Analyzing the “College for All” Argument: Commentary on the Effects of Enrollment Growth in Higher Education by Kayla M. Johnson

Against the backdrop of a March 2015 cover of the The Economist titled “The Whole World is going to University,” Dr. Steven Brint provided commentary on the increasingly prevalent “college for all” argument. Brint, who currently serves as the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at UC-Riverside and is the author of sociology staples such as Schools and Society (1998) and The Diverted Dream (1989), began his talk by humorously setting the following expectation for the crowd of Penn State higher education professionals and graduate students: “I’m just throwing out a lot of ideas.”

For Better of For Worse?

Titled “A Rising Tide that Lifts Some Boats: Societal and Institutional Consequences of the Growth of U.S. Higher Education,” Brint’s talk centered around the concept that many more people are going to college than ever before, and that exploding enrollments have had interesting effects on universities as well as the entire nation. Brint, who stakes his interest in the consequences rather than labeling the increases as good or bad, focused his talk on what growth does given certain “conditioning factors” that are uniquely characteristic of the American context.

Citing his own research, Brint explained that over 70% of high school graduates pursue some form of higher education, leading to the production of over 1.8 million baccalaureate and over 200,000 doctoral degrees each year. While Brint refrained from assigning judgment to these increases, he highlighted key research by enthusiasts and skeptics alike. Supporters of increasing tertiary enrollments contend that the individual economic returns associated with a college education benefit American citizens (Carnevale, Rose, Cheah 2011), that it equalizes society (Goldin & Katz, 2008), and that it elevates society (Baker, 2014). Skeptics of the trend note the academic ineffectiveness of colleges and universities (Arum & Roksa, 2011; 2014), its role in the creation of unemployment (Vedder, 2013), its tendency to drive costs (Carey, 2015), and that sub-baccalaureate credentials should be viewed as valid alternatives (Rosenbaum, Deil-amen, & Person, 2009; Rosenbaum, Stephan, & Rosenbaum, 2010).

The Price of Membership in Society

Brint explained that higher education attainment was the new price of membership in American society. “Today’s 18-24 year olds wouldn’t even consider not going to college if they want to be a respectable member of society.” The labor market for high school degrees has collapsed, and as people begin to believe that borrowing to pay for schooling is unavoidable, Americans easily accept that college is their ticket to social mobility and/or maintenance in a wavering economy. Universities, feeling the same economic struggles, look to enrollment growth (and subsequent collection of tuition) as a source of revenue.

Bipartisan agreements on the importance of higher education and degree attainment for competing internationally have also contributed to this higher education-as-a-commodity mentality. Relative to other developed countries the U.S. has abnormally high levels of social inequality. Perhaps a result of the large differentiated structure of U.S. postsecondary education, this social inequality often manifests itself as (and reciprocates back into) high levels of variability in K-12 performance. However, Brint omitted discussion of this contentious debate of the merits and restraints between centralized and decentralized systems.

Dilution of Prestige Effects

Having recently studied the Matthew Effect in an Organizational Theory of Higher Education course, my interest was peaked at its mention. Brint was quick to say that it is not true. He explained that rather than the rich getting richer, the expansion of higher education enrollment has actually led to a dilution of the effects of prestige. For example, top sector leaders are graduating from a wider variety of universities, and research productivity is becoming less concentrated at top institutions.

Despite Brint’s rejection of the Matthew Effect in higher education, the poor are certainly getting poorer. He claimed that the weakest parts of the system are the poorly endowed and/or unpopular institutions, and with the recent, sudden closing of the “financially unstable” and out of favor Sweet Briar College, the evidence to that is clear (Jones, 2015). The leadership of institutions like Sweet Briar find themselves caught in a conundrum—balancing the prestige value of retaining high tuition and offering tuition discounts in order to retain students. Ultimately, the balance was toppled; Brint stated that public universities are the only ones truly thriving in this new environment. I found myself thinking, though, that Harvard and Sweet Briar are far from meeting the same demise.

Heightened Intellectualism in Society (but Not on Campus…)

Reflecting upon what David Baker (2014) refers to as the “epistemological revolution,” Brint comically quipped that because more people are gaining access to greater forms of education, society is becoming more and more intellectual. Citing a growing mass research class, a new institutional geography of knowledge exchange, and the expanding purposes of college, American society has become increasingly socially empowered.

However, this growing intellectualism in broader society is not evident on college campuses. Closely aligned with the findings relayed in Academically Adrift (Arum & Roksa, 2011) and Aspiring Adults Adrift (Arum & Roksa, 2014), colleges and universities are producing more people with advanced credentials and an orientation for research and critical inquiry, but they are becoming somewhat dethroned as the sole creators of knowledge. Brint explained that many of today’s most marvelous inventions were either just co-created with university affiliations or came about without university input at all (e.g. Apple, Microsoft).

University aims for intellectual growth have changed tremendously throughout history, shifting from a focus on skills to adaptability to trainability to activity and engagement, and finally to the “creation of individuals who are putatively rational, activated, and are empowered to have opinion, plans, and strategies.” Interestingly, Brint and his colleagues with the SERU project (Student Experience in the Research University) have developed a framework for analyzing these changes within specific domains—social and interpersonal, personal development, academic knowledge skills, civic and community engagement, and economic opportunity and security—or SPACE. You can find more about their work here: http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/SERU.

This debate surrounding the intellectualism of college campuses also includes the enlarging of the purposes of colleges. Rising attendance rates have not correlated with an equal increase in the proportion of students who are academically oriented. In other words, a large percentage of students entering higher education are not adequately prepared for its challenges. In addition, not all jobs require the highly technical knowledge that can be attained through certain degree programs; therefore, colleges must adapt to the needs of a diversifying labor market. Finally, Brint comments that colleges must balance their interest in engaging all students with maintaining a legitimate purpose. A question I did not get to ask Dr. Brint was what an illegitimate purpose of college would be.

Accommodative Responses

Brint’s final theme for the talk focused on the ways in which universities accommodate (or don’t) diverse student populations. Differentiating between prestige enclaves and inclusivity enclaves, Brint argued that colleges and universities operate under very different paradigms. Some work to maintain their status (by way of capping majors, vamping up honors programs, facilitating undergraduate research and study abroad opportunities), which often caters to a very narrow, very middle class, very white population. Others work to make all types of students feel welcome, by promoting ethnic clubs and organizations, instituting diversity offices, and offering minority-serving majors (e.g. public health). Brint stays fairly balanced throughout the discussion, but seems to support the latter.

Fixing the Educational “Dead Spots”

Brint ended his talk by pushing one imperative: remedying the “dead spots” on American college and university campuses. Areas of interest to him were poorly developed online courses, general education courses at community colleges, and standardized testing measures. What Brint failed to mention however, are perennial issues such as grade inflation, the proliferation of the use of adjunct faculty over tenure-track faculty, and the rampant commercialism of for-profit education.

Ultimately, Brint argued for a return to a coherence, or multiversity model—one that recognizes that universities mean different things to different people, and that can adapt to the ever-changing student market. Brint maintains that the college for all argument is a myth; not everyone is going to college. He, however, seems to present an argument that college for most may not be a bad goal.

Look for Dr. Brint’s forthcoming book The Ends of Knowledge: Organizational and Cultural Change in U.S. Colleges and Universities, published by our friends at University of Chicago Press.

References

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2014). Aspiring adults adrift: Tentative transitions of college graduates. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Baker, D. (2014). The schooled society: The educational transformation of global culture. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brint, S.G. (1998). Schools and societies. Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press/SAGE.

Brint, S.G., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in American, 1900-1985. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Carey, K. (2015). The end of college: The future of learning and the university of everywhere. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Carnevale, A.P., Rose, S.J., Cheah, B. (2011). The college payoff. Washington DC: Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce.

Goldin, C., & Katz, L.F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jones, A. (2015, April 29). The end of Sweet Briar College and the problem with women’s colleges. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/08/end-sweet-briar-college-and-problem-womens-colleges-326363.html.

Rosenbaum, J.E., Deil-amen, R., & Person, A.E. (2009). After admission: From college access to college success. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Rosenbaum, J.E., Stephan, J.L., & Rosenbaum, J.E. (2010). Beyond one-size-fits-all college dreams: alternative pathways to desirable careers. American Educator. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Rosenbaum_0.pdf.

Vedder, R., Denhart, C., & Rabe, J. (2013). Why are recent college graduates underemployed? Oxford, OH: Center for Productivity and Affordability.