As the Assembly Grapples with College Costs, It Bears Asking: Why Go to College Anyway?

This week the Assembly's Committee on Higher Ed is hearing from a wide assortment of voices - college presidents, faculty, students, graduates - in an effort to get to the bottom of why a university education has become so expensive in New Jersey, and what can be done about it. And from press reports, it's obvious to see that the committee, in the end, needs to grapple with the central questions concerning the complex relationship between students, expectations and a university education. Why should anyone go to college anyway? What is the value of a university education? What is the university? What's the point of attending? I often tell my high school students this: while it is true that college graduates make more money overall during their lifetimes than others, in the end, that's notthe purpose of a university education. A college education is not the same, in any respect, as technical training. Most professors will not care, at least not at the outset, of what your career plans are. In the end, and I believe this is not an oversimplification, a university (and the education it provides) is about the conversation. Or rather, it is a conversation. It's about people learning and exchanging ideas, generating new ones, publicizing concepts, accepting some while changing or disregarding others. We see this information exchange primarily in the form of the classroom and lecture hall, as well as in publishing in text and on the Internet. But, I remind them, don't let the lush lawns or the stately stone buildings or the basketball games fool you; those are beside the point. If you want to succeed in college and get the most out of it, you've got to accept the university for the idea factory that it is. I attended Rutgers University during most of the 1990's where I earned my B.A. in history and my M.A. in political science. While I knew that I wanted to become a high school teacher, I also accepted the fact that I probably wouldn't learn the ins-and-outs of the educational business until I was in it. That's not why I went to college. Though I earned several scholarships and fellowships during my time at Rutgers, I managed to graduate with some debt. It was worth it, because going to Rutgers transformed me -  or rather - set me on a path to become a better critical thinker, and a better communicator in both reading and writing. It boosted and directed my lifelong quest to learn. My experience at Rutgers introduced me, truly, to the complexities of this world and transformed a teen that believed in absolute truths into a young adult that was highly suspicious of all forms of authority in a world of gray. I attended Rutgers because I knew that there I would be exposed to all sorts of voices, both living and dead, emanating from the arts and sciences. I went because, to really understand well, at least for myself, I needed to learn and debate the great ideas with great minds in the classroom environment. This debate took many forms; sometimes oral, sometimes written, but always, alwayscentering on ideas. If you don't like ideas, if you disdain reading, if every second behind a desk grappling with abstract notions is viewed as a form of punishment, then by all means, don't go to college. It's not for everyone; and just because you don't want to go to college, it's not indicative of an inexorable slide into poverty. There are ways people can add ample value to their labor through technical training and other experience. I know many car mechanics, truck salesmen and restaurant managers who make a fine living and I know many college grads who are dead broke. College is not a gateway to riches - or at least riches in monetary form. It is an important credential, no doubt, but as a credential, I do not know of a singlebachelor's program that leads directly and immediately to a secure, lifelong job. No way. And any program that claims to guarantee a lifelong a job is being dishonest.   Students need to understand that college - at least the undergraduate experience - goes on for a long time; really for half a decade. It's not something that you can 'wing' per se, especially in the great universities like Rutgers, NYU, Princeton or UCLA. Getting through college requires a real shift in priorities, especially the priorities of the mind. This is why I have so much respect for those who have to work their way through college or come to the university in mid to late adulthood. They know that the average adult has zillions of priorities to cope with, but to be intellectually healthy and to grow, regardless of whatever situation you find yourself in, your curiosity and willingness to learn must be a prized value. It's true what so many grandparents tell their children: no one, ever, can take away what you've learned and earned, at least not what is intellectually earned. And perhaps in the end it may be all you ever have. Okay, perhaps I'm waxing too poetically here. I apologize for droning on. But we need to be honest with our young people about what a university education is, and what it is not, and what it can be expected to do.

Some of the Earliest Warnings of the Hitler Menace Came from New Jersey

One of our state’s greatest treasures can be found in its academic institutions, particularly in the two largest ones, Rutgers and Princeton. It’s a shame that more people in New Jersey do not take advantage of the numerous free lectures, seminars, exhibits and presentations that occur at these institutions on a frequent basis. Just a glance at their well-publicized calendars shows a wide variety of speakers, many authorities and trendsetters in their industries and disciplines. Every year, present and former governors, senators, scholars, teachers, businessmen and witnesses take to the lecterns of these schools to tell riveting stories, propose innovative ideas and sometimes, to warn.

This is where it gets interesting. Many of the greatest events in history, both famous and infamous, have been discussed, dissected, analyzed in our universities. But there have been times in the past, right here in the storied academic halls of New Jersey, which witnessed the most prophetic, dire warnings. Like a scene from a Spielberg movie, there have been times when the halls of Princeton and Rutgers have invited in voices from the political wilderness, to accurately inform of great peril.

Through my research, I found one of those moments. I wish I could have been there. The setting was right out of “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” The scene was Princeton’s stately, neo-gothic Mc Cosh Hall. There, inside, in a lecture hall that is perhaps one of the most architecturally impressive of its kind, a professor took to the lectern. It was a cold November day in 1931.

Mc Cosh's famous lecture hall, Princeton University

First, it should be stated that it wasn’t the only lecture that day, or week, on campus. According to The Daily Princetonian, other speakers were discussing the current political issues in the Hoover Administration. Another, Dean Wycks, gave a talk on “Mystical Appreciation.” Several professors were also to give a series of short talks on their most recent books. The Garden Theater was showing a play titled “Traveling Husbands,” which promised, in its half-page ad, to be told with “Speed and Sparkle…You’ll enjoy every minute of it!”

But this lecture was different, though we can only see that from our present point of view. The talk was given by one Professor William Starr Myers of Princeton’s Politics Department. The subject was one that was really yet to be addressed in higher academic circles, but Myers now felt that it deserved much wider attention. The title: Hitler of Germany As Menace to the World.

It was, to be honest, a rather audacious title for a lecture at the time. Germany in 1931 was still a functioning, troubled democracy and an economic mess. Whether the recently defeated state would hold together under the then-present circumstances was debatable. In earlier articles the university paper, when mentioning Hitler at all, described him inaccurately as a “prank” or a “monarchist” seeking to reestablish the Kaiser to power. But this was one of the first lectures that I’ve found where a speaker clearly says no, this man is dangerous, not in some abstract political way, but someone for Americans to be very, very aware of.

Myers opened his talk by comparing Hitler to “Scarlet Fever,” then a horrendous contagion universally feared. Hitler, like a tumor, was taking advantage of Germany’s chaotic economic situation to gain absolute power:

“Hitler has used many of his own pet prejudices in outlining his party’s declaration of principles, especially anti-Semitism and state control of all institutions. These ideas have gone far toward popularizing National Socialism in Germany…”

The professor went on to warn his audience that Hitler’s dictatorial aspirations included foreign conquest, or what Hitler would call "Lebensraum" as well:

“If however Hitler does gain control, he no doubt will try to expand to Russia…an attempt which might kill him off and bring a happy ending to National Socialism.”

Myers observations were dead on. Hitler did certainly come to power as part of a democratic coalition of right-wing political parties in 1933. And the dictator’s obsession with destroying Judaism and the Soviet Union would undeniably consume much of Nazi Germany’s energies. Hitler indeed killed himself in his Berlin bunker in April of 1945 as Soviet troops closed in.

In the coming months, Princeton welcomed several other speakers who discussed Nazism and its possible widespread effects on Europe and the rest of the world. But from my research it was only Myers' prophetical voice, speaking in the earliest days of the fascist crisis, who got it right. And it happened right here, in New Jersey.

Rutgers Shines A Light on Land and Power

What is a public university? When is it at its very, very best?

New Jersey’s universities have taken quite a beating over the past few years. Budget cuts. Bad press. Administrators basically declaring war on their full-time faculty, as we’ve seen at Kean University. Full-time faculty scholars being replaced by overburdened and underpaid adjuncts.

But Rutgers, our venerated state university, our colonial treasure, continues to step up to the challenge. It continues in its tireless efforts to inform not only its own students but the residents of New Jersey as a whole. Its ongoing efforts to reach out to alumni and everyone with outstanding and fascinating public events need to be noted, because it demonstrates the university’s dedication to the vital role it plays as community educator.

A good example took place just last night on the university’s beautiful Douglass Campus. On a gray afternoon, under the threat of an impending snowstorm that today has shut the entire northeast down, a genuine stream of sunshine shone through.

Rutgers has dozens and dozens of academic departments. Yes, there are the ‘standards’ like English, History, Biology, etc. But there are a tremendous number of more specific divisions and institutes dedicated to expanding knowledge and providing professionals with training and preparation for a lifetime of productivity. Yesterday afternoon, two in particular stood out: the Center for Cultural Analysis and The Department of Landscape Architecture.

Normally, I would not associate these two lines of study with each other, but at an outstanding and fascinating presentation co-sponsored by both divisions I learned a lot, a lot. And like all good presentations, it raised more questions than it answered.

The presentation, titled Is Green Always Good? Landscapes of Division and Silence, was delivered by Dr. Anita Bakshi, a graduate of Cambridge University. It concerned how, in many urban locales, different ethnic, religious and state groups use landscape architecture and the laws that regulate parks to change the land and embolden themselves at the expense of their opponents.

She brought up a few examples that were just completely fascinating and demanded further investigation. One concerned ongoing events in Jerusalem, the other in Cyprus.

Bakishi began her presentation with an interesting historical tale. Under British occupation in the 1920’s, many British leaders sought to transform Jerusalem from a densely populated, gritty city to an “ideal” holy site, surrounded by parklands, rolling fields and handsome pathways. Many British officials during this period were apparently unhappy that the Holy City appeared, well, unholy-like. It was too busy and disorganized, and its appearance defied the proper Western expectation of a handsome, ancient center of faith. So they made a plan – the British love plans – to terraform, or completely change the areas surrounding the Old City. From their point of view, it would amount to an improvement, but if you were one of the tens of thousands of people living in the areas slated for “improvement,” you were out of luck.

After the Israeli annexation of the city in 1967, the Israeli government picked up where the British left off. Indeed, the Israeli government cleared away large quarters of the city, from densely populated zones to open, unused areas, to create parkland and public space. Today, this parkland is so well fashioned, so expertly designed, that there is absolutely no way for the casual visitor to realize what stood before.

Now to be fair, I’m not going to argue whether or not the Israelis had a right to transform their national capital so dramatically. These kinds of disruptive, urban projects have occurred all throughout modern history, and continue to cause controversy today in places like Mainland China. Paris was a medieval, filthy, dismal mess until Napoleon III paved wide boulevards through whole neighborhoods in the mid-1800’s. Hong Kong’s worst crime and gang-controlled slum, called the “Walled City,” was demolished in the 1990’s and few in that great city miss it. Manhattan’s own ghastly neighborhood, the infamous “Five Corners” quarter near Chinatown, has been thankfully replaced. Cities are places of harsh, steady change. The old is frequently torn down to make way for the new. The past makes way for the present. The world belongs to the living.

But in her studies, Bakshi reported that she noticed some strange and curious elements in recent Israeli plans. New parks cut through Arab neighborhoods, with entrances connecting Jewish neighborhoods and fences along the borders of the Arab zones. Homes were being condemned and bulldozed without the usual hearings and studies, since under Israeli law such legal formalities are either not required or streamlined when an area is declared national parkland. Upon looking at an overall map of all the projects, it seemed that the city was being divided up formally, in almost an apartheid-like (my words, not hers) fashion, into near or totally isolated neighborhoods divided by irregular and winding greenbelts. Additionally, some Arab neighborhoods are in the process of losing ready pedestrian and automobile access to Jerusalem’s markets and thus, are forced to shop and sell in smaller Bethlehem. “Regardless of what your opinion may be,” she stated (and I’m paraphrasing here) “on the causes of this, these physical changes have created new facts-on-the-ground. They literally affect the lives of residents every day.”

But Bakshi was not delivering some anti-Israeli academic rant. She absolutely stated that these developments and their patterns have raised questions, and she was just pointing them out, putting them in the sunlight for further examination. Basically, she was doing her job as an academic. She was making queries, demanding new knowledge…

Flag Mountain, Cyprus. Not a friendly advertisement.

Bakshi then turned to Cypress. That Mediterranean island is presently split, and has been for decades, between a Turkish-dominated northern state and a Greek-dominated southern state. The irregular, artificial border twists and turns through the rocky island, and even bisects Nicosia, the capital city. She then projected a strange picture on the screen. In one bizarre area of the borderland on the Turkish side, the northern state has fashioned some of the highlands into a gigantic crescent and star. This Muslim feature is even illuminated at night and visible in plain sight, on a 24-hour basis, to the thousands of Greeks right across the border. Bakshi did not make any commentary on what she thought of the landscape; she didn’t need to. The point was more than obvious. And it raised questions, so many questions. What was the point of such an effort? What kind of message did the Turks want to send to their Greek neighbors? What kind of signal does it send to people everywhere when land is so dramatically refashioned?

Bakshi brought up other examples, as in divided Bosnia where Christians and Muslims also compete with gigantic monuments and architectural restorations in their rival efforts to claim the heritage of the land.

Such a fascinating presentation. So many questions. When it was time for questions and commentary, I brought up that such terraforming and refashioning of urban areas along ethnic lines had occurred right here in North America. I pointed out that Montreal, for the first half of the 20^th century, was largely an English-speaking city with streets and parks with English names. When the pro-French Parti Quebecois took over the Province’s government in the 1980’s, it passed laws that resulted in the de facto “Francoization” of the entire city. Street names were changed, signs torn down and replaced, monuments relocated, whole environments changed. Over a half million English speakers, reacting to a variety of new pro-French laws, fled the city for Toronto and the Canadian West. Today, Americans visitors to Montreal are presented with an almost totally French city, a “Second Paris.” But historically it just isn’t factual. Before the 1970’s, the city resembled New York more than Paris. But does it matter anymore? Is physical transformation destiny? Do such changes obliterate memory and minority claims to land and sights? So hard to say…so debatable…

Praise again goes out to the two Rutgers divisions that sponsored this fascinating talk, those being the Center for Cultural Analysis and the Department of Landscape Architecture. I’ll never look at Home Depot’s gardening section the same way again.