By OLIVIA MCMANUS
The education system we have come to know, appreciate, and strive within is changing–and fast. We are unknowingly living in an exploitative educational environment, which is slowly draining our opportunities for creative and introspective thought. We are being primed as political and global consumers, and those who do not economically fit within this scheme of privatization are being phased out.
As the system of higher education developed, it became a space to expand one’s own knowledge, to foster creativity, to ask questions, and to probe society. However, the growing concept of globalization and the expanding global political economy are privatizing the academy, changing its students from democratic and informed citizens to consumers in a profit-driven matrix.
We have begun to put a price on the intelligence of future generations, and even more so on fields of education that have the potential to garner a large margin of profit. Thus, we are seeing an emphasis on studies similar to economics, government, business etc, and simultaneous cuts in the humanities. This meaning that in the near future, we will see a decrease in the number and importance of such courses. Ideologies geared toward challenging the “man,” for their role the market will become “ornamental”. We will be phased out, our position within the academic matrix stolen by a monster called privatization.
Not only are the humanities at risk of extinction, but privatization also threatens the opportunity for all to be educated. Today, a democratic and informed citizen is intrinsically connected with systems of higher education, but the increasing connection between the university and solely profit-driven goals is rapidly narrowing the margin of citizens eligible for higher education. Wealth determines one’s ability to not only be educated, but to have a say on the ebb and flow of educational change.
One shocking example of this change is the newly approved St. Lawrence University Strategic Action Plan. Previous to our current situation, the SLU I knew strove for diversity, academic excellence, and the production of a well-rounded individual. We aimed to raise our inclusion of minority and international students, and prided ourselves on a large emphasis on financial aid. We sought students who were academically strong enough for the rigor of the coursework, but not necessarily able to finance their education. However, these circumstances are changing–a fact unknown to the majority of the student body.
Not only will the size of the student body increase, but also the admissions/financial aid processes have been altered. International students at this university receive a large amount of financial aid awards, and with the changes lined up by the Strategic Action Plan, any international student wanting to attend SLU will only be allowed to walk these paths if they can afford to pay full tuition. Financial aid for American students is under attack as well. Although President Fox discusses the continued “access to students with higher need,” he goes on to say that the university needs to be aware that “affording the opportunity is central to our future” (Fox).
How are we supposed to uphold the standards of our current student body if we are adopting this motto based on affording opportunity? What do these new practices mean for the hundreds of students on full scholarship, or the students who are part of the HEOP program? If we are now founding our admissions practices on wealth and affability, how can we say that we are maintaining the true nature of St. Lawrence? These practices no longer look to expand the intellect to all those capable of SLU, but rather only to those students who have the fiscal means to pay their way through.
Enlightened by a confidential source, which provided a chart displaying admissions statistics comparing the class of 2014 to 2015, we see evidence of this shift in policy. Students admitted in the fall of 2010 that did not need financial aid or FAFSA was 32.0 %. Just one year later, that number now stands at 38.2% . Additionally, the percentage of students admitted with high financial need in 2010 stood at 30.2%, while the number for the current freshman class sits at 24.1%. While the number of students not needing need was raised by 6% in one year, the number of students needing financial assistance was lowered by 6%. Interestingly enough, the admissions/financial aid polices written into the Strategic Action Plan seemed to be in place before its approval. Why create a façade of process when those in control don’t need permission to make changes?
In correlation with the change in admissions policies, we must also examine the new business major. We are a firm liberal arts institution. Although the economics department is extremely popular, the addition of a business major only highlights this change in education. Having a business major is seen to further prepare the students enrolled for this new business world. Why did the administration not add a new major in the humanities, or graduate the gender and sexualities department from a minor to a major? Why don’t we expand the language program or the art department? The answer lies in priority. Not only have business, economics, and other “preparatory” majors been elevated on a pedestal of importance, the addition of another major in this department is only further evidence of the eventual phasing out of the humanities.
Lastly, we must ask ourselves, what is the role of the student in these changes? President Fox continuously stresses the students’ role in the creation of the Strategic Action Plan. However, when discussing these changes with my peers, most were unaware of the changes being made, and more importantly, they were outraged by the situation. I am well aware that opportunities were given to ask questions concerning these changes and to gain insight into the plan, but when were our voices actually heard? When was the student body given an opportunity to challenge these decisions that were made? Do our voices actually matter, or is this university that I have loved for the past four years just another education system lost in this global capitalist makeover?
President Fox opens his Strategic Action Plan with the following quotation: “St. Lawrence University inspires and prepares students to be reflective thinkers and lifelong learners, to find a compass for their lives and careers, and to make a difference in whatever paths they choose in life. We cultivate a lifelong experience of thoughtfulness. This is the St. Lawrence promise” (William L. Fox, September 12, 2011). I have a hard time believing that with this shift in policy, the SLU we know and love today will be the same five years down the road. We will lose the essence of our being; we will lose the university we are today. Who is to say that we haven’t lost it already?
What an informative and well-written piece! I hope this article creates discussion at SLU on some of the great questions you have posed – what are colleges now preparing students for – and who are they preparing? Does the university really want to continue providing opportunities for economically disadvantaged students, or will the student body become a homogeneous group of affluent students from New England?
What you write about has implications for the St. Lawrence Community as well as the nation as a whole.
This is a longer version of a letter submitted to the editor:
I write in response to Olivia McManus’ essay, “The Privatization of Higher Education.” The title gets an important social problem correct: As a society, we increasingly leave meeting the costs of higher education to students, with government playing less and less of a role. This, combined with the global financial crisis, leave both students and institutions, including St. Lawrence, struggling.
Planning at St. Lawrence is dedicated to keeping St. Lawrence financially viable while continuing to meet the commitment to economic diversity that has become so strong a part of the institution in the past 20 years. Prior to that time, the majority of our students paid the full comprehensive fee (in 1990, only 43% were aided).
The percentage of students eligible for Pell Grants is a critical indicator of how effectively an institution encourages access. St. Lawrence has a better record on this front (including this year) than 85-90% of top-ranked liberal arts colleges in the country, despite having significantly fewer resources to allocate for supporting students in need of financial aid. This past fall, 16 percent of the entering class was eligible for the Pell Grant, the federal grant awarded only to students with the highest need. We enrolled 18 HEOP students in the entering class, well within the historical range and in accordance with our continued commitment to this important program.
Maintaining this commitment is very clear in the Strategic Map, but so is the need to increase comprehensive fee revenue, revenue that accounts for 73% of our operating budget and that makes a quality education available to each of our students.
The second goal of the Strategic Map notes that we will “recruit more high-achieving, good-fit students of means or lower need while continuing to provide access to students with higher need and working to contain or reduce student debt. … Our students’ ability to ‘afford the opportunity’ is vital to our future.” It continues, “As we grow, we will maintain our deep commitment to diversity in all its forms, including enrolling first-generation, North Country, and international students.”
The essay’s author included a chart with selected data from a presentation made by Jeff Rickey, vice president and dean of admissions and financial aid, to the Faculty Council comparing the class of 2015 to the class entering the year before. The author drew conclusions from this limited selection of data about the direction of St. Lawrence admissions that do not reflect policies or practices today, or in the future in accordance with the Strategic Map, as the Pell Grant data cited above indicates.
The author correctly points out that “international students at this university receive a large amount of financial aid awards.” In fact, St. Lawrence has enrolled almost exclusively international students who have considerable financial need. The Strategic Map presents an aspiration to attract and enroll international students who represent the range of socio-economic backgrounds represented by the broader student population.
Because of our future efforts to recruit more international students and have some of them able to afford more of the cost, we will be able to continue enrolling international students who have considerable financial need. It is not an “either/or” proposition, as inferred by the essay’s author. It is an “and.”
In addition, I want to make two comments about our curriculum: 1) Although we are exploring the possibility of a business studies major, we do not have one now, nor will we unless the faculty determines that such a major is consistent with our liberal arts goals. This is the same process that has led to the development of other programs that can be seen as “pre-professional” but to which we are committed and that we do well, including education, computer science, and 3-2 engineering. 2) Having spent a year meeting regularly with faculty from the Humanities to develop a grant proposal intended to help us enhance our work in the Humanities, I can assure you that we remain committed to the Humanities.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about the process of developing the Strategic Map, which is available from a link on the homepage of the University’s website. It is the result of more than two years of thoughtful research, reflection and conversations involving faculty, students, staff, alumni and trustees who sought to provide a set of directions for the University as it pursues academic excellence and financial security over the next decade.
Throughout the process, all involved felt it was important to include students. Students were members of the Mapping Council and served as writers and editors. Prior to voting to endorse the Strategic Map, Thelmo held widely publicized and well-attended discussions that provided additional opportunities for students to provide feedback. The students’ comments and questions were thoughtful and well informed and helped to improve later drafts of the map.
Valerie Lehr
Vice President of the University and Dean of Academic Affairs
To the Editor,
In her essay in the October 28th issue, Olivia McManus makes two related claims that are based on false impressions.
First, she criticizes the discussion about creating a business program for its supposed abandonment of the liberal arts despite the fact that no official proposal has been put forward and that the minutes of a faculty meeting on the topic would clearly indicate the sort of program the faculty is considering, which is one very much rooted in a liberal education, and not a business school, type model. Ms. McManus is welcome to her opinion, but she might have done a little investigation and talked to members of the faculty who have been part of these discussions to see what is actually being considered. I think such a conversation would have dissuaded her from seeing it as auguring the demise of the humanities on this campus.
Second, she refers to economics as a “preparatory” major, like business, presumably therefore disconnected with the liberal education provided by other majors. As the chair of that department, I would categorically reject that description. The economics major is not about preparing students for the world of business or any other professional endeavor. A cursory glance at the Catalog would find a version of our goals and objectives, which notes that we aim to, among other things, “foster the development of skills in applying economic analysis to contemporary issues, and to create a foundation for critical thinking and intelligent, engaged citizenship.” Is this not precisely what Ms. McManus would a good liberal education would do? She is welcome to come visit any of my courses to get a better sense of what economics is all about.
I love seeing students who are actively engaged in the big questions that this campus is grappling with, especially in the pages of The Hill News. However, engaging those issues comes with the responsibility to have the facts straight rather than relying on assumptions and preconceptions. If Ms. McManus is interested in a follow-up piece, I’d be delighted to chat.
Steve Horwitz, Chair
Economics