For-profit colleges are a social problem because they represent the risk shift of labor market uncertainty from governments and employers to workers and families. It is a way to draw clear ideological connections between high-status higher education and low-status higher education. Higher education shares responsibility for some of for-profit colleges’ social function, which is why I call it Lower Ed. For-profit colleges reproduce race, class, and gender inequalities. For-profit colleges commodify social inequalities in education, work, income and wealth. For-profit colleges are a CATEGORY of credentialing. Together with Dana’s review I hope a few things are clear from this book: My major points? Well, Matt Reed also did a great job summarizing them. The only problem with the New York Times review of book #LowerEd is that it should be on the front page of the newspaper. Written by the estimable Dana Goldstein, the review suggests that my big points come through. I don’t know if I got it exactly right but I did get an incredible review in the New York Times Book Review. I was trying to get balance what we know with what I think we should know. I wrote it while becoming a new professor. I wrote it while writing my dissertation. That means everyone thought they knew everything about the subject but I thought we didn’t know nearly enough about the crucial aspects of the subject. And, the subject area was simultaneously well-worn but, in my opinion, under-examined. There weren’t many models of what I wanted to do. 
Trevor gave me a chance to share a research narrative that is dear to my heart: how for-profit colleges produce gendered credentials for gendered occupations.Īlso? I’m not saying that we look good together but I’m not not saying we look good together. This post is an update and a thank you for everyone who made that possible.
I surpassed almost all of them this week. I had a few personal and professional goals for “Lower Ed”.
0 kommentar(er)
