Where Are the College Advocates? (Hint: Not in Higher Education)
It’s easy to find anti-college writing. Google “college” or “higher education,” and you’ll find an avalanche of articles, studies, and opinions that argue against universities (or in favor of the trades). There’s no mistaking it. It’s on point and highly focused. And all of it’s written with a specific message in mind … “Don’t go to college!”
On the other hand, it’s difficult to find pro-college writing. There’s plenty of higher ed writers, but few of them fight for college. Instead, they talk about what they “want” to talk about, not what we “need” to talk about. They rarely (if ever) argue for that one important thing: “Go to college!”
Chasing Shiny Things
The enemy — the media — is highly focused. They have a singular and concentrated agenda: slander higher education. On their side of the battlefield, writers write dirty. They don’t care about proving their expertise or their intellectual muscle. They only care about a slanderous story and the public who’s fooled by it.
On our side of the battlefield, writers chase butterflies. Publications like The Hechinger Report, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and Inside Higher Ed[1] spill gallons of ink on politics, technology, and finances but very little on the simple argument that college is good. On one side — the media — the point is sharp: college is failing … college is too expensive … college is a waste. On the other side — higher education — there is no point … it’s a mushpot of intellectualism, pontification, and entanglement. No fight, just more and more shiny things.
For a list of shiny things, check out the “Views” section from Inside Higher Education. You’ll find discussions on ChatGPT, academic freedom, strengthening democracy, AI learning tools, data-informed decision-making, intercollegiate athletics, the Fulbright award, etc. I don’t have any problem with these “views”; I do have a problem that there aren’t any views about the importance of higher education.
Whatever their views, I don’t necessarily blame the writer. Instead, I blame the industry, which can’t see the forest for the trees. The media continues to smear college choice, but within higher education, smart people continue to talk about niche things. As higher ed offers “views” diluted across hundreds of narrow topics, the media offers a capital V “View” that higher ed is failing.
I Can’t Because ….
Many in higher education will offer one of these rebuttals:
- It’s not my job to argue for higher education.
- It’s not my expertise to argue for higher education.
The first is nonsense. It’s the mistaken idea that a) college marketing should carry the entire workload, or b) advocacy and academia can’t co-exist. The second is short-sighted. It elevates expertise over advocacy, spot treatments over broad arguments.
Any excuse is ridiculous when the public is drowning in anti-college propaganda. Worse yet, any excuse is negated by those “in higher ed” who argue AGAINST college. Economics Professor Bryan Caplan had plenty of time (and motive) to write 400+ pages on “The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money.” Caplan’s general argument is that college is a waste because a) it offers nothing more than a “signal” to employers[2] and b) deeper/meaningful experiences in college are “abnormal.”[3]
Ideas like Caplan’s are continuously floated by the media. As these ideas proliferate, higher education suffers; the college brand becomes tarnished. All the while, those in higher ed (oblivious to Rome burning) publish their “views” on AI, athletics, and politics. It’s great content for academic discourse; it means little to students, enrollment, and public opinion.
Better to Fight for Something
But never fear! Not everyone in higher ed stands on the sidelines. Some jump into the fray and punch back, offering their arguments for “Go to college!”
There’s Daniel R. Porterfield, former president of Franklin and Marshall, the anti-Caplan of higher ed writing. He authored the book “Mindset Matters: The Power of College to Activate Lifelong Growth.” In contrast to Caplan’s cynicism and negativity, Porterfield is positive and optimistic. He wants you to “Go to college!” because:
Every society needs systems to help late adolescents transition into the relative independence of early adulthood with both a base of knowledge and skills and, critically, the capacity for lifelong learning and growth.
[There are] five interrelated forms of the growth mindset that college fosters extremely well: the mindsets to dis-cover, to create, to give and receive mentoring, to collaborate, and to strive for growth that reflects and realizes one’s values.
Another college advocate is Professor Scott Galloway (FYI … he’s also honest about the warts, as he should be[4]). Galloway, a prominent podcaster and NYU marketing professor, doesn’t shy away from the power of higher education. His argument for college is clear and blunt:
Despite the lie we tell ourselves (you don’t need college) in a vain attempt to opt out of the stress, higher education is in fact a wonder drug. A pill that extends life, makes you happier, healthier, and wealthier, and strengthens your relationships. America is the world’s premier manufacturer, producing the compound at a purity no other manufacturer can rival. No nation dominates any industry the way the U.S. dominates higher ed. Millions come to the U.S. to access this drug.
Despite a 6% increase in applications this year, there’s a narrative questioning the value of a college degree. I’m often asked, “Is college worth the price?” My answer: Mostly, yes. My hunch is that decades of news stories about for-profit scam schools, student loan debt, and income inequality have dinged the college brand, as those narratives speak to a sense of stagnation for people who once viewed universities as an onramp to a wealthy lifestyle.
There’s also Tamalyn Powell, SVP Education at BVK, who launched the “Proud Sponsor of College” campaign. According to Tamalyn, the biggest issue in higher ed is its “brand perception problem.” Her campaign aims to reframe the narrative around higher education. According to Tamalyn:
The industry itself is suffering from a brand perception issue. There has been so much negative publicity over the last decade, especially around higher education that it’s not accessible, that it’s not affordable, that there’s indoctrination . … There’s so much positive about higher education that I think we as Americans have forgotten about.
[The perception of value in higher ed is] going in the wrong direction. Unless we band together as an industry, it’s gonna continue going down.
More Than “Enough” Is Needed
“Unless we band together as an industry ….”
The industry, I suspect, will rage against this “calling out.” They’ll huff and fume at the idea that they’re not doing “enough.” But they misunderstand. They’re doing “enough” but the wrong “enough.” There’s more than enough talk on tariffs, the Supreme Court, and DEI. Not everybody (and yeah, it’s pretty much everybody) has to offer their 2-cents on AI. Trust me, there’s more than “enough” of that.
There’s also more than enough anti-college writing. Read through Fortune; they make no effort to hide their anti-college agenda. For many, it’ll be a red-pill-Matrix moment, their eyes opening to the biased misinformation that’s mass produced against higher ed. Then, you (whoever might be reading this) should take a stand. Make the blunt, unsexy, non-academic argument that college is a good thing. Sure, we all want the spotlight of the Chronicle’s opinion section, but maybe put that want aside for a minute. Just this once, ditch the 200 words on hybrid learning models, roll up your sleeves, and punch back against the journalists and writers who say college isn’t worth it.
[1] These publications might argue that their job-–and their only job — is to report higher ed “news.” Their journalistic “integrity” prevents a blatant sales pitch for the value of college. Of course, these publications have no qualms about reporting on the “bad” of college. In fact, the Hechinger Report seems somewhat giddy when it comes to college closures. Moreover, the media in general doesn’t hold itself to the standard of “just news.” Major publications continuously vere from neutrality (and integrity), writing salacious (and biased) headlines that intentionally paint higher ed in a negative light.
[2] As Caplan states:
This book’s goal is to emancipate the signaling model from its ghetto — then use the theory to explain the mismatched marriage between school and work.
[3] Caplan writes:
Anyone reading this book is probably a bird of a different feather. You may even remember the names of the teachers who opened your eyes to the finer things in life. I owe my love of classical music to Mr. Zainer (General Music, seventh grade), and my love of literature to Mrs Ragus (Honors English, eleventh grade). A quick look at the basic facts, however, shows our experiences are abnormal. The vast majority of our classmates emerge from years of cultural force feeding with their aesthetic palates unchanged.
This is likely the weakest statement ever written in the history of mankind. Here’s what Caplan is saying: “the vast majority of” millions and millions of college students/graduates with their millions and millions of diverse experiences, classes, and professors ”emerge from years of cultural force feeding with their aesthetic palates unchanged.” It’s a painfully simple statement — one that’s easy to make — reducing reality and complexity so they fit snugly into Caplan’s agenda.
And yet somehow (despite the overwhelming odds), Caplan (who’s gifted with his own internal knowledge) is special; the rest of humanity (based on a “quick look at the basic facts”) is not. Of course, how can anyone truly know that Caplan’s special? Just because he professes a love for “classical music” or “literature” doesn’t make it true.
[4] Galloway doesn’t sugarcoat the negative, but in doing so, he’s still arguing for higher education. By highlighting things broken, Galloway makes the point that we need to improve higher education so more students can “Go to college!” Much of what he writes is pro-college access/anti-exclusion. While I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, I’m always willing to listen because a) he cares about higher education, and b) he’s an extremely smart guy. Some of the arguments I agree with:
— [T]he top 2% of institutions have decided they are luxury brands, saying no to more than 90% of their applicants. When I applied to UCLA, the acceptance rate was 76%; last year, it was 9%. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, higher education was the key that allowed remarkably unremarkable kids (e.g., me) to unlock America’s promise of upward mobility. Today higher ed is a bouncer at the entrance to an exclusive club.
— Southern universities experienced a 30% jump in applicants from kids in the Northeast between 2018 and 2022. … Southern schools are generally less expensive and seen as less political. They’re also more likely to embrace the traditional college experience, i.e., football games, Greek life, and fun. State schools have registered an 82% increase in applications since 2019, as they offer a better value.
— I don’t have a problem with legacy admissions. When I was at Haas, there was a student who was obviously a legacy, i.e., their billionaire father donated to get them into business school. That’s a good thing, if the money is used to expand access for other students. My problem with higher education is that we’re whores who aren’t transparent about being whores.
— We have the pill, the miracle drug. Any university that has an endowment over a billion that’s not expanding its freshman class faster than the population should lose its tax-free status, as they are no longer a place of learning, but a hedge fund offering classes.
