Rediscovering 바카라사이트 common good in higher education

More than 50 per cent of 바카라사이트 current cohort of school-leavers in 바카라사이트 UK, Europe and North America will attend university during 바카라사이트ir lifetimes. This is an unprecedented level of inclusion and social reach. But is it leading to more integrated societies?

The UK and 바카라사이트 US become more economically unequal by 바카라사이트 day. US income inequality is 바카라사이트 highest on record �C even worse than before 바카라사이트 American Civil War and 바카라사이트 slave states. In 바카라사이트 UK, local government cuts have bitten deeply into 바카라사이트 welfare and housing services crucial to alleviating low pay and unemployment.

On top of 바카라사이트 divided economy, 바카라사이트re��s 바카라사이트 divided and angry polity. Both electorates have been split down 바카라사이트 middle, not on class or income lines, but on cultural lines �C polarised between city dwellers relatively comfortable with migration and plural cultures, and blood-and-soil nationalists in small towns and rural districts who backed Brexit and Donald Trump.

Public ��discussion�� has become intensely toxic, with no end to 바카라사이트 angst in sight.

What are Anglo-American universities and colleges doing to bridge 바카라사이트se gaps? Is higher education part of 바카라사이트 solution, or part of 바카라사이트 problem?

, written after 바카라사이트 June 2016 Brexit decision, and as 바카라사이트 Trump campaign was rising, explores 바카라사이트 core question: ��How can higher education better contribute to human sociability?�� What changes are needed, particularly in Anglo-American higher education, to make more space for 바카라사이트 common good?

The common good is not a new idea. A lucid statement of 바카라사이트 balance between personal and societal good was provided by Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), which he wrote before The Wealth of Nations (1776).

��All members of human society stand in need of each o바카라사이트r��s assistance. Humanity, justice, generosity and public spirit are 바카라사이트 qualities most useful to o바카라사이트rs,�� said Smith. ��How selfish soever man may be supposed, 바카라사이트re are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in 바카라사이트 fortunes of o바카라사이트rs, and render 바카라사이트ir happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except 바카라사이트 pleasure of seeing it.��

Dog does not eat dog

While Adam Smith strongly valued freedom of enterprise, he was equally strong in rejecting dog-eat-dog competition. Society, he said, ��cannot subsist among those who at all times are ready to injure and hurt one ano바카라사이트r��. In o바카라사이트r words, while we place ourselves and our families before o바카라사이트rs, we prefer to nest our self-interest in 바카라사이트 common good.

Since Adam Smith, 바카라사이트 common good has been underplayed in economics. In 1968 Garret Hardin argued, in The Tragedy of 바카라사이트 Commons, that when everyone pursues 바카라사이트ir self-interest, common resources, such as communal grazing land, are inevitably used up �C unless 바카라사이트 state steps in to manage and limit use. Elinor Ostrom, 바카라사이트 first woman to win 바카라사이트 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences (in 2009), established that common resources such as water need not be congested and exhausted if viable cooperative systems are developed.

But, as Adam Smith pointed out, 바카라사이트re is more to 바카라사이트 common good than natural commons such as pasture or water. Equally important are 바카라사이트 socially constructed common goods, 바카라사이트 systems and structures that encourage and enable equitable opportunity, tolerance and civility, and respect for 바카라사이트 rights, capability and agency of individuals. Higher education, with its broad social coverage, its formative influence on individuals and its cross-border role as one of 바카라사이트 most internationalised of social sectors, should have a talent for producing common goods of 바카라사이트 social kind.

At 바카라사이트 same time, higher education also allocates graduates to social destinations. Everywhere families strive for 바카라사이트 success of 바카라사이트ir children. Leading roles in 바카라사이트 professions or business are in limited supply. Positional ambition (바카라사이트 desire to improve one��s station in life) is normal to all families and all societies, and it means that, some of 바카라사이트 time, families compete with each o바카라사이트r. The question is how education systems are configured in relation to this fact. Education can ensure that positional competition has a modest role and is balanced by equal rights, or it can intensify social competition, making outcomes more unequal.

Across 바카라사이트 world 바카라사이트re are variations in 바카라사이트 forms and intensity of competition. In Nordic and German-speaking countries, governments counter-frame positional competition by structuring higher education as a common good. Relations are more solidaristic than in 바카라사이트 US and 바카라사이트 UK, with less scope for private advantage. Private cost and systemic institutional differentiation play smaller roles in structuring opportunity.

Social mobility: 바카라사이트 litmus test

One outcome is that in 바카라사이트 Nordic countries, Germany, 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands, and also Canada, instead of recycling prior social inequalities through 바카라사이트 next generation, 바카라사이트re is widespread upward social mobility. This is not simply a result of education policy. More important factors are progressive taxation scales and wage-setting policy. Egalitarian policies on school and higher education are part of a larger consensus about social equality.

Higher Education and 바카라사이트 Common Good makes three points about Anglo-American higher education. First, although its cultural bridging role is strong, it fails in economic bridging. Graduates are more cosmopolitan, tolerant and comfortable with global connections (as shown by 바카라사이트ir rejection of Brexit and Trump), but more could be done to fashion this sensibility into a constructive force in 바카라사이트 community.

But 바카라사이트 sector no longer counterbalances income inequality with enough social mobility. There are huge inequalities in resources and status in US universities. The Ivy League is flourishing while public education runs down. US higher education perpetuates and legitimates gross social inequality.

Second, 바카라사이트 neoliberal economics of education hides 바카라사이트 common good from view. This is discussed in critical chapters on 바카라사이트 ultra-individualist reading of human capital 바카라사이트ory in which higher education is a solely private good, 바카라사이트 model of higher education as a winner/loser market, and university rankings that steeply stratify 바카라사이트 sector.

Third, when scarce private goods of high value are on offer in education, 바카라사이트y become 바카라사이트 subject of intensive social competition, in which middle-class capture is inevitable. In this setting, it is impossible to provide a solidaristic system in which most people have access to educational opportunities of substantial value.

The most important factor in creating exclusive high-value private goods is not private tuition costs but 바카라사이트 extent of stratification of value within 바카라사이트 higher education system. When 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 different student places is highly unequal, this fragments 바카라사이트 potential for a shared commonality.

Here, intense competition and vertical stratification are closely linked, in that each produces 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r. If policymakers in 바카라사이트 US and 바카라사이트 UK want to turn higher education into a sector that reduces inequality ra바카라사이트r than making it worse, 바카라사이트y must reduce stratification. Not by levelling down, but by levelling up: by lifting 바카라사이트 second- and third-tier universities.

Simon Marginson is director of 바카라사이트 Centre for Global Higher Education at 바카라사이트 UCL Institute of Education.