Shakespeare, Einstein, & The
Bottom Line:
A Teachers College Event at AMNH
by Joanne Kontopirakis
Professor of Public Policy at the University of California
at Berkeley and author David L. Kirp joined Richard Heffner,
the Host of Channel 13's "The Open Mind" at the American
Museum of Natural History (AMNH) recently, under the aegis
of Teachers College to discuss Kirp's recently released book,
Shakespeare, Einstein, And The Bottom Line: The Marketing of
Higher Education.
A passionate teacher and scholar, Kirp has served for more
than three decades at UC Berkeley and is the recipient of numerous
awards, including the college's coveted Distinguished Teaching
Award. An Amherst College trustee and Berkeley dean, Kirp has
authored 14 books and a vast number of articles on subjects
ranging from AIDS to affordable housing, from gender justice
to student's rights. In order to properly prepare for the writing
of Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom
Line: The Marketing of Higher Education, Kirp interviewed scores of college administrators,
professors, students, trustees, and knowledgeable outsiders
nationwide.
Describing the dubious practices
which have become the norm for colleges today, Kirp explained
how universities "brand" themselves
to achieve greater appeal in the competition for top students,
how academic superstars are wooed with mega-salaries to boost
an institution's visibility and prestige, how taxpayer-supported
academic research gets turned into profitable patents and ideas
get sold to the highest bidder, and how the liberal arts have
shrunk, under the pressure, to become self-supporting.
Heffner opined that "Shakespeare, Einstein, And The Bottom
Line was the most penetrating of all the books I've read on
this topic." Kirp's observations were hard-hitting, stressing
what relentless commercialization of higher education does
to undergraduates and warned of its future consequence in society.
Kirp identified places where administrators
and faculty have managed to make the market work for, not
against, real education, as in the emerging for-profit higher
education sector–and
he described how some traditional institutions balance their
financial needs with their academic missions.
Kirp related the story of university president Mark Udalf,
and recounted how, when Jesse Ventura in Minnesota decided
to cut the budget, Udalf hopped on a plane and began traveling
around, lecturing parents about what was at stake, and actually
turned the political situation around, resulting in saving
current fundings.
"I mention the story to illustrate how one could become
an advocate and fight for scraps of moneyÉbut it wasn't
only money. There was an intellectually coherent agenda."
A term which repeatedly punctuated
Kirk's brilliant vocabulary was "The Bottom Line," and it took on more than one
meaning. He acceded that there is a place for the market, but
that the market must be kept in its place. "If you don't
pay attention to the bottom line, you don't live to fight another
day. Have a sense of who you are and what you stand for
in this world," he declared. When asked to discuss the
topic of grade inflating, Kirk, in a characteristic manner
which was both astute and casual, said, "In an institution
that I will not name–called Stanford–students will
say: ÔI'm a full-payer,' and then they fill in the blanksÉWhen
students come from a privileged background, they see their
experience as a ticket to their future. The faculty feels the
pressure to inflate the student's grades." Mr. Kirp decried
the treatment of today's university educators, stating, "DeVries
treats its teachers better than other schoolsÉNYU is
one of the great success stories of the century. They've emerged
from near-bankruptcy. The proportion of undergraduate classes
that are taught by adjuncts is enormous. When I looked at the
catalogue, ÔTo Be Announced' was the most popular instructor.
At the New School, the dead-center of liberal radicalism, there
were no faculty with any tenure. Faculty receive two thousand
a course. But I said, ÔThat's immoral.' That's like what
Nike pays workers overseas. It becomes a union issue. It's
sad for a lot of reasons."
He asserted, "maintaining communities of scholars is
not a concern of the market." In the question and answer
period, which followed, Kirp was asked, to comment on issues
regarding low-income students. The educator answered, "We
pay a lot of attention to issues like affirmative action. But
80 percent of students go to non-selective universities. They
are working-class first generation college students. "They
are hugely affected by changes in financial aid. At the elite
institutions, 70 percent of students come from the top 25th
percentile income level in our society. Even if schools pride
themselves on diversity, less and less middle class students
are attending those schools. "Education is a way of leveling
economic opportunity," concluded Prof. Kirk. "But
the reality is that higher ed reinforces status differences."
"A generation ago, private universities were considered
in deep trouble. Also, the value of a college degree was considered
so modest, many were urged to drop out of school," said
Kirp, adding, "The hope of the book is for people to consider
for themselves the value of university."#
