Michael C. Moynihan | June 5, 2009
Ask random members of the professoriate at my alma mater, the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and many will confide that too many people—not too few, as recently suggested by President Barack Obama—are attending college these days. This opinion is impolite and impolitic (perhaps, in the context of the American university, we should say "un-PC"). But years of furtive conversation with academics suggest it is commonly held. And one can see why. To the professor with expertise in Austro-Hungarian history, for instance, it is unclear why his survey course on the casus foederis of World War I is a necessary stop in a management-level job training program at Hertz.
This is not to say that some Americans should be discouraged from participating in a liberal arts education. As the social scientist Charles Murray writes in his book Real Education, "Saying 'too many people are going to college' is not the same as saying that the average student does not need to know about history, science, and great works of art, music, and literature. They do need to know—and to know more than they are currently learning. So let's teach it to them, but let's not wait for college to do it."
Take this bullet point, proudly included in a November 2008 press release from the Boston public school system: "Of the [Boston public school] graduates from the Class of 2000 who enrolled in college (1,904), 35.5 percent (675 students) earned a degree within seven years of high school graduation. An additional 14 percent (267 students) were still enrolled and working toward a degree." In a news conference celebrating these dismal numbers, Mayor Tom Menino called for a "100 percent increase" in the number of city students attending college, though offered no suggestions on how to ensure that those students actually graduate or are properly prepared to handle undergraduate studies. Besides, if 14 percent of those enrolled are still ambling towards a degree after eight years, is Menino convinced that the pursuit of a university education was the right decision for these students, rather than, say, vocational training?
Alas, these numbers are not uncommon. (They're often worse in other major American cities.) Citing a recent study by two education experts at Harvard University, former Secretary of Education Margret Spellings sighed, "The report shows that two-thirds of our nation's students leave high school unprepared to even apply to a four-year college." Nevertheless, a huge number of these students are matriculating to four-year universities, incurring mountains of debt, and never finishing their degrees.
The devalued undergraduate degree is one thing when the people doing the devaluing have privately financed their education. It is quite another when the federal government foots the bill. While America debates the merits of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the nationalization of General Motors, and how to fix a broken health care system, the Obama administration has been quietly planning a massive expansion of the Pell Grant program, "making it an entitlement akin to Medicare and Social Security." Read that sentence again. As we spiral deeper into recession and debt, our dear leaders in Washington are considering the creation of a massive entitlement akin to the expensive, inefficient, and failing Medicare and Social Security programs.
According to a report in The Washington Post, Obama's proposals "could transform the financial aid landscape for millions of students while expanding federal authority to a degree that even Democrats concede is controversial." It is a plan that has met with outspoken—though likely toothless—resistance from Republicans. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, suggested that the president reform existing entitlements before creating new ones. And, as noted in the Post, Obama is facing resistance from his own side of the aisle as well, with Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) expressing skepticism towards both the price tag and the necessity of such an expansion.
Beyond the massive cost of expanded Pell Grants, Ohio University economist Richard Vedder argues that, historically, "it is hard to demonstrate that enhanced federal assistance has either significantly expanded college participation or brought about much greater access to higher education by those who are financially disadvantaged." If the idea is expanded into an entitlement, Vedder sees rising demand for higher education leading to significantly higher costs. "When someone else is paying the bills, costs always rise."
With more than 40 percent of students who enter college dropping out before graduation, Vedder's suggestion that "a greater percentage of entering college students should be attending community colleges, moving up to four year universities only if they succeed well at the community college level," seems sound. But the idea pushed by President Obama that, regardless of a student's career aspirations, secondary education is a necessity in 21st century America, ensures that an undergraduate education will become a required (very expensive) extension of every high school diploma.
To the average high school senior, the American university has become an institution that one simply must slog through to reach a higher salary. As one college dropout recently told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "I am determined to finish my degree. A high school job isn't cutting it these days." The former student, the reader is told, simply wants "to do something else with her life," though it is unclear just what that something else is. Perhaps she'll figure that out after getting the degree.
As Charles Murray observed in The Wall Street Journal,
"Our obsession with the BA has created a two-tiered entry to
adulthood, anointing some for admission to the club and labeling
the rest as second-best." But not to worry. If Obama's plan for a
secondary education entitlement is foisted upon us—the final cost
of which remains anyone's guess—we might soon have a one-tiered
system where everyone is second-best.
Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of
Reason.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Well then. A college degree is going to end up as worthless as a
used condom.
Thanks Obama!
Which discussion are we going to have:
The one about high school not preparing you for much besides
McDonald's?
The one about a college education is not for everyone?
The one about how the state should not be subsidizing anyone's
higher education or, for that matter, providing an institution for
it?
Or will we derail the conversation into something at best
tangentially related?
Honestly, I'm good with any of these.
How about the discussion about how we get Obama to stop this
crap now, within the framework of the constition?
Is anyone anywhere suing the government over all of this shit? Bush
was sued 24/7.
So far, all this money flowing into education has made tuition sky high for those of us who actually have to pay it for their kids.
Eat it you selfish fucks. I can't wait until you're slaughtered by the mobs of people you decided didn't deserve a living wage job.
Up until now, the Engineering curriculum has been largely immune to these sorts of shenanigans. I'll be watching with interest the quality of future BS_Es.
Nunya, Nunya, Nunya. If everyone has a college degree, then
nobody has a college degree. Do you understand?
My grandfather raised 9 children without a college degree. They all
made it to adulthood without government welfare, so we can safely
assume that he made a living wage.
He oversaw a factory during WWII. Afterwards, he went on to work as
an engineer on the Apollo Space Program. Without a college
degree.
But, today, because we've decided that everybody must have an
expensive piece of paper, his talents would simply have been
overlooked.
Try keeping up with the class. That way, you can conserve your bile
for people who actually deserve it.
derail the conversation into something at best tangentially
related?
It has always been thus.
LeBron to Cleveland: We are all winless.
Up until now, the Engineering curriculum has been largely
immune to these sorts of shenanigans. I'll be watching with
interest the quality of future BS_Es.
Well, one of my junior engineers who was just hired out of school
missed the simple fact that to get the linear speed of a piece of
rotating equipment pi has to be involved in the calculation
somewhere. Everybody gets one, and that's hers. I'll be a tad less
gracious about the next one that crosses my desk.
But engineering also has a pretty hard criteria out here in the
world: does it work? If the answer is no, no amount of hand
wringing and flowery verbiage is going to help much.
Woe unto any whosoever shall defame, impugn or otherwise libel the deceased Senator lest ye attract the ire of Elemenope and subject ye to his wrath.
Lighten up, T. Maybe she was having her period.
I'd cut her more slack if she was better looking, had bigger tits,
or put out.
My MBA gained in 1992 was pretty much worthless. Unfortunately,
most college graduates get jobs that only required high school 20
years ago.
I guess this is part of the plan to make everyone the same;
lower-middle class with no opportunities to advance and ruled by a
small upper class. Pretty much sounds like how the UK is today.
I'd cut her more slack if she was better looking, had bigger
tits, or put out.
Not OK!
I'd cut her more slack if she was better looking, had bigger
tits, or put out.
Careful - when one comes along that has/does all three, they'll
make her your boss.
I think we ought to organize some exchange program with feministing. they could comment on H&R one day, and we'll comment on theirs the next. What a shit show that would be...
# Ben Kenobi | June 5, 2009, 3:20pm | #
# Grad school is the new college.
I have been thinking about this for awhile now. It seems that the
skills and knowledge relevant to high achievement and contribution
to society (not to mention high respect and reward FROM society)
have been migrating upwards in the academic hierarchy, from
high-school, to college, and now to grad-school, leaching content
and worth from the lower grades. Now, the K-8 education that
constitutes the bulk of our educational spending in this country
leaves someone practically incompetent to function as
self-sufficient citizen. High school graduates, once welcomed into
many areas of work, are now increasingly unacceptable, because high
schools aren't preparing students for life as well as they used to
do even several decades ago. Indeed, high schools in general don't
seem to be preparing students even for college -- remedial classes
at a four year school, or a stint at an intermediate, two-year
college now routinely fill the gap.
A college bachelor's degree is now seen as the minimum credential
for even what used to be called "menial" office work, and advanced
degrees are the tickets to opportunity for high achievement and
high compensation. This isn't because we want smarter, better
educated menial office workers, for instance, but because the
bachelor's degree now represents a level of knowledge and
competency that was once possessed by most high school graduates
but is no more. In other words, if grad school is the new college,
then college is the new high school. But now, students from K-8
learn practically nothing in comparison with those who came before
them. We spend all this money on K-12 education that leaves people
barely competent to function in society, and then spend piles of
cash yet again to provide our students with college and graduate
education that prepares them for full participation in our society
and economy.
That is to say, all of the K-12 money largely seems to go down a
hole. We don't really seem to get value for money until
college.
So why spend all that money in K-12 at all? Why not get rid of the
lower grades, just as some propose to get rid of the penny in our
monetary system, to acknowledge the results of the the past century
of monetary inflation? By the same token, I understand why some
want to turn college financing into a government entitlement. Just
as their forebears did, they want the government to guarantee a
useful education. Only now, that starts in college. But will they,
at the same time, quit collecting taxes to support the increasingly
irrelevant lower grades? I doubt it. The name of the game is to
continue to Hoover all cash out of the pockets and wallets of the
citizens. So the increasingly worthless K-12 education will cost us
more and more, the government will take over "higher education" via
the pursestrings, and soon the ENTIRE public educational
establishment will offer nobody any real education or advantage at
all. That seems to be the inevitable trajectory of entitlement
schemes.
The system will probably collapse well before that point, of
course. I suppose that is a basis for optimism.
If everyone essential has to get a BA (this is what is seems
under Obama's scheme), then a BA will be worth just as much as a
high school diploma is now. Look at all the people that do succeed
without a BA or higher? A BA is not a requirement for success. Many
people are able to make a comfortable living with a technical
degree of just some time at the community college.
Pink Floyd said that we don't need no education. They also said
"I'm all right jack keep your hands off of my stack."
In theory, Mr. Obama's idea sounds good. It is generally considered
common knowledge (not that that means it is actually true) that
people with a college degree do better. However, how are we going
to pay for all this? When has the government ever shown they can
efficiently handle such an undertaking? For all his fancy Harvard
education, Obama also doesn't realize that this plan would
essentially devalue a college degree and lead to an educational
inflation.
This proposed system could be beneficial if there were more restrictive admissions requirements. I can certainly relate to the high cost of higher education.
But the idea pushed by President Obama that, regardless of a
student's career aspirations, secondary education
is a necessity in 21st century America,
I don't know what they taught you in Sweden, but here in the
country-formerly-known-as-the-land-of-the-free, secondary == high
school. I assume you mean "post-secondary".
I don't know. I like that. Gee Mr. Hand will I pass this class, Well Mr. Spicoli, I don't know.
"So why spend all that money in K-12 at all?"
It provides day care so women can work full-time.
I think we ought to organize some exchange program with
feministing. they could comment on H&R one day, and we'll
comment on theirs the next. What a shit show that would
be...
domo, they can comment here any time they like. However, go try and
comment on their site as a smartass and count the seconds until you
get banned.
Otherwise, I like your idea.
It is generally considered common knowledge (not that that
means it is actually true) that people with a college degree do
better.
There are plenty of studies that show they correlate, but the
question is whether this is related to causation. ie, that the same
attitudes and skills that lead to success in the real world also
make it easier to get a degree.
I Reason wants to do something about BHO's efforts in this
field, they could start with something very, very easy.
Simply go to an appearance by a BHO admin official and ask them
this
question about the DREAM Act. Then, upload their response to
Youtube.
Very simple, and very effective. Of course, despite being based in
DC, Reason would never do such a thing lest the Obama admin doesn't
invite them to any DC cocktail parties or something.
P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost
assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the
childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.
Careful - when one comes along that has/does all three,
they'll make her your boss.
What part of "engineering" did you miss? A female fulfilling all
three conditions in this field is statistically nonexistent. And in
the oil industry, she'd be working at one of the majors, not out
here with the plebes supplying them.
J.A.M.
Anecdotally, my grandfather and I were both educated as
aeronautical engineers (in his day it was under the mech dept). He
took derivative calculus as a second semester freshman - the first
opportunity he had to do so. It was not taught in high school then.
In my incoming class, EVERY engineering track student had taken
derivative calculus, and the most had at least one college semester
equivilent of integral calc. I along with several of my cohorts had
a years worths, plus some exposure to linear algebra, differential
equations, etc. The same was true in Physics, chemistry, and even
biology though to a lesser degree.
My grandfather worked for the Army air corp on a secret project to
reverse engineer the buzz bomb and was considered a very bright
engineer in his day. He later worked for NACA and then NASA.
A goodly portion of the requirements for advanced degrees can be
explained by how the bar has moved higher in terms of the knowledge
needed to be competative as technology has advanced.
Epi - we would have to arrange a special no-banning policy for the gala event. It would culminate in cocktails at a nice bar near my new apartment in union square.
"I [sic] Reason wants to do something about BHO's efforts in
this field, they could start with something very, very easy."
Your mother?
P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will
almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and
showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of
libertarians.
24AheadDotCom, I find your arguments to be well written and
thoughtful. Your criticism of the DREAM Act is valid and pertinent.
How did you get to be such an excellent journalist?
Which discussion are we going to have:
I'd say "The one about a college education is not for everyone?"
because that one's kind of at the root of the all the problems.
4 year Universities are America's major breeding ground for
extreme left wingers including Muslim Communists like Hussein
Obama.
He figures that the more kids you push into these extemist think
tanks the more extreme radical left wing will become the future
population of America. Enabling a self perpetuating Federal
Communist government like there is now. In addition many of these
kids will go into state and local government.
By making it easy for all children regardless of qualifications to
attend radical left wing think tanks all of government will only
grow and become more extreme left wing and communist.
Unfortunately he is correct.
What part of "engineering" did you miss? A female fulfilling
all three conditions in this field is statistically
nonexistent.
Unfortunately this is also true in Software Development.
I'd say "The one about a college education is not for
everyone?" because that one's kind of at the root of the all the
problems.
As the saying goes,
"Not everybody gets to be an astronaut when they grow up". The
world needs ditch-diggers, and some people aren't cut out for much
more than that.
A female fulfilling all three conditions in this field is
statistically nonexistent.
I went to college with only 13% females overall. The chicks in
engineering were even fewer. even so we graduated at LEAST 3-4 hot
slutty girls (though to be honest, dolly parton, they were not)
"ad hom" attacks are only invalid if the person making them isn't actually a super-douche.
I think another problem is that most of those new college
degress won't teach you much of anything. How many
communication/history/english/fine art etc degress do we really
need?
Now grants to kids doing the hard classes, that seems like we would
get at least a bit more benefit for society.
It would also help if they didn't make you take so many stupid
classes. I remember suffering through a stupid Japenese poetry
class becuase it fuffilled a non western culture class (bullshit) a
compartive litature requirement (more bullshit) and a writing
requirement (simi reasonable).
"(though to be honest, dolly parton, they were not)"
Excuse me? Slutty? Excuse me?
"ad hom" attacks are only invalid if the person making them
isn't actually a super-douche.
What did you just call me?!?
domo,
You managed to go to a school with half the female population of
mine? Wow.
Or, its the same one and you are 15 years older than me. :)
What did you just call me?!?
Apologies - should have read "if the target isn't a
super-douche"
domo,
Ah. Makes sense. I just went to an engineering school. When you
wanted to meet chicks you took an econ class.
Great, does this mean that people will soon need a graduate degree to get their PE seal? Graduating in December, so I better be grandfathered in.
The chicks in engineering were even fewer. even so we
graduated at LEAST 3-4 hot slutty girls (though to be honest, dolly
parton, they were not)
Odd. I don't recall any hot ones from my graduating class. But I
spent college dating strippers and other psychos unaffiliated with
the university, so I wasn't trolling for skank at school.
Ah. Makes sense. I just went to an engineering school. When
you wanted to meet chicks you took an econ class.
You should have tried Marketing classes
T - Of course maybe my standards are just lower. In any case, I will take slutty over hot 99 times out of 100. that's just how I roll.
You should have tried Marketing classes
You couldnt take those unless you were a management major and you
were meeting the same ones from the econ classes.
25% female as a whole, but the College of Management was about
50/50. There were few management requirements that an engineering
student could take.
T - Of course maybe my standards are just lower. In any
case, I will take slutty over hot 99 times out of 100. that's just
how I roll.
A yes from a 5 beats a maybe from a 10 every single time.
Well then. A college degree is going to end up as worthless
as a used condom.
But considerably more expensive. (Of course, even used condoms
would turn out to be pretty costly if the government were footing
the bill.)
A yes from a 5 beats a maybe from a 10 every single
time.
absofuckinglutely. have a good weekend boys.
T - Of course maybe my standards are just lower.
Your Dolly Parton comment made that crystal clear.
"Sorry I missed day 3, but I was over at Dolly Parton's place,
and...yes, they're real."
domoarrigato, you are talking about engineering, I think. And I
am cheered that the "bar" seems to have risen from your point of
view. But you seem to be describing the situation from the demand
side -- after kids got into engineering programs at good colleges.
Of course those whose schools made advanced math and science
courses available to them -- or who could get that instruction via
some other means, such as community college attendance -- were more
competitive in the college admissions process, especially for
engineering schools.
Most high school students are not exposed to the kind of classes
you describe -- in many cases, they are not even available to
students. But more importantly, many other "higher" classes are not
available to high-school students either, or have low-enough exit
standards that remedial instruction, or simply starting from
scratch, is necessary in college. That is what I have seen -- also
anecdotally. But as my wife runs a private high school, I also am
regularly exposed to education industry news and the many
additional stories she brings home about her school and others.
YMMV, but I stand by my belief that grade-inflation and
monetary-inflation yield very similar results in their respective
spheres, and that both are proceeding at a significant rate these
days. If your experience is typical, however, at least we will have
morlocks to repair the machines, won't we?
Is the Pell Grant a gift, or is it something to be paid
back?
I think its a gift, grants usually are.
"A gift from taxpayers. Is there nothing we won't fund?"
School vouches in DC comes to mind.
J.A.M.
I think you are right to a large extent in terms of selection bias
of my anecdotal sample. And I know (and prefaced with) that my
comments were anecdotal.
My main observation was that in my grandfathers day, calculus was
almost universally un-available in high school, whereas now it is
available almost at every high school. This runs counter to the
idea the relevant skills are being taught at successively higher
levels of education over time. Calculus an easily identifiably set
of useful skills taught to a relatively uniform level over
time.
An alternate model I would suggest is that over time there has
become more differentiation in the level of achievement possible at
a given level of education. You can graduate high school barely
being able to read, or having obviated the need for your first
college semester. 50 years ago, I think that disparity was smaller
among graduates. The bottom end of the curve is probably longer as
a result of school administrators trying to pump up graduation
stats - whereas the top end is wider through talented and gifted
programs and the like. Both are features of today's education
system that were less prevalent a long time ago.
Epi and all,
Upthread I cited dolly as an example of Big Tits - not of hot, or
of slutty (though depending on your taste I guess she could be
those too)
On a positive note, the pay for skilled trades will increase
dramatically. The majority of people with even half-a-brain will go
to college and on to a career in customer service. There will be
very few with the aptitude and ambition left to fill skilled
trades. Supply and Demand rules!!!!
If I had kids, I would recommend: auto/aircraft mechanic,
electrician, plummer, or MSCD certified contract programmer career
paths. They will have a much more cost-effective education with
significantly higher pay.
WHO IS THE GUY IN THAT PICTURE? HE HAS A WEIRD LOOK ON HIS FACE, LIKE HE IS UPSET, OR JUST EXASPERATED.
"(though to be honest, dolly parton, they were not)"
Excuse me? Slutty? Excuse me?
I read her playboy interview from the 70s. IIRC, she had her first
sexual experience at the age of 12, with a relative, maybe a first
or second cousin.
I may be distantly related to Dolly Parton. And to Reagan. All of our families have deep roots in the Dolly World part of Tennessee. Though I think she's on the mammorial side of the family.
If I had kids, I would recommend: auto/aircraft mechanic,
electrician, plummer, or MSCD certified contract programmer career
paths. They will have a much more cost-effective education with
significantly higher pay.
Around here building trades folks are telling us that their
carpenters are ageing out of the work force, and not being
replaced. Local HS graduates don't have enough math to read a tape
measure.
College grads may make higher salaries, but it would be interesting
to run a direct comparison of lifetime income, considering
carpenters, plumbers, electricians, copier techs, etc start work
several years earlier, are seldom underemployed, and have no
college loans to repay.
Seems like I've seen such comparisons and I'm pretty sure that
on average, college grads win out. Haven't seen anything really
recent though.
It depends a whole lotta lot on what's your major in college
though.
Up until now, the Engineering curriculum has been largely
immune to these sorts of shenanigans. I'll be watching with
interest the quality of future BS_Es.
When the quality does drop, it will very probably be a consequence
of affirmative action in hiring professors.
I assure you they are putting incompetent professors into the
tenure track just as fast as they can find them. Have been watching
it from very close on the side lines.
JAM,
I tend to agree with your overall sentiment, but this part I
question.
...but because the bachelor's degree now represents a level of
knowledge and competency that was once possessed by most high
school graduates but is no more.
I think the truth is more like stated above, that there is a much
wider range of capabilities of the people who are coming out of
high schools these days.
OTOH, I also believe that more and more jobs require a BA just
because, there are a whole lot more BA's available out there. It's
the market responding to the supply.
If I've got low level office work that I need done, and I have a
choice between a high school grad and college grad for the same
job, which am I going to pick if the supply is there either
way?
So, somebody tell me how long is it going to take for the Obama Boy Backlash to finally begin? For there is clearly no end to the stupidity, and at best only token resistance to date.
LarryA,
btw, I was a high end tech who then went to college and got a PhD
in engineering. The best techs can make as much or more than an
engineer, but they a) are the select few and not the majority and
b) the techs still get a reduced benefits package compared to
engineers.
OTOH, if you're enterprising at all, the technician road is very
probably the smarter road in my opinion. Much much easier to go off
and start your own company, grow it, and make good money, then it
is as an engineer.
Then again, in today's world if you aim to be a super
tech, then you need a two year degree, and a four year engineering
technology degree looms not so far down the road (my opinion -- but
this degree is both easier and cheaper to get). Because fact is,
there's a hell of a lot more to know today than there was 20 years
ago.
LarryA,
Last note, if you do have the ambition to get through college but
don't want to start your own business, the extra benefits an
engineer gets are definitely enough to pay for the cost of having
gone to college, in the long run.
"Which discussion are we going to have:
1. The one about high school not preparing you for much besides
McDonald's?
2. The one about a college education is not for everyone?
3. The one about how the state should not be subsidizing anyone's
higher education or, for that matter, providing an institution for
it?
4. Or will we derail the conversation into something at best
tangentially related?
Honestly, I'm good with any of these"
1. This is the real travesty. A high school degree is totally
meaningless today. As unPC as it is, kids need to be tracked from
an early age. A 16 year old kid with an IQ of 130 should not go to
the same high school and get the same degree with a kid with an IQ
of 75.
2. True, true. Not everyone wants to work in an office, and not
everyone who wants to can. I might like to a be a great football
player, but I don't have the ability, and putting me through
training would be a complete waste of time and money. A person who
hates reading and likes to work with his hands shouldn't waste his
time either. Charles Murray's book Real Education makes a good case
that only about 15% of people should get a college degree.
3. For people that should go to college, the payoff will be large.
It is a good investment that should be borne by the student (or the
parents), not the state. Oh yeah, and taxation is theft, yadda,
yadda.
4. Hey! They're going to revise the TV series V! Woohoo!
"A person who hates reading and likes to work with his hands
shouldn't waste his time either."
opps--for this I meant with college
1. This is the real travesty. A high school degree is
totally meaningless today. As unPC as it is, kids need to be
tracked from an early age. A 16 year old kid with an IQ of 130
should not go to the same high school and get the same degree with
a kid with an IQ of 75.
Part of me wishes someone had done that when I was 16. But then I'd
be even more of an insufferable douchebag.
What's sad is, I work at an entry-level position (luxury hotel
front desk). Of the seven or eight employees, the best ones did not
finish or go to college. The absolutely worst ones with zero work
ethic have college degrees. And of course, the people in slightly
higher, more "management" oriented positions (catering, sales,
etc.) have degrees, but only the people with 15-20+ years of
experience are actually good at their job.
Such thing existed in china for a long period, graduate from
collage equal to the unempolying nowdays.
too many graduate must be some kinds of trouble be faced by Federal
Government,Obama's struggling sounds to be ridicules but little
farseeing.
This reminds me of an old New Yorker cartoon in which the King addresses the masses: "I wish this to be the most educated kingdom in the world, so I hereby grant everyone a diploma."
I like Pell Grants. The are not some lifetime handouts but
temporary assistance to help someone expand their opportunities,
and to enrich and give back to society at the same time.
Sadly because of a host of injustices and their resulting barriers
for much of our history on the wealthy could go to college in
significant numbers, and because either the skills or credentials
that are produced there are keys to becoming wealthier this fact
meant classes might be reproduced forever. Things like Pell Grants
help open such a potentially ossified system up. Good.
"This reminds me of an old New Yorker cartoon in which the King
addresses the masses: "I wish this to be the most educated kingdom
in the world, so I hereby grant everyone a diploma.""
Extending Pell Grants doesn't mean everyone gets a college degree,
but that more people get a chance to try to get one. And that's a
good thing. Do we have too many people getting college degrees?
Probably. But since the average person with a college degree makes
quite a bit more than the average person who does not, not
facilitating opportunities to get such degrees is to encourage
systematic inequality.
Menino's comments were taken totally out of context. Boston has one of the highest college admission rates of major cities, the challenge is to keep young people in school -- one is through remedial education, which several colleges stepped up to do in conjunction with Menino's challenge, the other is to have financing and work-study opportunities available, as fiscal realities also cause people to drop out or defer their education.
MNG
If you like Pell grants, you should love vouchers for kids in k-12.
It means that kids will have the opportunity to get a good
education from a good school of their choosing. In your words
"things like vouchers help open such a potentially ossified system
up."
Personally I would much rather have tax credits so the gov't would
have less of an opportunity to get in the middle of it.
Tax credits for the same amount would be fine with me. Maybe
Pell Grants are better to prevent fraud?
And I'm not opposed to voucher systems or the NCLB provisions which
allow people from failing schools to "shop." I'd like the vouchers
to be (generously) means tested (so I don't just refund some rich
kid's parents who was going to go to private school anyways) and
have them be for an amount that would provide meaningful choice for
most kids (giving away a fraction of the cost of a good private
school publication often becomes a partial rebate for the wealthy
kid who was going anyway).
Tulpa
Are you talking about the DC voucher program? I don't know much
about it. I read the DOE said it had minimal success so they
canceled it, and then Obama let it continue for those already in
it. Is that right?
btw, I was a high end tech who then went to college and got
a PhD in engineering. The best techs can make as much or more than
an engineer, but they a) are the select few and not the majority
and b) the techs still get a reduced benefits package compared to
engineers.
I'll agree completely, in engineering. OTOH if you compare someone
with a masters in sociology (which has a fairly structured career
track in a popular profession, as opposed to an MA in history or
English) with a copier technician, the fact that the copier tech
starts working 5 to 7 years earlier, without a college debt, and
with a lot more opportunities to tailor work around family life,
does a lot of balancing.
As if...
The blackbird
lives in a
country like
a rose in the
dreamland,
and even a
pleasure declares
in a moment
that intention
of love.
Francesco Sinibaldi
# Ebeneezer Scrooge | June 5, 2009, 7:57pm | #
# JAM,
#I tend to agree with your overall sentiment,
# but this part I question.
## ...but because the bachelor's degree now
## represents a level of knowledge and
## competency that was once possessed by most
## high school graduates but is no more.
I wrote that because, over the past thirty years of being in the
workforce, as employee and sometimes management, I noticed what
appeared to be a steady decline in what people with bachelors' and
higher degrees seemed to know, in terms of real-world competence
and general knowledge. That is to say, I kept running into people
who not only didn't know, but who had apparently never even been
exposed to fundamental information and skills that people were
expected to have mastered by the time they exited 8th grade, not to
mention High School. Maybe they knew a lot about the area of
specialization associated with their degrees, but not a whole lot
more about everything else in the world beyond what I previously
expected high-schoolers to know. And high school graduates seemed
to know even less. I'm not talking about the odd individual here
and there, but pretty much everyone I encountered: there seemed to
be more academic fluffiness at any particular level of achievement,
which correlated roughly with the year that the person took a
diploma.
I first noticed the phenomenon when talking to people who graduated
high school or college but had little or no familiarity with the US
Constitution. People of my age group had studied it in History or
Civics, as early as the 8th grade -- not everyone came out of
Civics class a constitutional expert, but they definitely had
plenty of exposure to the document. But students who graduated much
later than we did appeared not to have that background at all. They
seemed to have a more limited command of English grammar and
composition, unless they had specifically majored in English,
literature, or a related topic. They had less understanding of
Geography -- not knowing where places were in the world, or much,
if anything, about the societies found in those places. The trend
was evident in science, mathematics, and pretty much any other core
subject that we were all supposed to have studied in "grade
school." These weren't stupid people, and their diplomas said they
were educated. But they seemed to have some huge gaps in their
education -- at least relative to the kind of elementary and
secondary instruction I remember receiving.
Over the years, I looked back at old textbooks from the beginning
and middle parts of the 20th century, and some that were published
in the 19th century. Although we certainly have a lot more to learn
these days, especially about science and technology, it definitely
seemed to me that coverage of core subjects was more rigorous, the
further back in time one went. High school textbooks on several
subjects from the early 1900s read like modern-day college
textbooks on those same subjects (minus all the fancy layout and
color graphics that have become more prevalent recently). I
concluded that it wasn't just my sense that kids were more
rigorously educated in the past. If the classes and students lived
up to the textbooks, then kids of earlier eras were indeed more
thoroughly educated than their counterparts today, at least in "the
basics."
In "the old days," you were expected to go out and get a job after
the eighth grade, if not before, so whatever preparation for life
school was going to give you, it had to be more or less complete by
then. A little later, it was the high school graduate who was
supposed to be ready for work and family responsibilities. Now, we
have college graduate kids who return to the parents' nest, or
never even left.
As I see it, we seem to be accepting that the length of childhood's
incompetence is growing steadily longer, and the training to
function as a competent adult is being stretched and padded to fill
the time. As this happens, "teachers" -- especially in the lower
grades -- morph into well-paid, credentialed babysitters and
daycare providers.
JAM,
I first noticed the phenomenon when talking to people who
graduated high school or college but had little or no familiarity
with the US Constitution. People of my age group had studied it in
History or Civics, as early as the 8th grade
Well, now that you put it this way, you've got a good point. I
never had a geography class at all, which astounded my grandmother.
I know some geography only because of a deep personal interest in
history.
Hmmm. I think you do have a point there.
First, I agree with the general point of this article: In
general, too many people are going to four year colleges (and grad
school). Now that doesn't mean there isn't anyone out there that
currently isn't going that should, but in general, most of these
people are. I have no problem with a well-funded federal loan
program that ensures access for all, but we don't need large
amounts of grants, unless specifically tied to government needs.
For example, grants to potential high school math and science
teachers might make sense. We sure don't need to create more grants
for yet another psych or English major.
That being said, I think that people over-estimate how smart people
were back in the day. They were largely ignorant back then and just
as ignorant now.
The problem with attitudes towards higher education is way too
much emphasis on science and mathematics in primary and secondary
education. It leads to the ridiculous idea that the point of
knowledge is to build cool gadgets, rather than as something that
is desirable and should be pursued for its own sake.
Colleges and universities could easily fix this problem by
eliminating science, "management," and technical programs
altogether and focus solely on a liberal arts curricula. An
intelligent person with a well-rounded liberal arts education then
has the skills to learn how to "develop cool gadgets" on his own
initiative.
Are we the only advanced industrialized nation with a college-educated population of only 1/3rd? Or is it pretty much like this for all nations? I'm so sick of idiots like like Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs whining about how illegal immigration may lower the overall salaries of the lowest-skilled, lowest-wage native workers. I don't care!! Tell them to get better jobs. And if you wanna work in a factory, that's great. But the thing that pisses me off is factory workers or the Left enabling them to stay there when the economy's rapidly changing. We're going postindustrial, and I'm glad. People'll need more training and education, even if the education isn't what it once was. Bailouts and other bullshit to keep GM and the other companies alive just shields the workers from reality and distorts the market by keeping them in shitty jobs that really aren't running the economy anymore. It's much more diverse and service-based.
I mean, are you really 'free' if you're dependent on gov't bailouts and services just to keep your job? And demanding gov't give this kind of preferential treatment to ANY workers is no better than welfare recipients voting Democrat just to keep their benefits.
People'll need more training and education......jobs that
really aren't running the economy anymore. It's much more diverse
and service-based.
That's only sort of a little bit of a contradiction.
Service-based jobs in general do not require all that much
education. Nor do they pay particularly well.
The problem with attitudes towards higher education is way
too much emphasis on science and mathematics in primary and
secondary education.
I'd argue that there isn't enough emphasis on science and
mathematics in primary education. Way too many junior and senior
high students consider themselves mathematically inept.
It leads to the ridiculous idea that the point of knowledge is
to build cool gadgets, rather than as something that is desirable
and should be pursued for its own sake.
Building gadgets that people want to buy isn't ridiculous, first
off. Second, it is only a very small minority that is so
constituted that they can, or will, do mathematics "for its own
sake". Most of them need something else to motivate the need for
learning math at all.
For example, building cool gadgets. Which, btw, the average
junior/senior high teacher knows absolutely nothing about, so they
don't motivate their students.
Math and physics gets surprisingly easy to learn if you know
something about what people were trying to do when they came up
with it in the first place.
Try building a factory that can produce textiles, when you've got
nothing but a river flowing past you for an energy source.
Necessity isn't just the mother of invention, necessity is a
Mother.
Ebeneezer Scrooge | June 7, 2009, 2:58am | #
+1,000,000
Much of calculus and trigonometry are barely even comprehensible to
the average human (AFAIK) unless applied ar at least related to
something in a scientific or engineering field. Hell, there are
uses for math that apply to logic and philosophy, too, but as far
as I can tell these remain largely unexplored in most schools, as
do "critical thinking" processes and skills. Go figure.
Not that I have anything but vague ideas about how to build such curricula, but the idea is definitely worth exploring.
Art,
The issue isn't so much designing a new curriculum, it's that the
education system is built around the SAT and other multiple-guess
tests. Your curriculum could be the greatest thing since sliced
bread, but if it doesn't prepare the student to pass the test, it's
doomed to obscurity.
In an earlier post, MNG touted Pell grants as a method of
overcoming ossified class structures. I think the emphasis on
multiple choice tests over the past 40 years has ossified our
education system. Until schools at all levels allow for alternate
assessment techniques, most students will be stuck with crappy
educations.
This is happening slowly, but is a trend that most resist. The
problem is that such a solution flies in the face of the (idiotic,
IMO) quest for efficiency in education.
An intelligent person with a well-rounded liberal arts education
then has the skills to learn how to "develop cool gadgets" on his
own initiative.
That's funny. I know far more techies who know and understand the
liberal arts than I know liberal arts students who understand
science and technology. Actually, the three people I know who have
read more of the "classics" than anyone I know are an engineer, a
scientist, and a marketing professor. Go figure.
I think the point of going to college boils down to four things,
listed in order of importance
1: Training your mind to solve hard problems
2: Career-specific learning
3: Making friends, colleagues, mentors, and connections
4: General learning
To a large degree, you are correct in that a liberal arts student
can learn to do tech using their critical thinking skills. You are
just wrong in that you fail to realize that techies can use their
critical thinking skills to do the reverse.
Eat it you selfish fucks. I can't wait until you're
slaughtered by the mobs of people you decided didn't deserve a
living wage job.
Neither can I. I can buy and hoard ammunition and guns they can't
currently afford to buy because Obama and his appointment scared
the fuck out anyone that want's to exercise their 2nd.
The situation of people leaving college with a degree is scary.
Grade inflation is not just a fact it's as out of control as the
spending Congress. The quality of people leaving school with a
piece of paper is dismal at this point.
Hopefully, James Anderson Merritt, you're still following this thread: I'd be curious to know (if you kept them) which early 20th-century textbooks you got your hands on. I have a few myself and I'm interested in finding more to see the content. As someone born on the late 80's, I always hear stories of schools before the 60's (like, say, the prep school of Dead Poet's Society) in which students were held to very strict, rigorous standards without all the fluff of modern education.
I first noticed the phenomenon when talking to people who
graduated high school or college but had little or no familiarity
with the US Constitution.
My recollection from "the old days" is that educated people didn't
"graduate high school or college," they graduated *from* high
school or college. (And in the really old days, there were
graduated *from* high school or college.)
I have to disagree with the conclusion here. Having recently
earned my undergraduate degree, I agree that many are mentally
unfit for serious academic study. However, the solution to that is
not pushing them away from college. Rather it is allowing them to
become at least somewhat more intelligent in hopes of raising the
overall standard. Then, ideally, they would raise smarter children
and the process would repeat itself over and over. Indeed, this is
the very foundation of human knowledge. We would not condemn
cavemen for their imperfect knowledge of the natural world; we can
only expect them learn what they may and pass that along.
As far as the devaluation of the undergraduate degree, I'm not sure
I see the argument here. Forgive me, but I see that as akin to
accusing public school of devaluing a high school diploma.
Certainly, they are imperfect. But few would argue to completely
dissolve them or to limit people's access.
Forty-Two, good points. I hadn't thought too much before about
how standardized testing might sometimes be
counterproductive.
Chad, good points also. To me training one's mind to be able to
perceive complex isomorphisms (bear with me, I'm still reading
Hofstadter) is more important than a "structured" liberal arts
education which is in turn more important than rote memorization in
the service of acing some multiple-choice test.
However, the solution to that is not pushing them away from college. Rather it is allowing them to become at least somewhat more intelligent in hopes of raising the overall standard.
Bah! Too vague. The question is whether pushing such a marginal person to college would actually be an improvement over autodidacticism. Also, isn't community college already a good system for this sort of thing (education for people not necessarily interested in the bachelor's degree route).
Gee, affordable college is a bad thing? I always knew that you republicans wanted to keep college among your little good ole boys networks...
College education is over-rated. Apprenticeships and poly-technics should make a comeback. And colleges should have about half the courses. College education should be getting more inexpensive. That is the biggest sign something is structurally wrong.
I went to Umass Dartmouth, and we had an "Urban Education"
program, where 16 completely-free all-expense-paid (including
dorms, meals, tuition and fees, and even books) scholarships were
given to inner-city students.
By my Sophomore year, every single one had dropped out or failed
out.
Our tax-dollars at work.
If you examine the job market today - almost every job requires at least a Bachelor's degree. Especially as this is an employer market given the huge unemployment situation in the world (which started during W's watch), the degree becomes an 'easy' way to weed out the huge number of applications job openings receive. The need to have a degree has evolved over time and what Obama is doing now is to expand access to people who WANT the degree and don't have the resources to pay for it. Education should never be denied to anyone who wants it because they are poor.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245