The English Major to Plumber Pipeline

How did higher ed help elect Trump?

With the election of Donald Trump, higher ed needs to take a hard look in the mirror. Today I’m looking particularly at the prevailing public university mission of “social mobility” which many argue rhetorically slights working class Americans.  What does the phrase “social mobility” actually mean? And why does it always mean up?

I started musing about the possibility of a liberal arts education and a working class ‘career’ — the English major-to-plumber pipeline — several months ago and want to continue the conversation. So here are some questions:

When a political party critiques higher ed because of cultural elitism, who loses? (Hint: working class students.)

When higher ed imagines “social mobility,” what does it mean exactly? Being able to afford housing in a ‘good’ neighborhood? Not needing to have roommates? Not needing SNAP benefits?

I’d like to say out loud what I too often see: the phrase “social mobility” means the arrival at a correct view of the world. For many members of the faculty, it is cultural missionary work disguised as earning potential. Can I write this post without using the word ‘woke’?

Do universities necessarily need to be anti-populist?

US News and World Report, which now grades colleges and universities on social mobility (even if the metric doesn’t measure “mobility” at all), needs to take some blame too. Higher ed might consider the implications of stating so bluntly that working class life is something to rise above.

During the campaign, the terms “college” and “university-educated” were hurled as epithets to cheering crowds in hard hats behind Trump. I see in a red state like Utah a deep suspicion of the university mission by lawmakers, even as universities in Utah are bending over backward to serve everyone.

If you are working class — if you work in the well-paid skilled trade sector or in skilled factory work, or in less-well-paid food service, hospitality, or health care work — you most likely perceive higher ed's "social mobility" message as condescending. You should desire the laptop-class way of life and values. The phrase implies that working in care service or trades isn't "good enough," that the children of service workers need to become "better than" their parents. At some level the social mobility rhetoric is endeavoring to de-skill those who might otherwise learn trades.

A master electrician or plumber can earn $75,000-$100,000+ annually, with some making significantly more running their own businesses. Meanwhile, the median starting salary for college graduates in 2022 hovered around $55,000.

Studies of first-generation students, like Jennifer Morton's "Moving Up Without Losing Your Way" (2019), document the anxiety created when institutions frame "success" as leaving working-class backgrounds behind. Students from working-class backgrounds often feel pressured to distance themselves from family traditions and values to "fit in" at college.

Sociologist Michael Sandel in "The Tyranny of Merit" (2020) looks at how higher ed rhetoric about "rising" can seem like a moral judgment on those who don't take that path. He argues that families in trades often see this messaging as suggesting their work lacks dignity or value.

Why rank colleges on how well they help students 'move up' while the idea of 'up' doesn't count much of the work done to keep the economy moving? Most plumbers run their own businesses, make six figures, can't keep up with work calls, and have no student debt. They face anger for charging double or triple for an emergency call on a Sunday or at 2:00 AM. Perhaps there are multiple reasons their own kids don’t want to take over the family business, even as the vast majority of college-educated homeowners don’t have the skills to do even simple plumbing.  

This is not an argument against a college degree but rather an argument for why the ways that higher ed is selling itself helped elect Donald Trump. The phrase “social mobility” tells families that success means taking on debt to get away from construction work even as college graduates can’t afford the housing that construction workers are building. 

So when colleges talk about "lifting people up," some hear: "Your life choices and values are inferior" "Your kind of work isn't respected here" "Success means leaving your background behind.”

Thoughts?