We can find solutions to decreased trust in higher education
Let’s bring back those good old days, the ones I witnessed when I moved to Iowa 35 years ago. An Iowa that cared about education and took pride in it.
On May 13, my term as president of the Faculty Senate of Iowa State University ended. As I reflect on the past year, one concern has weighed on me more than any other: the growing lack of faith in academia.
Each morning, I began my day reading the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Iowa State Daily. Again and again, I was struck by a rising skepticism — bordering on cynicism — toward higher education. I struggled to understand it. Then I came across a Gallup poll cited in the Chronicle showing a significant decline in public confidence in higher education over the past decade. It left me asking: How did we get here?
I’ve lived in Iowa for 35 years. I remember when education was a source of immense pride. I see former students — some from decades ago — thriving in executive roles, running successful businesses, and contributing meaningfully to society in myriad elective and volunteer roles. Ask them how they got there, and I’m confident they would point to the education they received.
So why the diminishing respect for academia?
This has been my life’s work. Since the day I graduated from college, I have been a professor. Just because this has been my only career, I feel a deep responsibility to speak — not just in defense of the profession, but in hopes of rebuilding public trust.
Let me be clear: We are not perfect. Like any large institution, we have individuals who fall short. But the vast majority of faculty and staff are dedicated professionals who chose this path not for wealth but for the love of teaching, research and service to young people and our collective future. Let me address some of the recurring criticisms I’ve encountered:
Tuition increases
The burden of rising tuition is real — and deeply concerning. But we must understand the context. Not long ago, the state funded about 70% of a student’s education, with students contributing around 20%. Today, that model has flipped: Students now bear close to 70% of the cost. This isn’t about greed — it’s about shifting public priorities and funding decisions.
DEI Initiatives
Concerns about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts are current and can run deep, but I submit that we have not tried hard enough to secure what these words as goals or values were intended to secure. These initiatives originated in the business world, where a diverse and collaborative workforce is a competitive advantage, when business leaders had serious concerns whether Iowa offered and could attract the workforce they needed, and where assurance of inclusion and equal opportunity for advancement were essential to attracting it.
Employers want graduates who can thrive in diverse environments. That said, it’s fair to ask whether some initiatives have overreached and whether they’re sufficiently available to all. We must remain open to honest assessment and recalibration.
Program proliferation
New academic programs are not created in a vacuum. Every proposal undergoes rigorous review and must demonstrate a clear, unmet need. If a program cannot sustain itself financially, it does not survive. Curriculum innovation is often a response to evolving workforce demands and societal needs.
Research grants and indirect costs
Universities take a portion of research grants as indirect costs — not to pad salaries, but to fund the infrastructure required for cutting-edge research. Labs are expensive to build and maintain. Faculty salaries typically come from the university, not the grants. Graduate students often earn modest stipends. In truth, society (state, country, and industry) is getting a huge bargain: many groundbreaking discoveries of the last century were made in university settings, subsidized by the institutions themselves, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, and other funding agencies. As one example, think of the patents that Iowa State’s College of Agriculture has generated and the contributions it’s made to the agricultural industry and Iowa.
Research
Even within academia, research is sometimes criticized — often by faculty in other disciplines — as impractical or esoteric. But I’ve seen academia in many countries, and I can say with pride that American higher education is the best in the world.
Research is the key reason why.
Why do we require research?
- To ensure faculty remain current in their disciplines.
- To demonstrate that they not only understand existing knowledge but can contribute to it and expand upon it.
Publishing requires knowing the field, identifying gaps, and moving the work forward — even incrementally. Most research makes small contributions, but over time, these add up and move science forward. Also, more importantly, they ensure that the person teaching the class is truly an expert.
International Students
This topic has become increasingly relevant, with visa bans and delays in securing interview appointments at U.S. embassies affecting many prospective international students. Let’s take a closer look at the issue and ask ourselves: Does this policy truly serve America’s best interests?
For transparency, I came to the United States as an international student. Still, I will strive to offer an objective perspective. Let me offer three arguments.
Economic Contributions
International students make an immediate and significant contribution to the U.S. economy. They pay non-resident tuition, cover living expenses, and often host visiting family members who also spend money locally. According to the Association of International Educators, in the 2023–24 academic year, 1.1 million international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported over 438,000 jobs.
A Pipeline of Global Talent
American universities actively recruit top students from around the world. Each institution thus has a group of top students from around the world, and collectively, the U.S. hosts some of the brightest minds from every corner of the globe. These students are further vetted through rigorous academic programs, allowing companies and research institutions to select from the best of the best. Let me be clear, they are not obligated to give them a job, only a choice to recruit them.
It’s no surprise, then, that international students punch well above their weight in innovation and entrepreneurship. As the Wall Street Journal noted, they authored 23% of U.S. patents between 1990 and 2016 and have founded or co-founded more than half of America’s billion-dollar startups. Immigrants played pivotal roles in companies like Nvidia, Alphabet, and Tesla.
I recall a 60 Minutes segment on the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), elite engineering schools in India. When Leslie Stahl asked a prospective student what he would do if he didn’t get into IIT, the student replied, “I’ll go to MIT.” That is the caliber of students the universities are bringing to America. Many IIT graduates are making significant contributions at American universities and companies.
An Overlooked Advantage
One often-overlooked point is the cost of education. In many countries, the government heavily subsidizes primary and secondary education. By the time students arrive in the U.S. for graduate studies, much of their foundational education has already been paid for by their home country.
While the Universities choose the best to come here, those students are also choosing us. They choose America for two main reasons: technological prowess and welcoming culture. Having recently visited two countries on a recruiting trip, it is clear to me that the latter plays a much bigger role than the former. Given these facts, it’s hard to understand how restricting international students benefits the United States—especially if our goal is to remain a global leader in innovation, research, and economic growth.
Indoctrination
Of all the accusations, this may be the most perplexing. As a parent of two daughters, I’ve spent 30 years trying to influence them — and I can tell you, indoctrination is no easy feat; I failed. I’m sure most parents would agree. The idea that a professor can indoctrinate a student in 45 hours over a semester is simply not credible. Most degree programs focus on technical or disciplinary knowledge, not ideology. More importantly, students are far more discerning than they’re often given credit for.
As I said at the outset, we are not perfect, but the broad distrust toward academia is misplaced and deeply unfair. If there are concerns, and there are, we should talk; and if we identify problems or unmet needs, surely we can work together to find solutions. If a farm has weeds, do we destroy the entire field, or do we simply pull the weeds?
Let’s all come together, bringing our Iowa Nice demeanor, to solve this problem as it is in the best interests of the student, the state, the country and the business. Let’s bring back those good old days, the ones I witnessed when I moved to Iowa 35 years ago. An Iowa that cared about education and took pride in it.
Let’s pull the weeds. Let’s not destroy the farm. Thank you.
Rahul Parsa is past president of the Faculty Senate at Iowa State University. The views in this essay are his alone.
link
