Chapter One: The Intro
This is the first of several posts where I intend to detail the impressive and insulting waste that is private higher education in the United States. However, to begin, it is important that I share a little bit about myself so as to provide the most transparent preface to the subsequent chapters. I'll also provide a cursory overview of the topics I intend to cover in this series. Before I start, I should say that there are exceptions to every rule. What I've experienced does not reflect the operations of every private college or university - some are worse and some are better - rather my accounts are to provide insight into some anecdotal and not-so-anecdotal norms. There are and will continue to be issues of geography/location, scale, specialization, and leadership. However, it is my hope that by sharing what I've learned and what I've seen that people will start demanding they get their money's worth, or at least evidence of how it's being spent. With that, let's begin...
For the past six years, I've worked in private art and design higher education. This is important for two primary reasons:
Most colleges aren't exclusively art and design, but instead have a broader curriculum. This focus also means there are substantial costs associated with maintaining facilities, e.g., HVAC systems, 3D printers, laser cutters, hot and cold shops (glass blowing), cintiq labs, state-of-the-art software (or one would hope), etc. Purchasing and maintaining these resources is astronomically expensive.
I am neither an artist nor a designer. Though I write and perform, I am not a visual artist. This has painted me as the black sheep, so to speak from the very beginning. I am an outsider looking in and while that can provide me with a more objective POV, it also means I can't speak from truly being "inside."
Most of those who enter into academia begin as lower-level staff or as instructors/assistant professors. They then earn their stripes and rise through the ranks, earning credibility along the way towards their director or c-level positions. They'll typically earn additional degrees during this process as well, such as a Master of Education or an Education Doctorate. Such degrees make one more marketable when trying to advance and it also keeps the degree bubble growing (I'll discuss the degree bubble in a later chapter).
I did not rise through the ranks. Instead, I was plucked from another industry and entered into an assistant c-level position (think assistant vice president of this and that). As such, I was given a wealth of responsibilities without any credibility. While a smart and capable person, I had no business doing that job. I knew nothing, had no experience, and no support. But I'm a hustler and the person who hired me saw that and took a chance.
Entering into the position like this provided me with great perspective. I did not come with any administrative, industry, or academic baggage. I immediately saw the first institution from a 10,000ft view with fresh eyes. The nature of the work also gave me deep access to every facet of the institution, from admissions and security to finance and academics. I was essentially the consigliere of the college; I knew it all because it was my job to know.
The insight this gave me was incredible. What first struck me was how steeped in tradition these arts colleges are. They value conceptual depth with technical mastery. The rigor of the curriculum is unparalleled (sorry STEM and liberal arts people, but you got nothing on art students), resulting in a culture firmly entrenched in a strange hybrid of contemporary antiquity. People revere the past, both famed and internal, and it provides a true safe place for those who've always been outsiders. Are you a geeky art kid who just wants to draw and do acid? Are you gender-nonconforming and lose your mind over quality animation? Are you borderline agoraphobic yet brilliant with a brush and some oils? Then art school is for you. A motley crew of the strange and unusual, just about anything goes for anyone permitted on campus. If you don't believe me, just look at these institutions' student and faculty handbooks and search for language about drugs. The greatest restriction you'll find is for people not to sell stuff on campus and for faculty not to sell to students. Anything more and no one would be allowed in any of the buildings.
This culture comes with its drawbacks in what is often referred to as, "the family," and not everyone is allowed in. It is led by the village elders, i.e., those who've been around the longest and have the most followers, and it is only those elders can determine who else is "in." The dynamic of these families is such that an institution's president can lead the college and report to the board, but still not have as much power as a dean, director, or department chair. This creates a hyper-politicized environment where people rule by gossip and careers are made or ruined by whether or not someone is permitted at the proverbial cool table.
Despite all of this, I must say that my issue is not with the culture and I fundamentally believe in an arts education. The adaptability and resilience of art and design students is unsurpassed by those I've seen of other specialized fields, and that family - as terrible as it might be - can also provide an incredible amount of support and care during times of strife regardless of if they're "in" the family.
My issue with these institutions ultimately lies in their operations and with the larger higher education industry. Art and design education, though valuable, is grossly overpriced with little to no insight into how money is being spent, let alone the value of the expenses. The culture of these colleges facilitates those with the most power and the greatest commitment to tradition to prevent adoption of practice that would result in better informed use of student loan dollars. And while these changes are ultimately bureaucratic, I argue that it's necessary for an industry that's managed to insulate itself from even 20th century business practices, let alone 21st. Furthermore, there are significant issues with how these institutions approach and manage the numbers, e.g., enrollment, retention/attrition, and publication of these stats, as well as how institutions compete. Student loan dollars are used to pay for curriculum, personnel, student services, and more, without any substantive assessment, and oftentimes without any articulated outcomes. In other words, student loans are being spent on things because they've always been around or done that way and no one knows if they actually work.
But it's not just the colleges that are to blame. The federal government has put institutions of higher learning in an impossible situation, and the future is one that is increasingly bureaucratic and decreasingly innovative.
It's a complex issue to be solved. Education is invaluable and learning should be promoted and accessible simply for the sake of learning. There are pressures, both legacy and forthcoming that impede people's ability to gain entry to and succeed in formal post-secondary education, and there is despicable waste of loan dollars that take most people years if not decades to pay off.
And it is because of that last point that I chose to take on this series of posts. I believe in education, formal and informal. I believe in the arts and I believe in learning and practicing what you love simply because you love it, but I do not believe in doing so at the cost of people's financial security for years to come.