A good deal has been written on the general contribution of the university to the public good, particularly through its research and community engagement functions. But what about the impact its teaching has, through the lives and actions of graduates? In relation to this question, Locatelli (2017) makes an important distinction between education as a public good and education for the public good, highlighting in turn its intrinsic and instrumental value.
Education as a public good is close to the notion of a (human) right, referring to the opening of access to education to all. Yet education also has a role in promoting other goods – for example, employment or political participation – constituting an instrumental rather than a constitutive role in relation to the public good.
The ideas of equity of access are central to the first theme of this project, and are amply discussed in other chapters. This chapter has focused primarily on the second of these questions, higher education for the public good, and as outlined at the start, concentrates specifically on education (at undergraduate level), rather than research. Teaching and learning are commonly associated with the private benefits of higher education. Those graduating in medicine, for example, accrue private benefits in the form of a high salary and a rewarding livelihood.
Nevertheless, as will be explored further below, there are also public benefits resulting from undergraduate education – in the case of a doctor, the positive impact on others’ health.
The private benefits of the university go in substantial measure to its graduates in the form of increased earning potential, more fulfilling livelihoods and a range of other social, economic and cultural benefits. However, graduates also ‘produce’ or ‘deliver’ a range of public benefits for society and the communities with which they come into contact. These public goods will be outlined below, in relation to three principal areas: employment, citizenship and personal lives.
Of course, we cannot claim that the actions and destinations of graduates are entirely the result of their university education – their values, skills and knowledge have been formed through a much longer trajectory of formal education, and fundamental influences from family, peer group and so forth in a complex process (Allais, 2017). Nevertheless, the learning obtained within the formally taught component of universities, as well as the significant learning experiences more broadly on the campus and beyond the gates of the institution, are substantial.
Employment
Improved employment opportunities are generally considered to be a primary good generated by higher education – indeed it is conceptualised exclusively in these terms by many. However, there is international concern that the increase in the percentage of young people entering higher education is decreasing the extent to which graduates earn a premium compared with non-graduates (Rospigliosi, Greener, Bourner, & Sheehan, 2014). The UK Institute for Fiscal Studies (Blundell, Green, & Jin, 2016) found that the gap between graduate and non-graduate salaries was reducing as the proportion of graduates increased (about 40% of 23–29 year olds in the UK now have a degree; in 1993 it was 13%). About 40% of graduates in the UK workforce in 2013 worked in public services (Jenkins, 2013), but this is equivalent to only 16–17% of the workforce.
Changes in the labour market, along with the marketisation of the higher education system and consequent pressure placed on universities to attract prospective ‘customers’, have led to an increasing emphasis on employability in many countries’ higher education systems. Higher education institutions now commonly provide a range of courses and other experiences for students to enhance their employability, and publicise their positive performance in terms of employment outcomes. However, there is a highly problematic side to these initiatives, in that they very often promote ‘zero-sum game’ employability – enhancing some students’
opportunities without a net gain – they rarely include an ethical dimension, and serve regularly to reproduce and exacerbate initial inequalities (McCowan, 2015).
Nevertheless, there are other ways of looking at employment and work that go beyond these narrow, individualised and economistic conceptions. Part of the shift back towards higher education in international development has been the realisation that it is not possible to provide basic services (primary schools, healthcare etc.) without a robust higher education system, given the need to train professionals for these services. It is clear, therefore, that maintaining an adequate proportion of graduates going into public sector work is important, as well as attracting those with the commitment and capacity to make a significant contribution.
Furthermore, the values held by professionals are critically important. Allegiance to one’s immediate employer with little sense of responsibility for other communities and the broader society is problematic, given the destructive impacts that many corporations have had on human populations and the natural environment. In this respect, the work of Melanie Walker
HigHer education PatHways
and colleagues (e.g. Walker & McLean, 2013) on ‘pro-poor’ and ‘public good’ professionals is important, analysing the extent to which the work of graduates such as engineers is oriented towards poverty reduction in highly unequal societies such as South Africa.
Citizenship
The civic dimension is startlingly absent from much discussion of higher education in contemporary times, and when it is included in policy, institutional mission statements and graduate attributes, there is often a disjuncture between rhetoric and practice (Ahier, Beck, &
Moore, 2003; Lange, 2012). Primary and secondary education may be more important in this regard, in part because of the importance of childhood and adolescence for formation of values, and also because of the almost universal enrolment at these levels in many countries.
Nevertheless, higher education does have a strong impact on civic identity, practices and values, and indeed should be a place for strengthening of these attributes.
There is ample evidence of the influence of higher education in strengthening citizenship amongst graduates, including in Africa (Luescher-Mamashela, Kiiru, Mattes, Mwollo-ntallima, Ng’ethe, & Romo, 2011). Research in high-income countries has shown statistically significant associations between higher education and a range of positive attitudes and practices, for example in relation to diversity and democracy (Bynner, Dolton, Feinstein, Makepeace, Malmberg, & Woods, 2003). Findings from a recent four-country study in sub-Saharan Africa found that higher education had a crucial role in fostering respect and dialogue between different racial/ethnic groups (McCowan et al., 2015). The Developmental Leadership Programme has produced innovative work in Ghana showing the role of secondary and higher education in forming ethical leaders committed to the public good (Jones, Jones, & Ndaruhutse, 2014).
Nevertheless, there are limits to the role that higher education institutions can play in a direct sense in promoting active engaged citizenship, beyond developing criticality and a broad understanding of society (McCowan, 2012). To a large extent, political participation is learned through the act of participating. The essential experiential elements can be facilitated by universities, however, in providing opportunities for students to engage in volunteering, community work, campaigning and political debate.
Personal life
While divisions of public and private spheres can be problematic, we can also point to influences of higher education on the lives of graduates outside of their work and citizenship.
In part, these factors make life richer and more meaningful for the graduates themselves, but they also serve to enrich the environment for those people around them. Most significant of the attempts to measure these broader impacts of higher education has been those of Walter McMahon (2009), who has tried to examine them on the basis of a study using data from the
USA and other OECD countries, examining the non-market benefits which accrue to graduates as a result of their higher education experiences and knowledge. This approach has been much less used than the alternative economic valuing of degree level study in relation to lifetime earnings compared with non-graduates. McMahon estimates that if we factor in all the positive impacts of higher education that are not directly economic (e.g. lower crime rates etc.), then the returns to higher education are actually double the level conventionally estimated.
In the African context, and in many other locations, it is important also to acknowledge that individuals are part of family networks that provide support but also present responsibilities.
The rewards of higher education are very often shared amongst extended family members, thereby problematising the individualistic discourse of returns to higher education. Gender also has a big influence in almost all countries but especially in the Global South, with 33 million girls of primary education age not in school (compared to 28 million boys), 9.7%
of the global cohort, with significantly higher rates in some regions (UNESCO, 2017). In all countries, graduate job access is mediated by gender and social class as well as institutional prestige (Behle et al., 2015; Purcell & Tzanakou, 2016), even though globally, women undergraduates outnumber men, and particularly in non-STEM disciplines. This effect is exacerbated in the Global South where women graduates get lower paid jobs than men or are inveigled by family networks into returning home to carry out unpaid caring roles.
There are a number of ways, therefore, in which graduates use the precious opportunity to have studied at university to make contributions broadly to society – termed by some as ‘paying it forward’, as opposed to repaying a past debt solely to the creditor. Nevertheless, the public good impact of universities through graduates is not guaranteed, and depends on the nature and quality of the provision – hence the importance of looking at access, experiences and outcomes together, as shown in this research project.