I wouldn't reduce student motivations to career vs. learning.
College can also be about aspiring to a better society, with the university as microcosm.
For example, a society in which people are honest, and have integrity.
I'm not, that's why I said "Students are at school for a lot of [...] reasons".
> College can also be about aspiring to a better society, with the university as microcosm.
> For example, a society in which people are honest, and have integrity.
Sure, but that's irrelevant:
1. A cheater is capable of not cheating when they're taking a proctored exam, but it doesn't make them honest--they'll just cheat later in life when given the opportunity.
2. People don't suddenly become cheaters when they're given the opportunity to cheat--the people who would cheat when an exam isn't proctored were going to cheat in other areas anyway.
Integrity and honesty are values, and it's pretty difficult to change people's values. I don't think either policy changes anyone's values. That's particularly true of integrity and honesty as those are how people behave when nobody's watching--if you watch and people know you're watching, everyone behaves honestly.
If you want to change people's values, I'd argue universities are pretty poorly-situated to do that. Philosophers are better at finding ethical ideologies that justify unethical behaviors than they are at getting anyone to give a shit about what behaviors they find ethical or unethical. Changing people's values is best achieved by a society that rewards values we uphold and gives us leaders that embody those values. What we have for leadership is pedophiles and grifters, and a lot of those came from our most prestigious educational institutions.
From the institution's perspective--or at least an "elite" institution like Princeton--that is what it is. When they confer a degree, they're conferring something valuable, even if its main value is as a status marker and ticket to future options. They can't afford to take the attitude of "let the cheaters cheat, they'll only hurt themselves", no matter how true it is, because it would destroy their brand.
Yes, any university understands that many (most?) of their students are simply there for a diploma that opens up opportunities, and the parts of an institution that view it as a business are going to want to maintain the value of that product.
But the faculty of a university isn't typically in it for the money--in most fields you can make more money in industry than in education. A lot of teachers just want their students to learn, whether their students want to learn or not. Faculty senates aren't powerless in steering an institution, and sometimes knowingly make unprofitable decisions--something a lot of HN can't imagine or understand. ;P
And a lot of students are there for that--in fact some of the most profitable students are. Do you think a Saudi prince need a diploma to open up opportunities? No--they're there because they, or someone in their family, values something else about the institution, be it knowledge, networking, etc.
But when push comes to shove, that's still the ideology that drives the universities as institutions. That's not a new phenomenon. I was in college 40 years ago, and I saw faculty members who were outstanding teachers get second-rate treatment compared to those whose classes were horrible, but who had the right connections to bring in the grants and promote the brand.
Why would a Saudi prince be a more profitable student? The only difference between him and most of the other students as far as money is concerned is that his family can afford to pay the grossly inflated tuition out of pocket instead of having to get financial aid. But the money is the same in either case as far as the university is concerned.