The demand for seats in colleges and universities continues to grow across the globe. Parents and their offspring see tertiary education as the path to greater economic, personal and social opportunities that follow receipt of a degree. With the exception of institutions topping the league tables, the many of colleges and universities earnestly struggle to provide seats to meet this increasing demand. More students are served and not incidentally more revenue is earned.
Tertiary education has a labor intensive production function that does not lend itself to the productivity gains enjoyed in other industries. Its increasing operating costs must be met with sufficient offsetting revenue each year. Enrolling more students is a relatively easy and popular way to balance budgets. Yet while politicians and pundits applaud these same institutions for responding to the increased demand they are simultaneously derided.
The majority of higher education institutions across the globe are at the same time encouraged and condemned regarding two inextricably related issues ― the relative openness of their admissions standards and their perceived impact on institutional quality. Both issues were in the same new item in a recent report of University World News.
El Salvador’s only public and most selective institution admitted 1,000 more students than in the previous year. The government had responded to increasing demand for seats in its high quality, low tuition institution. It was also noted that there was an accompanying concern that the intake’s aggregate test scores did not reflect the same quality as in previous years. Institutional quality was seen in decline. The Salvadorian critics joined the chorus of naysayers in many countries that annually decry the massification of tertiary education and accompanying perceived aggregate quality decline as the demand for more seats are met.
There is wide support of greater tertiary level access. It is in accord with many nations’ core social values. Many parents, students and human capital experts encourage both the majority of public and private institutions to maintain an open door or at least continue to moderate their admission policies. Institutions appear willing to provide more seats. On the surface, this is a win-win-win for potentially qualified students, the institutions and host economy. Given the opportunity, the individual will surely fulfill her/his aspirations, institutions will accomplish the mission and the national economy will flourish.
The concerns expressed should not be summarily written off as academic elitism. Unfortunately, realities do not uniformly support the projected positive outcomes once students are enrolled and subsequently conclude their studies. The initial scorn that frequently accompanies increased intakes is too often validated with dropouts and significant underemployment of graduates seen in many developed countries.
I am not an elitist but question the ideal that a college education should be available to all. Rather, tertiary education should be available to all who can benefit. The question is determining the ability, and I might add the disposition, to benefit. The problem is that our metrics for accurately identifying students with the minimal ability to benefit are inaccurate. In egalitarian societies, open admission institutions appear to have exceeded their ability to identify students who have the potential ability and disposition to benefit.
More does not always produce the desired results. In the drive for greater tertiary attendance, developed countries have netted negative unintended consequences ― dropouts, underemployment and a heavy debt burden for both the individual and taxpayers. Simply admitting more students ultimately ill serves students, their parents and society.
By William Patrick Leonard
William Patrick Leonard is vice dean of SolBridge International School of Business in Daejeon. ― Ed.
