The Great Higher Education Debate

There's been a surfeit of interesting commentary lately that touches on higher education, and more specifically the question of whether too many people are going to college: Start with Professor X's view from "the basement of the ivory tower" in the latest Atlantic and Charles Murray's essay on "educational romanticism" in the New Criterion, then take up these posts from Rod Dreher (and the accompanying comment threads) and Russell Arben Fox, and then see Matt and (especially) Kevin Carey, who pushes back vigorously against the thesis that we're trying to push too many people through higher education.

My own somewhat mealy-mouthed take is that Carey and Charles Murray are both right: There are people going to college who shouldn't be and there are people who aren't going to college who should be; there are people in Professor X's classes who deserve better than a "college of last resort" and there are people in Professor X's classes who would be better off doing something completely different with their time. Which means that I think we ought to be spending more public dollars on the sort of colleges that educate "lower-income students, first-generation students, disadvantaged students, working students, immigrant students, minority students, older students, disabled students, students from often dismal high schools," to quote Carey's litany, and fewer public dollars on the kind of schools that exist to provide the "college experience" to the children of the mass upper class. (More public money for Virginia's community colleges, in other words, and less for a school like UVA - or again, more public money for people who want to go to school part-time or over the internet, and fewer public dollars for kids who want to spend four years on a brick-and-mortar campus.) But I also think that we ought to become vastly more flexible in our understanding of what constitutes an ideal post-high school education, and what our high schools should be preparing their students for - which means more vocational education, more shop class as soulcraft, and fewer attempts to pretend that everyone can read Hamlet, or score above the national average on the Math SAT.

Comments

Sam Seaborn (The West Wing) on education:

"Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic revolutionary changes. Schools should be palaces. Competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be getting six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge for its citizens, just like national defense. That is my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet."

You want so badly to believe it, don't you?

Posted by Tim Dees | May 21, 2008 10:48 AM

Vocational ed? Do you mean educating people for jobs that may no longer exist when they walk out the door? Actually, I find this a bit flabbergasting; a huge chunk of "higher ed" at the sub-Ivy/flagship state u level is "vocational," and those of us in the liberal arts game have to constantly push against pressures to move the curriculum in that direction.

I might add that I'm not yet sure what to make of Professor X. While I'm now ensconced at a big-name private university, in my younger days I did plenty of adjunct work myself, and some of my most rewarding classroom experiences came back then. I taught night classes full of adults who'd been out in the world and had high motivation to come back to school. Some of them had once been sharecroppers [It was the South, and I'm that old], but it gave the history I taught them real meaning. Maybe it's a difference in discipline, but I doubt it. I don't doubt Professor X's depiction of administrators, or for that matter his depiction of a lot of his full-time "colleagues"; higher ed is much more of a racket than we generally admit, much too dependent on, and exploitive of, our institutionalized obsession with credentials [as opposed to actual learning]. But on the basis of my own experience I strongly suspect that he's selling his students short.

Posted by David in Nashville | May 21, 2008 11:06 AM

As should be obvious from the post Ross cites, I've become increasingly suspicious of the idea that "everyone" should go to college. But that doesn't mean I'm down on liberal learning as a form of intellectual socialization and a preparation for citizenship; I still believe those are good things for our democracy. I just would like to see us move in a direction which loosens the often all-too-harsh economic ties between a specific kind of education, and the reward of a specific place along our nation's meritocratic class divide. When Ross talks about how we ought to become "vastly more flexible in our understanding of what constitutes an ideal post-high school education," a flexibility that might involve a better funded and more respected mixing of the liberal arts and/or vocational and technical training, then he's not saying anything I disagree with; I would very much like to see those developments. But I am a little dubious of the rhetoric that suggests we can move in that direction without challenging the presumptions that Professor X's essay helps to pop. (And David in Nashville, I agree that Professor X is probably selling his students short...many of them, at least. But certainly not all of them--and when you teach enough students in that latter category (as you and I surely have done), then I think his possibly hyperbolic frustration becomes understandable.)

Posted by Russell Arben Fox | May 21, 2008 11:19 AM

Ivan Illich had a lot to say about this, no?

What about the people who pick up your trash, or clean out the sewer, or fix your leaky plumbing? They don't need a college education, and most wouldn't want one. But if college degrees for all is your goal, then these people are immediately alienated, and how, exactly, would it help them do their job?

If people want to learn, they will. Learning webs exist, whether the general public is aware of them or not.

Posted by bjanaszek | May 21, 2008 11:45 AM

It seems to me the students Prof X is teaching would be best served not by a standard college English class, but by what amounts to high school English classes, since it is those skills, and not the more advanced ones of a college class, that they really lack. That one unfortunate woman really also needed an intro-to-computers class.

This is a case where the colleges really should have pointed out to these students that they were not even close to being prepared for their courses of study, and politely referred them to places where such preparation was available. And for most of them, that was probably high school evening sessions.

Posted by Johan Larson | May 21, 2008 11:58 AM

If I can plug a post of my own that discusses prior research on credentialism and signaling, there may be a better case for restricting college entry than for expanding it.

Posted by Stuart Buck | May 21, 2008 12:02 PM

I went to an elite high school and college. Was missing a few prereqs for grad school, and, for reasons of scheduling and cost, I ended up enrolling in community college. The professors have been awesome - teachers, not researchers. Instead of kids not smart enough for college, my classmates are mostly working people and the children of recent immigrants. This is at a cost of $125/course versus $1200 at the local public university or $3000 at the private one.

Posted by Mike | May 21, 2008 12:27 PM

Ross,

I think your assessment is on, but conclusions off. We don't need more lowerer tiered colleges, we need better high schools. Once upon a time high schools were good at educating people. They aren't now. Some will blame liberals, others the blacks and mexicans, others local control or lack of money. I don't want to place blame. I think it is enough to see that something is wrong, and work to fix it.

Fun anecdote: When my grandmother went to high school, teachers taught the curriculum and graded accordingly. So if no one performed well, no one got an A. There were no curves. No grade inflation. Teachers didn't put up with crap from disruptive students. Disruptive students were sent home. It wasn't all good, there were a lot of problems with that sort of educational system. But I think that if you graduated with A's and B's, a high school diploma meant something. Now a high school diploma means nothing. You get one just for showing up. Wouldn't making lowerer tiered colleges just continue the mediocrity? Why should tax payers pay for 4 more years of grade inflation and non-learning?

Posted by freddiemac | May 21, 2008 1:43 PM

Once upon a time high schools were good at educating people. They aren't now.

Once upon a time, most people dropped out to work. Only the smartest kids were expected to graduate from high school.

Posted by Thursday | May 21, 2008 4:19 PM

(More public money for Virginia's community colleges, in other words, and less for a school like UVA - or again, more public money for people who want to go to school part-time or over the internet, and fewer public dollars for kids who want to spend four years on a brick-and-mortar campus.)

That's some nifty rhetoric, Ross. It also belies a lack of familiarity ("ignorance" is the technical term) with the facts on the ground.

UVA gets about 8% of its funding from the state. The average for state universities is more than 33%.

But hey, you keep doing whatchu gotta do in order to set the hardhats against the eggheads. Conservatism wins through social division, I guess. Classy.

Posted by Charlottesville Now | May 22, 2008 5:14 PM

I have been teaching at the college and university level most of my life. Doing some rough math and including the occasional summer semester or overloaded class, I estimate that I have taught about 10,000 students. A whole town full of folks.
Frequently, over the last two decades or so, I have asked my classes to help me with a small experiment. I ask them to think of five words that describe themselves and rank them from most important to least important. Despite the simplicity of the question, a person’s list reveals more about him than you can imagine. I would venture that the list tells me all of the really important things I might need to know about a person. But I want to share my findings from over two decades of research.
Out of approximately 10,000 students who have participated in my little experiment, NOT ONE has put “human being” at the top of his or her list. Now, you may say “Oh, I thought that was a given.” Perhaps. But if you think that your humanity is a “given” then things are worse than I expected. When we lose sight of the fundamental importance of the one obvious and unchangeable fact that connects us with everyone else on the planet, if we begin to lose sight of this in ourselves then we have already lost our ability to see it in others.
Over the course of my life’s experiment I have seen many trends. Often “American” is at the top of the list, usually when the nation is at war. There is of course the predictable list of “smart, dedicated, crazy, sweet, cute.” I have even seen religious affiliation and race listed above everything else. Of course, what we do for a living always maintains a high rank because we live in a culture that values our earnings potential over our human potential. I also saw a list that read: “Football fan, American, southerner, father, Baptist.” That one was discouraging. Remember: I told them “In order of importance.”
I hope my point is clear. When we put ANYTHING above “human being” we risk associating with some dangerous “-isms”: racism, sexism, egotism, nationalism of the most vapid sort, even sports fan-ism. And of all the “-isms” that we might fall into, I will take “humanism.” And I mean this term in the broadest context. By “humanism” I mean the recognition that the person next to me is human first and a “female, black, Hindu, Sagittarian, handicapped, lawyer, vegetarian, baseball fan” second (or third or fifteenth).
Now all of this has been by way of getting to an apology of sorts for the humanities in which I teach. In a world in which income, political allegiance, religious affiliation, and anything else you can imagine, defines us (sadly), it is difficult to see the practical value of literature, art, music, and history. Perhaps too many students have been brainwashed to think of college as a sort of job-training experience. But college is not a technical school. Our obligation is partly to prepare you for work, yes, but also to prepare you for far more difficult task of living on the Earth as a human being. Being a nurse is one thing; being a human being (who knows that he or she is something more than a paycheck-generator) is a bit more complex.
Does reading Huckleberry Finn or listening to Bach, or learning to distinguish between cubism and abstract impressionism make you a better American, Presbyterian, Hispanic, Male, welder? The answer, of course, is yes. Because it reminds you of what needs to stay at the top of your “list.”

Posted by Hank | June 23, 2008 3:43 PM