Free Exchange: What's college all about?

What's college all about? | Free exchange | Economist.com: IN YESTERDAY'S Link exchange, I linked to a Henry Farrell post on the economics of 3D-movies, in which Mr Farrell quoted an old piece of his:

Perhaps the most interesting part of the book [Tyler Cowen's "Good and Plenty"] is one that goes on a tangent from Cowen’s main argument – his discussion of how changes in the ability of producers to enforce copyright are likely to affect cultural production. Here, he argues that the likely consequences will differ dramatically from art form to art form. Simplifying a little, he adapts Walter Benjamin to argue that there is likely to be a big difference between art forms that rely heavily on their “aura,” and art forms that can be transformed into information without losing much of their cultural content. The former are likely to continue to do well – they aren’t fundamentally challenged by the Internet. In contrast, forms of art which can be translated into information without losing much of their content are likely to see substantial changes, thanks to competition from file sharing services. Over time, we may see “the symbolic and informational” functions of art [becoming] increasingly separate,” as the Internet offers pure information, and other outlets invest more heavily in providing an “aura” and accompanying benefits of status that will make consumers more willing to pay for art (because it is being produced in a prestigious concert hall, exhibited in a museum etc).

I think this is a very nice insight that is likely to prove true. It's not always so easy to determine what kinds of what forms of expression fall into which category, however. I believe that many newspaper producers long believed that the "aura" of reading the newspaper—having the physical item in one's hands—was an important part of news consumption. This may have been true to some extent, but the advantages of information digitisation overwhelmed the aura, with obvious consequences.

Where else might we apply this framework? Ezra Klein links today to Kevin Carey, who writes:

In recent years, Americans have grown accustomed to living amid the smoking wreckage of various once-proud industries — automakers bankrupt, brand-name Wall Street banks in ruins, newspapers dying by the dozen. It’s tempting in such circumstances to take comfort in the seeming permanency of our colleges and universities, in the notion that our world-beating higher education system will reliably produce research and knowledge workers for decades to come. But this is an illusion. Colleges are caught in the same kind of debt-fueled price spiral that just blew up the real estate market. They’re also in the information business in a time when technology is driving down the cost of selling information to record, destabilizing lows.

In combination, these two trends threaten to shake the foundation of the modern university, in much the same way that other seemingly impregnable institutions have been torn apart. In some ways, the upheaval will be a welcome one. Students will benefit enormously from radically lower prices — particularly people like [online student Barbara] Solvig who lack disposable income and need higher learning to compete in an ever-more treacherous economy. But these huge changes will also seriously threaten the ability of universities to provide all the things beyond teaching on which society depends: science, culture, the transmission of our civilization from one generation to the next.

So, the question: are colleges selling an information-based product or an aura-based product (or something else altogether)?

There is no question that much of what counts as the educational part of college is digitisable and nearly endlessly duplicable. Texts and papers fall into this category, as do lectures and demonstrations. In the past, the economics of universities were based on provision of these things; books and experts were scarce, and so it made sense to gather students in one place, in proximity to those things, in order to learn from them. If this is all that underpins the modern institute of higher education, then it is only a matter of time until it vanishes.

But it may be the case that aura is more important than pieces of information where colleges are concerned. It could be that the key value is in being in a room with an expert and other interested students, in participating in dorm-room bull sessions, in napping on a pile of texts in a musty old library, and in running naked across the quad at three in the morning. These things can't be digitised and infinitely replicated. If the primary benefit from a university education is to be found somewhere in that aura, then many colleges will do just fine.

In fact, there are aspects of both that are important, in different contexts and to different students (and employers). Potentially, things could go either way for institutes of higher education. Of course, there are powerful lobbies waiting to do what's necessary to support the traditional university. Among them are alumni, who cherish their college experience and who control hiring practices, for the most part. There are university employees, who are often wealthy and influential. And there are television stations who make millions of dollars off of collegiate athletics. These groups may be every bit as committed to maintaining the status quo as have been record labels in the music industry, and more effective.

One other thing to think about; it could be that a key value of universities has nothing at all to do with what a student does while enrolled, and instead stems from the filtering mechanism of the admissions process. College degrees may be useful because the admissions department has done the difficult background work of identifying promising candidates for employment. They act as ratings agencies, in a sense, screening products and declaring them "safe" or "risky". It would be interesting if in the future there are organisations which play this role more explicitly, offering to investigate a candidate's history and skillset for a fee, and certifying qualified candidates, all in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost of an actual university education.

But one way or another, the digital and internet revolution should ultimately reveal just what everyone is paying for when they write that tuition cheque.

Comments

[Charles E. Johnson]

I haven't taught at a university for several years and not full-time for over 30, but my sense is that there are multiple audiences for what universities offer. Some students are there for the information, some for the aura, some for certification so they can be employed in a field that will make them rich (or so they think), and some for various other reasons. Your statement that if the aura is the primary benefit "then many colleges will do just fine" suggests that those colleges with students of that type will maintain their enrollments, while those without many of that type of student will have their size diminished.
Your concluding statement is right on about the consequences of the digital revolution.