Dorn,C. For the common good: A new history of higher education in America

The Early National Period

In “The Early National Period” section, Dorn demonstrated the ethos of civic-mindedness that characterized the era between 1775 and 1820 by explaining the commitment to the common good held by the founders of Bowdoin College, South Carolina College, and Georgetown College. The priorities of these three presidents represented the cultural view of institutions in this early national period that shared a common purpose to “advance the cause of the republic by privileging the common good over private advantages” (p. 68). College educators during that era attempted to help students discipline their minds by regulating daily schedules, focusing on study of the classics, and advocating participation in literary societies. According to Dorn, students’ minds were viewed as a “receptacle and a muscle capable of being strengthened through proper mental exercise” (p. 19). Dorn described how students’ primary objectives in pursuing higher education credentials during the early national period were aimed at self-improvement leading to an ability to contribute to the social principle of civic-mindedness.

The Antebellum and Civil War Eras

By the beginning of the 1830s, America’s social ethos was shifting away from civic-mindedness and toward practicality. The passing of the Morrill Act of 1862, which established land-grant colleges throughout the Eastern and Midwest section of the United States through the sale of land during the western expansion, fueled a social ethos of practicality. Institutions of higher education across many of the existing states at that time thus received federal support to establish collegiate programs in the useful arts such as agriculture, mechanics, mining, and military instruction. Dorn offered the example of how this shift in social ethos required South Carolina College to include more practical course offerings such as civic engineering into the academic program.

In “The Antebellum and Civil War” section of the book Dorn described the transition from a social ethos of civic-mindedness to a social ethos of practicality that characterized the era between 1836 and 1865 by describing the establishment of Michigan Agricultural Colleges (present-day Michigan State University).

During the Antebellum and Civil War eras, views on commercialism and civic-mindedness overlapped with a social ethos of practicality. The popularity of normal institutions increased during this era, with their offerings of practical training in teaching, agriculture, and engineering. Additionally, what came to be known as “normal schools” (p. 90) began offering practical disciplines and providing an increase of access for marginalized populations. These schools admitted greater numbers of women and students from lower social economic class, in part as a means of demonstrating their commitment to the public good.

The Reconstruction Through the Second World War

In “The Reconstruction through the Second World War” section, Dorn addressed several issues within higher education related to the transition from a social ethos of practicality to a social ethos of commercialism. The significant role of normal schools, as well as the emergence of research universities, contributed to the commercialization of higher education during this time. Dorn elaborated upon this commercialization by highlighting the development of three universities: Stanford University, Smith University, and Howard University, all of which embraced the objective of advancing the common good as a significant concern. These universities also represented the shift toward commercialism through their commitment to increasing access to higher education to African Americans, to woman, and to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Stanford University embraced the purpose of refining the “public welfare while manifesting many of the commercial characteristics of this era” (p. 112), including the orientation of this era of emphasizing students’ occupational success and individual achievement. In fact, the social ethos of commercialism had become a prevailing focus on many college campuses across the nation by the end of the First World War. This new emphasis on occupational success and individual gain guided institutions strategic initiatives and student education decisions. Despite successes during the era of commercialism, higher education institutions across the United States experienced great financial constraints during the Great Depression. In addition, the demands of Second World War and the lowering of the draft age from 21 to 18 in 1942 significantly impacted the enrollment of male students; overall, these changes brought university advancements to a standstill.

During the period after the Second World War, institutions of higher education entered a period of needing to recover from their previous financial constraints. Emerging research universities negotiated agreements with the federal government and defense industries to conduct war-related research, which became new and lucrative source of revenue. The passage of the GI Bill (officially termed the Readjustment Act of 1944) led to a significant increase in male enrollments following the war. By 1970, institutions of higher education experienced a “golden era” (p. 171), again representing a paradigm shift in the goals and trajectory of higher education in America. Two major developments transpired during the golden era: (a) enrollment increased 227% between 1950 and 1970, with a third of Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 enrolled in postsecondary education as of 1970 and (b) in 1970 three-quarters of America’s higher education students attended public colleges and universities.

An additional factor that influenced the development of higher education in the United States was the rate of urbanization that emerged during the prewar eras; in response many new colleges and universities were founded in major metropolitan areas. The construction of urban public universities, in particular, provided access to higher education to nontraditional students, described by Dorn as “racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and working-class youth and adults” (p. 172). The robust postwar economic growth transformed American higher education, once more changing the social ethos of commercialism to a social ethos of affluence.

The Cold War Through the Twenty-First Century

In the final section of the book, Dorn addresses to the rise of the social ethos of an affluence society that had begun in the late 1940s to the twentieth century. In the age of affluence, earning a college or university degree became vital to “achieving personal status and professional success in one’s chosen occupation” (p. 172). The social ethos of affluence shifted the central purpose of higher education once again. Higher education was now being viewed as a way of credentialing to help student pursue particular occupations to acquire the wealth necessary to participate in the nation’s consumer culture. Dorn’s final section also described how community colleges, which paved the way for students to eventually complete a 4-year degree, contributed to the history of higher education and the social ethos of affluence.

Dorn concludes the book by addressing research conducted by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) regarding how the value of higher education is currently perceived by first-year students. According to the results of 2015 HERI’s American Freshman Survey—an assessment used to track student attitudes regarding postsecondary education for over 50 years—the percentage of students who identified the pursuit of success and wealth as a significant reason to attend college has doubled to 85% since 1967. Success and wealth is currently the primary motivator for students to attend college.

The book For the Common Good is a contribution to the literature that both educates and informs, while also encouraging readers to further explore current social principles and its impact in higher education. This book can be a valuable resource to anyone who envisions teaching, working in student development, or holding an administration role in higher education. Although other authors have provided an overview of the history and development of U.S. higher education, the approach taken by Dorn offers a unique and valuable contribution by focusing on the four social principles—civic-mindedness, practicality, commercialism, and affluence—and how each of these was pivotal in shaping the goals of higher education Dorn’s emphasis on these four social principles offers a framework for today’s higher education administrators, faculty, practitioners, and policymakers to assess the purpose of higher education and its role in shaping the future ethos of our nation.