The Brain Eaters: Image from http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/ss10.jpg

Seth Godin is at it again. In higher education studies there’s something known as the crisis of the higher education crisis. It was penned as such after years of fear-based speculations, research and publications devoted to the many noted problems of the academy, which continues along despite predictions of doom, gloom and, as Godin puts it, meltdown.

Last week Godin weighed in on something that’s been known for sometime: Higher education represents an imperfect system. It was a tract to be read with amusement and bewilderment.

First, the information presented was hardly new – it was, rather, cast in a tone of “Here’s an authoritative, outside view of the situation.” More importantly, the status of the individual weighing in meant that, naturally, it would receive traction. Sure enough, PRSA included the blog post in Monday’s “Issues & Trends” email update.

Here are the points presented, as well as my own thoughts on each.

The claim: Most colleges are organized to give an average education to average students.

The reality: It’s obvious how the law of averages works, and thus, higher education is no different than other organizational systems with the goods and services they provide, as well as their customers and clientele. This point wasn’t brought up to discuss statistical probability, however; it was to make an unrelated point that higher education institutions are mass marketers, which is only sort of true and based on suspect reasoning. Higher education institutions market within means using all sorts of delivery channels; the most effective will use an integrated mix of marketing, just as would any good marketing effort. More to the point, these organizations will market their best assets. Studies conducted find that what are called college choice characteristics include things like cost, availability of majors, distance to home and so on. Moreover, public universities often have regionally based missions such that the University of Nevada, Reno will offer vastly different programs as part of a land-grant mission than, say, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, which may focus more on hospitality and gaming. The view presented by this commentator, the one of averages, holds weight only as far as comparing like institutions. Good luck being able to find them.

The claim: College has gotten expensive far faster than wages have gone up.

The reality: While this is true, the author makes the claim that this has resulted in “millions of people in serious debt, debt so big it might take decades to repay.” His source is a graph of PRIVATE college tuition, not the more common and more affordable public university. Many things have not kept pace with inflation, including wages, so this is a disingenuous argument to make especially citing data for private institutions which have noted differences from public institutions. Debt as we know it is more often from credit extended to consumers. Furthermore, going into debt is still a choice, whether by higher learning or by credit cards. Perhaps most importantly, many states, such as California, offer higher education opportunities for little cost at community colleges compared with a university tuition. A mission of community colleges is affordability so that people have access to higher education regardless of personal levels of wealth. (Godin ignores this aspect of higher education until the end of his rant.) Is it imperfect? Yes. But it’s hardly the black and white picture Godin would like you to see.

The claim: The definition of ‘best’ is under siege.

The reality: This claim is made, like the previous two, not to actually enhance the stated point but to make another, completely different point. In this case, the author rails on colleges and universities sending out promotional mailers in an attempt to – seriously – reject applicants in order to increase rankings in the U.S. News. Diligent marketing of such institutions will capitalize on institutional strengths trying to best capture the college choice characteristics noted above. While many likely engage in a shotgun marketing approach, ineffectively, solid marketing efforts will target the best (the definition is more clear to me than Godin, as students in the top quartile are better than those in the bottom given whatever criteria is being measured) students that will fit with that institution’s strengths and programmatic offerings. Rankings in the U.S. News and World Report are controversial at best, and there’s not a U.S. higher education institution that won’t at least quietly acknowledge unhappiness with its ranking system. Institutions will market rankings when it is suited to do so; behind the scenes, these organizations should be more concerned how they place in NACUBO’s ranks, which focus on endowment size, and in the Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education, which focus on scholarly activity.

The claim: The correlation between a typical college degree and success is suspect.

The reality: No, it’s not.

The claim: Accreditation isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.

The reality: Accreditation ensures standards and accountability, so it’s difficult to say specifically how encouraging higher standards is problematic, especially if one is concerned with “average” scholarly productivity and students. Godin does not provide any viable rationale for such a statement other than to claim that “a lot of these ills are the result of uniform accreditation programs that have pushed high-cost, low-reward policies on institutions and rewarded schools that churn out young wanna-be professors instead of experiences that turn out leaders and problem-solvers.”

I am unfamiliar with accreditation policies Godin is referring to, and I’m not sure how the age of a professor is relevant to being a leader or a problem-solver; however, it is more likely that the cost of higher education, at, say, public universities, is more likely a consequence of state policy, not that pushed by accrediting agencies. In fact, dwindling educational support has been well documented as leading to tuition increases as more and more of the population enters higher education than ever before. State funding has not been able to keep adequate pace in return.

While Godin’s concerns are obvious issues for those of us involved in higher education – and who share policy concerns such as equal access, affordability and achievement gaps – his confusing deductions about the issues only further muddy larger problems with higher education because they are based on speculative sourcing, or none at all, and inconsistent reasoning. With each of his curious claims, it makes me wonder what, exactly, Godin is trying to say here, other than that he does not like the current mainstream higher education system.

What is certain is that because he said it, many will repeat it. As of this writing, the Godin’s post was retweeted 2,359 times. It gained further promotion by none other than the Public Relations Society of America.

Like this post? Buy the book!

Available in paperback ($18.98) or as an eBook ($7.49).