Pop Quiz: Lilly or McDonald's?

A report released by the Higher Education Subcommittee of the Indiana Government Efficiency Commission Thursday held the answer to all of Indiana's education and economic problems: a further increase in the divide between rich and poor.\nWell, maybe it didn't say that in so many words, but the report implied that for Indiana's higher education institutions to be more effective, they'd have to focus on money and not students.\nThe report basically states that IU-Bloomington and Purdue University-West Lafayette need to start focusing on graduate admissions and research and cut back on undergraduate admissions. After cutting back on undergraduate admissions in their main campuses, the two colleges' regional campuses will have to "pick up the slack." In addition, the regional campuses are supposed to "serve the needs" of the economies in which they are located.\nThe chairman of the committee, Thomas Reilly, pretty much summed it up when he told The Associated Press that the colleges need to "almost become more privatized."\nOK, this is all a lot of political mumbo-jumbo that boils down to a few key points:\n1) The government is so bad at handling its money that instead of figuring out how to sufficiently fund the public institutions that educate its population, it is pointing the finger of blame at the institutions themselves and saying, "It's all your fault."\n2) In the odd occurrence that the regional campuses can get their act together long enough to give undergraduate students the same caliber education they'd receive at the larger campuses, the idea of serving the needs of the economy basically translates to training people to be factory supervisors. Let's face it, Indiana's economy isn't exactly booming these days.\n3) These schools will never become private institutions, just dramatically underfunded public ones.\nWhat this committee report does is suggest that it's more profitable for schools to focus on the big-bucks areas and screw over those pursuing an education that doesn't directly translate into a job. A.K.A. kiss the butt of science departments and leave liberal arts departments lagging behind.\nNo one is disputing the fact that the committee's suggestions would mean more money for the schools and relieve the government's financial strain. What I am disputing is the moral implications of such a tactic.\nShouldn't the No. 1 goal of a state public institution be to provide a quality education to that state's residents? Shouldn't their goal be to train the students in their desired field rather than one that suits the economy? Shouldn't their goal be to give everyone a chance at a decent-paying job?\nIt seems to me that if this plan were to be put in place it would only further the polarization of Indiana's economy and the growing rift between the very rich and the very poor. By focusing on graduate education and relegating everyone else to focus their education on a regional economy, Indiana would be condemning its residents to a very restricted life.\nMaybe this whole local economy focus is a way to plug the so-called "brain drain" of educated students leaving the state. Students are getting their undergrad education here because it's affordable and leaving because they can't find jobs. Rather than educating students to fill the jobs that are already here, the state should funnel its energy into creating new jobs in many different fields.\nOne could argue that it's more beneficial to focus on the high-education, high-skill positions that bring in all the money, but where does that leave everyone else? Shouldn't our higher education institutions serve the residents and not some state vision? Is our choice of employment going to come down to working for Lilly or working at McDonald's?