The Chronicle of Higher Education just published my latest article, “A Reason to be Skeptical of ‘College for All.'”
As is always to the case, the published version is shorter than what I submitted. The editors at the Chronicle are quite good and the article is surely better for having been cut a bit.
What got left out was a long paragraph that referenced Michael Lind’s work and linked to this article in The Bellows. It was reading his piece a couple of months ago that gave me the idea for the article.
The paragraph that was cut is here:
Michael Lind has argued that our fraught political climate is driven by conflict between two elements of the “overclass.” On one side are the college-educated professionals and on the other is the small business elite (who also tend to have college degrees but whose incomes are less dependent on educational credentials). Both groups’ politics are shaped by a legitimate fear of downward mobility and proletarianization. The small business elite seek to reduce regulation and to minimize taxation of their businesses, while the college-educated elite favor social welfare policies like subsidized child care (which benefits two-income households), college debt forgiveness, and free college, all of which benefit college-educated professionals. But the other thing that the college educated elite push for is the expansion of those parts of the economy that employ the college educated. Lind observes that when protestors (most of whom have college degrees) talk about defunding of the police, they are calling for public sector spending to shift way from unionized, working-class police, who typically lack college degrees and toward non-unionized, college-educated counselors, social workers, and social services professionals. So their proposed solution to the problem of police violence also dovetails neatly with their class interests.
It was Lind’s observation about the college-educated elites’ desire to expand the parts of the economy that employ them that got me thinking about the extent to which self-interest might shape the calls for College-for-All when they come from people who work in higher education.
It’s an excellent article and I urge you to read it. I have not read the book yet, but I expect it’s good too.
Hi. I enjoyed your Chronicle essay. I spent twenty five good years (and a half million dollar Lumina grant) drinking the kool aid. By the time I began to question the thought that everyone needed a college degree, I was eligible to retire. I took the money and ran.
All this to say, keep pushing the argument that college isn’t for all, and work that satisfies the soul and pays the bills is an honorable life, perhaps a life best lived.