Yaron Brook, ever Ayn Rand’s ventriloquist, insists students are customers. Education, in his frame, is no different from a gym membership; you pay to be made “uncomfortable.” Professors as personal trainers, universities as masochism boutiques. It’s an absurd metaphor that fits all too well in our consumerist age: education rebranded as a service industry, discomfort sold at premium prices.
Video: What is killing universities?
Catherine Liu cuts in sharply: I am not a service worker. And she’s right. Education is not concierge service; it is meant to disturb, dislodge, and disorient. Liu distinguishes “Leftist” universal reason from “Liberal” mushy inclusivity, nostalgic for Enlightenment rationality, perhaps, but her refusal to collapse education into hospitality is a rare moment of clarity.
Eric Kaufman diagnoses the “new left” as a cult of the sacred, where identity is fetishised and offence policed. Liu nods; Brook flirts with Marxism for a minute; suddenly everyone seems to agree the university has lost its bearings.
Brook is not wrong that conservatives self-select out of higher ed. But let’s be clear: not because academia is too “left,” but because they crave catechism, not critique. They want ideological madrassas, not laboratories of doubt. In this sense, Brook’s consumer model is apt: conservatives want a product that validates their priors. That is indoctrination, not education.
Meanwhile, the universities collude in their own corruption. They market “education™” as networking, branding, and employability. At the top tier, the Ivies, Oxbridge, Grandes Écoles, you might still buy proximity to power. But below that? Snake oil. At best, you get nosebleed seats in the auditorium of influence. At worst, an obstructed view behind a pillar. For most, the ticket is counterfeit: a credential that promises access and delivers only debt.
And yet, the true thing still exists. Real education, the kind Liu gestured toward, doesn’t need oak-panelled halls or hedge-fund endowments. It can happen online, in a book, in a seminar, even here with ChatGPT. It’s the deliberate encounter with discomfort, with error, with reason itself. But snake oil sells better than hard truths, and so universities keep hawking tickets they don’t own.
This article concludes our five-part series examining the contemporary state of higher education. Having analysed the divergence of purpose and function, market paradoxes, grade inflation, and credentialism, we now explore potential paths forward.
Reimagining Higher Education: Beyond the Current Paradigm
Our examination has revealed fundamental tensions in contemporary higher education: the divergence between purpose and function, market dynamics that undermine accessibility, weakened academic standards, and credential inflation1. These challenges suggest the need not merely for reform, but for reimagining the entire enterprise. The task before us requires both vision and pragmatism—the ability to envision transformative change while acknowledging the practical constraints of implementation.
The future of higher education lies not in preserving outdated models, but in creating new ones that honour traditional values whilst embracing contemporary realities.
Learning from Global Experience
The dominant Anglo-American model of higher education, despite its global influence, has reached a critical juncture. Its combination of unsustainable costs, credential inflation, and declining standards has created what scholars describe as a “perfect storm”2. Students emerge with significant debt but diminishing returns on their educational investment, whilst employers increasingly question the value of traditional degrees.
However, alternative approaches from around the world offer valuable insights for reformation. The German dual education system demonstrates how academic and vocational pathways can achieve parity of esteem whilst serving different student needs and economic requirements. This system’s success in maintaining high employment rates and industrial competitiveness suggests that differentiated educational pathways need not result in social stratification3.
Similarly, Scandinavian models of public funding have largely avoided the access crisis plaguing American and British universities. Their approach suggests that maintaining broad accessibility need not compromise educational quality when supported by appropriate funding structures and societal commitment. Meanwhile, Asian systems, particularly in Singapore and South Korea, have successfully emphasised technical expertise whilst maintaining strong liberal arts traditions, demonstrating that these educational approaches can be complementary rather than contradictory4.
Institutional Differentiation: A Path Forward
The future of higher education likely lies in embracing institutional diversity rather than forcing all universities to conform to a single model. This approach recognises that different types of institutions can excel in different ways, serving distinct but equally valuable purposes in the educational ecosystem5.
Research-intensive universities might focus on advancing knowledge frontiers and training future scholars, whilst teaching-focused institutions could prioritise pedagogical excellence and student development. Professional schools might emphasise practical skills and industry connections, while liberal arts colleges maintain their focus on broad intellectual development. This diversification need not create a hierarchy; rather, it acknowledges that excellence takes different forms in different contexts.
Excellence in higher education should be measured not by universal standards, but by how well institutions fulfil their chosen missions.
Technology’s Transformative Role
The role of technology in higher education extends far beyond the simple digitisation of existing practices. True technological transformation requires reimagining the very nature of teaching, learning, and assessment6. Adaptive learning systems can personalise education at scale, whilst artificial intelligence might help identify student struggles before they become critical. However, technology should enhance rather than replace human interaction in education.
The pandemic-era shift to online learning revealed both the potential and limitations of digital education. Whilst remote learning can increase accessibility and flexibility, it also highlighted the irreplaceable value of in-person interaction and community building. The future likely lies in thoughtfully blended approaches that combine digital efficiency with human connection.
Reimagining Funding and Accessibility
The current funding model of higher education, particularly in Anglo-American contexts, has become unsustainable. Innovation in financial structures must balance institutional sustainability with genuine accessibility7. Income-contingent loan schemes, whilst helpful, represent only a partial solution to a more fundamental problem.
More radical approaches might include lifetime learning accounts, where individuals can draw upon educational credits throughout their careers, or hybrid funding models that combine public support with private investment. Some institutions have begun experimenting with risk-sharing agreements, where universities retain a stake in their graduates’ future earnings, aligning institutional incentives with student success.
Quality Assurance in a Diverse Landscape
As higher education becomes more diverse in its forms and delivery methods, traditional quality assurance frameworks require fundamental revision8. New approaches must balance rigour with flexibility, maintaining standards whilst encouraging innovation. This might involve moving away from input-based measures (such as contact hours or library resources) toward outcome-based assessments that focus on student learning and capability development.
Quality in higher education must be redefined to encompass both traditional academic excellence and real-world effectiveness.
The New Social Contract
Higher education’s relationship with society requires fundamental reconsideration. The traditional implicit contract—where universities served as custodians of knowledge and certifiers of capability—no longer fully serves societal needs9. A new social contract must encompass universities’ roles in lifelong learning, social mobility, economic development, and cultural preservation.
This reimagined relationship requires universities to become more embedded in their communities, more responsive to societal needs, and more accountable for their outcomes. Yet they must also maintain their essential role as centres of independent thought and critical inquiry.
Implementation Challenges
The path to transformation faces significant obstacles10. Institutional inertia, regulatory constraints, and vested interests all resist change. Moreover, the complexity of higher education systems means that reforms in one area often have unintended consequences in others.
Success requires careful sequencing of changes, sustained commitment from leadership, and broad stakeholder engagement. Perhaps most importantly, it demands a willingness to experiment and learn from failure—characteristics that many educational institutions, ironically, struggle to embrace.
Vision for the Future
The future of higher education must balance preservation with transformation11. Traditional academic values—rigorous inquiry, intellectual freedom, the pursuit of truth—remain vital. Yet these must be pursued through new structures and methods appropriate to contemporary challenges.
Success will require unprecedented collaboration between institutions, governments, employers, and communities. It will demand new thinking about what constitutes education, who provides it, and how it is validated. Most fundamentally, it will require us to reimagine what universities can and should be in the 21st century and beyond.
The future belongs not to those who defend the status quo, but to those who reimagine what education can become.
Conclusion: Beyond Reform
The transformation of higher education represents one of the great challenges—and opportunities—of our time12. The task before us is not merely to reform existing institutions but to reimagine the very nature of higher education for a new era. This requires preserving what is valuable from traditional models whilst creating new approaches that better serve contemporary needs.
Success in this endeavour will require vision, courage, and persistence. Yet the stakes could hardly be higher. The future of higher education will shape not only individual opportunities but our collective capacity to address the complex challenges facing human society.
This concludes our five-part series on the state of higher education. We hope these analyses contribute to the ongoing dialogue about the future of learning and knowledge creation in our society.
Footnotes
1 Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). “The Innovative University.” Jossey-Bass. ↩
2 Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. (2023). “An Avalanche Is Coming: Higher Education and the Revolution Ahead.” Institute for Public Policy Research. ↩
3 Graf, L. (2022). “The German Dual Education System: Analysis of Its Evolution and Present Challenges.” Oxford Review of Education. ↩
4 OECD. (2023). “Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators.” ↩
5 Clark, B. R. (2021). “Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation.” Emerald Publishing. ↩
6 Selwyn, N. (2023). “Digital Technology and the Future of Education.” Routledge. ↩
7 Johnstone, D. B. (2022). “Financing Higher Education: Cost-Sharing in International Perspective.” SUNY Press. ↩
8 European Association for Quality Assurance. (2023). “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance.” ↩
9 Collini, S. (2017). “Speaking of Universities.” Verso. ↩
10 Crow, M. M., & Dabars, W. B. (2020). “The Fifth Wave: The Evolution of American Higher Education.” Johns Hopkins University Press. ↩
11 Davidson, C. N. (2017). “The New Education: How to Revolutionize the University to Prepare Students for a World in Flux.” Basic Books. ↩
12 Collini, S. (2022). “What Are Universities For?” Penguin. ↩
This article is the second in a five-part series examining the contemporary state of higher education. Building on our analysis of purpose versus function, we now explore how attempts to democratise higher education have led to unexpected economic consequences.
The post-war expansion of higher education emerged from noble aspirations: democratising knowledge, fostering social mobility, and building a more equitable society. State funding and policy initiatives aimed to transform university education from an elite privilege into a broadly accessible opportunity1. Yet this worthy goal has yielded paradoxical outcomes that merit careful examination.
The democratisation of higher education has created an unexpected paradox: as access widens, the individual value of a degree diminishes, while its cost increases.
The democratisation of higher education has created an unexpected paradox: as access widens, the individual value of a degree diminishes, while its cost increases. This counterintuitive outcome challenges our fundamental assumptions about educational accessibility and its relationship to social progress.
The Market Response
Supply and Demand Distortions
As state funding increased access, universities responded not by expanding supply to meet demand, but by leveraging increased demand to enhance their market position2. This response reflects the peculiar economics of higher education, where traditional market forces fail to regulate prices effectively. Unlike typical markets, increased competition in higher education often drives prices up rather than down, as institutions compete on prestige rather than affordability.
increased competition in higher education often drives prices up rather than down
The economic dynamics create several distinct but interrelated effects. Institutions invest heavily in amenities and facilities, transforming campuses into sophisticated learning environments that often resemble luxury resorts more than traditional academic settings. Administrative costs expand exponentially as universities create new departments and positions to manage increasingly complex operations and regulatory requirements. Marketing budgets have grown dramatically, with some institutions spending millions annually on recruitment and brand positioning. Research infrastructure continues to expand as universities seek to enhance their global rankings and attract prestigious faculty members.
The Prestige Premium
The persistence of institutional hierarchy means that despite wider access, competition for elite institutions intensifies3. This creates a two-tier effect where elite institutions maintain exclusivity while raising prices, and other institutions emulate this model, driving up costs across the sector. Prestige in higher education operates as a positional good: its value depends on its scarcity. This fundamental characteristic creates an inherent tension with democratisation efforts.
The pursuit of prestige manifests in various forms across the educational landscape. Elite institutions leverage their historical advantages to maintain selective admission rates while steadily increasing tuition fees. Mid-tier universities, attempting to climb the prestige ladder, invest heavily in research facilities and faculty recruitment, often at the expense of teaching resources. Less prestigious institutions find themselves caught in a difficult position, struggling to maintain academic standards while competing for a diminishing pool of students who can afford their fees.
The Student Debt Paradox
What began as an initiative to democratise opportunity has evolved into a system where students require more debt to access opportunity4. This creates a troubling cycle where rising tuition requires increased borrowing, which in turn influences career choices and often constrains social mobility. The burden falls disproportionately on those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who often take on higher debt levels relative to family income5.
What began as an initiative to democratise opportunity has evolved into a system where students require more debt to access opportunity
The implications of this debt burden extend far beyond graduation. Recent graduates increasingly postpone major life decisions such as home ownership, marriage, or starting a family. Career choices become heavily influenced by loan repayment considerations rather than personal interest or societal need. Perhaps most troublingly, those who fail to complete their degrees often find themselves in the worst position: bearing the burden of educational debt without the corresponding benefit of a credential.
The Institutional Arms Race
The inflow of state funding and student debt has fuelled an institutional arms race6. Universities compete through an ever-expanding array of facilities, services, and programmes. Modern campuses now routinely feature state-of-the-art fitness centres, dining facilities that rival upscale restaurants, and residential accommodation that would have been considered luxurious by previous generations’ standards.
Universities now maintain extensive bureaucracies to manage everything from compliance and risk management to student life and career service
Administrative growth has been particularly striking. Universities now maintain extensive bureaucracies to manage everything from compliance and risk management to student life and career services. Marketing departments have expanded dramatically, employing sophisticated digital strategies and international recruitment campaigns. Research facilities continue to grow more elaborate and expensive, with institutions investing heavily in specialised equipment and facilities to attract top researchers and secure grant funding.
International Perspectives
Different funding models across nations reveal varying approaches to this challenge7. The European model of state-funded universities has historically maintained broader access while controlling costs, though recent pressures have begun to erode this advantage. The American model of high-fee, high-aid institutions creates a complex system of cross-subsidisation but often results in significant student debt. Emerging Asian hybrid models attempt to balance state control with market forces, though they too face increasing pressure from global competition.
The American model of high-fee, high-aid institutions creates a complex system of cross-subsidisation but often results in significant student debt.
These international variations provide valuable insights into alternative approaches to higher education funding and delivery. The Nordic countries, for instance, maintain high-quality public universities with minimal student fees, funded through progressive taxation. German-speaking countries have preserved a dual system of universities and technical institutions, helping to maintain distinct educational pathways. East Asian systems often combine strong state oversight with significant private sector involvement, creating unique hybrid models.
Implications for Social Mobility
The democratisation of access, paradoxically, may reinforce rather than reduce social stratification8. This occurs through multiple mechanisms that often work in concert to preserve and sometimes exacerbate existing inequalities. Debt burdens disproportionately affect students from lower-income backgrounds, potentially limiting their post-graduation choices and economic mobility. Credential inflation requires increasingly lengthy periods of study, favouring those with the financial resources to remain in education longer. Elite institutions, despite widened access overall, often remain bastions of privilege, with admission rates for disadvantaged students showing minimal improvement over time.
The democratisation of access, paradoxically, may reinforce rather than reduce social stratification
The role of social capital in educational success has, if anything, grown more significant. Students from privileged backgrounds often benefit from better information about university choices, stronger support networks, and greater access to unpaid internships and other career-building opportunities. These advantages compound over time, potentially leading to greater rather than lesser social stratification.
Looking Forward
Resolving these tensions requires rethinking not just funding mechanisms but the underlying structure of higher education9. The challenge lies in preserving genuine accessibility while avoiding the inflationary spiral that threatens to undermine the very democratisation we seek. True democratisation of higher education may require reimagining not just how we fund universities, but how we conceive of their role in society.
True democratisation of higher education may require reimagining not just how we fund universities, but how we conceive of their role in society.
This reimagining might involve developing new models of educational delivery, creating alternative credentialing systems, or fundamentally restructuring the relationship between education and employment. Whatever path forward we choose, it must address both the financial sustainability of institutions and the genuine accessibility of education for all qualified students.
In the next article in this series, we shall examine how grade inflation compounds these challenges, further eroding the value proposition of higher education.
Footnotes
1 Trow, M. (2007). “Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access.” Springer. ↩
2 Winston, G. C. (1999). “Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. ↩
3 Marginson, S. (2016). “The Dream Is Over: The Crisis of Clark Kerr’s California Idea of Higher Education.” University of California Press. ↩
4 Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). “Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream.” University of Chicago Press. ↩
5 Scott-Clayton, J. (2018). “The Looming Student Loan Default Crisis Is Worse Than We Thought.” Brookings Institution. ↩
6 Zemsky, R., Wegner, G., & Massy, W. (2005). “Remaking the American University: Market-Smart and Mission-Centered.” Rutgers University Press. ↩
7 OECD (2023). “Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators.” OECD Publishing. ↩
8 Chetty, R., et al. (2017). “Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility.” NBER. ↩
9 Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). “The Innovative University.” Jossey-Bass. ↩
Philosophics 