Higher and Individual Education Schools - Essay Example

Schools of Higher Education Are Different in More Ways than an Individual Could Possibly Think First Name: Date: Schools of Higher Education Are Different in More Ways than an Individual Could Possibly Think Introduction Schools of higher education have more differences than individuals may really know. Looking at the academic environments of universities, colleges and the middle-level institutions; the way they conduct their programs, their financial management strategies and remuneration policies of their workers among others, they are quite different. This paper delves into the critical area of these differences. Schools of higher Education are those institutions that offer education beyond the Secondary School level. They include colleges and universities as well as those others that offer professional courses in such fields as theology, business studies, law, art and music and medicine. Schools of higher education may also include institutes of technology that offer science related courses, as well as teacher training colleges. These institutions of higher educations are different in so many ways. We cannot refute the fact that there are notable similarities between them. In particular, this paper determines how different the schools of higher learning are more than individuals really know. It has taken up contrast analysis on the social and the academic environments as well as the revenue structures of these institutions. It emphatically analyses the differences in education and learning outputs between them. Usastudyservice.com affirms that schools of higher education are similar in many aspects, which many people are aware of including registration processes, teaching programs and the relationship between students. This is irrespective of whether they are universities, middle level colleges or community schools. Other similarities across the schools that offer higher education include the use of cards to enter various departments and to access various facilities such as libraries and computer rooms, the selection of courses according to one’s abilities, interests and talents in addition to the use of course timetable with respect to place, time and classroom. However, this does not mean that these schools of higher education are not deficient of differences, some of the notable ones being in matters pertaining to accommodation and meals. As regards students’ accommodation, all schools admit students based on bed capacity. However, it is clear that owing to the eminent limitation of space and student hostels, many colleges have allowed students to seek accommodation outside of their school confines, which means that students operate from outside the school, completely independent of the school management. This has become very attractive and students in these schools have now preferred even to share a house out of the school confines and operate from there than to have accommodation in the school premises (Usastudyservice.com, 2009). As Golden observes, schools of higher education are keen to invent and introduce programs that individuals have never been aware of. It is their desire to make their institutions look more attractive. Most of them have introduced a bundle of expensive items, which as a result have increased the net cost of education. The introduction of athletic programs and the building of attractive gyms in one or two colleges have tremendously increased the desire by more other schools to introduce and offer similar amenities. Students consequently have solace at state institutions and community colleges, which are different in this sense – they do not offer such amenities and programs. The point here is that this has inflated the cost of offering education and the schools of higher education are working hard to create more programs and introduce amenities that have overall led to an increase in the general cost of education. Students have found this to be cost-ineffective and have thus resorted to those schools that offer more affordable programs. In this respect, state managed schools and community schools are distinctly different from the other schools that have proved to be profit oriented.  Other areas of notable difference are their willingness to adopt technology-based teaching, distance teaching, e-teaching. Many institutions are quite indifferent for they are the conventional institutions that lack a strategic view to help them use technology. Having a technological framework in education is currently important for it helps educationists to adapt to modern instructional methods, which are otherwise multi-mediated, and the distance delivered programs. In matters pertaining to revenue structure, Robst points out that some universities are more efficient in comparison to others at following an established revenue structure, which in a way influences their efficacy in providing higher education to students. Considering government appropriation in institutional revenue, he refers to the 1999 Almanac issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, which reported that 22 states provided appropriations to each public college that rated well in performance. It is therefore apparent that some public institutions of higher learning rated poorer in performance measure and so could not receive appropriations. More attention focuses on whether the public universities and other institutions of higher learning received more funding from state appropriations based on their efficiency than schools that received less funding, and the answer is a resounding yes. Johnston attests that there is a huge discrepancy between schools of higher education in terms of the salaries that they offer their work force. He gives reference to the figures presented by The Times Higher, which show the average academic salaries that the full-time academics draw from the university’s salary kitty. The figures, he notes, indicate that different post secondary institutions offer different salaries at each institution. Some institutions use their reputations as a bait to lure academics to work at low salaries. Such universities like Oxford and Cambridge are among those that pay their postdoctoral researchers and clinical academics a pantry with the mind that the universities’ reputation will take care of the rest. This is irrespective of their knowledge of the conventionally agreed salary scales. They therefore blatantly violate this, suggesting that market forces are very influential. Citing the 2002-2003 statistics by The Times Higher, Johnston acknowledges that the Imperial College London remunerated its full-time academics averagely at £29,982, Oxford University at £31,000, Cambridge University at £31,498, Glasgow Caledonian at £28,654, Bradford at £28,932, Oxford Brookes University at ninth highest average salary of £36,857 and Greenwich University at an average salary of £37,064. The London Business School gave most attractive remuneration at £99,524. Noble points out commodification of higher education as another difference between the schools that offer higher education and that individuals have not been keen about it. Commodification is evidenced by the present obsession for distance education. Distance education has taken the notoriety of a revolution and enthusiasts of this program really care little about the nature of the knowledge to be disseminated in the end and have made profit motive the underlying impetus. There is nothing wrong with distance education per se. However, distance education as a program robs education of its actual essence: that interpersonal relationship with the teacher. People recall their educational experiences by remembering the teachers to whom they personally related, those who personally touched their lives and influenced them. The distortion of this vital element has left education impotent, without that crucial realization that the interpersonal relationship between the teacher and the student is core to the entire educational experience. Not all schools of higher education have commoditized or, to be precise, commercialized education. The idea of commodification or commoditization thrives on the sense that we create commodity with the mind of taking it to the market in exchange for money. Our endeavor therefore is to try as much as we can to improve its market value. Unfortunately, with education, the cardinal purpose of the educator is not to trade with different educational units. The commoditization of higher education occurs when an educational process is intentionally transformed into a commodity for market. With the realization that education is indeed losing its essence, American Association of Universities and the American Council on Education each irritably opposed formal accrediting of the recluse for-profits but instead lobbied against any relaxation of federal requirements for students’ eligibility for aid. They emphasized and defined the minimum time course load as twelve hours and restricted the schools against offering more than half of their educational items and courses at a distance, but rather restricted them to a rule of 50 percent. This is to safeguard the public and their support for quality education against distortion and possible swindle (Noble, 2002). Conclusion Although we cannot overlook the fact that institutions of higher education are similar in many ways – in their admission procedures, teaching programs and enrolment procedure, it is evident that different institutions of higher education have obvious differences in the way they operate. Individuals are quite unaware of many of these differences, ranging from financial management/financial framework, the administrative framework to their willingness to adopt technology-based teaching, distance teaching and e-teaching. A discrepancy in their tuition fees and other levies as well as how they pay their academics and other workforce is also evident. References Golden, B. (2009). What Cloud Computing Can Do for Higher Education. Retrieved August 7, 2010 from http://www.cio.com/article/510798/What_Cloud_Computing_Can_Do_for_Higher_Education Johnston, C. (2004). Market Forces Bring Wide Pay Variations. Retrieved August 8, 2010 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=190943 Noble, D. F. (2002). Technology and the Commodification of Higher Education. Retrieved August 7, 2010 from http://monthlyreview.org/0302noble.htm Robst, J. (2001). Cost Efficiency in Public Higher Education Institutions. Retrieved August 6, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb172/is_6_72/ai_n28871047/ Usastudyservice.com, (2009). The Differences of Higher Education between China and U.S. Retrieved August 6, 2010 from http://www.usastudyservice.com/en/content/differences-higher-education-between-china-and-us Read More