classes at the high school level is not option in many cases due to the need for fine arts credits to graduate, course offerings within the fine arts departments can be condensed or eliminated altogether.” (Dickson)
The right and privilege to higher education in today’s society teeters like the scales of justice. In reading Andrew Delbanco’s, “College: What It Was, Is, and Should Be, it is apparent that Delbanco believes that the main role of college is to accommodate that needs of all students in providing opportunities to discover individual passions and dreams while furthering and enhancing the economic strength of the nation. Additionally, Delbanco also views college as more than just a time to prepare for a job in the future but a way in which students and young adults can prepare for their future lives so they are meaningful and purposeful. Even more important is the role that college will play in helping and guiding students to learn how to accept alternate point of views and the importance that differing views play in a democratic society. With that said, the issue is not the importance that higher education plays in society, but exactly who should pay the costly price tag of higher education is a raging debate in all social classes, cultures, socioeconomic groups and races.
Mark Edmundson’s Essay, On the uses of a liberal education, links a fundamental systemic flaw in post-modern education, a lack of student desire to learn, both about personal and the worldly, through study, education, self betterment, and reflection, with American Consumerism. Edmundson does so by depicting the students as customers; shopping for the easiest, highest ranking, and most “entertaining” return on their investment. However, Edmundson places too high a degree of blame on Millennial Consumerist Culture, rather than examining where this desire for a monetary return on investment stems stems from originally. Edmundson, although fully aware of the cultural dynamic shared amongst many, if not all, paying college students, never raises
Witherbee, A. (2013). Counterpoint: Education, the Masses, and Art. Points Of View: Arts Funding, 6. Retrieved April 19,2014 , from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=12421040&site=pov-live
I want to take this occasion to address one of the most prominent criticisms of the humanities today. I am not referring to criticism of more recent vintage, which takes to task the humanities for a supposed excess of political correctness; this complaint we can set aside as the ideologically motivated lament that it surely is. Rather, I’m speaking of the more long-standing critique that takes the humanities to task for its inconsequence, its uselessness. The presumption that underwrites this critique is simple: its claim is that we do not learn anything by attending to the objects of humanities research. These objects – a poem, a film or play, a piece of music, or what have you – do not furnish our minds with information we can use. No special knowledge is required to enjoy these objects, and no useable knowledge is furnished through their study.
"USATODAY.com - Study: Arts Education Has Academic Effect." USATODAY.com - Study: Arts Education Has Academic Effect. N.p., 19 May 2002. Web. 22 May 2014.