Sunday, November 25, 2012

Giroux & Tuchman


Giroux’s article reinforces the notion that the neoliberal society in which we live is diminishing the concept of democracy that we, as Americas, are supposed to stand for. Giroux credits this ideology as the most dangerous of modern times (428). Neoliberalism specifically pushes its ideals on society, while intentionally limiting the possibility for critique. Public goods are quickly diminishing as the private sector is taking over, and these public institutions that once existed were “places and forums where issues of importance to a political community are discussed and debated, and where information is presented that is essential to citizen participation in community life” (428). Without this public sector, critical thinking is weakened, which makes it even more important for us to become ever more critical of society’s function in our lives, and in education, for the specific purpose of this course. Giroux continues on to discuss how education is no longer a public good in America, and even our universities are falling victim to the marketplace rhetoric that defines American life. Higher education has become a forum to improve one’s individual position in the capitalist marketplace, as opposed to a place where one goes to further their education for knowledge’s sake (435).

The purpose of Tuchman’s Wannabe U continues with the threatening theme of neoliberalism in the college and university sphere. Specifically, Tuchman describes the way that state universities sacrifice educational values for neoliberalist market values, in turn attempting to transform their institutions as they fall victim to ratings and financial stresses. In many instances, education in America has become about commoditizing students and investing in financial interests. The notion that “With hard work, anyone can join the ranks of the elite” (4) is prevalent, giving way to the idea that schools can teach kids out of poverty and become part of the competitive goal of elitism. Tuchman notes this theme again and restates the American theme: “Education may enable individual mobility. It may also facilitate industrial growth. An educated workforce serves industry. Industry requires educated and diverse employees, qualified to compete in the global economy” (13). Ultimately, education has become about the capitalist marketplace rather than complying with traditional and democratic educational ideals. With this capitalist takeover, educators are being further pushed out of the decision-making process. The governor appointed many of the trustees at Wannabe U (2). The president of Wannabe U was previously a lawyer, and administrators are negatively viewed as managers (6). The core values of American education as a public institution aimed at creating a democratic population has been overturned by the forceful neoliberal ideology that encourages and enforces privatization and commoditization, while simultaneously instilling individual values of competition and elitism. We must understand these ideas that run our society with a critical lens so that we can try to regain the value of public education and education as a whole.

13 comments:

  1. As per usual, this week’s readings have left me feeling pretty bummed about the state of our educational system. I agree with Meghan that we have to look critically at how our public education is currently being handled in order to improve it. The Giroux article’s final sentence, quoting Jacques Derrida: “‘we must do and think the impossible. If only the possible happened, nothing more would happen. If I only did what I can do, I wouldn’t do anything,’” was a confusing way of saying that we have to think outside the box in order to make any real changes with regard to neoliberalism in higher education, namely getting rid of it (Giroux 457). As with elementary, middle and high schools, it is necessary for administrators to think about the children instead of their wallets so that the children are receiving the best education possible. So many students are falling behind because of the competitiveness that is inherent with the corporatization of our public institutions.
    In the chapter from Wannabe U, it is clear that many state schools are ignoring their function, which is to educate, in order to further themselves financially and culturally. By this I mean that they want to be able to compete with the private schools that have the means and funds to be exclusive, and therefore seen as “the elite.” Public state schools are meant for those who want to get a good education for a reasonable price, instead of the outrageous prices of private universities (yes, Colgate included). For example, I have some very smart friends who applied to UMass Amherst, thinking they would be able to get in because they were from Massachusetts and had good grades. But because UMass is rising in cultural stock, they would prefer to take people from out of state who are smart and also have to pay full price because of that. I think this is completely ridiculous, and that state schools should remember their goal: to educate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wannabe U (and I both note and appreciate the double entendre) could be Colgate, and I think that's the point. The dress code, the elaborate elbow-rubbing functions, the professors focused on their disciplines alone. None of those things by themselves are innately bad. But when taken together, they are symptons of a broken system that puts the individual's desires before the common good. I think we know how to think about the common good and talk about the common good, but when it comes to actually putting the common good first, we fail.

    On a whim, I went to Colgate's website and searched "transform" to see what popped up. Several articles about transforming dreams into realities, transforming physical spaces on campus (Picker Art Gallery, the Coop, new physics labs), and the requisite articles on the transformative power of the Passion For The Climb campaign were in the first few hits. Each of the things mentioned as being "transformed" were all things that would lead to better rankings. Better rankings is fine, but when it's solely for the sake of better rankings, and by extension more applications, more full tuition-paying students, and more financial gains, we start to run into some issues. Neoliberalism is god of the grey area; on the surface, it doesn't seem to be a problem, but when viewed in context there are some serious flaws in the mentalities that have allowed it to escape detection.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As I was reading for this week, I was struck by a parallel between this Education class and what I have been studying as an Art History major. Art museums today are suffering from a predicament very similar to universities: as both become “increasingly strapped for cash,” corporate sponsorship becomes more appealing (and oftentimes seems absolutely necessary). Much like universities, public art museums strive to create an environment of education, open discourse, and humanism. This poses a serious problem with the museums receive private funding, because curators now must juggle the museum’s public purpose versus the influence of the corporate donor. If the donor wants certain pieces included in an exhibition, or even certain major changes to a museum, the curator is no longer in a position to say no, for fear of losing these desperately needed funds. Much like professors, curators and art educators are trained in and passionate about making art museums public accessible (both physically and mentally), whereas corporations are not.

    Furthermore, in order to break even, museums are forced to exhibit “blockbuster” shows— installations that may be geared more towards pop culture/consumerism that will attract more visitors, and less towards what is traditionally considered art (examples of this include exhibits about motorcycles at the Guggenheim and Alexander McQueen’s fashion designs at the Met). The current struggle of universities is scarily similar: as Giroux wrote on page 434, “areas of study in the university that don’t translate into substantial profits get either marginalized, underfunded, or eliminated.” This means programs like the humanities, as well as programs that discuss literature, feminism, environmentalism, ethics, and etc., are getting cut in favor of programs that have more money-making potential: the sciences and economics. To be blunt, this really pisses me off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After thinking about this further, I want to add something.

      Tuchman brings up the fact that another way schools "advertise" themselves (hoping to bring in more students and revenue) is by fostering athletic programs, which she describes as a "lever of change." (page 8) I saw a documentary last weekend that completely affirms this- I'm not sure whether it was on ESPN or a news channel, but it presented several college football programs and the huge scale to which they've grown. University presidents/athletic directors view these programs as an essential part of the school, one that raises their visibility and importance nationwide. The detail that stuck with me the most is that one football coach (Alabama, I'm fairly sure) is paid a salary of five MILLION dollars per year. Furthermore, he is such an asset to the school's athletic (and thus financial) success that he is actually WORTH these five million dollars.

      I love watching college sports, especially football and basketball, but this seems to me a corruption of values that "the university" as an ideal should promote. Paying $5 million a year for a football coach is not an example of an environment that fosters democracy and higher learning.

      Delete
  4. I found the Wannabe U very interesting especially given the movement at Colgate for entrepreneurship. Recently there has been a large move to help students pursue their career and business goals outside of their classes. I don't know if anyone has participated in or heard of the Thought Into Action Seminar. Basically TIA is a year long seminar that meets once a month. Successful alumni gather to help students pursue projects outside of the scope of their classes. This has been extremely controversial move for the faculty because many feel like it is taking away from the academic rigor in the classes. TIA is supposed to prepare you for more 'real life' ventures outside of your time as an undergrad. However, is it the same as what Tuchman describes?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I feel like the discourse and rhetoric about what an "elite university" is has changed how state schools aim to attract students who can pay full tuition and can simultaneously raise the standards at the school. The Wannabe U chapter made me think about day to day conversations I have had with students here at Colgate about the difference between going to Colgate or attending a different type of school that aims to achieve the same things. I have heard some elitist talk about why other universities are not as prestigious as Colgate. I think this has to do with validating our privileged position at this school and also how the school has managed to completely cater to white upper middle class culture. I think state schools want the same recognition as a school like Colgate and the only way to do is to be way more selective. I know that Colgate appealed to me because of its prestige and recognition in the workforce. This leads me to ask shouldn't all schools be regarded as positive spheres of influence? All the policy changes happening in state schools just proves that the neoliberal agenda has redefined what is desirable in a student and also aims to limit who can have access to a "good education" in America. When people talk about the economy they say that the middle class in america is shrinking, while the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Schools want to cater to the rich because rich people somehow validate the existence of some schools and reject other schools. This is appalling to me given that at the core both rich and poor people inherently want the best for their children, but the rich persons idea of what good is trumps the opinions of other groups.
    I think that it is important for all of us to understand why we are here and question how we look at students who attend other institutions. We cant escape the grasp of neoliberal thought unless we focus on how we may be contributing to it (like the conversations I have had with students about how Colgate is a better school). It is also disheartening to know that money drives all of these changes and the discourse at our school when the focus should be placed on educating.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Derrida quote in the Giroux article that Courtney mentioned stood out to me as well. I took, “if I only did what I can do, I wouldn’t do anything,” to mean that what we are currently doing now for our education system is not doing anything. There is really nothing being done with the children and teachers in mind. Schools are doing what they can do to increase their profits instead of doing what they can do to actually educate the children. Because of this, many subjects are being cut from schools. In my opinion, the subjects that are being cut are the most important, even if they have the least amount of “money-making potential.” It seems that money and reputation are all that schools are about these days. School is about furthering the self-interest of administrators, rather than working towards a common good for all students. This mindset seems to have taken over our country, making it extremely difficult for anything to change. So where do we go from here? How do we “do and think the impossible?”

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Upon reading this week’s articles, I couldn’t help but make a parallel between it and a previous article that we read by Apple and Beane. Apple and Bean analyze the use of democracy in schools and what it actually means to be a democratic school. In a democratic school, the idea of helping one another is stressed and competition is eliminated. Quantifying creates competition. Corporate competition between universities is detracting from the actual intended goals of universities; to create educated and critical citizens that can participate in a democratic society. For example, in the book Wannabe U, Tuchman notes how “where a professor may define a grant as the funds that enable research and supports graduate students, an administrator may see a revenue stream,” (6). The goals of the university are being floundered by the continual need for revenue and the corporatizing of the entire higher education system. While research and education should be the main focus, administrators tend to see universities as profiteers and lose the main goals of education along the way.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Giroux tells us in the section of his article titled "Higher Education as a Democratic Public Sphere" that "higher education can be removed from its narrow instrumental justification by encouraging students to think beyond what it means to simply get a job or be an adroit consumer" (450). This was particularly relevant to me at Colgate, which does place such a heavy emphasis on getting a job after school and being an adroit participant in the neoliberal job market. Colgate's website and literature frequently cites measures saying that our school produces graduates with some of the highest mid-career salaries or even just 5 years after graduation. In some ways, I think that this is a statistic that Colgate should be working to bring down. This statistic suggests that Colgate graduates are pursuing the career that will make them the most money in a neoliberal economy, instead of the career that might be best suited to their interests. Students should be encouraged to pursue a vocation by a decision-making process that, to borrow a line from Giroux, is "situated within a broader context of issues concerned with social responsibility, politics, and the dignity of human life" (451). It would be nice if Career Services held more workshops that encourage students to reflect on these types of concerns, along with the resume-building, networking and whatever else they currently do to prepare students for the neoliberal job market.

    ReplyDelete



  10. I strongly agree with what everyone is saying, and I like the way that Caitlin talks about specific programs being cut from our schools because of their lack of “money-making-potential”. The focus as an education system has been completely taken away from our students and teachers which is exactly what schools are designed for. This neoliberalist mentality that if you do not fit into this mold is so detrimental to students. Anyone who is gifted musically, artistically, etc. is told that that will not fly here. The only thing that is cared about is education that will produce profit and a good reputation for the school. There needs to be passion in these schools, kids need to feel as though they are there for a reason, so that they can better themselves and learn new things that interest them and make them excited about school. School has become about who does the best and what that means for the future, there is no living in the present, as all that is cared about is result and product. We are doing a disservice to these children and students by allowing the system to function like this, but how do we change this? It once again seems as though there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In Tuchman’s Wannabe U, she discusses how the educational system has been largely influenced by the capitalist society in which we live. She goes in great detail about how the overall goal of higher education has become solely to produce students who will be able to join the work force within our neoliberal society. This goal is geared by the prospect of upward socio economic mobility which is an ideal that is ingrained in the students of our country at a very early age. This is a prime example of the factory model we have discussed in class. As Tuchman mentions within this model critical thinking is lost and students are looked at as commodities and not as people.
    It is almost impossible to disagree with this assessment of the education system within our country. Thinking back to as young as grade school I cannot remember a time when the idea of doing well so you can go to a good college so you can then get a good job was not used to motivate my fellow classmates and I. I can even remember my third grade teacher threatening us that if we did not do our homework we could potentially become garbage men (not that there is anything wrong with being a garbage man). I’m not suggesting that all of my teachers were this extreme; however I do not blame them for participating in this type of thinking. I know that this was not something that was innate, but rather something that was taught to them just like they were trying to teach to us.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Giroux's article echoed the voices of some of the earlier authors in the semester that focused on how neoliberal ideology and discourses about “freedom through the market” were becoming ingrained in the daily life and taking power away from the public sphere. The article highlights how neoliberal ideas are now as deeply rooted in the social and political agendas, as they are in the economic sphere. Of the many pieces of the article, Giroux’s small mention of how neoliberalism within the pharmaceutical industry, particularly resonated with me. Drug development is a quintessential component of the pharmaceutical industry, and is highly vulnerable to the pressures of the market. Having worked for Novartis two summer’s ago, I was able to experience how basic research and development is subject to a degree of corporate influence even at the micro-level. Certain companies tend to fund research towards the development of drugs that have multiple downstream targets, and are very non-specific. Having a drug that serves a broad array of functions opens up market opportunities for pharmaceutical companies, because it allows for this drug to be applicable to a greater number of diseases. The downside of this, is that due to their non-specific nature, these drugs often affect multiple pathways and have less effective response rates. In our own culture, there is a growing obsession with narcotic use and with increased prescription rates that is highly reflective of how the science and health industry have been comodified. The current profile of the pharmaceutical industry demonstrates how an economic theory has translated into the social philosophy and how this has further permeated from the individual level to the global economy.

    ReplyDelete