What should Higher Education look like in a Neoliberal economy?

If Davidson exemplifies an institutional defence of Universities for the future of work then Ryan Craig, a venture capitalist in Higher Education, exemplifies the full-throated neoliberal vision the former is concerned about. In a review of his upcoming book and in an echo of Bryan Caplan’s book, Tom Vander Ark outlines the core of Craig’s thesis:

• A new generation of students want a faster, cheaper more flexible learning experience
• Selective elite colleges will survive but the middle, where costs are high and the curriculum is still general, non job-specific will be hollowed out
• New colleges will be de-risked through income share agreements rather than the pay a lump sum and hope for the best
• New colleges will deliver ‘lean’ MVPs such as the minimum it takes to get a job — something bootcamps are already doing
• This future is already here as seen by the backlash against Higher Education in the UK, Australia and even education ‘mad’ countries like South Korea

Much like the curate’s egg, there are good and bad parts to the thesis. Firstly Craig is not an innocent bystander in this, he’s been a consistent proponent of a more market driven approach to education and his Venture Capital fund — University Ventures — is predicated on the assumption that this is the future (and of course helping to bring it about — much like his book). Self-interest, appropriately then is at the heart of his thesis. There is also a plausible argument of hypocrisy, Craig as Watters has often pointed out of Venture Capitalists who want to replace university, went to Yale an elite university — it’s easier to put others at risk.

But does any of this make him wrong? In diagnosing that Higher Education is facing its most challenging moment he is surely correct, no more so than in the UK and USA where Higher Education fees are subject to fiercely political campiagn (Sander, Clegg, Corybn). He’s also correct in suggesting it is the middle order under threat — there is already evidence of that in both their desperate intake of foreign students to offset declining domestic enrolments and in their increase in debt — this is mirrored in the UK where debt has been rising. For the top that may well be a good investment but for the middle order where their demand is threatened it could represent a critical risk. Two dynamics for this debt are that (1) domestic students are increasingly unwilling to take on large debt just to get Higher Education — because the risk of not getting a well-paid job is much higher and (2) that international students, long used as cash cows and to offset falling domestic demand have better alternatives as other countries open up their institutions e.g. China, New Zealand and Germany.

Craig however is not just attacking the cost of university he’s attacking the bachelor degree itself. Craig argues that essentially Higher Education has over — supplied Bachelor degrees and that many are not a good fit for the job, market leaving the graduates with debt and a poor chance of paying it off. Many working in Higher Education argue this isn’t the time to row back on Higher Education — the knowledge economy needs graduates more than ever and secondly that creating a two-tier education system would further cement inequalities.

The poor-fit hypothesis seems reasonable at least. There are large swathes of the economy that require technical skills — such as coding — that the degree is over-kill or an outright poor fit for — the fact graduates are often re-skilling to get such jobs reflects that in part.

What about inequality? this is probably true — graduate premiums exist but should Higher Education be trying to solve it? Germany presents an interesting counter example to both points. Firstly, it has long enjoyed a strong alternative to Higher Education — vocational colleges to feed its technical industries like automobiles — suggesting at the very least that prosperous economies can thrive without everyone having an undergraduate degree. Secondly, technical vocations in Germany — due in part to unionisation — enjoy a middle class lifestyle — thus lacking a degree does not condemn one to a poorer life, that’s a decision made in the political economy rather than the education system.

In the Anglo-Saxon economies the fierce battles being waged over Higher Education reflect deeper changes: technology changing the skill requirements of the economy and creating automation, a single-system for well paying jobs (the university) rather than the dual system of Germany or Denmark and a liberal economy where higher Education is marketised (high fees) and the unionisation is weak (lower wages). All of which create a deeply febrile environment for this debate to take place.

Within those limitations, Craig’s argument is logical. A student burdened with debt of a degree but not the outcomes they thought it would confer is a terrible outcome. Where Craig falls short is assuming that the private sector is the end-all to this rather, it is in fact a driver of of the deeper structural problems and alone can’t solve it. The new emerging sectors that Venture Capital firms like his seek to fund: bootcamps, last mile programs need to be regulated in quality, accredited in outcomes and the government to ensure they gain employer recognition and provide the pathways to jobs that the students hope they will — here