Is Higher Education Becoming Too Transactional?
In a recent Chronicle of Higher Education interview, filmmaker Ken Burns raised a question that is worth sitting with.
He argued that one of the greatest dangers facing higher education is what he called a “transactional tendency,” where education is increasingly understood as an economic exchange rather than a transformational experience.
It is a provocative argument.
And whether one fully agrees with him or not, it raises a useful question for those of us who work in higher education:
Has college become too transactional?
On one level, the transactional view is understandable.
Students and families are making major financial decisions. Tuition is expensive. Debt is real. The job market is uncertain. People want to know whether a degree will lead somewhere. They want evidence that the investment is worth it.
That is not unreasonable.
In fact, higher education should be able to answer those questions. We should be able to speak clearly about outcomes, skills, affordability, career pathways, and return on investment. Students deserve that clarity.
But Burns’s argument asks us to consider whether something gets lost when those become the only questions.
If the purpose of college is reduced to tuition in, credential out, job secured, then education begins to look less like a developmental experience and more like a product purchase.
That may be efficient.
It may be measurable.
It may even be necessary in some respects.
But is it enough?
Burns’s broader point is that education should also be transformational. Not in a vague or idealistic sense, but in a practical human sense. A meaningful education should help students think more deeply, ask better questions, create something of value, and act with greater independence.
That may be the most important part of the conversation.
A transactional education asks: What will this degree get me?
A transformational education asks: How will this experience change how I think, communicate, solve problems, work with others, and understand the world?
A transactional education emphasizes completion.
A transformational education emphasizes growth.
A transactional education may help students move through a program.
A transformational education should help students become more capable, more confident, and more prepared to act with judgment and purpose.
The question is not whether one is good and the other is bad. The question is whether higher education has allowed the transactional side to become too dominant.
And if it has, why?
Part of the answer is economic. As the cost of college has increased, students and families have understandably demanded clearer value. Higher education cannot ignore that pressure.
Part of the answer is cultural. We live in a world that values speed, efficiency, optimization, and immediate payoff. It is not surprising that students approach college with those same expectations.
Part of the answer is institutional. Colleges and universities have often adopted the language of the marketplace. We talk about customers, products, delivery models, funnels, and outcomes. Some of that language may be useful for operations. But what happens when it begins to shape how we understand the purpose of education itself?
And part of the answer may be that higher education has not always explained transformation clearly enough.
We often say that education changes lives. But what does that mean?
Does it mean students become better writers?
Better thinkers?
Better collaborators?
More ethical professionals?
More curious people?
More engaged citizens?
More adaptive problem-solvers?
More confident creators?
If transformation is part of our purpose, then we need to define it, design for it, assess it, and talk about it with the same seriousness that we bring to career outcomes and enrollment data.
That does not mean rejecting career preparation.
Students need jobs. They need skills. They need pathways. They need programs that understand the realities of work.
But career preparation and transformation do not have to be opposing goals.
A student can gain practical skills and become a stronger thinker.
A student can prepare for a career and develop a broader sense of purpose.
A student can earn a credential and also become more independent, reflective, creative, and capable.
Maybe the issue is not that higher education has become practical.
Maybe the issue is that our definition of practical has become too narrow.
Burns’s comments point toward a larger concern: higher education may be drifting from its deeper civic and human purpose. That does not mean the system is broken beyond repair. It does mean we should be willing to ask harder questions about the path we are on.
Are we designing courses that help students inquire, apply, create, and reflect?
Are we assessing more than recall and completion?
Are we advising students only toward registration and graduation, or also toward purpose and direction?
Are we helping students understand that education is not simply something they purchase, but something they participate in?
Are we preparing students not only for their first job after graduation, but for the many changes, challenges, and decisions that will come after that?
These are not abstract questions.
They are design questions.
They are leadership questions.
They are institutional questions.
The goal does not need to be choosing between transactional and transformational value. Higher education should provide real value. It should lead to opportunity. It should help students improve their lives in practical and measurable ways.
But perhaps the transaction should serve the transformation, not replace it.
That may be the conversation Burns is inviting us to have.
Not whether career outcomes matter. They do.
Not whether students should care about return on investment. They should.
But whether higher education can still make a compelling case that its value is larger than the credential alone.
Maybe the best education does not simply help students get somewhere.
Maybe it helps them become someone.
And maybe that is the purpose higher education needs to explain, defend, and design for more intentionally.