The Cost of Cheap Education: Another Perspective

Michael Beltz, Department of Philosophy and Religion, University of North Daktoa

While reading the insightful exchanges about the changes in alternative modes of college education, “The Cost of Cheap Education,” I was struck by how the discussion was framed from an institutional perspective. I do not disagree with any of the specific details presented by these articles; I found them to be well reasoned and generally correct in their assessments of programs like Straighterline. However, I feel that part of this discussion might be better understood from an alternative perspective.

From a students’ perspective, should lower-level courses be used to subsidize the other components of a department/university?

I agree with the argument presented by Bill Caraher, Anne Kelsch, and John Tagg that these less expensive models of higher education pose a potentially dangerous shift in the economics of the university. From an institutional perspective, programs like Straighterline, by offering degrees on a flat rate monthly cost, have the potential for changing the ‘ecosystem’ of the university. The current structure of large lower-level, often general education oriented, courses are used to offset other vital functions of individual departments. These courses are the most economically viable, and lucrative, courses within most departments. The money generated from student tuition in these courses allows departments to offer smaller upper-level courses. These upper-level courses are designed primarily for departmental majors and tend to be small in size and for students with advanced levels of knowledge in those fields. The large introductory courses also provide departments with the economic resources to allow faculty to conduct advanced research. For individual departments, and the university as a whole, this system makes sense because it provides a base of resources for them to conduct critical functions.

The question is: does this arrangement make sense from a student perspective? As the system is arranged currently, students are being required to subsidize the upper-level courses and faculty research when they enroll in an introductory general education course. They are being required to have their tuition dollars support activities that they will not see the direct benefits from. As indicated by Caraher, these large introductory courses are often taught by adjunct instructors, post-doctorate fellows, and in many universities, graduate students. Since these instructors are the ones who generally receive the lowest compensation for their work, it reduces the university’s costs. There are two trade-offs that come with this current structure. First, since these classes generally have the largest enrollment, they tend to be taught in the least pedogically optimal manner. While there are many gifted instructors for these types of courses, the mere size pushes instructors to teach in a lecture format and assess student work in a minimal number of ways. For example, most instructors are reluctant to move beyond multiple choice and short answer examinations. These tendencies do not provide the best learning opportunities for students. Secondly, since these instructors are not tenure-line faculty, the quality of teaching can suffer. Again, this is not an indictment of all instructors in these courses. Resources for instructional improvements tend to be targeted for tenure-line faculty members and not those individuals who general carry the burden of teaching these introductory courses. If we consider the University of North Dakota, we can see how these resources are unevenly distributed. UND encourages new faculty to take part in the Alice Clark program. This program provides resources and training for new faculty to improve the ways that they incorporate innovative teaching into the classroom. While this is a great program, it excludes those individuals that are the core instructors in many of the introductory course across the country. Graduate students, adjunct instructors, part-time instructors, and post-doctorate instructors do not have access to these types of programs. They also tend to be excluded from departmental funding for teaching conferences.

Again, this system may make sense from an institutional perspective, but does it make sense from the student’s perspective? Consider a student who enrolls in an introductory level course in biology. If the student is not a biology major, why do they register for the course? Typically it is because it is one of a small number of courses that fulfill a science general education requirement. The tuition paid by that student for the introductory course goes to subsidize other functions of the department. This money enables upper-level courses taught for majors, where the tuition accrued by the smaller class sizes does not cover the costs of the salary of the faculty teaching the course. This may benefit the biology majors, but it does not benefit the student in the introductory course. It also enables the faculty members within the biology department to conduct research. We might argue that this does benefit the lower level students, but the benefit to the student is no greater than to any other citizen (whether they attend a university or not). A fairer system would be to not put the burden of financing faculty research on students at all. Since all citizens receive similar benefits from faculty research, the financial burden should be on the citizens of the state or nation as a whole.

This seems to be an insight that Straightline is capitalizing on. They are able to keep the costs to students low because they have eliminated many of the external costs associated with the university. The student tuition in introductory courses does not go to cover the costs of less financially viable upper-level courses, nor does it go to subsidize faculty research projects. In many ways, there is a greater transparency in where the tuition money goes. The tuition dollars go to the instructor’s pay per course, overhead costs, and Straighterline’s profits. When a prospective student selects to attend a program like this, they are making a sacrifice, though. They are sacrificing quality of instruction, in many cases, and the reputation associated with the degree granting institution. The value of these should be weighed against the costs of the individual credits. However, students should be given the autonomy to make these determinations themselves, based on their own goals.

See also:

The Cost of a Cheap Education
The Cost of a Cheap Education: Another View