Online Discussion #2 - Due September 19th

After reading the introduction and optional chapter from Armstrong and Hamilton's Paying for the Party and Rebekah Nathan's "Student Culture and 'Liminality'" from My Freshman Year, please reflect on one of the questions below regarding the way privatization exacerbates inequality.  You may also use ONE of the readings from last time, especially for the second question. 

Answer one of the following in the comments section below, making reference to two readings, and then respond to someone else for the full two points participation credit:

Question Option #1: To what extent and in what ways is college less of a 'liminal' space for self-discovery or personal transformation under privatization?
In the excerpt from her book My Freshman Year, Rebekah Nathan discusses how the cost of college seems to have changed the experience of today's students by making college less a place for free exploration and self-discovery and more a place to focus on preparing for the job market or worrying about money.  And, with the rise in prices, the possibilities of social class mobility, which is another promise of "liminality," may be endangered.  How does Nathan's argument connect to the story of a particular student or particular students from Armstrong and Hamilton's book, and what does their example suggest about Nathan's thesis?  Is college no longer a 'liminal' space of freedom or transformation between childhood and adulthood? Is "the party pathway" one example of how students explore their liminal position or how they refuse real transformation?  Is it still possible to make college a place where people can freely choose who they want to become or how they want to live -- or how they can think and live freely (which is the essential meaning of "the liberal arts")?  How do "adult realities" intrude on the liminal space of college for some students, especially "strivers"?  How does Amstrong and Hamilton's subtitle, "How College Maintains Inequality," speak to the way the institution of college participates in an increasing social stratification that inhibits mobility?

Question Option #2: How does privatization increase pressure on less affluent students and/or increase the value of family resources?
Who is most harmed by privatization?  Who gains competitive advantage?  And how exactly does that happen?  Examine a particular case discussed by Armstrong and Hamilton that shows how less affluent students are affected by the increased pressures of college costs and/or how more affluent students are insulated from economic pressures and gain other economic advantages from their family wealth.  If you want to carry your analysis of family resources further in preparation for the Analytic Essay, make a connection to Melinda Cooper's chapter that we read for last class.  How does Cooper's argument about the increasing importance of family resources under privatization help to explain evidence from particular students discussed by Armstrong and Hamilton?

Respond to this question using the comments feature below, making direct reference to two of the readings in your comment, before we meet on Tuesday.  Then comment on another student's comment by the end of the week.

Online Discussion #1 - due September 12th

As we see in Melinda Cooper's “In Loco Parentis: Human Capital, Student Debt, and the Logic of Family Investment,”  Steve Mims's documentary film Starving the Beast, and Scott Carlson's article "When College Was a Public Good," higher education is a highly politicized arena for debate which reflects many of the political, economic, social, and racial divisions in society.  Using two of the readings for today, address one of the three question options below.  Please post your response (using the comments section at the bottom of this post) before we meet on Tuesday, September 12th at 4:30 pm.  Then respond to at least one other student to get the full two points participation credit.

Question Option #1: Diversity - How have changes in the funding of college impacted diversity, especially affecting minorities?  What evidence from the readings do you find most compelling in supporting your view?
Which do you find most compelling: Carlson's argument that funding cuts were motivated by racial politics or Cooper's argument that the goal of funding cuts was to shift the burden of "deficit spending" from government to the family which then impacted those groups indirectly?  Or is it some combination of the two?  Or are there other angles on the issue? 

Question Option #2: Fundamental Differences - What are the fundamental differences in thinking between academics and politicians on the political right and left?  And how do those differences affect the way they think about higher education and the policies they put forward?

Cooper discusses academic debates among economists as well as the arguments about education that their theories inspired, Carlson discusses political debates about the funding of education, and Mims's film lets major players in the current debates about college explain their thinking and strategies for accomplishing their goals. Looking at two of our readings, answer the following: What sides can you identify in the debate about who should be responsible for paying for college?  What principles, evidence, or beliefs seem to motivate their positions?  How should we understand the terms of the debate?

Question Option #3: Political Strategies and Tactics - What sort of political and economic tactics have been applied in the arena of higher education in order to accomplish specific strategic goals?  Point to specific evidence from two readings in your answer.
What tactics of "disruption" are employed at universities to achieve more rapid change, as shown in Mims's film?  What tactical arguments are used to sell or successfully frame major policy changes in higher education?  How did Reagan, for example, exploit campus protests to achieve his agenda?  How do "dog whistle politics" work, according to Carlson? 

Question Option #4: Freedom of Speech and Protest - How have government policies had a direct or indirect impact on freedom of speech on campus?
How may the shift of college costs from the state to the family have been motivated by the fear of anarchic student speech and protest according to Cooper?  How might "trigger warnings" and the desire to insulate students from speech (discussed near the end of Cooper's piece) be interpreted?  How is freedom of speech for professors at issue in Mims's film?  What connections might be drawn between two readings in discussing this issue?

Respond to this question using the comments feature below, making direct reference to two of the readings in your comment, before we meet on Tuesday.  Then comment on another student's comment before we meet again.