For Hampshire College President Jonathan Lash, money isn’t everything when choosing a college, but it is for many students.
The College Scorecard issued by the Department of Education perpetuates the false idea that the point of a college education is to help graduates find a high-paying job, Lash writes in Money.
“Jobs are essential, but is it right for graduates to be valuing their degree, six years or 20 years out, against a national average salary? Is that the right measure for students, or for society?” he asks.
As a result of the recent economic downturn, however, most students have answered that question in the affirmative. Increasingly, students choose higher education based on the bottom line. Their economic futures drive their academic interests.
The numbers aren’t even close. About 67 percent of students said that “the chief benefit of a college education is that it increases one’s earning power,” according to the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.
Another 86 percent said getting a better job was “very important” in deciding to attend college, and almost 73 percent of students said “to be able to make more money” drove them to college. “To learn more about things that interest me” gained 82 percent support, and almost 71 percent said it was very important “to gain a general education and appreciation of ideas.”
The classical ideal of becoming a well-rounded citizen and a moral person through a college education has given way to the current economic reality. That doesn’t mean students aren’t interested in becoming better people or developing a more intellectual mind, but economic independence is higher on the list.
“Most graduates I know are not focused on achieving the highest income possible in six years; they’re focused on turning their interests and passions into the most rewarding vocation possible,” Lash writes.
For most students, the vocation is the reward. As a college education has become crucial to get a foot in the door to start a good career, mass higher education has changed the mission of colleges, regardless of whether they recognize it.
That doesn’t mean that Lash’s critique of the College Scorecard is wrong.
“Ranking colleges by alumni earnings penalizes colleges for alums who choose public service, the arts, nonprofits, education, social science, and graduate school,” he writes.
The American higher education system is so varied that it’s difficult to compare all colleges and universities on similar metrics. The diversity of the system is its strength because students can find something that suits their individual goals and needs.
The Department of Education’s attempt to put out a one-size-fits-all scoring system obscures that. The College Scorecard is worrisome not because it makes alumni earnings publicly available, but because the federal education looks like it’s sanctioning economic outcomes as the only valid way to evaluate colleges. Society is not only economic.
Colleges, however, would be wise to acknowledge that students use a degree as a letter of introduction for a good job. That would mean honestly reckoning with the economic performance of their graduates, and the actual value of a degree from them. Students deserve full, transparent information about how their tuition payments will benefit them.
“I would venture to say the vast majority of alums who graduated about six years ago are living the richest of lives by their own value system and following their own path,” Lash says.
Students who aren’t concerned with their earnings potential belong in higher education alongside everyone else. However, they should have the information to know what they’re getting themselves into when they leave with a diploma.
