Skip to main content

Where Sustainability, Public Policy, and Higher Ed meet - a guest post

The  following is a guest post by Meika Jensen of mastersdegree.net . It is worth reading among other things in relation to http://www.uea.ac.uk/phi/courses/MA+MSc+ENV+HUM+Leaflet / http://rupertsread.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=masters , the brand new interdisciplinary Masters course (that was originally my brainchild) now starting at UEA:

Where Sustainability, Public Policy, and Higher Ed meet - a guest post by Meika Jensen

Schools Should Not be Political Battlegrounds
Students in higher education tend to worry mostly about getting papers turned in on time, finding that last necessary reference, or simple waking up. Professors, in turn, typically worry about grading said papers, finding effective methods to reach students, and simply waking up. Outside of university walls, however, politics play a major role in nearly every higher education decision, from how many students can be accepted to how much online masters degree programs can charge. Amidst the constant rhetoric from all parties, the heart of education itself is misused or forgotten entirely.
It is difficult to blame the schools. After all, public universities receive their funding from government organizations, while private institutions are forced to take a side by their major contributors. They need the money to operate and are bound by both federal and state laws. More blame falls political leaders who use schools as scapegoats for their own platforms.
Under Attack
Indoctrination is a buzzword that rightfully invokes fear, but is incorrectly use as often as it is used correctly. If you can make voters afraid that institutions are brainwashing youth – especially their own children – winning votes for your "protective" measures is far easier. Perhaps this strategy lies behind Republican nominee Rick Santorum's education comments in early 2012, where he called President Obama a snob for saying all Americans should go to college and labeled universities as indoctrination mills that would tear youth away from their religions, communities, and morals.
On one level the attacks make sense: politicians will be politicians. Santorum's comments, along with similar conservative statements, are an easy way to call attention and prove key party differences. But in the process of winning votes, these politicians are involving every higher education organization in the U.S. at a time when colleges have other things to worry about. Further, as the achievement gap in this country widens and our students fall behind at a time academic excellence is more imperative than ever, these comments could be viewed as detrimental to progress.
Academic Trends
While professors do tend to be liberal, Santorum's argument is a little disjointed. College professors rarely speak to students about what they do on Sundays. Religious voters can take quick comfort in studies that show college students shift their religious habits and political leanings no more than other American kids their age. While many are decidedly less religious than previous generations, only 22% of students would say they have no religious preference. In some cases, education even supports religious affiliations rather than, as common punditry suggests, tearing it down. Further, it is generally believed that it is their parents, not their teachers, who have the most effect on students' church attendance. After all, it is their parents who instilled the practice.
The political war, in fact, does far more damage than good to higher education through its basic misunderstandings. Universities are concerned with increasing enrollment, controlling tuition, and making programs applicable to a forever changing and frequently challenging job market. They have little time to constantly switch guidelines in favor of whatever legislative winds are currently blowing. While a hands-off policy is not practical in the U.S., politicians with true respect for the system should think about taking a step back.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...

Stansted: a reflection

The key question, in relation to protsts like that at Stansted last week, is: which side are you on? Are you on the side of big corporations profiteering from completely unsustainable climate-destructive behaviour? Or are you on the side of people with no vested interests just making a non-violent stand, at considerable cost to their own time and money, for the sake of all our futures? It doesn't seem to me a hard judgement to make... Rupert Read Green Party Councillor, Norwich, and Lead Candidate for Eastern Region for the Greens in the 2009 Euro-elections. DID YOU KNOW: A vote of about 10% across Eastern Region on June 4 2009 would be enough to get me elected to the European Parliament... http://rupertsread.blogspot.com