Ghost of a flea

Liberty or revenue

Stanley Fish has called for the privitization of public universities. Why? States want public universities to provide a range of services the public is no longer willing to pay for. Fish argues a de facto privitization is already underway as public institutions have to reduce services. He argues public universities should instead choose to privitize and take the "freedom and the opportunity to chart the course of their own destinies" (via Invisible Adjunct).

After two years of severe cuts, my college's state-funded budget is down to less than $50-million, and I have $49-million in salary commitments. Not much room to maneuver.

But if we could set our own tuition, and the dollars came directly to us (as they now do not), we could double the tuition rate (which is now about $5,000 a year), and, given an enrollment of 10,000 students, we would instantly become a $100-million college. We could then say to the state, keep your $50-million, continue to pay for our capital projects, pensions, and health plans, and we promise to give the citizens of Illinois an educational product superior to the product they are unwilling to pay for in tax dollars.

Strange talk for a lefty academic and public intellectual. The mysterious Invisible Adjunct wonders if this is mere posturing. A later post considers the matter further in light of the "adjunctification" of teaching. Writing as someone teaching as adjunct faculty in four programs at two universities in two cities with no car, no job security and no drug plan (my migraine medication is $400 a shot and it adds up) I can say something about adjunctification. The "casualization" of university work means the production process, and the product, can at times come to resemble drive-through fast food rather more than fireside chats over a beer with the Inklings. One of my continuing studies students commented only last night that when she was in the university system in England thirty years ago that everyone who was bright enough to go would have their education paid for regardless of their personal economic circumstances. The part of the story she left out was that at the time very few people went to university and, if I understand this correctly, these chosen few were for the most part chosen at the age of eleven when the had been streamed into one of several education streams. The Economist often argues the peculiarity of public funding for a private good. People with university degrees can benefit strongly in terms of income and life-chances so, goes the Economist's critique, it is only reasonable to expect them to pay for it. It seems to me that some new balance needs to be struck between the older elite model paid for by everybody and the newer, more inclusive model whose public funding shrinks year on year. What that new balance should be I cannot say except to point out any choice will involve the same costs and benefits of any other public or private good.

Strangely, I am optimistic about my future despite the occasional gloomy thoughts that afflict any adjunct lecturer. I believe my experience and skills make me competitive in private universities as much as public. Ask me again in two years... Of course, I have worked with research outfits, management and business schools and started two businesses so I do not feel the desperation for an academic career that seems to afflict many of my colleagues. I was part of a strike at a large Canadian university two years ago. My feeling was that instead of striking we should all quit and get real jobs thereby leaving university administration high and dry. Funny how unpopular the idea was.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at November 6, 2003 06:55 AM

Comments

Post a comment