Definitions:

For the purposes of this article, I use the terms “postsecondary education” and “higher education” to differentiate between referring to all types of education after secondary education. “Higher education” is a kind of “postsecondary education.” When I use “higher education,” I am referring to education that leads individuals to academic-leaning degrees, including at universities and colleges.

On January 23rd, the Chronicle of Higher Education came out with an article titled, “Look Who’s Talking About Canceling Debt: How a fringe idea went mainstream.” It begins by looking back at the Occupy movement, where grads gathered protesting the piles of debt that they owe for their degrees. Vimal Patel, author of the article, writes:

“[The protestors’] end goal [was] not total cancellation of student-loan debt. It’s widespread acceptance of the idea that education in the 21st century is a basic need, and that it’s immoral to force people to go into debt to attain it.”

What is a “basic need”? Air. Water. Being taken care of when you fall ill. One could argue, a basic education starting before primary school that sets us all on an even playing field in this capitalist society. Think about it – we’ve created a world where simple basic needs are now just a few cornerstones of what we need to have a shot in this world.

But is higher education a basic need?

Hot take: I don’t think so.

Implying that higher education is a “basic need” keeps it to the individual. It signals to policy makers and politicians that everyone needs some sort of basic higher education.

Not everyone needs to go to university, nor wants to go to university. Postsecondary education comes in many forms and does not need to be pursued immediately after someone graduates from high school.

Postsecondary education is not a “basic need” that comes in sequence. It is a high value need that should be accessible at any point in time of a person’s life.

I don’t want to see policies that devalue the postsecondary education that is being served, which is what will happen if we continue to advocate that higher ed is a basic need. The adjective “basic” signals exactly what we could expect from government support when we frame it this way: delivering the minimum for the minimum cost. Just like at any other level of education, people learn differently as adults, which means a successful system of postsecondary education would offer a range of options for students 18+ (which encompasses 25+, and 40+, 60+…)

But I’m not saying, either, that the cost of higher education is an individual responsibility.

Let’s use the term “invest” because let’s face it, it’s a business-run world and the word “invest” sends more positive signals to the right people than does the term “basic need.”

I want to see the US government, people, and businesses invest heavily in postsecondary education. Let’s be innovative and increase postsecondary options, but let’s invest in our future by making these options affordable or costless for those who take advantage of the opportunities available.

I would like to reframe postsecondary education in the US. It’s not a basic need, but the positive impact of an educated, well-trained population should be invested in to make these opportunities accessible and affordable to everyone.

It is no secret that the question we think after deciding we like the idea of investing in postsecondary education is “How?” The answer is likely in several more blog articles citing podcasts and articles and economic statistics, but for the purpose of one small post, let’s be upfront that there are several pieces of restructuring that will need to occur:

  1. Corporations, as benefactors of this system, will need to be the primary investors via taxes that are directly redistributed to various postsecondary institutions.
  2. Higher education will still need to undergo an overhaul. Over the last few decades, the price has increased in part to conceptualizing higher education as a high-value, highly-desired product that needs to be marketed, which has increased competition amongst both applicants and the institutions themselves. Institutions, to remain competitive, have put money towards amenities that are not crucial to an educational experience (one classic example is a rock wall).
  3. We, as adults, need to stop ranking schools and passing along our bias to young people. This is part of the reason for such an intense, competitive admissions process – not everyone needs or should go to Harvard, where acceptance rates are low, and some of those students would be much better off at small private colleges, where acceptance rates and financial aid can be very high (depending on the institution).
  4. The US government might want to consider realigning the budget a bit to bring more money and tax investment into education in general.

What I have written here barely glazes the surface of what is a huge issue, but I hope that the main takeaway is that we need to start changing our language around postsecondary education, because it is worth a collectively investment.