Postsecondary Play: The Role of Games and Social Media in Higher Education

7. Games, Passion, and “Higher” Education

james paul gee Colleges and universities have addressed undergraduate education in different ways (Cole 2009). One way is to offer undergraduate students “mini” versions (called “majors”) of what they offer graduate students. Faculty members teach undergraduates a scaled-down version of their disciplinary specialty. A second approach offers undergraduates “big ideas” from the history of thought in Western and other civilizations. This is a liberal arts approach. In most cases, these big ideas are cut off from any real-world applications or projects. A third approach is to make undergraduate education relevant to the future work lives of students. Indeed, the largest major on many campuses today is business (Hacker and Dreifus 2010). And, of course, many community colleges and forpro fit colleges engage primarily in vocational education. Another approach, one that, if not really new, is fast becoming more prevalent (Brandon 2010): colleges offer students exciting social interactions (often beer and bodies) and an environment full of amenities (good food and recreation facilities). In an effort to obtain full-paying students and retain them, academic work is dumbed down and becomes a secondary concern to social interaction. College becomes camp. Higher Education in Crisis There are several paradoxes at the heart of colleges and universities today (Hacker and Dreifus 2010; Menand 2010). Our society has decided to make college a goal for all who want it. We have decided that college is a matter of social justice, since, as Perna observes in chapter 2, college graduates earn Games, Passion, and “Higher” Education chapter seven significantly more than do solely high school graduates across a lifetime. In the past, we backed this goal up with public colleges and universities that were free or inexpensive. Now, however, even many public colleges—let alone private ones—are expensive enough that many students cannot attend them. Other students leave college with mountains of debt. Another paradox at the heart of colleges and universities is that though they were meant to be “off market” institutions, they are now heavily market-driven (Nussbaum 2010). Today, colleges and universities, with less public support and more competition, have to make money on tuition, new and expanded programs, grants, e-learning, and gifts. There is a push for research that leads to money in the short run, not research that leads to knowledge in the long run. For proponents of free markets, this all seems to the good, and as Tierney observes , perhaps this is all part of what he calls “disruptive technology,” which will transform higher education as we have known it. Why not let the market decidewhichacademicareas,research,andfacultyshouldsurvive(becausethey make money) andwhichshould not(becausethey do not)?Whyshould anycollege keep losing money in fields or with faculty whose research cannot garner grants? Theansweris—orhasbeeninthepast—thesameanswerastowhyweshould keep biological diversity around even if we cannot make money on small owls and rare snakes. Diversity—including the stuff that seems useless—is a storage house of possibilities for the future. We cannot know now in the short run what ideas or species may be found crucial in the future in the long run. No one can tell a student for sure what will be relevant or irrelevant, important or unimportant in the future the student will live in. According to yesterday ’s model of colleges and universities, students were expected to expose themselves to various ideas and influences and take the risk of being bored or wasting their time in search of what would eventually inspire them to become deeppeople.Becausenoonecantellwhatisrelevantorirrelevant,importantor unimportant in the long run, markets cannot do so. They can, at best, tell us what is working in the short run. But that may not be good enough for the survival of human society in our complex, high-risk, global world. The final paradox I want to discuss is one general to all levels of schooling, K–16. It is common today to argue that schools and colleges ought to prepare students for jobs. The problem is that in developed societies like the United States 60% of all the jobs are (often poorly paid) service work (Reich 1992, 2007). So, if the purpose of school is to prepare young people for jobs, then, the 172 what’s in a game? games, passion, and “higher” education 173 purpose of schools is to prepare 60% of their students for bad jobs. Wal-Mart is thebiggestemployerintheUnitedStates.Fewteacherswithasocialconscience really want this...