Barely a day passes without colleges scolded in the headlines over admissions or athletics and endowments or education and expression. Schools have become scapegoats for both good and bad reasons. Prominent commentators and populist political leaders from both the far left and far right now target higher education as a common enemy.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]In fact the current fight over the meritocracy vs charges of elitism which would not characterize other fields such as sports or entertainment have torn open a seam on the right between Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk in favor of selectivity and merit on one side and Laura Loomer and Matt Goetz on the other. Ramaswamy declared that American culture has “venerated mediocrity over excellence” launching what is termed a “civil war” within the MAGA movement.
Both extremes have arrived on shared areas of concern that include admissions criteria; tolerance of thought on campus; institutional voice; faculty bias in research and education; personal safety; academic integrity; donor influence; curriculum focus; government funding; financial viability, and administrative efficiency. Increasingly, universities, especially selective universities, have been labelled as elitist, self-interested, out-of-touch with societal needs, and lacking accountability.
What is new is the convergence of a shared populist spirit of elements of the MAGA movement on the right and todays’ self-styled progressives on the left. Together, they find common cause in the skepticism of societal pillars from Wall Street financiers to college educators and politicians. These critiques have corroded public opinion on the value of U.S. higher education, just as the rest of the world treasures the real contributions to the economy, quality of life, scientific knowledge, and cultural enrichment provided by American colleges. The Edelman Trust Barometer shows a steady decline of confidence in all pillars of society from public officials and the media to clergy and colleges. At the 2024 Yale Higher Educational Leadership Summit, fully 97% of the college presidents expressed concern over the loss to public confidence in higher education.
This summer, the Pew Foundation researchers found roughly half the American public surveyed believe it’s less important to have a four-year college degree today to obtain a well-paying job than it was 20 years ago even as facts show the opposite is true: a significant wage gap still favors those with college degrees. Similarly, a Gallup survey this summer showed a large drop in overall US confidence in higher education from almost 60% in 2015 to almost half that. Now Americans are roughly equally divided among those who have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence (36%), some confidence (32%), or little or no confidence (32%) in higher education.
In taking a closer look at the Gallup survey, three issues have risen to the top in the public mind: the political climate on our campuses, questions about whether a traditional liberal arts education best prepares our graduates for success in this tech-fueled world and the cost of higher education as represented by a sticker price that is rapidly approaching $100K per year.
What critics miss in the value of a liberal arts education
Increasingly, people across the political spectrum question whether a traditional liberal arts education, as delivered to most undergraduates by the Ivy and other leading institutions, is the best training for leadership in today’s workplace. Indeed, the elite schools do not have a stranglehold on certain sectors. In a study of 628 U.S.-born tech founders from 287 different universities, 81% did not come from Ivy-plus schools. What mattered most in explaining the success of founders was that they graduated from a college. The success of dropouts like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Apple’s Steve Jobs, and Facebook/Alphabet’s Marc Zuckerberg were exceptions to such findings.
Paradoxically, the drop in American public confidence in the liberal arts comes just as the prestige of US universities around the world is at an all-time high and the number of international students studying in the US has climbed to a record 1.1 million a year. And innovation for the public good is alive and well at America’s at the leading institutions. Over a third of US research universities have venture funds spinning out anywhere from 30 to 80 new business a year employing millions of US workers and serving as a source of economic development to communities around the nation. Higher education is the most globally competitive of all US sectors. The US is home to the most top 100 universities by far (36).
Research by the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown impressive individual attainment from Ivy League schools in particular. While less than half of one percent of Americans attend the eight Ivy League colleges, Chicago, Duke, MIT, and Stanford (known as Ivy Plus schools), these universities contributed more than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs, a quarter of U.S. Senators, half of all Rhodes scholars, and three-fourths of Supreme Court justices appointed in the last half century. Roughly 22% of all Nobel Prizes winners, selected by judges from around the world, were affiliated with Ivy Leagues schools. This scholarship has contributed mightily to the advance of science and industry. The renowned corporate research labs of General Electric (Menlo Park), AT&T (Bell Labs), Xerox (Palo Alto Research Center) have largely disappeared with diminished research even at major chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Most of the great advances in material sciences, agricultural science, drug development, public health, environmental safety, and computer science and the internet originate in the university world.
It must be noted, however, that the value of higher education should be appreciated for more than winning awards and creating wealth but also for quality of life. A decade ago, former Duke President Richard Brodhead co-chaired the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences for the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. In summarizing their findings, Brodhead stated, that value of higher education is not to be measured merely by income earned by colleges graduates.
“Its value is that it supplies enrichment to personal lives, equips students to be thoughtful and constructive social contributors, and prepares them to participate fully and creatively in the dynamic, ever-changing world that awaits them after college. It’s easy to see why people might get anxious about something so difficult to calculate, and might want a straighter line to the payoff. But the fruits of such education can only be reckoned over long time-horizons, as they enable people to rise to challenges and seize opportunities they could not foresee at first. The lives of successful people almost never involve continuing to do what they prepared for. As their lives unfold, they find that by drawing on their preparation in unexpected ways, they’re able to do things they hadn’t intended or imagined.”
Concerns about the cost of higher education
Probably no issue about American higher education has received as much attention over a sustained period of time than its cost. And while some of the increase in the sticker price of leading universities can be explained by investments in need-based financial aid even the costs net of financial aid have risen between 1 and 2 percent above any reasonable measure of inflation for decades. Studies show levels of student debt rising at alarming rates. And while much of the focus has been on undergraduates, levels of student loan debt among those receiving master’s degrees is a more severe issue. Concerns about student loan debt are exacerbated by the fact that six-year graduation rates for undergraduates across all of higher education are less than 60%. So, too many students find themselves in the worst possible situation – a boatload of debt and no degree to show for it.
In speaking about cost, the political right characterizes elite higher ed institutions as inefficient organizations choking on administrative bloat. The political left laments their high cost saying that the sticker price alone turns off prospective students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Both sides note the explosive growth in endowment values and want endowments to be tapped to reduce costs.
The Ivy Plus institutions counter by noting their impressive investments in financial aid, the fact that they have six-year graduation rates in excess of 95% and the inherently high cost of the bundle of educational experiences that today’s students and their families expect. At these schools with strong endowments, roughly 50 to 70 percent has their tuition bill covered by need-based financial aid.
Indeed, the more selective schools not only offer a challenging curriculum delivered through small classes with abundant academic support, but also house and feed students, offer them primary health care, undergraduate research and entrepreneurial activities, intramural and varsity athletics, artistic and performance opportunities, study abroad and much more. The cost of delivering all this is in excess of $100K per student per year at many institutions.
These expenditures not only enrich the student experience but also enhance their local economies. American universities employ over 4 million people adding $40 billion annually to the GDP and their technology transfers have contributed over $600 billion to the nation’s GOP in the last twenty years.
Still, criticisms of the cost of American higher education have merit. Indeed, too many institutions have lost sight of the fact that their core missions are teaching, learning and discovery and those elements of their core mission should be prioritized in their budget decisions. Administrative staffing costs have been shown to have soared disproportionately, in fact geometrically, compared to faculty staffing costs which only increased arithmetically, alongside only modest student enrollment increases.
Academic leaders must also demand that administrative and support functions operate as efficiently as possible with new programs funded through internal reallocation.
Critics of leading institutions overstate their case
Many of these critiques are based in legitimate concerns and point to areas where the leading institutions of higher education can do better. However, they often overstate their case and present outlier examples.
For example, The Chronicle of Higher Education published a study countering the suggestion that liberal bias plays a meaningful role in tenure decisions. Indeed, their study concluded that professors were more likely to be dismissed for liberal thought.
And it is incorrect to still label higher education a self-perpetuating caste system. Looking at roughly a century of Harvard data, as an example of elite universities, its student profile has shifted from 100% males to roughly 50/50; 27% of Mayflower/Social Register “Colonial” lineage to less than 6%; less than 2% underrepresented minorities to over 10% ; 0.4% Asian to 19%; 24% from elite prep schools to 4%. Plus, the report card on the impact of upward wealth mobility of these prestigious schools is much more encouraging that the critics from the left and the right acknowledge. Researchers from the National Bureau of Economic Research studied intergenerational income mobility at each college in the United States using data for over 30 million college students from 1999-2013 and found the students from low-income families and high-income families, had comparable incomes, when matched by the school they attended. Thus, the school had an uplifting impact on the wealth of low-income students.
Furthermore, this research found, “The colleges that channel the most children from low- or middle-income families to the top 1% are almost exclusively highly selective institutions, such as UC–Berkeley and the Ivy Plus colleges. No college offers an upper-tail (top 1%) success rate comparable to elite private universities – at which 13% of students from the bottom quintile reach the top 1% – while also offering high levels of access to low-income students.” Interestingly, the critics of elite schools, indirectly but selectively cite from this research cherry picking around the upward mobility case for elite educational institutions.
Similarly looking at Yale’s current first year class, most college students benefit from some form of financial aid, thanks to the healthy endowments, 88% with zero debt and the 13% who do have debt, owe less than $15,000, hardly a crushing burden. Thanks to a half billion dollars raised from alumni during their recent capital campaign, Dartmouth leaders were able to declare that “The Class of 2028 is the most socioeconomically diverse class in Dartmouth’s history,” with roughly 20% students from low income families receiving Pell Grants, over half of the class receiving financial aid, and no parental financial contributions for families earning less than $125,000 a year roughly 22% of the class.
Despite such facts, Columnist David Brooks wrote in The Atlantic a piece entitled “How The Ivy League Broke America” where he echoes himself in a series of similar pieces he wrote in the New York Times such as one titled The Strange Failure of the American Elite and The ‘Diploma Divide’ and the 2024 Election, both which said elites were leaving others behind. His newest piece in this month’s Atlantic concluded strangely that “a large mass of voters has shoved a big middle finger in the elites’ faces by voting for Donald Trump.” Of course, Brooks misses the irony that if this anti-Ivy League resentment drove voters, then is drove them to vote for the GOP ticket of two Ivy Leaguer grads, Donald Trump from Penn and J.D. Vance from Yale, and not the Democratic ticket of state school grads.
Brooks joins a chorus of others who say that the meritocracy overrated. He cites Yale Law professor Daniel Markovits, the author of The Meritocracy Trap charging that applicants whose families come from the top 1 percent of wage earners were 77 times more likely to attend an Ivy League-level school than students from families making below $30,000 a year. Brooks adds that elite schools generally admit more students from the top 1 percent than the bottom 60. Then he joins Markovits in pronouncing the academic gap between the rich and the poor larger than the academic gap between white and Black students in the final days of Jim Crow.
Brooks’s remedies include circumvention of new court barriers to affirmative action diversity goals, reducing the reliance upon standardized testing, emphasizing more humanistic qualities, substituting AI for analytic rigor, improving the colleges’ marketing of their own value, and that “we should aim to shrink the cultural significance of school in American society.” Missing from this list is any concern for the spreading caution of overexercising voice under the cloak of “institutional neutrality.” These practices romanticize the actual selective practices of the University of Chicago and similar schools which purported to limit presidents from showing the same periodic moral responsibility, patriotic duties, and institutional voice of other pillars of American society.
The risk of ignoring these critiques
Should Ivy Plus leaders even care about public support? After all, they are highly successful, highly selective institutions that are the envy of the world. Our answer is that these leaders should care about the erosion of public trust – a lot. To ignore this growing public distrust is to not only invite more public shaming by government officials as we saw in the House hearings this past year but potentially court more governmental actions such as endowment taxes, bans on DEI programs at public universities and similar interventions.
Although the Ivy Plus institutions seem secure at the moment, one already sees the impacts of the loss of public trust across much of American higher education, significant reductions over the last 25 years in per-capita, inflation-adjusted state appropriations, the expansion of students wanting three-year, no-frills, degrees, employers seeking micro-credentialling rather than a bachelor’s degree, on-line course sharing among institutions to lower costs and ultimately lower enrollments.
Certainly, higher education must address the ideological orthodoxy of political correctness which has diverted tolerance for original thought. Towards that end, we see newly emerging efforts to promote dialogue around difficult societal issues on a number of campuses. Similarly, universities do not do a great job with administrative efficiency with mushrooming overhead along with programs and departments that live on in perpetuity.
Higher education has long been the target of satire from the Marx Brothers to Rodney Dangerfield’s “Back to School.” All institutions need constructive feedback to respond to changing societal needs, but the ideologically driven attacks on schools have lost their grounding, not to mention their humor, and risk promoting an age of ignorance.
