Sometimes things don’t work out because they are difficult or complicated. Sometimes they fail because of error or mistakes. And sometimes they don’t succeed because there isn’t interest or support.
Christopher Newfield is a professor of English at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a leading scholar of universities. He oversees a really interesting blog on higher education, Remaking the University, that give special attention to California issues. His latest book, The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them, is a very good overview of the defunding of public research universities. Newfield writes broadly, drawing upon a wealth of research, and also personally, giving his perspective as a faculty member in the University of California system. He is an engaging writer, able to render a complicated history of policy, budgets and practice into a clear and compelling narrative.
The Great Mistake argues that the focus on efficiency, productive, and pursuit of business practices that have dominated so much thinking about public universities the past several decades is misguided and destructive. Privatization or commercialization, Newfield explains, has contributed to rising student debt, a decrease in public funding and confidence, and an overall decline in student learning and quality. He believes that the privatization trend picked up after the Great Recession, as economic forces have led to deeper and more damaging changes on public higher education research universities. Newfield readily recognizes other public higher education institutions; the focus here is on public research universities.
At the heart of the book is a critical look at the American Funding Model (AFM) for higher education. Newfield wants to move past the criticisms that come from the right (higher education is inherently wasteful) and from the left (underfunding from government is the only problem). An unexamined groupthink about austerity – there is never enough funding – has led to both less governmental support and to universities behaving like businesses when resources do arrive. He notes that increased funding from government does not always lead to improvements for students and their families. Thinking that public higher education should be run like a business leads to a destructive dynamic that Newfield develops throughout the book.
The first step is a retreat from public funding and the university’s retreat from thinking of itself as a public good. Second is the outsourcing of activities, often functions like food, healthcare, etc. Third is shifting governing control from the public, such as state legislatures, to private funders of specific activities. These are the philanthropists who often give with expectations. Fourth is the further change of the university’s mission, moving away from an identity as a public good. Accompanying that retreat is a shift in funding responsibility. If the university provides a private good – to students – then students should assume a higher burden in funding their education. The next step involves tuition increases. Tuition increases can serve as justification for state disinvestment, Newfield convincingly argues. It is not necessarily the other way round. Neoliberalism can and is undermining the public mission of higher education.
Newfield expands on his “devolutionary” cycle often, hammering home that the reinforcement of academic capitalism (or business practices) has impact well beyond the budget cycle. In affects how faculty, staff and students think and feel.
The Great Mistake may have been written for the higher education community, but Newfield has the larger public in mind. He reminds readers of middle and working class families who have faith in education’s ability to provide new opportunities. They – and their financial struggles – are in the book’s introduction and at key points in the narrative.
It is not all ruthless competition and devolution for higher education in this book. Newfield holds out hope for reclaiming the public university as a public good. He imagines an increase in governmental support, a restoration of mission, a reclaiming of public support, and a reduction in student debt – all leading to a virtuous cycle. A key first step is greater transparency in budgeting and decision-making by higher education. Newfield also believes that the free college for all movement, such as what was discussed by presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, offers a starting ground for bigger changes. However, a systemic approach to new funding models has to include the larger public educational ecosystem: community colleges, regional colleges, research universities and flagships. That is beyond the scope of this work.
The Great Mistake is strongest on pointing out the existence and consequences of business thinking when it comes to public higher education. It is less confident – or as effective – when it comes to proposing what that new paradigm might be or how it might come to pass. To get to that question, we need better understanding of why business thinking is so prevalent.
David Potash