Reimagining Higher Education for Equity and Innovation

In a provocative 2021 Bloomberg opinion piece entitled “At Tyler Cowen University, No One Would Have Tenure,” the George Mason economist and popular blogger offered his fantasy vision of a university designed from scratch.

His ideal school prioritizes competency-based education, reduces administrative overhead and incorporates market principles to incentivize quality instruction.

The key features of his fantasy university are:

• Competency-based education: Degrees would be awarded based on demonstrated competence, with students required to show B-grade proficiency in writing, economics, public policy and statistical reasoning. C-minus work, which Cowen criticizes as a low bar, would no longer suffice. Importantly, instructors would not grade their own students, ensuring that mastery of the material is genuine rather than tailored to specific classroom expectations.

• GitHub-style certification: Each student would maintain a credentialing page, akin to a portfolio, documenting their skills, achievements and learning experiences. This page would complement the degree but not replace its rigorous academic requirements. Some students might graduate quickly by demonstrating their competence, while others might build impressive credentials without earning a degree.
• Online accessibility: Online education would compete directly with in-person instruction, with both formats evaluated by students based on affordability, flexibility and effectiveness. Online courses would appeal to cost-conscious learners, while in-person classes would need to justify higher costs by offering unique advantages like mentorship, hands-on projects and interactive seminars. Instructors in both formats would be judged on their ability to attract students, foster success and enhance certification portfolios.
• Minimized bureaucracy and enhanced instructor pay: The university would minimize administrative and extracurricular overhead, such as assistant deans, student affairs staff and sports teams. Instructors would compete for students by providing high-quality education and mentorship, and compensation would reflect their success in doing so.

• Global accessibility and low barriers to entry: Admission would be open to anyone who could complete a three-month, moderately challenging online preparatory program offered for free. This model aims to democratize access to higher education, particularly for students from underserved communities worldwide. Distance learners would follow a separate track, with job markets determining the relative value of online versus in-person credentials.
• Market-oriented faculty and programs: Faculty would earn compensation based on their ability to attract and mentor students, with students empowered to judge which instructors and courses provide the most value. This market-driven approach aims to align teaching quality with compensation and incentivize faculty to engage with students more directly.
• Reduced prestige bias: The school would deliberately sidestep competition with Ivy League institutions, targeting students who require affordable and innovative alternatives. Cowen’s university would focus on providing a high-quality education to underserved populations, prioritizing accessibility over exclusivity.

From my perspective, Cowen’s proposal raises several significant objections.

First, it devalues the arts and humanities. By tying faculty pay and success to student demand, the model inherently disadvantages fields that may not attract large enrollments but are nonetheless essential to a well-rounded education. Disciplines like philosophy, art history or classical studies, which contribute profoundly to critical thinking, ethical reasoning and cultural literacy, will be marginalized in favor of more marketable or immediately practical subjects. The focus on popularity could erode the diversity of academic offerings and narrow the intellectual scope of higher education.

Second, the proposal underestimates the limitations of online learning. While online education offers accessibility and flexibility, it often struggles to replicate the depth of engagement, personal connection and nuanced learning that occurs in face-to-face settings. Discussions, mentorship and collaborative projects, which thrive in physical classrooms, can lose their effectiveness in virtual environments. Furthermore, online education can exacerbate inequalities, as students from lower-income backgrounds may lack access to reliable technology or stable internet connections, limiting their ability to participate fully.

Third, unconventional degrees and certification pages do not hold the same weight as traditional degrees in the eyes of employers and institutions. Many industries value the perceived rigor and prestige of established educational pathways, and it is unclear whether a certification-based model would carry comparable credibility. This skepticism could disadvantage students who invest in such a system, particularly in competitive job markets where conventional qualifications are often a baseline requirement.

Fourth, allowing students to determine faculty pay and success risks prioritizing popularity over substance. Faculty members might feel pressured to cater to student preferences rather than uphold rigorous academic standards. This could incentivize easier grading, less challenging coursework or flashy but superficial teaching styles. Over time, the quality of education might decline as substance takes a back seat to student satisfaction metrics.

In addition, the absence of tenure and job security for faculty will discourage the kind of long-term research and innovation that enrich higher education, as instructors might focus more on short-term student appeal than on cultivating groundbreaking ideas or sustained mentorship.

Lastly, the proposal does not adequately address the broader purposes of higher education. Universities are not solely credentialing factories; they are also spaces for fostering citizenship, encouraging ethical reflection and cultivating a deeper understanding of humanity and society. Reducing education to a transactional model risks losing the transformative potential of the university experience, where students grow not just as workers but as informed and engaged individuals.

---

In many ways, Tyler Cowen’s vision for higher education—streamlined, cost-conscious and increasingly reliant on market forces—is gradually and unevenly becoming a reality at the broad-access institutions that educate the majority of college students.

As college became more expensive and the wage premium of a bachelor’s degree fell, students and their families adjusted, either by opting for less expensive public universities or community colleges, choosing vocational training, or avoiding college altogether

Thanks to increased financial aid and adjustments to student demand, inflation-adjusted tuition costs at public universities have declined significantly in the past decade. Broad-access schools are cutting less popular programs, focusing resources on high-enrollment areas, expanding online education and relying more heavily on adjunct instructors. These shifts reflect Cowen’s proposed market-oriented approach: institutions responding to student demand and financial constraints while maintaining a focus on affordability.

However, the real-world consequences of cost-cutting measures raise critical concerns about educational quality and equity. The focus on reducing costs often comes at the expense of program diversity. Low-demand courses, particularly in the arts and humanities, are frequently the first to go, narrowing students’ exposure to a broad and enriching education.

Online learning, a key pillar of Cowen’s model, has grown rapidly at broad-access institutions. While it offers flexibility and lower costs, it is not a panacea. Many students struggle with the self-discipline and technological access required for online success, leading to disparities in outcomes.

Broad-access institutions are indeed “muddling through,” but the incremental changes come with trade-offs that disproportionately affect marginalized students and threaten long-term educational quality.

---

In yet another opinion essay, “US Higher Education Needs a Revolution. What’s Holding It Back?” Cowen identifies the rigid course-load system—which assigns faculty a fixed number of classes to teach per semester—as perhaps the most significant barrier to innovation. This system, while seemingly fair and conflict-minimizing, is static and ill-suited for the dynamic needs of modern education, particularly in an era when student engagement seems to be falling.

Cowen calls for a broader redefinition of faculty responsibilities, where professors are credited for innovations in teaching, mentoring and student development rather than being bound by fixed class loads. This would require flexibility and discretion from administrators, who could allocate tasks to maximize the educational process’s value. Such a system, however, risks alienating faculty, many of whom might fear increased workloads under vague or discretionary expectations.

He also criticizes the standard 15-week-semester format, suggesting that education could benefit from shorter, more modular units tailored to different learning goals. For example, basic subjects might retain longer formats, while advanced topics could be condensed into shorter, intensive sessions. A menu-driven approach to learning could replace the rigid semester structure, but this would necessitate re-evaluating what constitutes a class.

While acknowledging that these reforms are unlikely in the immediate future, Cowen envisions a system that rewards innovation, even if it means uneven workloads among faculty. However, he recognizes that resistance to change is entrenched and that the prospects for expanding faculty responsibilities beyond fixed teaching loads, implementing more active, inquiry and project-based pedagogies, and rethinking the semester system are unlikely.

I also believe that higher ed needs a more forward-looking vision—and new educational models better aligned with the evolving needs and realities of today’s students. To better serve my students, I developed interactive, gamified courseware with simulations, tutorials, personalized pathways and embedded assessments to substitute for some of the learning that previously took place in class.

Cowen rightly criticizes the rigidity of the 15-week semester (and four or five courses a semester) and the inflexible course-load model, which stifle adaptability in educational delivery. By advocating for crediting faculty for innovations in teaching and mentorship, Cowen shifts the conversation from static metrics to value-added contributions. However, he provides no guidance on how institutions might implement these reforms.

---

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to reimagine the roles of faculty and administrators and rethink the curriculum, pedagogies, delivery modalities and assessments. Higher education must evolve to meet the complex demands of contemporary society while preparing students not only for careers but also for informed, meaningful lives. If I were king, here’s how I’d approach this transformation.

Interdisciplinary “big question” courses: We’d break free from rigid departmental silos and design courses that tackle interdisciplinary big questions—those that cut across multiple fields and resonate deeply with the human experience. These might include:

• What does it mean to live a good life?
• How do societies change?
• What is the nature of the universe?

Such courses would challenge students to think broadly and deeply, integrating diverse perspectives while grappling with questions that have no easy answers. These classes could serve as a cornerstone of the undergraduate experience, fostering critical thinking and intellectual curiosity.

Active learning: Hands-on, experiential learning is invaluable. We should offer more studio-based classes where students engage directly in creative processes—writing, design, art and problem-solving—and field-based classes that immerse students in real-world environments. Whether it’s conducting environmental research in the field, exploring urban planning in a city or participating in archaeological digs, these experiences ground theoretical knowledge in tangible, memorable contexts.

All students should have access to high-impact practices, such as undergraduate research, community-based projects addressing real-world challenges, study abroad programs that deepen cultural understanding and internships integrated with academic reflection. These experiences cultivate practical skills, broaden perspectives and build confidence, better preparing students for life beyond college.

Revitalizing the humanities curriculum: At the lower-division level, humanities courses should do more than introduce students to foundational texts. They should cultivate:

• Aesthetic appreciation: Helping students understand and articulate why art, music and literature matter, developing their ability to engage with beauty and creativity.
• Moral reasoning: Equipping students to navigate ethical dilemmas and understand the historical and cultural roots of moral systems.
• Contextual thinking: Encouraging students to see how historical, social and cultural contexts shape ideas, values and behaviors.

Fluency in social science theories and methods: Every student should develop a working knowledge of key social science concepts, including:

• Theories of power, identity and inequality.
• Economic principles that shape societies.
• Cognitive biases and their influence on decision-making.
• How to interpret and critique statistical evidence, with an understanding of how data can be manipulated.

These skills are vital for navigating the modern world, where misinformation and bias abound.

Developing “adulting” skills: Colleges should take responsibility for teaching students the life skills they need to thrive:

• Financial literacy: Understanding budgeting, credit, loans and investments.
• Emotional intelligence: Managing relationships, resolving conflicts and coping with stress.
• Career readiness: Building professional networks, crafting compelling résumés and navigating the workplace.

Such skills are often assumed but rarely taught explicitly, leaving many students ill-prepared for adult responsibilities.

Exposure to the frontiers of science: All students should have opportunities to engage with cutting-edge scientific discoveries and ideas, regardless of their major. From quantum computing to genetic engineering to climate science, introducing students to the frontiers of human knowledge inspires curiosity and underscores the relevance of science to our collective future.

Reimagining faculty and administrative roles: To make these changes possible, we must also reimagine the roles of faculty and administrators:

• Faculty should balance traditional teaching with mentorship, curriculum innovation and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration.
• Administrators should focus on creating systems that support flexibility, creativity and experimentation, rather than merely enforcing outdated norms.

A reimagined university would embrace flexibility in delivery modalities, combining the best aspects of online, hybrid and in-person instruction to meet the diverse needs of students. Assessments would shift from rote memorization to demonstrating mastery through projects, portfolios and other evidence of applied learning.

This vision isn’t about discarding the old but building on it to create a more dynamic, engaging and relevant educational experience. A university that adopts these principles would not only prepare students for careers but also equip them with the intellectual tools, ethical grounding and practical skills to navigate a complex, rapidly changing world. It would inspire a lifelong love of learning and empower students to contribute meaningfully to society.

---

Let me conclude by turning to another essay that has provoked significant controversy. In “How the Ivy League Broke America,” David Brooks examines how elite institutions have transformed American society—often in ways that exacerbate inequality, foster resentment and fail to cultivate the kind of leadership necessary for national cohesion and progress.

Brooks argues that the mid-20th-century shift from an aristocracy of inherited privilege to a meritocratic elite, championed by Harvard president James Conant, reshaped American society in profound but problematic ways. Standardized testing and academic achievement became the new pathways to power, ostensibly democratizing opportunity by selecting for talent rather than pedigree. Yet Brooks contends that this meritocratic system has entrenched a new form of privilege, fostering rigid social stratification and alienating vast swaths of the population.

Brooks acknowledges the system’s successes—creating a leadership class more intellectually diverse and inclusive in terms of identity—but he underscores its failures. The wealthy adapted to the new meritocracy by pouring resources into their children’s education, creating an arms race that left middle- and working-class families behind. Elite universities became gatekeepers of opportunity, not democratizers of it, reinforcing a system that widened economic and social divides.

He also criticizes the overemphasis on intelligence as the primary metric of merit, pointing out the limitations of standardized tests and academic success as predictors of leadership, creativity and societal contributions. According to Brooks, this narrow focus has fostered a professional class that is risk-averse, overly reliant on credentials and disconnected from the broader population—a gap that has fueled working-class resentment and the rise of populist movements.

Brooks calls for a broader and more inclusive definition of merit, one that values curiosity, resilience, social intelligence and a sense of mission alongside traditional markers of cognitive achievement. He advocates for reforms to expand vocational education, encourage project-based learning and emphasize noncognitive skills, which are often overlooked in current admissions processes.

Like Cowen, Brooks lacks detailed implementation strategies. How can institutions balance traditional metrics, like test scores, with more subjective measures like creativity and grit? What mechanisms would prevent bias or favoritism in evaluating these traits? And how might elite universities overcome entrenched biases in their admissions and institutional cultures?

I have a sort of love-hate relationship with David Brooks’s writing. I admire his willingness to engage with social science literature and grapple with pressing societal issues, particularly those related to childhood, education and interpersonal relationships. Yet his work often suffers from a lack of nuance and pragmatic solutions, and “How the Ivy League Broke America” encapsulates both his strengths and weaknesses.

I share Brooks’s concern about the outsize influence of the cognitive elite. The current system rewards graduates of top institutions with disproportionate financial rewards and status in ways that seem misaligned with their actual contributions to society. However, I also believe that certain forms of meritocracy are essential. Society needs the best doctors, engineers and journalists, and there are meaningful differences in skill and capability among professionals. A balanced meritocracy—one that rewards talent while fostering greater social equity—remains an ideal worth pursuing.

If Brooks’s essay highlights the problem, here are some steps I would propose to address it:

1. Cultivate humility among students: Ivy League students should be reminded that their admission reflects good fortune as much as personal achievement. Many equally qualified applicants are denied, and recognizing this might foster humility and gratitude.
2. Increase academic rigor: Faculty at elite institutions need to provide much more critical, constructive feedback. Non-STEM courses, in particular, should demand more reading, writing and analytical work, and grading standards should be more stringent.
3. Reprioritize admissions: Admissions offices should de-emphasize certain career-driven fields and admit more students pursuing literature, philosophy, art history and other fields that enrich cultural and intellectual life.
4. Democratize extracurricular activities: Prohibit exclusivity in student clubs and organizations, ensuring all students have equal access to participate and lead.
5. Adopt a core curriculum: A rigorous, interdisciplinary core curriculum, modeled after Columbia University’s, should be a requirement for all students, with tenured faculty teaching foundational courses.
6. Mandate community service: Elite students should engage with broader society through mandatory community service, fostering empathy and a sense of civic responsibility.

Brooks’s critique of elite institutions complements Cowen’s broader call for innovation in higher education. Both highlight the urgent need for reform, though from different perspectives.

Brooks focuses on the cultural and moral failures of the cognitive elite, while Cowen emphasizes structural inefficiencies and the need for more dynamic educational models. Taken together, their arguments point to a higher education system that must not only innovate but also reflect on its role in fostering equity, opportunity and meaningful leadership.

A reimagined university system should balance Cowen’s push for adaptability and market-driven efficiencies with Brooks’s call for a more humane and inclusive meritocracy. Such a system would prioritize intellectual rigor, cultivate diverse talents and ensure that higher education serves as a ladder of opportunity for all, rather than a fortress of privilege for the few. This synthesis of ideas could form the foundation of a truly transformative vision for higher education in the 21st century.