Should higher education be included in national political debates? Should it have its own place on the agenda? Or should it be considered as a vital factor in effectively addressing other topics?
For example, in a debate about the economy, job opportunities, and social problem-solving should questions about the role of higher education be asked? Many politicians have already declared higher education a failure, so maybe its role in these matters should be debated and discussed more widely.
If some of the more extreme charges go unanswered the implications are frightening. For example:
(1) Universities are inefficient and ineffective. In political debates where the nation’s effectiveness as a world leader is being questioned, this charge against higher education’s effectiveness has far-reaching implications? Since our universities produce the nation’s leaders, it is a charge that must be strongly and visibly answered.
(2) The high cost of higher education is limiting access to good jobs. The truth is that financial aid offsets an average of 40% or more of the cost, and the diversity of size and type means that sticker prices vary significantly. There is a college somewhere in the US to fit most everyone’s needs and pocketbook. This misunderstanding needs to be answered.
(3) Universities should focus more on practical fields of study. The implication here is that the liberal and fine arts are less worthy. The facts are that many companies prefer liberal arts graduates, and that the job a graduate gets today might not exist tomorrow! These facts need to be heard.
Even if the debates themselves end up with politicians continuing to attack the academy, 24/7 cable, social media, and other major news outlets could balance the situation by having top academic leaders immediately and visibly respond. Otherwise, these charges might go unanswered. Then we all will be the losers.
Larry D. Lauer 
Leave a Reply