Higher Learning, Greater Good: The Private and Social Benefits of Higher Education

7 New Higher Education Policies

286 chapter seven New Higher Education Policies I think by far the most important bill in our whole code, is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. thomas jefferson (1786, p. 396) F amiliar higher education policy issues involve access, affordability , accountability, and the trend toward privatization. Dramatically changed conditions in the economy with enormous skill deficits due to globalization, a human capital perspective that has established the critical role of education in the knowledge economy, new research on the nature and value of private and social benefits of higher education, and implications of all of these for the degree of market failure in higher education markets and for privatization trends require revisiting these traditional policy themes. These new perspectives will indicate that some major new departures are needed in higher education policy. After summarizing the evidence concerning the need for new policies, the main higher education policy options and conclusions relating to them that draw on analyses in Chapters 1–6 in this book will be considered. This chapter will not seek to address all higher education policy debates. Some relate to internal personnel management and not to issues that are closely related to the theme of this book. A good source for updates on the details of these debates is the Inside Higher Education website at http:// insidehighered.com/news/. Background for still other policies is covered in Paulsen and Smart (2001) and Monk (1990). This chapter focuses on New Higher Education Policies 287 policies and policy options that are consistent with a human capital formation perspective and implied by the analysis presented. Policy implications will be considered first at the national, then at the state (or provincial ), and then at local campus levels. The emphasis is on U.S. higher education policies, but most options are also relevant to the United Kingdom and the European Union, except where noted. The Need for New Higher Education Policy Higher education policy is often very introspective. This is necessarily true for many faculty and department heads, who are primarily concerned with their own disciplines, as well as for deans, chancellors, and even some university presidents. It is also true for some state boards of higher education that take a narrow internal management view of their role, and for some legislators and governors. This myopic and introspective view persists in spite of the ongoing debate at the national and state levels about access and about reductions of state funding creating pressures for higher tuition and privatization and in spite of the debates about the future of higher education. For example, presidents and representatives from all levels of higher education at a TIAA-CREF Leadership Conference dealing with “Trends and Issues” explored the implications and need for “transformational change in higher education.” In the summary by Lord (2007), very few even mentioned the needs of the society that their institutions serve. Many focused on devices for attracting students to their school, most focused on internal management issues, and most were preoccupied with competition with other types of institutions. This internal conflict and competition within the higher education community, although it is not all bad, clouds recognition that institutions have diverse and complementary missions and that cooperation in developing strategies to meet society’s needs is vital. There were, however, exceptions. President Bacrow (Tufts) stressed that “one of the biggest transformational changes that we could make is to, as a group, commit ourselves to need-based financial aid” (ibid., p. 11). This does suggest broader cooperation among institutions and recognizes the trend in many states toward purely merit-based aid where it would be possible without excluding the middle class from benefits to add a need criterion. Another president, King Alexander (California State University, 288 higher learning, greater good Long Beach), commented on the need to be accountable for student outcomes . He went on to highlight the enormous pent-up demand for enrollment in California when tuition is affordable, and to stress the need for a national policy to deal with helping states to help institutions provide for access. This is a theme this chapter will return to. And Chancellor Kirwan (University System of Maryland) described a unique deal negotiated with their legislature whereby a range of efficiency measures were implemented by the university, and the state legislature followed through to fund a 21% increase in appropriations over two years to cover a ten...