In Part 1 of this series, “Attack of the Politicians,” I pointed out just how pervasive has become the branding of higher education by politicians and media pundits as being primarily – even exclusively – a mechanism for job preparation. And this idea is apparently not a passing fad. The idea that the value of college is to provide the training young people need to “get a good job” is being treated as a truism among a number of probable candidates for the Republican nomination for president in the 2016 election. In Part 1, I quoted Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin as a specific example.

Because the proposition that the purpose of higher education is job preparation is likely to become even more prominent in the coming months, it is important that we consider the origins and merits of this idea.

I briefly reviewed the complex and ever-changing history of higher education in America in my last post, wherein I noted that the original liberal arts colleges were largely decoupled from anything to do with job training (teaching and the ministry excepted). However, with the expansion of higher education into professional and applied fields beginning in the latter half of the 19^th century, a link between higher education and specific areas of employment was quickly established, and it exists to this day. Beginning with agricultural science and engineering, and then expanding into professional fields such as medicine and law (it is no longer possible to enter these professions by apprenticing with practicing doctors and lawyers, as was once the case), there are many well-marked pathways from certain college majors to specific career fields.

Moreover, the rapid expansion of what are now generally called “community colleges” from the 1950s through the 1970s dramatically increased the number of two-year schools having two distinct educational tracks, leading to the associate of arts or the associate of science degrees, respectively. Students in the associate of arts track are able to transfer their work to a four-year college or university, and (at least in theory) obtain their baccalaureate with two additional years of study. Students in the associate of science track generally do not have that option, inasmuch as their track is intended to lead to a terminal degree in applied fields ranging from nursing to electronics technician to auto mechanic.

This expansion of what constituted post-secondary education in America was alarming to faculty in the liberal arts, because they saw their fundamental belief in the virtue of education for education’s sake – the broadening and deepening of understanding, the ethical and social growth of the individual, the commitment to lifelong learning – being corrupted by a focus on specific learning for a specific field of endeavor.

On the other hand, expansion into graduate education and research in fields within the liberal arts, and the shift from an almost exclusive focus on the classics to a continually expanding set of disciplines known as “majors” was, for the most part, accepted much more readily.

The result has been an uneasy truce, wherein faculty from the liberal arts and faculty from applied and professional fields exist side-by-side on many campuses, separated by curricular boundaries that are generally accepted and rarely challenged. The liberal arts faculty claim exclusive jurisdiction over the courses that are included in the “General Education” portion of the curriculum, and typically oppose faculty members in applied fields should they argue for reducing the number of credit hours required in General Education, or for including an introductory course in an applied field within the course options available in the General Education curriculum.

At the same time, the liberal arts faculty at four-year schools acknowledge that students in the associate of science track in community colleges exist, but since these students rarely attempt to transfer to a four-year college or university, they are seen as being “trained,” rather than “educated.” Training is fine, just as long as it doesn’t creep into baccalaureate curricula.

So the mental picture I am trying to create is of a growing landmass, called “higher education,” the boundaries of which are expanding as the ocean levels recede. The high point of this landmass represents the liberal arts and sciences, fields of study that have been present from the time when, in my metaphor, the ocean levels were much higher. As long as the liberal arts, through its program of General Education, can inform the rest of the higher education landmass without being tainted by it, all will be well in the kingdom.

But all is not well today. Especially since the Great Recession of 2008, the liberal arts have been besieged. Many politicians, pundits, parents and even “heretics” from within the higher education establishment see a liberal arts education as an expensive frill, an anachronism and an impediment that stands in the way of the need to streamline, modernize and make less expensive the entire notion of higher education.

The consequence is that the battle lines have been drawn. On one side stand the liberal arts adherents, armed with tradition, history and moral outrage. Everything in which they believe – and their very way of life – are imperiled by the forces of evil and ignorance that oppose them.

On the other side are those who believe higher education must be made more affordable, more accessible, more efficient and more relevant to the needs of America today. They do not see themselves as “forces of evil,” but as realists who are astonished at the recalcitrance of the other side to face reality, and to agree on the need to modernize our system of higher education.

It is not an equal fight. The liberal arts adherents are armed with little more than a voice with which to make thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments, accompanied by (as happened at the University of Wisconsin, in response to Gov. Walker’s expressed desire to reduce state appropriations to higher education and to change the university’s mission) statements of disapproval and condemnation (The New York Times, “Walker’s Wisconsin Budget Has a National Message,” Feb. 4, 2015) or letters to the editor (The New York Times, April 8, 2013, letter to the editor, “What Is the Mission of a University?,” in response to a column by David Brooks, The New York Times, “The Practical University,” April 4, 2013).

Facing what amounts to a few catapults and an occasional vat of hot oil, the other side has tanks, artillery and jet fighters. They have the purse strings, a majority of the political and economic will, and the ear of a public anxious to have access to a less expensive college education that leads to a good job.

The liberal arts are attempting to fend off an overwhelming force. People of good will exist on both sides, but the conversation is becoming increasingly shrill and contentious – and a forum does not seem to exist in which can be had a rational discussion of the pros and cons of the views of each side. Increasingly, the sides are becoming entrenched, and there is no question in my mind that traditional liberal arts education is, as a consequence, in extreme peril.

It is both ironic and tragic that there exists, at this very moment, new and objective data that demonstrate a middle ground exists, one that would, if recognized, allow this destructive war of ideology to be brought to an end. Such an outcome is not just desirable. It is absolutely necessary if we are to preserve the American economy and our way of life.

Next week: Part 3: A New Hope.

Recently, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who some consider a potential contender for the Republican presidential nominee in 2016, has been in the news for comments he made when announcing his proposed state budget (The New York Times, Feb. 4 and Feb. 17, 2015; Inside Higher Ed, Feb. 5 and Feb. 16, 2015). In addition to calling for a $300 million, two-year cut in state appropriations to the University of Wisconsin system (a 13 percent reduction from its current appropriation), Gov. Walker also called for a change in the university’s mission statement, removing century-old language such as “search for truth,” and “improve the human condition,” and substituting instead “meet the state’s workforce needs.”

Although he later removed that language, citing “a drafting error,” his focus on workforce development is very much in keeping with similar statements from the Republican governors of Texas, Florida and North Carolina, among others, in the recent past. Media pundits have speculated that these comments presage a Republican higher education agenda, with a focus on further reductions in state appropriations for public universities; an emphasis on vocational training; and tying state funding to the job placement rate for graduates and to the size of their starting salaries (Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 30, 2013). The newly elected Republican governor of Illinois has just announced his intention to cut $387 million from the state’s higher education budget (Inside Higher Ed, Feb. 19, 2015), with almost $210 million cut from the University of Illinois alone – a figure that represents nearly one-third of the state’s current appropriation.

What’s going on here? Do these criticisms of higher education represent political cover for politicians who feel obliged to cut state appropriations because of poor tax returns and a pressing sense of urgency from other areas of the state budget? Or is this more deeply philosophical, wherein governors see public universities as state entities very much within their power to change and shape as they see fit, while they are in office?

There is a third possible explanation. Perhaps these governors have tapped into a deep-seated resentment by the electorate of the perceived aloofness, indifference or unresponsiveness of higher education institutions to the plight of the average taxpayer. Perhaps they are taking advantage of the deep schisms that exist in our country today, on almost every issue imaginable. It’s certainly the case that there are very few examples of governors who have cut state appropriations to higher education, or who have criticized management of the campuses, subsequently being voted out of office by irate taxpayers. Indeed, the evidence points the other way: criticizing higher education apparently plays well with the general populace, and therefore we can expect to see more, and louder, criticisms in the future.

Determining the true purpose of higher education would allow us greater insight into the wisdom or folly of the political actions now under way at both federal and state levels aimed at changing how higher education functions in America.

A Little History

In a recent book, Beyond the University: Why Liberal Education Matters (Yale University Press, 2014), Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, looks in detail at the conflicting views regarding the purpose of higher education in America since its origins in 1636 with the founding of Harvard. It seems that the purpose of higher education has been a source of controversy for almost its entire history. Thomas Jefferson was a staunch supporter of the value of the liberal arts, and founded the University of Virginia with that perspective in mind; Benjamin Franklin, with little formal education of his own, advocated for practical education (even though he subsequently founded the University of Pennsylvania, an institution that began as a liberal arts school). George Washington Carver, a son of slaves, strongly pushed for the true emancipation of African Americans through the acquisition of practical skills. W.E.B. Du Bois, the early 20^th century black leader, maintained that the “talented tenth” (of the black male population) should be educated in the liberal arts, in order that they might become more effective leaders.

Historically, the earliest colleges in this country were liberal arts institutions, including the earliest public universities (the first of these date to 1790). With the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862, however, wherein public schools of agriculture and mechanical arts (what we now call “engineering”) were to be established in every state for the explicit purpose of improving the nation’s economy, liberal and professional studies have co-existed, eying each other warily at times, but generally recognizing that higher education was a large enough tent to support both schools of thought.

Things became more confused with the founding of Johns Hopkins University in 1876, built as it was on the then-new German concept of a research university. Universities, as opposed to colleges, were conceived as places that focused on graduate education and research, rather than on undergraduate education and teaching. By the early years of the 20^th century, both Harvard and Yale had augmented their strong undergraduate programs with both professional and graduate programs, and firmly established the concept of the modern university as we know it today.

The public flagship universities followed suit, and their missions were expanded (generally by statute or charter) to include undergraduate and graduate education; research; and service to the interests of the state. Most had (and now all have) both liberal arts and professional schools or colleges within the university’s framework. The liberal arts typically constitute the foundation program of general education (usually three or four semesters in the freshman and sophomore years); junior and senior years are focused on the “major” (and the major might be either a professional program or additional study in one of the liberal arts).

There are still a great many private colleges that have remained “colleges” – that is, offering no graduate education – but while most retain their liberal arts focus, some have added one or more professional programs (business programs are particularly common), and a few have added graduate programs as well, if only to develop new revenue streams.

A visitor from another planet, viewing higher education in America today, would have a difficult time understanding its actual purpose. Is it to prepare people to obtain relatively sophisticated jobs (i.e., those requiring a college degree)? Is it to ensure that, by the time of their graduation, students have a broad understanding of the many facets of the human condition and of the world around them? Is it to learn how to think, and thereby how to learn, such that they become lifelong learners? Or is it to “find” themselves, to “develop their voice,” to “discover their passion?”

The answer is “yes” – American institutions of higher education aspire to do all of those things, although particular institutions may emphasize one of these purposes more than the others. As I said, higher education is a big tent: there is room for many purposes.

But suppose society’s interests change. Suppose society says it has need of certain things not now being done by higher education, and perhaps it has less need for things currently being done by higher education. Can society expect that higher education institutions will respond to this expression of new or changed interests? And what happens if the higher education institutions don’t listen? Can society demand that colleges and universities pay attention to its needs? And if the answer to that is “yes,” there are two follow-along questions: (1) For public institutions, isn’t the governor effectively the voice of society, and therefore shouldn’t public institutions respond positively to what the governor request of them? (2) Should private universities, most of which receive no state funding in any significant amount, also be expected to respond to changes in society’s interests? Or are they exempt because they are private?

We’ll address those questions next week in Part 2: Higher Education Strikes Back.