It is not just this though. In concert with local and state governments, there was conscious effort to redistribute education monies (especially in higher education) and reroute it into other areas of the budget.
This did two things.
First, it changed the culture inside the university. It set off a new more intense wave of pay to play…
It is not just this though. In concert with local and state governments, there was conscious effort to redistribute education monies (especially in higher education) and reroute it into other areas of the budget.
This did two things.
First, it changed the culture inside the university. It set off a new more intense wave of pay to play, vita arms race quasi-privatizations within higher education for professors to justify their existence via grantsmanship. The critiques of capitalism (largely in universities in the 70's and 80's) got boxed in as new hires had a different attitude about scholarship, publishing and the business world. Scholars were steered towards a neoliberal version of their jobs and many drank it in/accepted/invited/imbibed it as rigor, justifying how smart they were and well accomplished they were. It was CV padding and corporate glad-handing. The professors who played the game got more grant money, solidifying tenure and personal prestige.
Second, it pushed the universities in the direction to increase tuition or lose market share. The political community all over the country in local and national ways were trying to sell "entrepreneurship", "cost-cutting", "pay for yourself/unit/department" initiatives that resembled pre-NAFTA corporate America. By starving the university of its stream of public resources, it pushed the university to corporate sphere --- where raising prices on fixed commodity seemed not only smart but a necessity.
Of course they disregarded that the marketplace did not differentiate between a Harvard Law Degree in 1970 (10K) versus 2020 (65K). Why does one generation get a better deal in cost, plus the GI Bill and another does not? That's capital working. Win Win for them every time. Win Lose for their partners.
It is not just this though. In concert with local and state governments, there was conscious effort to redistribute education monies (especially in higher education) and reroute it into other areas of the budget.
This did two things.
First, it changed the culture inside the university. It set off a new more intense wave of pay to play, vita arms race quasi-privatizations within higher education for professors to justify their existence via grantsmanship. The critiques of capitalism (largely in universities in the 70's and 80's) got boxed in as new hires had a different attitude about scholarship, publishing and the business world. Scholars were steered towards a neoliberal version of their jobs and many drank it in/accepted/invited/imbibed it as rigor, justifying how smart they were and well accomplished they were. It was CV padding and corporate glad-handing. The professors who played the game got more grant money, solidifying tenure and personal prestige.
Second, it pushed the universities in the direction to increase tuition or lose market share. The political community all over the country in local and national ways were trying to sell "entrepreneurship", "cost-cutting", "pay for yourself/unit/department" initiatives that resembled pre-NAFTA corporate America. By starving the university of its stream of public resources, it pushed the university to corporate sphere --- where raising prices on fixed commodity seemed not only smart but a necessity.
Of course they disregarded that the marketplace did not differentiate between a Harvard Law Degree in 1970 (10K) versus 2020 (65K). Why does one generation get a better deal in cost, plus the GI Bill and another does not? That's capital working. Win Win for them every time. Win Lose for their partners.