Not all value can be measured in US dollars. Consider a cautionary tale shared by Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel.
When he was an Oxford Rhodes Scholar in the 1970s, St. Anne’s, a university at Universities, got tangled in the debate about the evolving sex life. Traditionally, the residential halls of men and women were separated, but the pressure increased to relax the rules and allow men to stay overnight in St. Anne. Sandel said some older female teachers called “traditionalists” and it was morally wrong to think that men and women sharing rooms overnight.
But times and norms are changing, making the position traditionalists take seem quaint and outdated. Therefore, they decided to state their objections on economic grounds. Specifically, they believe that allowing men to spend a night in St. Anne would increase the cost of maintenance and utilities (even if the mattress is recommended, it would require more frequent replacement). In response to traditionalists, reformers push for change, advised male guests to pay a small fee every night. Ultimately, the school ruled in favor of the reformers.
There is a lesson in this story: when moral arguments are made economically, it will get economic answers. As Sandel said, “Value language does not translate well into practical language.”
Although this story has been half a century, Sandel’s warning has several modern applications. One area of relevance is the “big and beautiful bill” before Congress. The bill has been passed in the House, reflecting President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda, including tax cuts, government rollbacks and increased military spending. The bill also aims to address inefficiencies in higher education, reducing mandatory spending by $350 billion over a decade by reducing Pell grant eligibility and spending, limiting federal aid and eliminating multiple loan programs.
“As the debate continues in detail, it’s clear that the proposal represents a serious effort to modernize higher education policies,” wrote Beth Akers of the American Enterprise Academy. “It’s time to go beyond the status quo and towards protecting students, respect the system of taxpayer investments, and reward institutions that can bring real economic value.”
One of the most notable elements of the bill is related to the “risk sharing” proposal for higher education institutions. Specifically, these policies will require colleges and universities to reimburse unpaid debts from federal student loans, effectively keeping schools responsible for student defaults. It is understandably to be a requirement for reusing incentive structures to protect students, and as one commentator wrote, “restore accountability in higher education, improve efficiency and reduce costs.”
With the budget already in the Senate, the risk sharing recommendation takes the form of “paid employment” conditions under which federal aid is based on graduate income rather than non-graduates. In other words, schools will be pushed to minimize unrealistic low-ROI programs (remember former President Barack Obama’s derogatory irony about the art history major?) and improve training and certificates, thus providing students with the best opportunities for valuable employment and good competence.
These suggestions will resonate with many people. There is a reason why higher education has been less valuable than any other institution in the past 15 years. Student debt has been at an all-time high. University price tags continue to rise. Silicon Valley leaders regularly express their doubts about colleges, which is a necessary path to workplace relevance.
After the financial crisis of 2007-2009, the junior college education market began to favor consumers rather than “buyer market.” In other words, the supply of educational programs begins to exceed the demand for the degree and experience offered. The shift in negotiation power from school to potential students is primarily related to deliverables: What does the students get for them (or borrow)? For an increasing share of the population, the perceived benefits of college education are outweighed by the expenses.
Although the reasons for changing perspectives vary, there is no doubt that higher education confidence is affected by the attacks of negative PR. This includes painful images of student protesters directing their campuses and vocalizing anti-Semitic odes, stories in which such as the “Stories of American Thought” describe colleges and universities that fail to develop intelligence, or permanentize university presidents, or the public of university presidents refuses to label genocide language as hate speeches.
In summary, higher education institutions should use economic expression, “internalization consequences” to make it fall where it falls – federal policy is an effective means to achieve this. So it is understandable why many Americans support the outcomes these policies are designed to achieve, and financial “skin in the game” makes sense for keeping schools accountable, reducing costs and increasing new efficiencies.
But there are some problems. As Sandel’s warning story reminds us, when we reduce all our value to dollars and cents, we lose something.
Determining the value of university or university experience will directly be in answering the question: “What is the purpose of higher education?” The proposal considered by the Senate reflects an undefined but clear assumption that post-school education exists to promote the economic potential of tomorrow’s labor force, thereby assessing that higher education is proportional to the income earned by graduates.
Although career development is indeed a core aspect of university education, higher education institutions are not single. and, Raison d’Etre In many schools, there is a desire to value and commodities in various fields.
For example, consider faith-based universities and universities, such as the persons who make up Christian universities and the Council of University (CCCU). A responsibility framework reduces the value of faith-based schools to the future potential of graduates, will minimize or change their self-understanding and effectively punish these institutions to promote their religious belief-driven service spirit.
For example, my son is an education major at a prestigious CCCU institution and after graduation encourages a challenging and underresourced school environment for the behavior of the Christian faith. However, under the proposed accountability criteria, his agency may be punished for fostering such services and appeals.
For CCCU schools and other religiously oriented and task-driven schools, there are better ways to think about value.
The late American pastor AW Tozer once gave illustrations of three people entering the forest: a poet, naturalist and lumberjack. Everyone observes the properties of the forest in a different way.
The poet saw the metaphor. To him, the tall and powerful trees resemble the provinces that the king emphasized. Naturalists see the nuances. He can distinguish birds, plant life and animal activities, and cannot obtain untrained eyes. Finally, lumberjacks see economic value. For market-sensitive eyes, broad wood signal business potential: chairs, musical instruments, houses.
Although Tozer’s purpose has different purposes, his illustrations acknowledge the possibility of evaluation for a variety of reasons. It’s not that the lumberjack is wrong in his assessment. On the contrary, understanding complex arrangements with multiple values through an economic perspective alone is a narrow view. Something was lost.
When the Big and Beautiful Act refers to the legislative proposal, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy was chair of the rescue committee, hoping that colleges and universities would be effective and responsible. “We need to repair the broken higher education system, so it prioritizes student success and ensures Americans have competitive skills in the 21st century economy,” he said.
Few people disagree. Higher education institutions should assume responsibility and strive to pursue greater affordability and access. However, withdrawing responsibility to risk-sharing or paid employment advice on business conditions may misunderstand the multiple dimensions offered by schools based on value beliefs, further effectively punishing them to achieve their mission.
“A kind of emotion that educates us, teaches us to cherish the truth and goodness, is an unmeasurable gift,” wrote Peter Wehner. “In their best case, this is what Christian universities have to offer, and that’s a lot.”
