Universities, partnerships, investments: The dilemma of affordable, up-to-date education

This event is not about any noisy fight or struggle over opinions. It is about how we will prepare the next generation to fend for themselves and advance civilization and prosperity. Beyond ensuring our own survival, we have no more important task.

Put briefly, here is the central problem. Our economies, and our lives themselves, grow ever more complex and we require ever more training to create the work cadres that keep our societies running. This does not necessarily mean that we should encourage all young people to get university degrees, especially expensive ones. However, it does mean that the need for extensive training and education will not go away. Indeed, given the worldwide trend of shrinking birth rates, we will have to devote even more effort to prepare the smaller number of children in the future.

Thus, in terms of universities, these facts mean that universities should spread out more widely. That is, they should remain more accessible to more students at an affordable price, and should offer a great variety of programs—all to meet the diverse needs of society. But at the same time, there is a different need to keep in mind. It is not true that Vietnamese universities should only expand widely. They also need to grow deeply.

Let me explain. Although we learn from books, knowledge is not like chapters in a book where one chapter follows another. Rather, knowledge moves from one stage to another, and these stages grow in complexity. This is easy to see in technology. Technological growth is more than adding on new parts. In effect, it is using the old machine as the foundation to build a new and better one.

Economically speaking, this means that university education must grow more expensive. Of course, students need access to up to date technology, and that is not only expensive, but the costs, by definition, are continuous. And the continual need to invest more money is not confined to a limited number of high-tech fields of study. In fact, almost all fields require growing expenditure to make sure that students have access to up to date expertise. Technological fields—which are central to economic growth—require the most of all.

The result of this "spread widely plus grow deeply" means that everybody involved faces a dilemma. University education should not become too expensive. It should be accessible to a wide range of people, and it should offer as many people as possible as large a choice as possible of subjects to study. But at the same time, universities should also make sure students are educated and trained in the most up to date and sophisticated fashion possible. This invariably costs money and the expensive education makes restricts access to a smaller ranger of people. You can't have both at the same time. It is a dilemma. What should we do?

I have three rules about dilemmas. They can be used in a wide range of situations, and I’ll list them. They all revolve around the fact that, in dilemmas, no matter what you choose. You can't avoid pain. First, never pretend a dilemma is something else. If you have no pain-free choices, then you simply don't. Second, once you've made your choice in a dilemma, don't just walk away. Keep checking. I'll explain this as we continue. Finally, dilemmas are not so bad. Facing them is one of the fastest way to learn.

With this perspective in mind, the first step is to consider what you should not do. I suggest that Vietnam should not try to solve the dilemma the way U.S. universities do. The situation in the U.S. is too different from the way it is here to follow the American example. However, we can learn something by considering why American methods are probably not Vietnam's best choice:

- There was a multi-decade stretch where U.S. universities increased their revenues by simply expanding. They built more campuses, admitted more students and raised their tuitions drastically. This often gave them the funds to invest in new technology and expand their programs.

- Additionally, many U.S. universities have a favorable borrowing situation. First, it is common in America for students and families to take out many loans, government-sponsored and private, in order to finance their higher education. Additionally, the top U.S. universities, like Harvard—which was founded in 1636—have accumulated so much income and prestige that they can borrow for investment on favorable terms. They are able to raise money the way few universities in the world can.

It's clear this system cannot work in Vietnam. In fact, it's not even clear if it can continue to work in America. Young people and their families are burdened with debt, tuition is extremely high and keeps rising, the cost of borrow also continues to rise, and unlike the most famous schools, many of the smaller U.S. universities are in financial crisis. Finally, increased government funding of universities is subject to many political conflicts and disputes. What's most apparent, is that countries outside the U.S. cannot simply copy the American model and expect to succeed.

But what should Vietnamese universities do? In one respect, the U.S. example is helpful. It says not to go after massive projects quickly and try to accomplish major goals all at once. Hence, the question can be reformulated. If Vietnamese universities must try to move forward step by step, how should they do it?

I'd like to make one suggestion, keeping in mind that any solution to a problem like this always creates problems of its own. All universities are divided into academic departments and different specialized schools. It is too risky to try to devise a large, all-encompassing program that will rapidly elevate the level of the university as a whole. Instead, it's time to select programs capable of both attracting investment and raising future revenue. These programs will serve as internal "startups" that help move the university forward as a whole.

To explain. Like other large organizations, even if a university suddenly takes in money—which is hard to do—it usually has so many other commitments that it can only devote a portion of its new revenues for the expansion of its growth areas. "A step forward, a step backward" is a common occurrence. To break this cycle, it is possible to introduce differentiated fees. Just as different people pay different amounts when eating in a restaurant, so too, it might be helpful to charge higher fees for programs that require high investments of technology, or to deepen the differentiated pay structure.

Yet, here, we must remember that these problems are dilemmas. If valuable programs become too expensive for everyday students—and only the wealthy can afford them—then, in the end, everyone will suffer. In my judgment, this does not mean it is a bad idea to introduce differentiated fees. However, it is quite unwise to introduce them without an effort to understand how the new fees impact individual students, and to make efforts to help talented but poorer students.

In this end, new fees will probably still not generate sufficient money for the large investment needed for truly advanced technology. Vietnamese universities may want to consider forming partnerships with individual companies. Once again, such an approach results in a dilemma. Universities should be for the citizens as a whole. No single group should have excess power in managing them. Yet, private companies, in return for their investment, will desire some say in how their funds will be used. There is no single formula telling us exactly what to do. However, it is less reckless and more likely to succeed if partnerships are organized for limited periods with precise expectations spelled on each side. In general, it is most helpful if focus is placed on the specific skills sets that students should acquire. If both university and company sides lay out the conditions they require to offer students a new program, and both parties negotiate with each other, there is a much better chance that the focus can be kept on educational outcomes.

It should be noticed that I have not mentioned increased government investment. In today's atmosphere, spending more government funds in one area usually means taking them away from another, and/or creating some difficulty with taxes and deficits. On the whole, increased government investments succeeds most when an educational program is already established and successful. I think it is best to save this method for last.

Even more obvious is the fact that the method I described here a) takes a long time, and b) does not clarify how research should be conducted. But that's the way it should be. There is no fast way to increase university revenue—at least no fast way that is viable and sustainable. Also, the research done at a university should grow out of its overall mission to help the next generation. Each university will be different and the research situation will change according to the field studied. No single formula can tell people what to do. Instead, because there are significant costs to any step we take, we should continually check and monitor what's been done so far. Slow progress with constant checking is the most secure way to proceed.

I encourage others to join in the debate and propose even better ideas. There are too many dilemmas involved in this issue for any one person to be right about all issues, all the time. Nevertheless, we should not forget that small, incremental changes can result in great progress. The next generation needs increased access to the latest technology and professional techniques. Universities need to stay up to date to help students fully. And new systems need to be devised to pay for it all, while still keeping high education accessible. Nothing's going to be easy, but the time to start moving is now.

*Professor David Pickus has a PhD in History at the University of Chicago. He currently teaches at a university in Da Nang.