Re-framing the Affordability Debate in U.S. Higher Ed

In March, the Institute for Higher Education Policy published a study on college affordability in the United States. The report, titled Limited Means, Limited Options: College Remains Unaffordable for Many Americans highlights the growing upfront cost of attending university in the United States.

Their key finding after analyzing price data for 2000 colleges was that federal aid policies aren’t doing enough to ensure anything approaching equal access. The current mixture of grants, federally subsidized loans, and loan forgiveness programs are not sufficiently funded to close the opportunity gap between low income and high income students. One reason the study suggest this may be, is that there is a basic lack of understanding with regards to how widely each student’s sense of affordability varies.

The study attempted to show this by assessing what colleges were accessible to what students, accounting for differences in wealth, family background, status as a dependent. The researchers measured cost of attendance by net price (cost of attendance minus grant aid) and compared these using Lumina Foundation’s Affordability Benchmark based on discretionary income. To account for the options each student faces, the researchers created student profiles which were representative of the income levels and dependency status of the college applicant population in the U.S. 

The researchers determined that the cost of attendance is increasing, while it is becoming harder to cover costs using student loans. In fact, the researchers determine that even with subsidized student loans, low income students rarely gain much flexibility in their choice of college and now face loan payments. In that way, affordability still entirely depends on one’s starting place.

As we’ve seen in class, the rising cost of higher education in Asia is associated with privatization in the sector. Perhaps the most telling finding of this U.S. study then, is that if all publically funded universities moved to free tuition, low-income students would face the same options of affordable colleges.

The study warns that the issue of affordability in U.S. education is being improperly framed as a question of value. The logic is that if a degree promises sufficient future returns, the cost is bearable, particularly if paid in small installments as is typical of a student loan. For many however, the study shows that the initial cost of attendance is too high a barrier to entry to even consider the long-term value of the credential.

Bollywood’s 3 Idiots

https://giphy.com/gifs/aamir-khan-3-idiots-26grAKoxuP9XkPqve

Kirti Dhingra, a journalist from Delhi tells us that India is perhaps the only country in the world where parents will decide their children’s careers for them, right after they are born.

The character of Farhan Qureshi in 3 idiots echoes this astounding cultural practice of Indian parents’ iron-fisted authority over their children’s lives, when he says in the movie: “I was born at 5:15am and at 5:16am my father said: ‘My son will be an engineer.’”

The famous and hilarious 3 idiots premiered in 2009, and it remains as one of Bollywood’s highest grossing films of all time. Here are some key facts about the film:

  • Two friends embark on a quest for a lost buddy. On this journey, they encounter a long forgotten bet, a wedding they must gatecrash, and a funeral that goes impossibly out of control.
  • As they make their way through the perilous landscape, another journey begins: their nostalgic journey through memory lane and the story of their friend—the irrepressible free spirited Ranchoddas Shamaldas Chanchad (Rancho), who touched and changed their lives during their time in college.
  • 3 idiots is a story of these men’s hostel days at the Imperial College of Engineering in India, one that swings between Rancho’s romance with the attractive medical student Pia, and his clash with an oppressive mentor, Viru Sahastrabudhhe (otherwise known as Virus).

The opening moments of the trailer begin with these words, and they reflect the pragmatic culture that pervades India, where higher education is widely recognised as a great social leveller that brings with it lasting prestige, financial power, and even a promising love life:

We all went to college to get degrees. If you don’t get a degree, you won’t get a job. Without a job, you won’t get married. The bank won’t give you a credit card, and the world won’t respect you. But [Rancho] didn’t come here for a college degree, he came just to learn.

A brief look at the trailer will immediately bring to one’s mind several potential issues of the higher education system in India. Even though engineering schools usually consist of more men than women, why could be the reason for a disproportionate number of girls in this college? Is gender inequality in ICE reflective of a larger issue of gender imbalance in universities in India?

Also, the college may be effective in equipping its students with practical skills in engineering, but how far does it develop its students’ ability to think critically? More importantly, how should a college develop a student’s ability to think independently and decide for themselves the kind of lives and careers they wish to pursue, in the context of a culturally conservative and pragmatic India?

And if all of the above hasn’t quite piqued your curiosity to find out more about the film, perhaps a purportedly pro-feminist tweet about 3 idiots from a certain Mr D Trump might challenge you to form your own opinion on the film’s presentation of gender in India’s higher education scene:

“Nationalizing” Higher Education Curriculum

RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat speaking during the conference in Delhi University

Article: https://thewire.in/119147/rss-du-workshop-indian-values/

In a conference organized by the RSS (a right-wing Hindu volunteer organization linked to the ruling party of India) at the Delhi University and attended by over 700 academics from universities across the country, one of the discussion topic was about how to instill “a true nationalist narrative in [India’s] educational system”, “reach out to students with an Indianized form of educational content”. Some conference participants believe that the content taught in Indian university “is all about the west” and fails to teach students the achievements and contributions of Indians to the world.

From your personal experience or otherwise, do you agree that university curriculums or the teaching of academics in higher education tend to be overly western-centric?  In fact, recently, there was a campaign by students from London’s School of Oriental and African Studies to “decolonize the curriculum”[1] as they claimed that white/western philosophers and their theories/view dominated what is being taught at the university. If intellectual diversity along cultural lines is desirable, how can we ensure this in universities?

The article also raises the larger question on the purpose of education, especially from the perspective of the government. Do you agree that universities should play a role in fostering nationalism strengthening the sense of national identity? If so, what about foreign students in the universities? Has your country tried to “nationalize” the higher education curriculum in any way?

[1] See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/soas-university-of-london-students-union-white-philosophers-curriculum-syllabus-a7515716.html, https://www.soas.ac.uk/blogs/study/decolonising-curriculum-whats-the-fuss/, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/10/soas-students-study-philosophy-africa-asia-european-pc-snowflakes