The “True” Value of Higher Education
For more than two decades I have carried a quiet concern about the public standing of universities. Reading Samuel Goldman’s recent essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education brought that concern into sharp focus. His argument is straightforward and, in my view, accurate. Universities continue to struggle in the court of public opinion because their defenses often lean on internal authority rather than clearly articulated public value. I agree with this premise completely.
Goldman’s critique centers on legitimacy. In a society that expects accountability, institutions cannot rely on status or tradition alone. They must continuously explain how they serve the broader community. When universities respond to skepticism by asserting autonomy or intellectual privilege, the response may be technically correct yet rhetorically ineffective. The public rarely finds reassurance in abstractions. People respond to visible purpose, practical contribution, and demonstrated outcomes.
What makes this discussion particularly resonant for me is the contrast with my own education. During law school I experienced a culture that was relentlessly oriented toward application and performance. The curriculum was demanding. Expectations were explicit. The connection between study and professional readiness was obvious. Every assignment, every classroom exchange, pointed toward the skills required for competent practice. Even though I never practiced law, the training emphasized discipline, structured thinking, and communication under pressure. The value proposition was clear.
Over the years I have sensed a widening gap between that model and the experience described by many graduates from other fields—both in my doctoral pursuit and even teaching some at universities. Too often higher education drifts toward theory detached from execution. Intellectual exploration is essential, but it cannot stand alone. Students and families bear significant financial burdens. Tuition levels have risen at rates that strain household economics and reshape career decisions. Under those conditions, institutions carry an obligation to ensure that graduates leave with durable capabilities, not simply exposure to ideas.
Employers consistently emphasize the same priorities. They seek individuals who can analyze problems, write clearly, present arguments, collaborate effectively, and adapt to changing environments. They value reliability, resilience, and professional judgment. These are not narrow technical attributes. They are foundational skills that determine long term success across industries. When academic programs minimize the cultivation of such competencies, graduates face unnecessary friction as they enter the workforce.
There is also a cultural dimension. Higher education should reinforce habits that support achievement in any profession. Persistence. Time management. Constructive response to feedback. Respect for standards. Effective communication. These qualities are neither ideological nor disciplinary. They are universal drivers of performance. Their development requires rigor, expectations, and a consistent link between effort and evaluation.
Goldman’s essay highlights a broader institutional challenge. Universities must articulate their role in language that connects with public priorities. Preparation for meaningful work.
Advancement of knowledge with practical relevance. Contribution to civic and economic vitality. Stewardship of resources entrusted by students and society. These themes resonate because they address shared interests rather than internal narratives.
Universities remain vital institutions. Their influence on innovation, mobility, and cultural development is profound. Yet vitality does not guarantee trust. Trust is sustained through clarity of mission and demonstrable value. Reengaging that principle may prove more persuasive than any appeal to tradition or status.
