How Accountable Are We for the Failures of Higher Education? | Business of AV
Joe Way, PhD, CTS
While randomly scrolling social media, I came across a cartoon–posted on the left–by Jeff Stahler that features a college graduate handing his degree certificate back to the college bursar, saying: “Instead of repaying my student loan, I’m returning my diploma… It didn’t work.”
The United States is currently divided on a political issue regarding President Biden’s proposal to forgive up to $20,000.00 in student loans per borrower. This has sparked a national conversation regarding the true value of a college degree, especially in the AV circles, where there is no “formal” degree to become an audiovisual tech. While we do have the CTS–and associated CTS-I and CTS-D’s–they are not requirements for entering the AV job market. In fact, most people don’t earn a CTS until many years after entering the field.
As someone who works in the higher ed vertical, and also holds both a CTS and a PhD, of course I am biased and partial: it is in my best interest to say there is value in a college degree. But, let’s look at the facts from a “business” point-of-view… While I’m sure someone will forward me a random article saying that this is wrong, or that “you don’t need college at all,” or that they have a cousin’s sister’s best friend who did blah-blah-blah with only an XYZ, it is widely researched and understood that the best “values” or returns-on-investment (ROI), calculated as the average cost of tuition vs. the average salary over the course of a person’s career, are:
- 1. Community College Trade Programs
- 2. R1 Research Institutions, Terminal Degrees
- 3. R1 Research Institutions, Non-Terminal Degrees
- 4. Private Non-R1 Universities
- 5. Public Non-R1 Universities
- 6. Online Professional Colleges
- 7. Liberal Arts Colleges
- 8. Religious Colleges and Seminaries
Within those categorical distinctions, the chasm is actually pretty wide, with community college trade program graduates earning nearly six-times that of religious colleges and R1 graduates earning five-times. Liberal arts college graduates have an ROI value just under double that of religious colleges. Private and public non-R1 graduates fall right in the middle.
So, what does that mean for higher education? More specifically, what does it mean for AV at our respective institutions? And, is there a correlation between the well-funded (aka, R1’s) vs. the lesser-funded liberal arts and religious schools? Lastly, are we as AV techs responsible in any way for this large disparity–not to mention the growing public distrust of higher education in general?
Those quick to judgment might say; “Yes, those of you with more money have the ability to add better technology; we have no budget, so it’s not our fault if we can’t serve the campus body in the same way.” In fact, I have had higher ed colleagues preach that straight to me as if it were gospel. While it is true wealthier schools may have larger budgets, a blanket statement like that has (at least) three major flaws: (1) How do you then account for those community colleges with lesser budgets, like Yavapai College in Prescott, Arizona, who have arguably some of the best classrooms and teams in our industry; (2) The larger the school, the larger the scope, and therefore it could be quite possible that AV budgets are closer to equal from R1’s to non-R1’s when adjusting for scale on a per-space basis/service; and (3) How do you account for certain departments within some Ivy Leagues–and leading R1 schools–I and we have personally toured that have classroom technology that… to put it nicely… need a little help? Or, are these three “flaws” just the exceptions that I warned against earlier?
The data that is missing is the correlation between funding, technology investment, and long-term career ROI, regardless of the type of college. (Maybe that could be an initiative for HETMA?) There is no doubt different schools place different emphases on the value of investing in the classroom technology experience. That said, we can make some deductions.
The world changed post-COVID. The need for integrating technology into the learning experience has never been more important. In a time of desperation, it was technology that solved the problem: a shift in pedagogy then followed (and is still following). We witnessed that through the influx of CARES Act and PPP money that flooded our learning environments departments. We were quick to outfit learning spaces to solve a problem just for the purpose of business continuity. So, technology funding cannot be the reason, or all schools would be equal at this point in time for the trajectory of post-career pay outcomes. There is no indication that the above list has shifted or leveled out, though to be fair, it may be too early to know. If anything, due to the overall decrease in college enrollment, the gap only widened, because the biggest winners in enrollment numbers have been the community colleges, R1 institutions, and online professional schools.
So, how are we accountable to the student body if we cannot impact enrollment, public biases, and funding is not the differentiator. I believe it comes down to leadership. Great leaders make the most out of whatever they are given, whether it be more or less. Poor leaders make excuses. I was blessed when I went to USC to have incredible leadership in a DCIO and CIO who believed in technology innovation, customer experience, and fought to get me the resources needed. The rest was history, and just took follow-thru of my classroom vision. Likewise, Ryan Gray at Yavapai College believes in staff development and getting involved at high leadership levels within our industry, in order to both get the most out of his team, as well as ensure the connections are there to bring the highest quality technology to the school. Furthermore, Britt Yenser from Moravian University was just awarded AV Professional of the Year for the entire higher ed vertical at the 2023 Higher Ed AV Awards: She brings thought leadership and personalized, empathetic direction to her team as well as the greater AV industry, which in turn ensures that events at Moravian are produced at the highest level of quality.
Effective leadership produces powerful results.
So what are we to do? Do we have the power to impact the long-term value of the degree at our schools? I believe absolutely, yes. And, I would argue that excuses for not becoming a center-of-excellence (COE) for your institution may actually decrease the value of the degree. Yes, we have that much influence. It is often said in live events that the event was successful when the audience doesn’t know we were there. That is exactly true of our classroom technology as well. The more we design our systems to work for the user rather than despite them or because we needed to be “hands on” to make it successful, the more we are achieving the true purpose: faculty educating our students. Our role is to remove roadblocks, not let our technology be one. Thus, CX matters. Service and support matter. High technological value matters. Innovation matters. Investing in our people matters. Training our faculty to be effective with technology matters. Knowing the student body and the identity of your campus matters. Continuous learning and professional and personal growth matters. And most importantly… leadership matters.
I encourage everyone that whatever school you are at, wherever it sits on the “value scale” above, to ask yourself each and every day if you did everything in your power to bring the highest quality learning environment possible to the campus community with the resources you had at hand. Only then you can confidently answer yes, without excuse, and without knowing there’s that one thing you know you should do, but haven’t… only then, you are breaking the mold and knowing that each student who comes to learn in your spaces is receiving the single highest possible potential for future earnings at that moment. Psst… Oh and by the way, when you do that, it actually makes your institution’s leadership trust you more, which leads to receiving the additional funding and resources you need to keep pushing the quality forward.
So, how accountable are we for the failures of higher education? We directly impact it. Which also means we have power to change it for the better.
