Higher Education as a Troubled Giant

Higher Education as a Troubled Giant
Concepts of Education 1970-2000
The period 1970-2000 marks a significant transition in the American education. Notable about such time is the vast innovations contributed by the huge finances from the government, philanthropists, and foundations. As a successful enterprise, higher education at that point included a greater number of student enrollments alongside the presence of qualified instructors. It also included an increase in enrollment from minorities and women. According to Thelin (2011), despite that much success in the education system, major crisis defined the system. Problems characterizing the period included stained budgets, loss of confidence in the management of the institutions, and lack of preparedness to meet the financial strains. As a result, suggestions to refine the existing structure and the changing of the course of education promised a creation of order in the school system in addition to its quality. These suggestions and revolutions brought in the federal funding for students, the inclusion of students on the board of governors, and positive shift in administration. Thus, troubles within the higher education institutions gave rise to community colleges. These provided an alternative to education expanding in the courses available and provision of subsidiaries to students.
Changing financial aid and Funding System
According to Thelin (2011), financial systems within an education institution is responsible for its operation and management.

Thus, if I were to change the system of funding and aid, I would consider the expenditure of the school and compare it to the available funds. I would source funds in the form of loans and grants from a charity organization, and state and national governments. The funds would directly be allocated to relevant sectors based on the urgency and the purpose their serve. Additionally, I would provide specific channels where the funds, aids, and grants go to. These include the setting up of student aid sector, infrastructure, maintenance, institution management, and growth and development programs where the donors and grantees can individually choose their area of preference in supporting the school and higher learning. Consequently, I would significantly cut down the budget to attract more funding and financial aid.
Allocation of Funds in Identifying what’s Important for an Institution
The allocation of funds within the institution can help one predict the hierarchy of preference. The budget provides the quotation of the projected amounts that the specified activity is likely to cost for the stipulated period. Therefore, information about budgetary allocation acts as a pointer to what the institutional management finds most important compared to what it considers least important. The structure of the budget involves a hierarchical ordering of the tasks to do or areas that need funding. At the top of the list, there is usually the most urgent and vital subjects while the last entry points to the least important subject.
Over Expansion of Programs
I strongly support the view of Thelin (2011) where overexpansion of programs leads to the homogenization and loss of institution distinction. Additionally, it leads to the loss of value in education and the creation of subsections within departments and faculties that altogether disrupt the organization structure. The expansion programs usually focus on specific subjects, especially involving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This presents a bias judgment and lack of appreciating other important subjects that are vital within the education system. It significantly dilutes the well-rounded education systems that provide knowledge and personal growth of students. Consequently, it results in a reduction of higher education quality.
Reference
Thelin, J.R. (2011). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.