Government Relations-Is Higher Education Worth Funding?

By Mark F. Smith

This reality presents a seemingly insurmountable barrier for faculty lobbying for more support for those programs. How can financially strapped governments channel scarce resources into such luxuries? How can one argue that higher education is more deserving of support than other worthwhile programs? Unfortunately, proponents of higher education often consider its value obvious, while opponents consider its unworthiness equally obvious, so neither group sees argument as necessary.

In the mid-1990s one state legislator criticized his state's support of three research universities, arguing that if research is done right, it should have to be done just once. The state therefore needed only one research university. This fundamental misunderstanding of the research enterprise is much more common than our amused dismissal of this particular anecdote would have it.

If we are to persuade state legislatures and Congress to devote more financial resources to higher education, we will have to convince them of the uniquely valuable role it plays in society. One approach is to focus on economic benefits—an extremely narrow yet measurable aspect of higher education. Numerous studies have highlighted the increased earning potential of individuals with college degrees. Data from a U.S. Census Bureau report show that the median income of men older than twenty-five with only a high school diploma is $29,917, while adding a bachelor's degree raises the median income to $47,419. Comparable figures for women are $17,126 with a high school diploma, and $30,730 with a bachelor's degree.

The impact of institutions of higher education on their surrounding communities is similarly well documented. According to a report from the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), "the average return on every $1 of state money invested in a NASULGC institution is $5," and every $100 spent by an institution generates another $138 in additional individual spending: $64 by employees, $60 by students, and $14 by visitors.

The appeal of these arguments lies in the transparently pragmatic approach they take to the problem. Investing monies in higher education brings short-term returns to local economies and long-term payoffs in the form of productive citizens (who also provide an increased tax base). The danger of such arguments is also clear. They lead to an overly instrumental view of education that emphasizes the immediate needs of self-interested parties and programs of study that have economic returns.

Another approach is to argue for the value of a liberal education. In 1923 Harvard professor Charles Homer Haskins asserted the value of college and university professors who "sharpened men's wits and kept alive the continuous tradition of learning." In published interviews from the late 1980s, political philosopher Isaiah Berlin related a story about an early-twentieth-century Oxford don who admitted to his students that nothing he said during his lectures would provide practical assistance for them in their fields; nevertheless, he said, if "you continue with this course of lectures to the end, you will always be able to know when men are talking rot."

The ability to discern if an individual is "talking rot" is a fundamental task of citizenship, along with the ability to communicate that discernment. Those are precisely the skills taught by liberal education. Those of us involved in higher education have a responsibility to open students' minds to the broad range of knowledge, to foster a sense of critical thinking about life and society, and to bring classroom experiences to the attention of policy makers at all levels of government. Although we may already know the answer to the question at the top of this page, it is up to us to convince others.

Mark Smith is AAUP director of government relations.

 Printer-Friendly Page