Read 33 comments

1. 

   Martin’s (2015) article argues that higher education has significant importance in society – akin to healthcare and welfare (2015, pg2). His paper emphasizes the importance of moving away from the idea that, while university-age students have the choice about whether to continue with their schooling at university or college, the cost of this choice should not prevent them accessing higher learning in the first place. He argues that the privilege of higher education has long-reaching economic and social effects and that the right to education, at any level, is a social right that is founded in the annals of our political philosophy (2015).
   One factor that seems to trump the “access for all” argument in post-secondary education is the idea that tertiary education is driven by choice and, in all fairness, the “state” cannot be liable for choice. White’s (1997) paper drives the point across and argues that a publicly-funded model of post-secondary education cannot be responsible for this choice (1997, 12). He also feels that childhood education is unavoidable and necessary for the development of society (pg. 14). Martin debunks this by counter-arguing that, if one was to use the same argument as White, then adulthood should be viewed as an unavoidable and necessary stage of life where leaners must have the ability and the access to choose higher learning (pg 7). Martin’s article also brings to light that regardless of all arguments against the contrary higher learning must pursue to be economically accessible because the right to this choice is part of the liberal democratic ideal (2015).
   The QS World Ranking of Higher Education (2015) states that countries where higher education is free usually have better quality of life, higher social tolerance for its citizens – all qualities that form the foundation of a healthy liberal society. Having never been the product of free education ever (education in my native land of Zimbabwe is not free) I am partial to Martin’s argument in that supports a review of current thinking on accessible education. White believes that age and choice are strong reasons why we cannot view higher education as a fundamental right but couldn’t one argue the same for something like healthcare? For example, should older smokers be denied free healthcare because they are simply old and choose to smoke? Clearly not. The reason they are entitled to free healthcare is because society has placed great value in accessible healthcare – an analogy Martin relates better in his paper – and this has ensured that this service continues to remain accessible to all.

   • 

     In 1932, the Great Depression, as an effort to save public finances from going into hyper-deficit, government suggested that parents pay for the education of 14, 15, 16 year olds in part. Furthermore, higher education which was perceived as elitist not receive any public funding. This suggests that when society is in turmoil it is willing to consider deep deep cuts. Cutting off the arm to save the body. Conversely in times of prosperity, would it not be wise to use public funding to offer free higher education to all who have the capacity to attend?

     • 

       I like your thinking Samuel. It is unfortunate that this is not a more common thought process. If we could in fact place “trust in the willingness of citizens to live and choose in accordance with a vision of democratic life that embraces concern for others” (Martin, 2017, p. 17) then this could be a possibility, but I am going to be the Debbie Downer here and ask the question of who will in fact pay for this higher education? Even the idea of higher taxes puts citizens into a frenzy (even though those taxes pay for many of the “free” things they come to rely on) and let’s face it, most compulsory education is already underfunded, I (unfortunately) can’t imagine a government willing to bankroll that, even if we could convince them of its social value.

2. 

   Paternalism, Social Justice and Higher Education

   Both White and Martin appear to agree that, unlike schooling, higher education should respect the autonomous choices of adult learners.

   See the current debate about mandatory Indigenous courses in universities:

   http://www.macleans.ca/education/making-history-2/

   http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/why-indigenous-studies-shouldnt-be-mandatory/

   What would White say about such a proposal?

   If Indigenous courses should be mandatory, does it follow that White is wrong about paternalism and higher education? Or does it mean that his argument needs to be modified in some way?

   If Indigenous courses should not be mandatory, does it follow that paternalism in higher education is always unjustified? Or is it possible that there are some occasions where the benefits of paternalism in higher education outweigh the benefits?

   • 

     I think the Macleans articles you shared play into the autonomy for adult learners discourse articulated in both the White and Martin papers. White might lean towards the second article, agreeing with Dehaas that mandatory courses in higher education(HE) are a “slippery slope”, and that students, particularly of the adult variety, deserve the autonomy in deciding when “they have learned enough”(Dehaas,2012). I would argue that this choice is a luxury that the narratives of social justice would define as privileges and incomplete and an example of what Martin describes at “weak autonomy” – autonomy that does not seek to consider the the necessary “critical reflectiveness about our basic social structures, including concern for the extent to which, and in ways which, those social structures work to promote the wellbeing of others”(Martin, p.9). White acknowledges that the compulsory education of children is “intimately tied up with large questions about the ends of human life in general, including questions about relationships between the personal well being of the pupil and his or her attachments and responsibilities to other people and various communities”, but seems reluctant to encourage this sort of compulsory critical reflection for adult learners from the position of ensuring personal autonomy(1997, p12).
     I don’t think that paternalism is necessarily unjustified, and I appreciate the broader notion of autonomy presented by Martin. Paternalism, not just specifically in the area of mandatory Indigenous course, may very well be what’s needed to confront privilege and systemic forms of unjustness that exist; confronting these systemic values and attitudes that challenge the notion of social justice is not necessarily something one can do independently, and such is generally only accomplished through education and the exchange of ideas. Paternalism – which is indeed the same force that likely created the systemic barriers that exist, may play a large role in combatting those barriers and fostering reconciliation and discrimination. HE has the potential to move us beyond simple economic security and self-advancement, but look at the greater good society should be moving towards to create inclusion and justice, and deepen the democratic values societies hold. Martin supports this vision with his claim around the need to rethink the fundamental value of HE provision from a “privileged opportunity for individuals with specific tastes, talents and interests, to a morally important good that has values for all citizens” (2015, p13). HE that was widely accessible to all could serve as a counter the social forces that dominate contemporary life, and lead adult learners to “democratically informed concern for the wellbeing of others” that address the obstacles existing for fellow citizens such as“political obstacles, underrepresentation in government, economic obstacles, and the harmful effects of growing inequality(2015, p.10). HE can take us from a narrow vision of self-improvement to an interest in the wider society, and provide scaffolding for citizens to look through the lens of social justice.

3. 

   The idea of ‘choice’ in both these papers is, I think, a key element. White talks about how higher education students have “chosen to undergo higher education” (1997, p. 12) and so students should then be able to ‘choose’ not only whether or not they attend a post-secondary institution, but whether or not they do so for ‘higher’ education or ‘further’ education (p.9). Martin’s argument begs the question of whether or not there is a choice when there can be such a financial burden attached to attending a higher education institution. He states that there is an increasing need for students to borrow to even have a ‘choice’ of attending a post-secondary institution and that though, they have a choice of courses (aims of higher or further education) “in theory”, that in reality the financial burden leaves many with no choice at all other than to study areas that will lead them toward economic stability in their future (2015, p. 14).

   • 

     There is no doubt for many choosing to enter any form of further or higher education, cost influences choice. How many of us looked up the cost of this program before we applied? Another argument within these articles is not only the ‘financial cost’ but also the ‘social cost’.

     Martin uses the ideas of White to explain the “distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ personal autonomy” (p. 9). When we possess weak autonomy we choose for ourselves, making choices that best satisfy our preferences (Martin, p.9) When we possess strong autonomy we critically reflect on our “basic social structures, including a concern for the extent to which, and ways in which, those social structures work to promote the well being of others” (Martin, p.9).

     I would suggest White’s view of ‘strong personal autonomy’ must be considered in relation to the social cost of the current ‘buy now, pay later’ program for two reasons:

     1.If one is choosing career path of higher education based on financial cost rather than passion …Are we really getting the best of the best in terms of teachers? Doctors? Nurses? Maybe we wouldn’t have doctor shortages if the cost were lower or non-existent?

     2. If we are leaving school with the burden of high debt are we really going to give back to our community without putting a value on it? For example, if you put yourself through dentistry school and came out with $100,000 worth of debt, are you motivated to work for a lower cost in a lower socioeconomic area?

     Martin sums up these ideas best when he writes, “When an individual claims opportunities for self-development as a matter of justice it is ultimately society that supports their autonomy. However, it is also true that the individual obligation to democratic society now runs deeper. (p.15).

     • 

       Theoretically, I think we should always choose something that we are passionate about, whether it is for higher education or for career. However, not all of us are lucky enough to be working or studying what we are truly enjoying. It really depends on your financial status, if you are making $1000/month in Toronto, studying Math at the University of Toronto is impossible (the tuition for an int’l student is $42000, September 2015, not including residence, meal plans, etc.). But I agree with your second point, if I did make a huge investment in higher education, my expectation of the return is much higher, I would make a rational decision, that is perhaps by working in a relatively wealthy neighbourhood that can allow me to pay off my debt in a short amount of time.

     • 

       For true, strong personal autonomy as Martin describes I do think that cost constraints would have to be removed. Even for someone such as myself after an undergrad, a diploma, and now into a master’s degree cost still plays into my choices. In order to afford even more education, I need to work full time, this impacts my decision whether or not to pursue an MA as opposed to an MED. Money and time unfortunately have played significantly into all choices that I have made regarding my educational decisions even though I still followed a career path that I am passionate about.

       My decision to leave to Faculty of Music to pursue a more financially viable career in education and my sister’s decision to make her undergrad major business instead of visual arts both come to mind. My sister now makes a good living at a profitable marketing agency in the UK, but she rarely has a chance to paint. Perhaps if student loans weren’t such a formidable factor other options would have been pursued.

       As a teacher it took me several years to pay off my loans, I know several doctors staring down over $100 k in debt. They are putting off starting families, and considering different specialties based on that financial strain. This is not the social path that I want to go down. The cost of tuition is constantly rising. I do agree with Martin’s point, more affordable higher education would lead to a healthier social whole and would allow for a stronger personal autonomy in individual students.

     • 

       In Finland, students have free education through graduate school for this very reason. There are no economic barriers for the best students to get the training; however, there are challenging entrance examinations. In teaching for example, only 10% of generalist applicants are selected. I believe this ensures value for the public dollar! Further education is valued in Finland. I paid nothing for my year of high school there, despite my daily free hot lunch (didn’t enjoy the blood pancakes or liver casserole, but everything else was great). I also attended for free the local työväenopisto (‘worker’s college’) for Finnish for Foreigners classes. (For more information, see this publication from the Finnish Min of Educ: http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2013/liitteet/Finnish_education_in_a_nuttshell.pdf) There’s a national economic value to a highly educated citizenry. Not only are the most able students rewarded, but also they lead the society.

   • 

     what you said is one effect from costing higher education. students need to consider the return after higher education because it costs them much. If higher education is free, students have more probability to choose their specialization
     according to their interests. However, I think that is not the reason that higher education should be free since it lacks of consideration about people who will not accept higher education.

   • 

     I know a Master’s degree student who has incurred $100,000.00 in student debt (it is her 3rd degree). She has earned the right to choose her courses, program of study, and higher education; she will be paying for it for the foreseeable future. I think debt forgiveness is something that should be made available for situations like this.

4. 

   Recently I came across a quote in the “Core-Critical Thinking-Competency” profile from the Ministry of Education, which states “The development of competency in critical thinking does not end with school graduation, but continues to develop in personal, social, educational (my emphasis) and workplace contexts (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/competencies). This same quote can be found in all the competency profiles: Communication, Thinking and Personal Social, all of which could be considered important aspects of ‘higher’ education and personal autonomy. So it would seem that our Ministry of Education is in agreeance with Martin (2015), when he states that it would be a mistake to believe that “personal autonomy must end at the compulsory stage” (p. 11) and that “In a liberal democratic society we need educational institutions that support autonomy through the adult stage of life (p. 13).

   • 

     In my word document “educational” was in italics, hence the (my emphasis) statement 🙂

   • 

     I too see the common goal with the new BC Ministry of Education core competencies and Martin’s argument that personal autonomy should continue to develop past the compulsory education stage, as it is “necessary to, flourishing” p. 8). Martin says that “societies like ours are morally responsible to prepare all children for a life of personal autonomy” (p. 8). I am curious to find out what the Ministry of Education has suggested at this point for development beyond the compulsory stage.

     There were a lot of reasons why I found Martin’s argument particularly persuasive, but it was mostly because of my own personal bias having the debt that I do. Martin’s point about the influences of income and debt repayment on a student’s decision of “what do I have to choose in order to flourish at all” logically makes sense, but he acknowledges later that “empirical findings on the effects of debt on student choice to date is limited” (p.16). Also, I have to disagree with the assumption that students who borrow are less likely “to contribute to a larger social vision” (p.16). I think a generalization like this will be difficult to support without significant empirical evidence. I am pretty sure a lot of us in this course would agree that we are making sacrifices, likely financially, in hopes to contribute in some way to educating our society and not just for the chance at a higher income. Martin says, “debt compels the student to pursue their well-being in a weakly autonomous matter” (p. 14). So, does a higher earning potential motivate us? Of course, but I don’t think it’s so black and white. I found Martin’s final section “further choice” sufficiently points out all the realities and obstacles our society would have to face when considering making higher education a basic good. Not many people would disagree with the argument that self-development should not be based on whether someone has the ability to pay or not. However, when thinking about how much more research would have to be done, lengthy revisions, finding out how institutions would be financed, etc. It unfortunately seems like we have a long way to go.

     • 

       I’m inclined to agree with you, Laura. I think that it was a broad generalization, and particularly if you consider teachers as your “test subjects”. Certainly there were those who did a chemistry or physics degree, who had to take out student loans, and who quite likely could have taken on better paying jobs in the private sector. And yet they chose to teach. Even those of us with the lowly “McDegree” in one of the teachable humanities quite likely could have taken on careers at BC Hydro or the like. But I think most of us chose teaching because it was what we wanted to do. It wasn’t about pay. And it certainly wasn’t that there is any truth to that odious phrase, “Those who can – do. Those who can’t – teach.” I am certain that there are those who chose their future professions based on financial projections, but they would be the minority. It helps, but who wants to be stuck in an unfulfilling career because it pays well? Although, perhaps I’m being limited in my scope because most folks in my circle have government jobs (it’s a Yukon thing) which all pay pretty well the same. I may have a narrow perspective.

5. 

   As more and more educational opportunities find their way online, one could conceivably study a full higher education (HE) program for free. The catch being, once they are done their studies they have no certification to show for it. MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) offers 2260 courses online for free. According to the OCW website, it “is a web-based publication of virtually all MIT course content. OCW is open and available to the world and is a permanent MIT activity.” A similar initiative exist at Harvard (HarvardX). As well, Coursera offers free online classes from over 120 top universities and education organizations. These free courses would serve to better one’s life and in some instances provide job opportunities which would have not existed previously. For instance some tech companies hire employees without higher education degrees, Google included.

   If HE is becoming a market then why offer courses for free? For the betterment of society as a whole? To allow those without the financial means to study and better themselves? I find myself leaving this debate with more questions than answers.

   ocw.mit.edu

   • 

     There are people who are truly passionate about certain topics, research or education in general. And therefore they are willing to take free online courses without a degree/certificate. My students in China have taken free classes from Harvard to study AP Calculus ahead of time so that they are prepared for the AP Exam and AP course at my school. These free online/on-campus courses will serve as a learning channel/experience, some people value the learning experience or contents more than a certificate. But I can also see that many people have chosen higher education for career advancement, and in this case, these courses, that do not have a degree/license/certificate attached to, will not be a significant help.

6. 

   The question that comes to mind when reading these articles is, what counts as higher education and when you look at the element of choice and the consideration of finances what is the aim or value of the program’s considered? I see White’s point, that “higher education is simply a further stage,” not necessarily superior, better or even higher level thinking (1997, p.9). The element of choice is crucial here. The connection that comes to mind was the lengthy process of picking the best option for creating an RESP when my daughter was born. Some RESP programs and plans will only release saved funds in their tax free and government assisted state if the student is taking a accepted University program. Others will release funds for a wider variety of programs. For example Canadian Scholarship Trust will release funds for programs that only have a minimum length of 3 weeks.

   I agree with Martin’s statement that, “at the post-compulsory stage we have to make our own choices about this role, shaping them in particular directions.” (2015, p. 11) I also agree that the amount students are required to borrow is a significant limiting and decision making factor. My question is if we start going down the path of the government funding post-secondary education what will count as valuable forms of higher education. Which trades, which liberal education programs, will hair-dressing school count, will the student have to enrol in a program that will absolutely lead to a career?

7. 

   Martin (2015) states that higher education should be free because it has the moral importance as health care and basic schooling. He explains the moral importance lies in the place of higher education in “supporting personal autonomy as a central liberal democratic value (p. 1)”. He points out that personal autonomy is important for all children and society is morally responsible to prepare children for it. In this sense, he argues that children should have free access to higher education in order to realize personal autonomy.
   White (1997) has different views about higher education. He contends that the difference between higher education and basic schooling is that students in higher education are no longer children, in other word, autonomous adults. If we say basic schooling has the responsibility to satisfy the needs of children, then higher education embodies the interests or preferences of adults to some extent. In this sense, every student has individual aims during higher education, he states, “some of them will be equipping themselves for a profession; others immersing themselves in an activity they love’ others standing back from their lives to reflect on their social world and their place in it (p. 12)”. In a word, higher education is individual consumption.
   I agree with Martin that higher education should be free if we look it as a place to realize personal autonomy. However, I have several questions.
   Although I admit that personal autonomy is important to our lives, it is not compulsory. Students have no obligation to accept higher education for personal autonomy. In this sense, if higher education is free, it is unfair to those students who are unwilling to realize personal autonomy.
   Moreover, Even through higher education is a place to realize personal autonomy, it is a place to transmit academic knowledge, which kind of academic knowledge students want to gain is students’ individual preferences, they should pay for their own choices.
   In addition, in my country, higher education is not accessible to all children is not only because it is not free, but also because some students cannot reach the entrance score to it. If higher education is free, it is unfair to those students.

   • 

     What Martin appears to support is for higher education to become a social phenomenon in a way similar to compulsory schooling, or marriage (although, one could argue marriage is losing its social phenomenon status). However, I see a number of issues with this, most of which support White’s perspective concerning the difference in dealing with adults versus children: “Children do and must have aims imposed on them, but higher education students, being autonomous persons, decide for themselves” (White, 1997, p. 12). At the point of reaching adulthood, and having already experienced compulsory schooling, there are too many factors governing the choices of adults. Not that I don’t think that free HE wouldn’t be lovely (I do have 3 children, and I live in Yukon. I might prefer a vacation home in Summerland to a Masters degree for each of them ;)), but I think that there are so many other philosophical barriers such a reality is challenging.

     My first concern is similar to what Tian mentioned. What about the criteria for access to HE? Would there be a certain academic standard to be met? Would that not be unfair to those who had a difficult time meeting that standard? Don’t they have equal right to personal autonomy and self-development? Similarly, what about those who cannot maintain an academic standard? Do they get to stay in they system? What about those who choose the path of “further education” rather than higher education? Will this also be free, because those programs do not typically hold the same aim of self-development, rather a focus on economic well-being. And will this change the expectation of prospective employers, if HE is free? Will those who opt not to attend be penalized further than they already are? And might this not encourage the development of a two-tiered education system, a “better” one for those who could afford to pay for it?

     I did also wonder, as Martin did (p.16) about when this opportunity would be offered to individuals? And if it were directly post-compulsory, what happens for those who, because they are unable to live at home can’t afford the cost of living, even outside of a free HE, and are required to work for a time in between? Or those who opt to travel while they attempt to figure out the direction they would like to take in the future?

     Finally, I wonder about the point that individuals who are provided an education by the state would come out feeling indebted to the state rather than a private financial institution (p.15). Now, at this point, I have no research to support this, but I wonder if, rather than a sense of indebtedness to the state, such a structure may result in a sense of entitlement and a lack of appreciation for the advantage this education has given them.

     I know that is a lot of questions, sorry if any of them – or all of them – are ridiculous. That is one thing that I have missed by learning in online courses rather than a face-to-face has been the opportunity to ask questions. I sometime feel like I shouldn’t post unless I have some kind of answer…hopefully a brilliant one, and I’m not actually brilliant all the time. But this time, I have lots and lots of questions, so there it is. Those are the reasons why I don’t see it as possible for HE to become a social phenomenon. There are too many other factors and choices for individuals to make once they have reached adulthood.

     • 

       Of course you can ask questions without having an answer! (Though see Meno’s paradox). And I agree that online courses can place limits on how far our deliberations can go.

       In any case, your questions are very good. But I won’t take them on myself even though I have some skin in this particular game. But here’s how to frame it (for yourself and interested others):

       First, could the answers to some of your critical questions be directly found in the paper itself?
       Second, for those that aren’t directly answered in the paper, how do you think that Martin or White would respond to your critical questions, given what you know about their arguments?

       In other words, put yourself in the shoes of the counter-argument and see if this argument is actually stronger than your original assessment. It may not be, of course. But you’ll be in a stronger position to challenge that argument having undertaken that assessment.

       • 

         Darn it! I knew I was gonna get sent back to the paper! And I was so pleased with myself for coming out with real questions this time, rather than just being seduced by the persuasiveness of a well-worded argument. I’m a bit of a sucker for the liberal sprinkling of $10 words. Sigh. 😉

         • 

           Well, I went back over the papers, and indeed discovered some (but not all) answers there.

           • Setting and maintaining academic standards:

           This one was difficult to pin down an answer for, so I’m not sure that I have it right. I suspect that this is one of those things that is more of a policy issue than a philosophical one, however, there were a few things that hinted at addressing that point. First, if we developed a system that was properly “autonomy supporting” rather than “choice supporting”, this issue may get addressed while individuals are still at the compulsory level. There may develop a greater awareness of individual autonomy. At that point, “we can distinguish between the prevailing norms and policies that govern today’s higher education system and the logical requirements of such a system when understood as part of a larger social vision of democratic society” (p.12).

           • “Higher” vs. “Further” education

           Taking a second look at the White article, I spotted the direct answer to this one. White states: “There is no essence to further education, just as there is no essence to higher education: any line between them is bureaucratic, not Platonic” (p.9). So that answered that. Same-same.

           • Timing of post-compulsory education:

           Another question with a direct answer that I missed: “Given the long lives that many liberal democratic citizen lead it may be more appropriate to allocate this social minimum over a lifetime” (p.16).

           • Indebtedness vs Entitlement:

           On this point, Martin did acknowledge that there might be some individuals who will be more self-serving and have a more entitled attitude regarding their education. Concerning these individuals he says: “We need to leave some social hope for the idea that, when they are treated with dignity and respect by the larger community, individual citizens will internalise the social obligations that come with their social entitlements” (p.17)

           The only questions that I had remaining that I couldn’t find any solid way to respond were those concerning the evolution of a two-tiered system, and whether future employers may begin to make increased demands of the workforce, given that there was no longer the issue of a financial burden to higher education. My idea for the second question came from the Brighouse and McAvoy article. They identified this as a potential issue, stating, “once employers use college completion as a gatekeeping mechanism, as they are bound to in an era of mass HE, this creates insuperable barriers for those who do not take up HE.” (Brighouse & McAvoy, 2010, p.168). However, their answer to this is for universities to adopt a more paternalistic role and begin providing programs that “promote service” (p. 172). An increased paternalistic higher education system was not what either Martin nor White supported: “What follows liberal respect for autonomy is only the stipulation that educational institutions should not support autonomy in a paternalistic manner” (Martin, 2015, p. 11).

           So, those are my remaining questions. Anyone able to answer them can feel free to jump into the conversation.

     • 

       Indebtedness vs Entitlement:
       Another point to support what you have already stated. When discussion the larger liberal democratic community, Martin states, “when I understand myself as a member of society I am more likely to be moved by the idea that, having received such support, I have an obligation to use this support in a way that contributes.”(p.15) This statement makes me wonder if Martin is simply replacing a financial debt with a social debt. Would it then follow that students may limit their HE choices based on the notion that they may have to repay a debt to the community once their studies are complete?

8. 

   Martin states, “What is important is that fee-for-access not lead to unequal opportunities to access the various privileges that higher education confers.” (p.4) This line gets me thinking about a number of things. First off, what are the privileges of higher education? This is a question that depends a great deal on the individual. For some, education alone is the privilege, as they are passionate about Higher Education and would pursue it regardless of its political gain or monetary cost. Others, engage with Higher Education for the sole purpose of getting the job they want, getting no pleasure out of the educational process, at all. So, is Higher Education really crucial for living a good life?
   For some, yes, for others, no; it depends on what your definition of a good life is, otherwise, the same argument could be made for sports and personal fitness, for example. I use this example because it is tough to argue that sports and personal fitness are not important factors to living a ‘good life’, and, also, can be quite costly to participate in, depending on the sport you choose to pursue. Sports are beneficial to human health and well-being, but are the more affordable sports at a better advantage of getting the best athletes? Are particular sports elitist? I would argue that the answer to both of these questions is yes. So, does this mean that the state should pay for one’s yoga classes, golf fees and hockey equipment to equalize the opportunity for everyone? This is a slippery slope.

   • 

     So, is Higher Education really crucial for living a good life?
     I was thinking about this question, and want to try to answer through the point-of-view of Martin. I think he would say having a HE is not crucial for living a good life, but having the option to access HE, and therefore having personal autonomy to choose your own path, is necessary for a good life in our democratic society. He would argue we need to have the freedom to develop ourselves based on our autonomous choices. Furthermore, he writes about access to HE supporting the wellbeing of all of society, not just the individual. He writes, “The debt financing of higher education comes at an overall cost to the wellbeing of society as fewer citizens opt to contribute to a larger social vision.” (p.16)

     My big question, which Marci also touched on in her list of questions (and also which I was thinking about as I read shawnbird’s post about HE in Finland) – Is it enough to only consider financial barriers to HE? What about entrance requirements? Who gets to decide who is accepted into which program, especially if some programs become more in demand, as could potentially be the case if the financial barrier is lowered?

9. 

   In White’s paper, he summarized Barnett’s notion of higher education from two different types of argument, philosophical and historical. From the philosophical perspective, he sees ‘higher education’ as something that requires higher-order, critical thinking about previously owned knowledge, allowing one to reflect and relate to a larger context, “higher education is essentially a matter of the development of the mind of the individual student… An educational process can be termed higher education when the student is carried on to levels of reasoning which make possible critical reflection on his or her experiences, whether consisting of propositional knowledge or of knowledge through action. These levels of reasoning and reflection are ‘higher’, because they enable the student to take a view of what has been learned… ‘higher education’ resides in the higher-order states of mind” (White, p. 8).

   However, White criticized him for making such claim because there is no validity in claiming that ‘higher’ implies higher-order thinking or to say that higher education is more valuable than school education, it simply means a different stage in life, which could be termed as ‘tertiary’. Moreover, he claimed that high-order thinking does happen in primary, secondary school as well.

   I also believe that higher education is different from the education of children because the latter one deals with basic level of contents teaching, giving second and third chances, compulsory education with clear goals set on them, and so on; whereas the former one relates to personal autonomy, educational aims, responsibility and independence, etc. An example of higher education is our M.Ed program that we have chosen to study, whether it is because of our interest in education/research or it is due to an advancement in career development. White also mentions that where to draw the line that marks the end of the compulsory education is controversial, and I believe that it differs in each country. However, I do notice that people who are educated from university are more accepting to ideas, people, surroundings, etc. They have an easier time of embracing and adjust to the unfamiliar. They are more rational, logical, and are more likely to listen and respect others. Is there any drawback of making university as a part of compulsory education program? Perhaps the people who prefer work fields would suffer as a result of this policy.

10. 

    I am not sure I agree with your statement about university educated people. I am a university educated person and yes, I like to think I am fairly logical, accepting etc., but I cannot necessarily agree that university is responsible for these traits, though I am sure it did broaden my horizons on many things. I know many university trained people and not all of them are accepting, logical or even respectful. I also know many people who are not university trained who do have those qualities. Though University may provide opportunity to strengthen such characteristics, I feel that to imply University is the creator of such traits is not accurate.

    • 

      In reply to lynda liu

11. 

    It makes it really challenging, if not impossible, to put myself into another’s shoes. We have all experienced (and are experiencing) ‘higher education’. Here we are sacrificing our time (family, leisure, personal, career), finances, and other individual areas to build upon our career goals. I wonder if access to ‘higher education’ for all would directly improve our professional’s abilities. Or, is there something to be said for those who sacrifice? With sacrifice comes an understanding and recognition of the importance and value of ‘higher education’. I come from a family of low economic status that could not provide me with the opportunity for post-secondary education. I worked a full time job and took on a 3 to 4 course workload throughout two degrees and did not take on a student loan. My completion of these degrees took longer to achieve, however, I believe through that sacrifice I learned how to become an efficient, effective, and dedicated teacher. When things are given instead of earned, I truly believe that the value is lessened. This can be observed through the abuse of health care and employment insurance (I am not suggesting that these are not reflective of societal values, or question their existence, but do recognize that these systems are taken advantage of). I personally, would not want the value of ‘higher/further education’ to be compromised or abused, as I place a lot of trust in what the “educational system” helps to produce (eg. professors, doctors, lawyers, engineers, mechanics, electricians, plumbers, etc). The ministry of Education’s mission statements is as follows: The purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy. Is ‘further’ or ‘higher’ education beyond compulsory education needed for this goal to be met?

    • 

      Nigel! I am definitely on the same page as you. After reading through everyone’s comments and reflecting on my own sacrifices that you pointed out (family, leisure, personal, career), for the first time I am considering how my $100,000 debt has actually made me the person I am today. If higher education became free, I think the value would lessen and not just in students’ eyes, but employers as well. It seems crazy to think of a time when it was optional to finish high school. Eventually this became recognized as a valuable accomplishment and is now expected if an individual hopes to be employed in almost any profession or industry. If higher education eventually became the next free option, it makes sense that employers will raise their standards for applicants and discriminate those who choose not to continue education after compulsory education ends. So regardless of the next stage, as an adult with personal autonomy, this greater socioeconomic expectation ironically leaves very little choice when making the decision whether to pursue higher education. I also agree with Marci’s point that if higher education becomes free, that there is no stopping a next, further, higher-higher form of education system to be created for those willing to pay more for what they believe is a higher quality level of education. So to answer Dr. Martin’s question, is higher education a market? Yes, definitely (and unfortunately). I think the value placed on why it’s important to be an educated person is a social construction because of how our economy considers it to be an investment, a means to succeed in a capitalist society.

      Makes me think of all the times people have asked me why I borrowed $100,000 for a career that on average only makes $30,000-40,000. “For that many years and that much money you could have become a doctor!”

      When considering White’s critique of Barnett’s belief that higher education is the place where higher-order thinking takes place I thought of the redesign curriculum being introduced in BC. White makes the counter-argument that higher-order thinking can/is occurring at all ages of schooling and even homeschool education (and this is true for BC!). White says 6th graders “are often encouraged to think about the epistemological bases of the history or science that they are studying; while a feature of good personal and social education, even for younger children, is getting children to reflect on their own actions, desires and emotions…” (White, p. 10). For me, this stood out because the new curriculum, which sounds very similar, is being brought into classrooms throughout K-12, in hopes to better prepare students for the future job market. There is no doubt that this higher-order thinking is occurring at the higher education level as well. However, even if the BC ministry of education system achieves their goal “to enable learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy” (Nigel’s quote) at the end of compulsory education, I am not convinced that this will lessen the greater belief that higher education is necessary in our economy… Perhaps it will heighten the level of high-order thinking that occurs at higher education institutions? Perhaps it will make individuals much more competent and perhaps competitive?

12. 

    A significant portion of White’s paper focuses on criticizing Ronald Barnett’s promoting of emancipatory education which is situated in the idea that students have a heightened understanding of themselves and their environments, and an intellectual perspective that transcends their academic specialty. This emancipatory education is, from my understanding, to be intertwined with the subject matter of all post-secondary students, and to be mandatory. White rejects this on many grounds, the first being semantic in that Barnett’s relation between higher order thinking and high school have no philosophical link, but rather administrative. Additionally, Barnett equates emancipatory education with higher-order thinking, which is erroneous as higher-order thinking does not always imply self-understanding. Finally, White states that the use of higher-order thinking skills are commonplace in high school, denying Barnett’s argument that they need be a staple in post-secondary schooling as a tool in which to promote emancipatory education.
    Another of White’s greatest criticisms was that forcing post-secondary students to study emancipatory education in addition to their chosen paths is extremely paternalistic, in that it strips young adults of their choice in favour of a government initiative to promote a vague and easy to manipulate form of fluff education that would have no relevance for the majority of those forced to take it.
    In many ways Martin supports White’s argument but believes that higher education still needs to do more to support personal autonomy as compulsory education is not enough, especially considering the pull that modern media and technology have on the young adults of this generation. Both Martin and White support the idea of personal autonomy but Martin differs in the sense that structures need to be in place to facilitate some form of autonomy curriculum. He argues that it is not plausible to offer children a foundation in autonomy without supplementing it with something at the adult stage. Furthermore, Martin argues that there is no reason an autonomy curriculum would have to be conducted in a paternalistic manner, and that it would be paternalistic is a groundless assumption.