Education Catches the Virus

It has been predicted for years, but the time has finally come—universities as we know them are about to change, and it is about time.  Universities are about as eager to accept new ideas and innovate as a stalagmite is to relocate, but like the rest of society, education is being forcibly altered by the pandemic that is reshaping American life. 

There are four areas in which I believe college life is likely to change:

Run Like a Business?  For decades, universities have paid lip service to the idea that a campus should be run like a business, despite the fact that the average administrator has had less business experience than the night manager at Taco Bell.  The few changes imposed were usually along the lines of leasing out cafeteria services and the campus bookstore, resulting in higher prices and lower quality for the student in exchange for a guaranteed income for the institution.

The university gets nice kickbacks from the companies that fill the vending machines, sell graduation rings, rent caps and gowns, and all the other services for which the students pay too much.  It has been kind of amusing to read the email directed at graduating students suggesting that even though graduation ceremonies were cancelled, they might want to purchase a cap and gown anyway. 

If you doubt that universities aren’t trying to rip off the students, would you like to bet money that the university will lower the cost of parking fees this fall?  They have long maintained they had to keep the price of the permits high to eliminate overcrowding.  This fall, those lots should be empty enough to hold square dances—if that were allowed.  Do you really think they will lower the fee? 

Those are mild changes compared to what is coming.  Over the next decade, universities will undoubtedly start forging closer relationships with large corporations.  Universities want budget stability while corporations want more access to a market that traditionally has incredibly high gross profit margins. 

At first glance, high profit margins don’t seem to be a by-product of education, but these profits are soaked up by the exaggerated overhead of the bloated bureaucracy.  Hell, do the math yourself!  An Ivy League school charges roughly $5,000 for a single course that may have as many as 200 students in it.  That’s a gross income of $1 million per course, and even after a nice paycheck for the professor, and a generous overhead fee for the building….You’re looking at a profit margin well over 80%, which is about twice what Apple gets for an iPhone.  However, while Apple is good at controlling its overhead to maximize their net profit, universities throw money away with both hands and end up operating at a loss.

Corporations have noticed this, and will soon make their move towards this obvious economic opportunity.  Administrators will get higher pay checks and more opportunities for advancement, politicians will see a stabilized budget and a source for financial support for their campaigns, and even a few professors will see expanded research opportunities.  And the students?  Well, education was never about them, anyway.

Distance Education and Online Classes.  First off, online courses are a really poor way to teach a class.  While a few students do excel, these same students would probably do well no matter how high a barrier to learning was placed in front of them.  Lots of students—and most professors--like online courses because they perceive them as easier.   I have never met a professor who wanted to teach online because it was more effective than actually engaging their students in a classroom. 

Universities claim these courses use more resources and cost more—blatant lies—so they actually charge more in fees than they charge for a traditional face-to-face classroom experience.  Students are forced to pay more to receive less. 

There is an inherent flaw in universities’ moving towards online education.  If it really works—why do I need to go to Enema U or the local Cow State?  For that matter, why does any state need more than a single campus?  If you are looking for a cost-saving measure, eliminate redundant overhead.  These savings will not be passed on to students, who have long been viewed by universities as merely a resource to be milked.

At every campus that I’m aware of, the administration is actively satisfying its eternal Edifice Complex by constantly constructing new buildings—usually for an expanding administration.  If fewer students are going to be physically on campus, this trend will have to stop, and possibly even reverse.  Why maintain all those dorm rooms if the students stay at home? 

Somewhere, there are state legislators faced with shrinking resources who are already thinking about the large pool of money currently being allocated to redundant campuses.   

The College Experience.  For decades now, campuses have hailed the benefits of the multicultural experience that campus life brings.  And college life does benefit students.  But, how do you transfer those benefits to a pajama clad student taking an online class from his parent’s house?  (There is a fascinating story today in the New York Times—that I read online—about how Amazon reports that the sale of pants has dropped, while the sale of pajamas is soaring.) 

There is indeed a benefit to going off to college for both the student and the parents.  I left home in San Antonio for the University of Houston, and cannot imagine how different my life would have been if I had not done so.  The “college experience” of leaving home and cutting yourself off from a previous life will remain for some students, but increasingly it will become something only the wealthy can afford to do. 

All of the progress universities have made over the last few decades to make college campuses more inclusive is likely to be largely reversed.  While the top fifty or so campuses will undoubtedly be able to use their endowments to continue without this radical change, the rest of public education will not be so lucky.

College Athletics.  Okay, this sacred cow probably won’t change that much.  While the myth of supportive alumni financing athletics is total bullshit—those alumni do fund the campaigns of the lawmakers whose votes control much of public education.  Simply put, the football programming of Enema U does far more to bolster the public image of the local Chevrolet dealership than it does to support education.  That’s not going to change.

It might, however, change the nature of the argument about college athletics.  While I have never met a professor who believes college athletics does anything but hinder education on campus, the administration has always maintained that athletics boost student enrollment. 

This specious argument has persisted even though there has never been any data to support it. There has never been any discernible link between enrollment and whether a campus has had a winning season, and, yet, the myth lives!  In fact, there is the obviously conflicting evidence that a few universities that have dropped football or that have dropped down a division have shown increased enrollment. 

Student attendance at sporting events has steadily declined, though it is hard to get access to the data as universities always inflate attendance records, in part by automatically selling season tickets to every student as part of some form of student fee. 

When the majority of students are taking courses online and can no longer be automatically counted among those in attendance at every home game—the discussion about the necessity of campus athletics will have to change.  This argument has never made much sense, anyway.  A student who elected to attend a university because it proudly had a long, long losing streak, was probably too stupid to graduate.

No one currently knows how long the crisis of the Coronavirus will be with us.  Will there be a vaccine?  Will the population slowly build up an immunity?  Will the virus mutate?  No one knows the answers to these questions.  We do know, however, that such major events in society inevitably trigger permanent changes in behavior.  It would be foolish to suppose that education will be exempt.