What should count as Higher Ed?

The higher education sector has grown exponentially over the last thirty years. Millions of students globally have earned degrees, diplomas and credentials on campuses and online. Governments worldwide have invested billions of dollars and lately private capital has joined the party. The reach, variety and complexity of the sector today are truly staggering. However, this expansion has left unanswered one key question: What should count as Higher Education?

This question is particularly relevant as a disaggregation movement is now underway. Faced with the challenge of the breakdown of the professions, fragmentation of knowledge and ephemerality of expertise, the universities reacted in one of two ways: Some by doubling down on disciplinary focus and attempting to put skills ahead of everything else; and others by going to the other end of the spectrum, collecting a vast assemblage of unconnected credentials and offering a portfolio of superficial activities.

'Skilling', an awkward expression that defines the mission of some universities, poses the first definitional challenge for Higher Education. For many years, vocational education is an integral part of the post-compulsory education systems in most countries. The distinction between training for a vocation, which must cover specific here-and-now competencies demanded by employers, and higher education, which should imbibe higher-order capabilities and 'transferable' skills, has traditionally been well-accepted. But the impending employability crisis made the promise of an immediate job outcome, though it proved to be mostly illusory, all too attractive for some universities. Particularly in the private sector, for which the economic consequences of education must come first, the 'skills universities' are here to stay. The question, however, is whether these peculiar institutions should be considered a part of the higher education sector, even when they may hand out degrees and be called universities.

At the opposite end, there is fragmentation and chaos. Some universities and some regulators are seeking a marketplace solution to combat the disappearance of lifetime jobs. For them, credentials rule! Every student preparing for a portfolio career must have a portfolio education! However, these changes are often made at the fringe and the students are subjected to well-meaning but disconnected 'interventions', scores of workshops, industry visits and online courses. These activities are 'plus plus' - the academic engine still chugs along in its own majesty - and these students build a wall of certificates. This aspiration is now official and many countries now want to tear up the standard, sequential playbook of undergraduate education and replace it with an academic bank of credits (with a 'locker' to store credentials lifelong). The question here is if credential hunting should be considered higher education.

A particular enlightenment idea of the university, based on the unity of knowledge, underpins the modern concept of higher education. It was structured around the commitment to a discipline. This arose from the realisation that knowledge sources are fast proliferating and it is impossible for someone to attain depth and true understanding in all branches of knowledge. The background of such an idea was an extraordinary breakdown of the world of certainty (the scientific revolution and so-called death of God), the proliferation of new media (print) and the rise of new professions and commerce (colonialism). As we look at higher education, there are lessons to draw from the past. If we look closely, we would know that the definition of the educated diverged from the skilled (who could perform tasks using machinery) and the articulate (the collectors of kudos). The educated, by that definition, had a discipline (deep knowledge and a way of thinking), was accepted as a member of the educated community (university or a profession), and had a cultivated sense of self.

This historical model is perhaps a good guide to thinking about what should count as higher education today. At the core of 'higher education', should be the person: The capacity of thought, the commitment to learning and the ability to converse with peers. The focus on skills has always been necessary, and recognition and even fame have always played their part in societies, but at the heart of what we called higher education was always the person. This definition is still useful but is ignored by many organisations which call themselves universities.