Opinion polls show that Americans are increasingly distrustful of our higher-education system. That’s true across party lines, although the reasons why those on the left are unhappy are mostly different from the reasons why those on the right are unhappy. Some higher-ed leaders are taking notice that they’re facing a serious problem.

Two of them are Holden Thorp (professor of chemistry at Washington U. in St. Louis and formerly the chancellor at UNC–Chapel Hill) and Buck Goldstein (on the economics faculty at Chapel Hill) have written a book, Our Higher Calling, in which they seek to “rebuild” the partnership between the public and our higher-ed system. In today’s Martin Center article, Jenna Robinson appraises their work.

That supposed partnership meant that colleges and universities would create new knowledge and well-educated citizens in exchange for “stable public investment” and autonomy. Thorp and Goldstein claim that higher ed has kept its part of the bargain and it’s only due to problems of perception that many Americans don’t think so.

Robinson isn’t impressed with their argument. She writes,

It is unlikely to convince skeptics that universities offer the same value they did even a generation ago. It fails to address Americans’ concerns that the relative value of a degree is eroding or that too many graduates are underemployed. Nor does it mention the elephant in the room: that many universities have become echo chambers that are either dismissive or outright intolerant of viewpoint diversity. (And that’s just to name a few of the many criticisms that have been leveled against higher ed lately, both on this website and elsewhere.)

I agree and would add that many Americans now see that colleges and universities are inordinately expensive because they spend so much on stuff that has nothing to do with education.

Nevertheless, Robinson finds that the authors advance some useful ideas. She agrees with them that higher ed needs better governance, writing,

They recognize that universities’ shared governance structure — which operates on consensus — makes it difficult for universities to make hard choices or even decide on the most important priorities. They defend tenure as a necessary bulwark against administrative overreach and reveal why so many of today’s university chancellors behave more like politicians than CEOs.

I haven’t read the book, but suspect that the authors’ suggestions for improved governance would be no match for the status quo with its entrenched “progressive” bureaucracy.

I agree with Robinson’s conclusion:

Many higher education reformers will probably find the book too optimistic and its vision of higher education too broad or impractical. This is precisely why they should answer the invitation: so that all ideas are included at the table.