There is an argument to support any position regarding higher education. The article you refer us to is aimed at the MBA audience, both its teachers and students and thus it examines education the way marketers examine products, particularly in noting the degree of match between the product offered and the reality which it addresses. If education is to be designed to match the reality of the society, then it will seek to train people accordingly. This is different from an education that addresses ambitions or concepts for their own sake, with the expectation that it can alter the reality. That's why there is not single apprach to what education is or ought to be. We simply can't make universal statements in this area of inquiry. The cited article doesn't do that and instead assumes that the marketing approach to anything is always the correct approach.
My own position is that higher education that addresses societal needs should be free to all students. This is the concept that lies behind the community college "open door" policy. Although I favor intellectual qualifications for higher education, I do think the time has come to extend the free education idea to undergraduate programs. Research universities and private colleges should be free to do as they please. Of course, I also favor universal, free, health care. One of the most severe handicaps to societal and economic progress is the educational debt burden on young people just out of college and without career jobs. If they were debt free and didn't need to worry about health care costs, they'd be much more willing to be entrepreneurial and experimental and creative. WC --- On Sat, 3/21/09, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: "Innovation of new objects seems to go mo re and more toward the development of tawdry junk for the annual Christmas gift market. > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, March 21, 2009, 9:31 PM > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:08 PM, > William Conger > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > --- On Thu, 3/19/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > The failing auto industry makes such a easy > target, but how > > > is his educational > > > industry any different ? > > "Moi?" My educational industry? I am not > the CEO of any educational > > indusrtry. I do, however, have deep experience > and informed opinions > > regarding higher education, especially at the research > and graduate levels. > > And there are many different kinds of education to > consider at all levels. > > They are not like the auto industry; they are not > industry. > > > According to the following: > > - ...An industrial, profit-oriented logic in higher > education has turned > universities into purveyors of commodities within a > knowledge > supermarket"...No longer perceived as a social institution > closely aligned > with societys values and priorities, higher education has > become an > industry at the mercy of the marketplace. Even those > taxpayers who > acknowledge the continuing value of higher education in a > knowledge-intensive world resist bearing its true costs in > the face of > limited resources and other social priorities. Education is > increasingly > viewed as a private good to be paid for by those who > benefit most > directlythe student-as-consumer. While universities > with established > reputations may be able to attract sufficient students and > resources to > sustain quality programs (e.g. Wolverton and Penley, 2004), > this situation > will merely isolate those few institutions from the ongoing > restructuring > efforts in the higher education enterprise. > > http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/38/4/405.pdf
