Should Everyone Go to College?

"Professor X," not only the world's greatest telepath but also the pseudonym of an actual professor says no in the new Atlantic:

Sending everyone under the sun to college is a noble initiative. Academia is all for it, naturally. Industry is all for it; some companies even help with tuition costs. Government is all for it; the truly needy have lots of opportunities for financial aid. The media applauds it—try to imagine someone speaking out against the idea. To oppose such a scheme of inclusion would be positively churlish. But one piece of the puzzle hasn’t been figured into the equation, to use the sort of phrase I encounter in the papers submitted by my English 101 students. The zeitgeist of academic possibility is a great inverted pyramid, and its rather sharp point is poking, uncomfortably, a spot just about midway between my shoulder blades.

For I, who teach these low-level, must-pass, no-multiple-choice-test classes, am the one who ultimately delivers the news to those unfit for college: that they lack the most-basic skills and have no sense of the volume of work required; that they are in some cases barely literate; that they are so bereft of schemata, so dispossessed of contexts in which to place newly acquired knowledge, that every bit of information simply raises more questions. They are not ready for high school, some of them, much less for college.

I am the man who has to lower the hammer.

This is all true, but there are basically two ways of looking at the upshot. One would be to say that we have too many people starting college. Another would be to say that we need to do a better job of preparing more people for college. The growth in the wage premium associated with a college degree suggests the latter option to me. The fact that many European countries now have a higher proportion of people graduating from college also suggests the same to me. There's also the fact that currently at the college level we devote the most resources to the best prepared students while the worst-prepared students get the least resources (that's clear from Professor X's article) even though the objective level of need runs in the other direction.

See also Kevin Carey's remarks.

Comments

His point is well taken, and he is largely correct, but the downside of this is something that will lead to women in high school shunted to cooking and home-making classes and the not so rich to auto-repair regardless of their talents and intelligence.

Posted by gregor | May 18, 2008 1:48 PM

Another would be to say that we need to do a better job of preparing more people for college.

Wrong. Completely wrong.

What is needed is a stronger commitment to vocational training and a greater emphasis on career training, perhaps a greater emphasis on the community college system combined with a realization that not all jobs require a four year college degree, and indeed, for most of American history, almost ALL jobs had no educational requirement at all. The only measure of whether you were qualified for a job was if you could actually do the job.

Seriously, what is it about pundit, journalist, lawyer or even teacher that makes a degree necessary? Especially if you can demonstrate by passing the Bar exam or writing a decent "who, what, where, when, why" story or passing the necessary teaching certification exams that you are capable of the job.

In fact, I passed all the exams I needed in order to qualify for a license to teach social studies and earth sciences before getting my degree. After all, all you have to do is be a lesson ahead of the kids, right?

Posted by calipygian | May 18, 2008 2:01 PM

Kevin's post is good.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 18, 2008 2:03 PM

Another would be to say that we need to do a better job of preparing more people for college.

Wrong. Completely wrong.

What is needed is a stronger commitment to vocational training and a greater emphasis on career training, perhaps a greater emphasis on the community college system combined with a realization that not all jobs require a four year college degree, and indeed, for most of American history, almost ALL jobs had no educational requirement at all. The only measure of whether you were qualified for a job was if you could actually do the job.

Seriously, what is it about pundit, journalist, lawyer or even teacher that makes a degree necessary? Especially if you can demonstrate by passing the Bar exam or writing a decent "who, what, where, when, why" story or passing the necessary teaching certification exams that you are capable of the job.

In fact, I passed all the exams I needed in order to qualify for a license to teach social studies and earth sciences before getting my degree (which isn't even in either of those disciplines - in fact, I took exactly one 100 level earth sciences class and still passed the Praxis II exam). After all, all you have to do is be a lesson ahead of the kids, right?

Based on the sheer number of dumbasses with degrees I have met, I can only conclude that university is over-rated and that resources would be better spent redirecting many that do go to college into other, more useful paths.

Like in Germany, where trade school is actually a viable option instead of "college", which, considering you can get a "degree" in stupid shit like "hospitality management", should be where many should be going anyway.

Posted by calipygian | May 18, 2008 2:05 PM

"that they lack the most-basic skills and have no sense of the volume of work required; that they are in some cases barely literate; that they are so bereft of schemata, so dispossessed of contexts in which to place newly acquired knowledge,"

gregor .. your response is a non sequitur. there is nothing in the article which suggests that women or the 'not so rich' are, as groups, unprepared for college. the quoted professor states a fact; many students lack the basic pre-college educational background necessary to succeed in college.

the article states a problem which is not identified as being gender or class based any more than it would be to state a similar, simple fact; people who do not know how to read will not do well in college.

Posted by penelope | May 18, 2008 2:14 PM

So Professor X has weighed in. But what about the rest of the X Clan?

What are Grand Verbalizer Funkin' Lesson Brother J's views on the opportunity gap that may determine the stratification Prof. X sees in his classrooms?

And how does the To the East, Blackwards agenda fit here? Can opportunity exist in a state of red black and green? Vanglorious.

Posted by southpaw | May 18, 2008 2:22 PM

This is jive. Not everyone should go to college -- for the reason that many good jobs people have to do don't, or shouldn't, require the qualification. It would be wasteful of social resources and individual time for everyone to have postsecondary schooling. But the argument that the lunkheaded masses can't rise to the level of scholarship and are plumping for an entitlement the wise should deny them is beloved of academics who lack the basic expository skills and "general education" necessary to actually be intellectuals capable of enriching the collective mind, rather than sinecure-polishers from privileged backgrounds. You don't know what you can't explain, and so it seems likely that "Professor X" is in some respects quite a bit more ignorant than people figuring things into equations.

Posted by Jeff Rubard | May 18, 2008 2:24 PM

This is jive. Not everyone should go to college -- for the reason that many good jobs people have to do don't, or shouldn't, require the qualification. It would be wasteful of social resources and individual time for everyone to have postsecondary schooling. But the argument that the lunkheaded masses can't rise to the level of scholarship and are plumping for an entitlement the wise should deny them is beloved of academics who lack the basic expository skills and "general education" necessary to actually be intellectuals capable of enriching the collective mind, rather than sinecure-polishers from privileged backgrounds. You don't know what you can't explain, and so it seems likely that "Professor X" is in some respects quite a bit more ignorant than people figuring things into equations.

Posted by Jeff Rubard | May 18, 2008 2:26 PM

No, college level english courses probably aren't required for most jobs but basic literacy is essential for democracy. The skills that allow one to write a research paper are the skills used when watching the news. Critical evaluation is how we tell the difference between Fox "News," CNN, and NPR. If you can't summarize a scholar's opinions (and biases) on a historical controversy, then you probably can't summarizes a pundit's on a present one. If you can't identify an analogy in a poem, then you can't identify one when the PODUS compares a democratic presidential nominee to Neville Chamberlain (nor can you tell that the analogy doesn't work).

No, a degree isn't necessary for many jobs, but until our high schools can provide more students with those skills employers have little choice to require more education of their employees.

Posted by DrewC | May 18, 2008 2:36 PM

There's also the fact that currently at the college level we devote the most resources to the best prepared students while the worst-prepared students get the least resources ...

I disagree with this. It was my experience throughout college that the class frequently slowed down to the pace attainable by the lowest quartile of the class. I also took way too many classes where some of the students did not meet the prerequisites, and rather than the prof telling those students to come back when they were ready, the first couple of weeks were wasted trying to cram a Cliffs Notes version of the required material into them. The result was a failure of those who needed it to learn, which they only realized after the drop fate, and boredom for everybody else.

Posted by Brendan Keefe | May 18, 2008 2:37 PM

"The fact that many European countries now have a higher proportion of people graduating from college also suggests the same to me."

Really? Which ones? Because I have never seen that statistic and would be really surprised if it were true--since on the continent there is a heavier emphasis on technical training, with which I definitely agree. While some could surely benefit from better preparation, do you really think there won't be people who are barely literate after better classes? From my own experiences with people I have known and from friends who have taught at community colleges before going on to teach at universities I am pretty skeptical of your view. What percentage of people do you think can get a BA or BS under current standards? This is one of the problems of our eroding manufacturing base that no-one has fully grappled with.

Posted by David | May 18, 2008 2:41 PM

"drop fate" should have been "drop date" in my previous comment.

Posted by Brendan Keefe | May 18, 2008 2:42 PM

"drop fate" should have been "drop date" in my previous comment.

Posted by Brendan Keefe | May 18, 2008 2:44 PM

I used to teach (as a Graduate Student) at a University that had, a few years earlier, instituted an open admission policy. A very large proportion of students were ill prepared to meet even the lowest requirements of scholarship. It was, I admit, a daunting and often depressing task to read some their papers or listen to their presentations.

But what I also found was that the problem was exacerbated by experienced associate professors that had very rigid approaches to teaching that were specifically designed, in a different era, to be exclusive rather than inclusive. For instance, if a student was unfamiliar with how to properly research journal articles and cite them according to the MLA standards, they were to be considered unfit for their classroom.

I found, particularly in my office hours, that spending a few minutes with students on an individual basis and, when possible, trying to work around their limitations as opposed to simply dismissing them out of hand, tended to be pretty effective. It didn't transform them into Rhodes scholars but it worked a whole lot better than setting some ultra specific standard that disqualified them out of hand when they couldn't meet it.

Posted by brent | May 18, 2008 2:47 PM

No, a degree isn't necessary for many jobs, but until our high schools can provide more students with those skills employers have little choice to require more education of their employees.

Indeed. It's a little crazy to say that the problem is that some people shouldn't go to college when Professor X says that some of his students can't even properly put a paragraph together. Should every student be able to put a compare and contrast essay together, no matter what their field of study? Maybe not. But basic writing and reading comprehension skills should be part of your high school diploma.

Posted by Persia | May 18, 2008 2:53 PM

I would like to know why "our high scools aren't preparing students effectively" should mean "we have to send kids to college" instead of "we need to fix our high schools."

Posted by brenna | May 18, 2008 2:56 PM

The analyses are too mechanistic. Everyone should go to college because every kid needs an idyllic or near-idyllic sanctuary to frolic and fuck, to grow and develop before they enter the vile and unfeeling workplace. Introspective voyager and rough & ready alike. With the only possible exception being that classmate killing Virginia Tech social retard who needed a good cheerleader blowjob more than he needed any academic assistance.

Posted by Trevor | May 18, 2008 3:01 PM

I would like to know why "our high scools aren't preparing students effectively" should mean "we have to send kids to college" instead of "we need to fix our high schools."

Because, thinking in strictly capitalist terms, high schools are a money losing proposition and "fixing them" is throwing good money after bad.

Most universities are profit centers (and if you stop to consider it, the most profitable centers of these profit centers aren't even academic departments - they are the sports teams). Universities couldn't give a shit if you were too stupid to velcro your sneakers in the morning as long as mommy and daddy fork over the tuition check.

Therefore, more students must attend college. Its just the market speaking.

Posted by calipygian | May 18, 2008 3:04 PM

"Wrong. Completely wrong.

What is needed is a stronger commitment to vocational training and a greater emphasis on career training, perhaps a greater emphasis on the community college system combined with a realization that not all jobs require a four year college degree, and indeed, for most of American history, almost ALL jobs had no educational requirement at all. The only measure of whether you were qualified for a job was if you could actually do the job."

Thank you. In the United States in the year 2008, most students will have to borrow around 20k for an undergrad degree. I suppose in an ideal situation it might be good for universal higher ed for 'expanding your mind' or some shit, but that's not the current reality. It's not right to make a kid jump through the hoops to get a sociology degree just so they can get a job in human services or work in insurance claims. Instead secondary education should be reformed to increase its rigor so that it's a stronger signal marker- ie- employers can be sure that someone with a certain high school degree isn't an illiterate dumbass.

"But the argument that the lunkheaded masses can't rise to the level of scholarship and are plumping for an entitlement the wise should deny them is beloved of academics who lack the basic expository skills and "general education" necessary to actually be intellectuals capable of enriching the collective mind, rather than sinecure-polishers from privileged backgrounds."

It's insulting to people to imply that because they didn't sit their asses in a college classroom (usually between the ages of 18-22) that they lack the critical thinking skills that a 22 year old political science major is supposed to posses by mere virtue a having a degree. There are carpenters and welders who have read more widely than a degreed dullard like Tom Friedman.

Outside of some specific fields, higher ed isn't really a necessity. I don't see universal higher ed as a panacea. This "More Education!" talk sounds like the boiled-over rhetoric from the 90's about how more formal education of any kind will improve a worker's standing, which is fraudulent.

you can get a "degree" in stupid shit like "hospitality management"

Christ on a crutch, that's appalling. An area college here offers an MBA in "Entrepreneurial Thinking and Innovative Practices". These administrators should be ashamed.

Posted by Waingro | May 18, 2008 3:06 PM

So Professor X has to "drop the hammer" -- let some people know that despite their hopes and intentions, college is not for them. So what? Somebody has to wield that particular hammer and why not Professor X who is teaching the introductory courses where this fact becomes clear regarding some students. I would rather have those kids have the chance and have the hammer dropped by Professor X than have Admissions Administrator Y exclude the student on some arbitrary basis, or worse yet, have High School Guidance Counsellor Z steer students away from college for even more arbitrary reasons.

Some people on whom the hammer drops will redouble their efforts and still get a college degree with more preparation. Some will get another sort of education; some will go directly to work. Some will become trust fund scumbags, which is what I want to be when I grow up, minus the parts about the scum and the bags. Anyway, it turns out, it is not on Professor X who has a job and a hammer and should be unafraid to use both with integrity.

Posted by Tom in Ma | May 18, 2008 3:11 PM

Professor X says some of his students can't even properly put a paragraph together, but the turns of phrase he dislikes are perfectly good and clear American English; his own prose is by turns precious and turgid. I'm less than enthusiastic about people learning composition from him.

As for democracy requiring college-level critical thinking, that's rather obviously a *reductio* of democracy; and if we add the further proviso that these skills necessary to be a first-class citizen and employee ought to be denied to many, we get a theodicy for social inequality (although I guess calling it a theodicy implies that inequality is viewed as evil, and those who complain about the "School of Resentment" may not agree).

Posted by Jeff Rubard | May 18, 2008 3:11 PM

There are carpenters and welders who have read more widely than a degreed dullard like Tom Friedman.

You know, when I read Professor X's snide dismissal of his student's metaphor-constructing abilities ("But one piece of the puzzle hasn’t been figured into the equation,") Tom Friedman came immediately to mind.

Posted by James Gary | May 18, 2008 3:16 PM

As for democracy requiring college-level critical thinking, that's rather obviously a *reductio* of democracy

If I remember my non-college-acquired American history correctly, even the majority of white, male property owners allowed to vote at the time of the founding of the country didn't attend college and the founders didn't seem to find that a problem.

Posted by calipygian | May 18, 2008 3:18 PM

Another way of looking at the problem is that it's not that too many people go to college -- it's that too many of them show up at the traditional age of 18, when they would really rather be off doing something else (traveling, partying, finding themselves, whatever...). If we encouraged students to come to college only when they were ready to settle down and devote themselves to learning -- at age 20 or 30 or 50 -- they would learn more, and professors would enjoy the great advantage of teaching classes filled exclusively with highly motivated students. The whole nature of higher education would have to be re-thought to accomodate mature students in a multi-generational learning community. A few places, like Smith College, have taken small steps towards realizing that goal.

Posted by Maurice Isserman | May 18, 2008 3:18 PM

>>The growth in the wage premium associated with a college degree>>

Does a college degree lead to higher pay, or are people who are likely to get paid more the sort who go to college? Correlation does not equal causality.

Posted by richard | May 18, 2008 3:20 PM

Far too many people are in college as it is. 50%+ of the college population would have no business being there in a perfect world.

For a first weed out: Anyone not ready to take calculus in their first quarter has no business being in college.

Posted by sherifffriuitfly | May 18, 2008 3:22 PM

Maurice,

Trying reading the article. Evening classes at a third tier university are the domain of the older students. However, few of them are really capable of doing the work no matter how hard they try as stated in the article.

You should also look up the controversy at Norfolk St where the administrators denied tenured to a biology professor who flucked too many students because they would not do the work and would not show up to class.

Posted by superdestroyer | May 18, 2008 3:25 PM

> What is needed is a stronger commitment
> to vocational training and a greater
> emphasis on career training,

Historically vocational training prepared men to work in steel mills, machine shops, auto factories and repair shops, etc., and women to work as secretaries and clerk/typists. Those jobs are in large part gone, moved to India and China in the case of factory jobs and evaporated by computers in the case of office support. What exactly do you propose that this "vocational training" cover?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | May 18, 2008 3:31 PM

It's insulting to people to imply that because they didn't sit their asses in a college classroom (usually between the ages of 18-22) that they lack the critical thinking skills that a 22 year old political science major is supposed to posses by mere virtue a having a degree.

And I've seen the flip side first-hand. My department had to let somebody go who was a college graduate from a "good" school, but could not perform the basic tasks of the job like correctly putting information into a spreadsheet, basic spelling (and I mean really basic), basic grammar (and I mean understandable grammar, not A+), or even creation of an outline. How somebody could graduate from college with reasonable grades and yet be so incredibly unprepared for real work is beyond me.

Posted by LFC | May 18, 2008 3:34 PM

"Anyone not ready to take calculus in their first quarter has no business being in college."

Damn. I already have a bachelor's and that requirement would fuck me over even now. The general point is taken, though- especially for science and engineering students. For humanities and social science students, I'd probably replace calculus with advanced algebra and statistics.

Posted by Waingro | May 18, 2008 3:37 PM

What exactly do you propose that this "vocational training" cover?

Lets face it - how many jobs out there REALLY require a four year college degree as long as you are a) basically literate and numerate, and b) can operate a computer and use basic Microsoft Office programs?

Not many.

Plus, as the costs of transportation because of high fuel prices become greater and greater, many of those jobs that are outsourced for labor costs will be coming back to the United States because of transport costs, if they come back at all that is. I wouldn't count all of the traditional blue collar jobs as down for the count just yet.

Posted by calipygian | May 18, 2008 3:40 PM

1. the problem is largely in the high schools. These need fixing. bad. check Bob herbert's (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/opinion/17herbert.html) excellent op ed in yesterday's NY Times.

2. In general, the second tier college system is doing a spectacular job. There is a lot of work to do, but much of the effort pays off. this is especially true of young adults returning to school. A couple of years ago there was a beautiful op ed in the NY Times by Frank McCourt about his inspirational experiences in teaching Enlish Lit in a NY city second tier college. I should find it. Its a great antidote to professor X.

3. As an earlier poster makes clear, education is more than job training, although that is very important. It is also education for citizenship. It is also education for personal fulfillment.

4. We put a lot more money (dollars/year) in college education than k-12. that is a big difference in the two systems. There is also a dramatic difference in the educational culture and the history of the two systems.

5. I have read recently that many counties have passed the US in rates of college graduates. don't have the source.

Posted by cube | May 18, 2008 3:45 PM

I saw this and mentioned it in my blog. What's wrong with tracking? Bring it Back!

http://thefrustratedteacher.blogspot.com/2008/05/tracking-anyone.html

Posted by tft | May 18, 2008 3:51 PM

I saw this and mentioned it in my blog. What's wrong with tracking? Bring it Back!

http://thefrustratedteacher.blogspot.com/2008/05/tracking-anyone.html

Posted by tft | May 18, 2008 3:53 PM

Matthew writes, "we devote the most resources to the best prepared students while the worst-prepared students get the least resources."

This is the exact opposite of what happens in most middle and high schools. Note that our post-high school educational system is considered by many to be the best in the world. Any list of the top 20 or top 50 universities worldwide is mostly American. But we're at best middle-of-the-pack for middle and high school by most measures. Making our resource allocation at the university level match that of middle and high schools doesn't sound like too good a strategy to me.

As for whether or not it's a good idea to invest so much in our best students, keep in mind that technology now allows us to leverage the efforts of the few to the benefit of the many in ways never before possible. Who are those few? Most of them are going to be drawn from the pool of top students. Not all, to be sure, but most. So, investing in these students is essential to everyone's future success.

Before advocating reducing resources for top students (and, as an educator of these students in middle and high school, I have seen how pitifully few resources are expended on them before college), think about who you want in charge of your health care when you're 70. What kind of surgeon do you want? Who do you want designing your cars? If you think global warming is heading to a crisis stage, who do you think is going to come up with the technology to beat it? Great ideas in medicine, science, and technology are not evenly spread across all students -- most of them come from the best and brightest.

Posted by RR | May 18, 2008 3:59 PM

the most profitable centers of these profit centers aren't even academic departments - they are the sports teams

That is completely wrong. Only at the very apex of the athletic pyramid does a sport make money in excess of it costs to run, and that money is almost always plowed into other athletics.

Tuition is the money-maker in higher ed, for everyone that's not Harvard.

Posted by Marshall | May 18, 2008 4:00 PM

There are people in this world that, no matter how much quality instruction you provide, simply will never achieve a basic level of literacy, let alone be able to complete a four-year degree. Many of them suffer from various kinds of cognitive and learning disorders that modern Neuroscience cannot yet reliably diagnose or explain. And there are a lot more people in this situation than pundits and policy makers are generally aware of.

Yes, we need to help them -- by funding basic research. In the meantime we need to find places in society where they can feel confident and productive. Insisting that they learn things that they are not capably of will not only not help, it will break their spirit and make it more difficult for them to adjust to a job that suits the skills that they do possess.

Posted by AGT | May 18, 2008 4:04 PM

DrewC's comment "Critical evaluation is how we tell the difference between Fox "News," CNN, and NPR." --

is HILARIOUS when you compare the Nielsen ratings of the above shows.

Which is why CNN has tried to morph into a Fox-like clone and why NPR reporter Mara Liasson is such a fixture on Fox News roundtables.

The only role "critical evaluation" has in the national discourse is when pundits try to figure out which is the most LUCRATIVE butt to kiss.

Posted by Don Williams | May 18, 2008 4:05 PM

About 2/3 of the college degrees are not specifically purposeful -- most of the generalist ones in the arts and humanities come to mind. I'm sure that we'll find over time that the generalists with liberal arts degrees will compete with each other for jobs that can be automated or outsourced. The pay-offs of having such an education will diminish over time.

Professional courses of study, by contrast, actually are likely to pay off. There are also professions, more accurately trades, that require trained, practiced skills.

I think we could get more bang for the buck by privatizing the high school and perhaps even the middle school levels to introduce some innovation there. Likelihood of happening approximately zilch.

More generally, we need to recognize that having more bodies in more classroom seats for more years of their lives costs society money. That money is also wanting for all the hordes about to trip over the magical career finish line when they start cashing in their SS checks and consuming Medicare.

The tax burden on folks between, say, 25 and 62 years of age -- the ones pursuing gainful employment -- will rise accordingly.

Posted by MarkG | May 18, 2008 4:07 PM

"Historically vocational training prepared men to work in steel mills, machine shops, auto factories and repair shops, etc., and women to work as secretaries and clerk/typists. Those jobs are in large part gone, moved to India and China in the case of factory jobs and evaporated by computers in the case of office support. What exactly do you propose that this "vocational training" cover?"

I would guess things that can't be easily outsourced or replaced by technology, like being a mechanic, a hairdresser, a physical therapist (that may require college, but I have no idea), etc.

Posted by Reality Man | May 18, 2008 4:10 PM

You can be a great accountant, programmer, nurse or doctor who can't write prose at all. English 101 isn't really a test of basic competence. Composition is tough skill. It's a mistake to think anyone who can't write is retarded.

Posted by Chris | May 18, 2008 4:13 PM

Re Drew C's comment "Critical evaluation is how we tell the difference between Fox "News," CNN, and NPR."
--------
1) Will "Critical evaluation" tell how why the Arabs "Hate us for our freedom"?

2) Will it tell us why 5 US TV CEOs went along with Condi Rice's October 2001 directive to NOT let American voters hear Osama Bin Laden's reasons for the Sept 11 attack?

Will it help us find those nuclear warheads that Saddam Hussein hid somewhere in Iraq?

And since the News Media agreed in 2000 that Al Gore's criticism of George Bush's budget was "Fuzzy Math" , will "Critical Evalutation" tell us what happened to the $4 Trillion Social Security surplus??

Posted by Don Williams | May 18, 2008 4:14 PM

A truism I've been hearing since the 90s (but not when I was in college in the late 80s) is "you go to college to learn how to think." I knew how to think before going to college, though in fairness I must credit my AP courses in high school for some of that. But the idea that it's a good idea to take on $20,000--or $200,000--in debt just to learn how to think is clearly wrongheaded. As pointed out upthread, democracy is a lot older than widespread college education.

Anti-intellectualism, of the sort that Clinton was promoting in her "of course everyone who knows anything about the topic opposes the gas tax holiday--my supporters are uneducated and proud of it!!!!" schtick, is a far greater threat to our democratic institutions than having fewer people get more meaningful degrees.

Posted by Deborah | May 18, 2008 4:15 PM

Everyone should go to college on someone else's dime because every kid needs an idyllic or near-idyllic sanctuary to frolic and fuck, to grow and develop before they enter the vile and unfeeling workplace.

Fixed.

Posted by Wrye | May 18, 2008 4:15 PM

Ah, yes, the impertinent, deluded unwashed masses clamoring for literacy--how dare they.

"They bash your face in and say your were always ugly."--Russian proverb, quoted in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The GULAG Archipelago.

I taught basic English for eight years in an open admissions program that James Traub hung around for the better part of a year, then wrote a mostly ignorant book about, and which Rudy Giuliani then spent much of his first mayoral term trying to gut and trash, to fairly effective result.

It was the best, most soulfully rewarding job I ever had. Since he's so miserable with his fairly similar portfolio, I would firmly suggest that Professor X find a new gig, and that we then pursue the multitude of cryingly urgent remedies suggested by MY and others here.

Posted by elle loco | May 18, 2008 4:24 PM

You can be a great accountant, programmer, nurse or doctor who can't write prose at all. English 101 isn't really a test of basic competence. Composition is tough skill. It's a mistake to think anyone who can't write is retarded.

True, but you'll often be far more successful in those fields if you can write-- constructing a good resume, arguing a case for an important corporate policy, etc. all require basic writing skills.

Reality Man, PT/OT requires several years of college.

Posted by Persia | May 18, 2008 4:26 PM

Matt,

You're just wielding Occam's Butterknife.

You should refrain from commenting on topics where you know what the true explanation is but also know you can't mention it in public.

There's a world of topics out there, so why not just avoid the ones where you can't be honest?

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 18, 2008 4:27 PM

" The fact that many European countries now have a higher proportion of people graduating from college"

isn't a fact. As far as I can tell, it is true only for Norway.

Our high schools aren't all that bad. We have twice as high a fraction of the population with an IQ in the 80s as you see in Europe: that's hardly the fault of the high schools. That's the problem - that and the fact that Harvard philosophy graduates can't count.

Posted by gcochran | May 18, 2008 4:27 PM

Everyone should have the chance to go to college. I don't care what the self serving people here say, they are merely trying to preserve their own class privileges by ensuring that their children always have that opportunity while excluding other peoples children from having the same. They do that so they can make sure their children succeed without having to compete for that success.
They don't want freedom. They don't want competition. They want a rigged system where their children are not allowed to fail, and the children of most Americans are not allowed to succeed. They can dress it up however they like, but they are terrified of a world where people rise and fall according to their own abilities rather than the class they were born into.

Posted by soullite | May 18, 2008 4:29 PM

Basically, All Americans should be able to compete on an equal playing field, rather than a playing field where some can afford to go to college and others can't because of how well their parents did. That is not freedom, and that is not how you construct a democracy. Thats how you create a caste system. I don't care if there aren't enough jobs for all graduates, it will force everyone to compete for those jobs and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to have a real future. Thats whats best for America, thats whats best for Americans, and thats whats best for the world. The only people it's not best for are the upper-class who get to watch even their dullard children go on to rich, successful lives.

Posted by soullite | May 18, 2008 4:34 PM

Re cube's comment "As an earlier poster makes clear, education is more than job training, although that is very important. It is also education for citizenship "
--------------
ha ha ha ha. You guys crack me up.

1) About 8 months ago, a poster here made an excellent point: That most Americans today are like farm animals -- they eat, shit, sleep and fuck. Why annoy a herd with the stupid-shit College Curriculum?

So that they can become acquainted with the 3000 year old Great Conversation of Western Civilization?

2) DUDE, if people have been talking about something for 3000 years and STILL haven't reached any conclusions, then they are Retards.
Duh. Why waste my time?

3) Besides, If I ever need to cram for any of that shit, I can just read "The Five Minute Iliad and Other Instant Classics: Great Books for the Short Attention Span". See http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&ISBN=9780684867670&ourl=The%2DFive%2DMinute%2DIliad%2DOther%2DInstant%2DClassics%2FGreg%2DNagan

4) Hey, Everyone knows that Politics is a Rich Man's Game. Even the stupid shit NY Times caught on -- about two years ago, the Times published a story in which they noted that about 100 wealthy donors have come to regard the Democratic Party as their private club.

5) Price of admission is a $200,000 campaign check, Dude. And you're not likely to raise that kind of money wasting $160,000 and 4 years of your life listening to some TA from India drone on about Chaucer. Just ask Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison,etc.

Posted by Don Williams | May 18, 2008 4:41 PM

Re Deborah's comment "But the idea that it's a good idea to take on $20,000--or $200,000--in debt just to learn how to think is clearly wrongheaded "
------------
WELL, it IS an EDUCATION. Of a sort. hee hee

But it would be MUCH cheaper to read David Maurer's "The BIG CON"
See http://www.mindjack.com/books/bigcon.html

Posted by Don Williams | May 18, 2008 4:50 PM

As someone who works as TA in history classes that are general education requirements and writing requirements, let me say that I do face a lot of students who aren't ready for college and maybe would be happier somewhere else. I also believe in college for all.

However, "college for all" doesn't necessarily mean that "everyone should go to college." It can also mean "everyone should be able to go to college," which is a different issue, more about equality of access and issues of costs.

Moreover, a lot of really weak students do eventually get there in terms of skills and ability - it might take them eight years instead of four, but they get there. So why deny them outright?

In terms of jobs not needing college, I think what people are missing is that the world of vocational education and the world of college are beginning to merge at the level of the community college, the technical college, and the business college. Increasingly, for skilled positions in the service sector (think medical technicians and the like) or the high tech sector (think computer and programming skills, etc). Take a look at ads for colleges on buses and subways - most of them aren't promoting the classic "liberal education," they're saying "go to college to get X skills so that you can get Y job."

Posted by StevenAttewell | May 18, 2008 4:52 PM

I favor the proliferation of Fachhochschulen, a careful reexamination of the ideal of a liberal arts education, and measures to boost teacher quality in K-12 schools. As for IQ fundamentalists and racialist simpletons, I prefer to ignore them.

Posted by pedro | May 18, 2008 4:53 PM

If I remember my non-college-acquired American history correctly, even the majority of white, male property owners allowed to vote at the time of the founding of the country didn't attend college and the founders didn't seem to find that a problem.

---------------------------------------------

The Founders did have a problem with the common people voting, so they instituted property qualifications and age qualifications in order to vote (and hold office in some cases). The Founders were wrong about that, as they were wrong about a lot of other things. Hence, the movement toward universal manhood suffrage for white men would take another 40-50 years.

On the other hand, the Founders also had a strong belief in the power of the free press to produce the necessary education among the electorate, or at least some of them did.

Posted by StevenAttewell | May 18, 2008 5:02 PM

When banks were throwing money at any liar with 2 minutes to spare to buy a house, and house prices skyrocketed, we called it a bubble and suffered the consequences.

When the feds throw loans at any idiot with 2 years to spare to go to college, and tuition skyrockets, why not call it a bubble? When will the consequences bring everything down?

Posted by Brendan | May 18, 2008 5:07 PM

There are people in this world that, no matter how much quality instruction you provide, simply will never achieve a basic level of literacy, let alone be able to complete a four-year degree. Many of them suffer from various kinds of cognitive and learning disorders that modern Neuroscience cannot yet reliably diagnose or explain.

The technical term for these various disorders is "stupid". Society would be far better off if we identified the dumber students in 7th or 8th grade and nudged them toward careers as truck drivers, garbagemen, and such. Instead, we pretend everyone is going to college, the dumb kids drop out and end up in jail.

I remember a scene from The Program where one of the players is dissed by university officials for pursuing a degree in Swimming Pool Management. I laughed at the time, but society needs swimming pool managers.

Posted by matt foley | May 18, 2008 5:07 PM

Professor X sounds like a lost member of Public Enemy...sort of half Professor Griff and half Terminator X.

Posted by EdTheRed | May 18, 2008 5:08 PM

I meant to bold "The Program" in that last post. Damn lack of editing capabilites.

Posted by matt foley | May 18, 2008 5:12 PM

Re soulite's comment "Everyone should have the chance to go to college. I don't care what the self serving people here say, they are merely trying to preserve their own class privileges by ensuring that their children always have that opportunity while excluding other peoples children from having the same....They do that so they can make sure their children succeed without having to compete for that success.
They don't want freedom. They don't want competition. They want a rigged system where their children are not allowed to fail, and the children of most Americans are not allowed to succeed. They can dress it up however they like, but they are terrified of a world where people rise and fall according to their own abilities rather than the class they were born into."

-----------------
Ah, but you fail to see HOW the Rich protect their class, soulite.

Clayton Christensen at Harvard Business , in his book "The Innovator's Dilemma" noted how large, established corporations are destroyed over time by emerging startups --and why.

It's very hard for a Fortune 500 corporation to keep from declining over a 20 year timeframe -- because the very changes they need to make to compete with emerging competitors would undermine the source of their profits today. Plus it's a lot easier for a small company to double it's profits --and its stock value -- than it is for someone like General Electric. Investors know that.

So the way the Rich maintain their class is via the mechanisms Thorstein Veblen noted. They force the Middle Class to compete with them in hugely expensive, extremely wasteful, unprofitable and impractical activities. Used to be ocean sailboats, society balls, and race horses. Nowdays, it's Ivy League educations.

Because if you were frightened by the idea that smart kids like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell,etc might threaten your wealth, the best way to deal with those youthful, vigourous competitors would be to sucker them into wasting 4 years of their life --and $160,000 -- on a useless activity. Say, any one of several college majors.

Mentally, people have a hard time accepting that they have been suckered into a disaster -- that they have spent so much for a worthless piece of paper. So they try to recover something from their "investment" -- plus they have those loans to pay off.

So they are easily steered into one of your corporate rat races. Which means they are doomed -- they will spend the rest of their lives working their asses off making money for you in hopes of "promotion" -- and for a job from which they can be fired at any time on your whim.

You would think that colleges would prepare their students to be more independent, stronger, and self sufficient. Until you looked into WHO gives colleges their grants, endowments,etc. Into WHO actually gives college degrees their small semblance of value.

Just as you would think the News Media would do a better job of informing the Common Citizen -- until you looked into WHO gives the media elites their money.

Into WHO decides Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are intelligent commenters worthy of national microphones.

It's all a play. A Kubuki dance. One that Socrates -- a true educator -- warned you of over 2500 years ago. Shadows on a cave wall. Or on the flickering screen of a Fox News broadcast.

Posted by Don Williams | May 18, 2008 5:21 PM

If colleges really EDUCATE people, then why are so many college graduates IGNORANT of the important things?

Including those of us here (I include myself) who have college degrees.

Posted by Don Williams | May 18, 2008 5:26 PM

Re: Those jobs are in large part gone,

Repair shop jobs still abound. Like construction and extraction, repair must be done locally and can't be outsourced.

Re: The Founders did have a problem with the common people voting, so they instituted property qualifications and age qualifications in order to vote

Nonsense. They inherited those restrictions from English rule. Property qualifications weren't eliminated at the outset because voting was seen as something that the states had the sole right to regulate, but the Founders and the generation after them worked to get rid of those restrictions at the state level. Vermont dropped its restrictions when it became the 14th state in the 1790s, and most other states followed suit over the next generation.

Posted by JonF | May 18, 2008 5:29 PM

Tuition is the money-maker in higher ed, for everyone that's not Harvard.

This is false, as anyone who actually works in higher ed can tell you. Most schools run tuition at a loss, especially once you factor in the "discount rate" (e.g. scholarships given to students as financial aid in order to get them to attend, where these scholarships are not funded by external money). They make up for this loss with endowment expenditures.

Schools with no (or negligible) endowments that live and die off of tuition are usually one accreditation review away from probation. The fear is that being that dependent on tuition alone may affect your academic mission, such as refusing to fail students because you cannot afford the tuition loss. Indeed, there is ample evidence of this happening for some colleges.

The big schools, the NSF R1s, make their real money from grants. When I apply for a grant, the university gets a >50% cut called "overhead". This is to pay for my office space, electricity usage, computer support, office supplies and so on. Stuff that I would get for free if I did not have a grant. This has been negotiated with the major grant-bestowing organizations and is accepted practice.

Teaching-centered schools that are not grant competitive fall in two categories. Either (1) they have a sizable endowment and so are able to function well because of that or (2) they have minimal endowment and are generally always on the verge of bankruptcy. I worked at one of the schools in the (2) category for a while and it really opened my eyes on just how financially-strapped a lot of small liberal arts schools are in this country. After this echo-boom of students dies down (the peak of the echo boom for college enrollments was the past three years), you are going to see a lot of small colleges in this country go bankrupt and shut their doors.

Posted by Walker | May 18, 2008 5:33 PM

Re JonF's comment "the Founders and the generation after them worked to get rid of those restrictions at the state level."
--------------
It took about 50 years after the Founding to get universal suffage for White MALES. White FEMALES didn't get the vote until almost 140 years later.

As a practical matter, Black Males and Females didn't get the vote until almost 180 years after the Founding.

Plus there is STILL no RIGHT to vote enshined in the Constitution. IF the Republicans in Richmond Virginia got enough votes, they could pass a law saying you have to have a net worth of $5 Million to vote in Virginia -- and Scalia plus Thomas would uphold it.

You'll notice that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison palmed those cards in the Federalist. Along with a lot of other things.

Posted by Don Williams | May 18, 2008 5:38 PM

Here is the nub of the matter:

The growth in the wage premium associated with a college degree

Sad to say, it seems that it is part of the American character to sneer at education. Notice that the above says nothing about a college education, only a college degree.

And that is the problem: it is the parents who don't teach their kids the value of learning, it is the parents who oppose any standards set up by teachers, it is the parents who put pressure on educators to pass their child, 'because he needs to get into a good college', it is the parents who do not involve themselves in their children's education. It is the parents who don't check their kids homework, and it is the parents who complain about their kids being failed because they are cheating.

If the public were really serious about improving schools, they'd give teachers the authority to dismiss disruptive or disrespectful students. They would allow teachers to give real grades, not a B+ for C- work. They would allow teachers the option to cheerfully flunk those who cheat or don't turn in their work. If the public were really serious about 'the value of education', they'd be on their kids to do well, and would be checking up on how they are doing with homework and other academic projects. And finally, if the public really thought that education was 'important', teachers would be getting a lot more respect as a profession, as well as more money.

That's not going to happen, of course, because it's a cultural thing, and not something that can be fixed with legislation.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 18, 2008 5:38 PM

If we faced the problem of peak oil with the same unflinching realism as we see here aimed at the problems of American education - we could relax, knowing that gasoline pills and perpetual motion machines would soon come to our rescue.

Posted by gcochran | May 18, 2008 5:52 PM

You can be a great accountant, programmer, nurse or doctor who can't write prose at all.

I've worked in software all my life. Programmer's who can't write usually produce code that is poorly documented, difficult to maintain, and may not necessarily follow the written requirements and specifications (as reading often goes hand in hand with writing). Some may be brilliant at coding, but a real software engineer needs to be able to do much, much more to be truly valuable.

Posted by LFC | May 18, 2008 5:55 PM

Steve Sailer:
You should refrain from commenting on topics where you know what the true explanation is but also know you can't mention it in public.

Oh Steve, you've got us figured out. We all secretly agree with you but we're just too afraid to admit it. How about we all think you're a racist pile of shit, but we're just too polite to say it?

Posted by Adam Villani | May 18, 2008 6:03 PM

Matt,

You're just wielding Occam's Butterknife.

You should refrain from commenting on topics where you know what the true explanation is but also know you can't mention it in public.

Go to hell Sailer, if you really believe that every forty year old who can't compose a paragraph is black, you need to meet more white forty year olds.

Posted by jumper | May 18, 2008 6:20 PM

I have worked for 16 years teaching developmental mathematics (prealgebra, algebra I, algebra II) to college students at a 4 year state college. I am full-time, have a master's degree, and make $32,000 a year. I'm not in it for the money, obviously. Professor X is in a tough situation because his students evidently cannot devote the time needed to learn to write, his school does not have a course lower than English 101 for those students who cannot write a paragraph, and his students cannot get extra help from a writing center. Appropriate placement, additional tutoring services, and career counseling is essential for college students, especially part-time students who are not part of the mainstream of campus life. He also is an adjunct who does not interact with other faculty. He gets no support or guidance to do this very difficult work.

IF my students can devote the time to school, they usually can raise their skills in mathematics (and English for that matter) to an entry college/vocational school level. The problem is that they work a lot and have other responsibilities. Compounding this situation, they often read slowly and have difficulty memorizing. Some of them have significant learning disabilities or mental health issues. It takes more than four years for them to get a degree because they begin way behind the starting line. They often run out of financial aid.

Rather than ranting and raving about academia, the productive thing might be to contact your representatives in government and lobby for more Pell Grants and for students to get Pell grants for more semesters. When your local legislature is in session, encourage them to hire more full-time faculty rather than adjuncts, particularly to teach this group of students and to pay faculty at community colleges and technical schools a decent salary. When your niece wants to go to a vo-tech school to become a welder and your sister wants her to go to college, support your niece. Lobby your local school board to require more years of math and science in high school. Organize parents to support high standards in your school district. Encourage your employer to invest in internships. Help your children develop a strong work ethic and respect for all fields of work, not just those that require college degrees.

At graduation this past week, I watched many of my former students walk the stage to get their degrees. They will be teachers, social workers, probation officers, nurses, substance abuse counselors, sales people, daycare operators, and small business owners. I hope that their student loans do not crush their futures.

Posted by Laura | May 18, 2008 6:26 PM

When you morons get a clue as to what constitutes appropriate methods of human learning, I might pay attention to these lame posts of Matt's about "education" - a subject about which he knows absolutely nothing (thus joining numerous other subjects about which he knows nothing, since he got a philosophy degree from Harvard.)

Anybody who can get through the entire educational system of the US, to a top level "educational institution" like Harvard, and come out with only a philosophy degree and an inability to spell or speak properly has no business commenting on that education system.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 18, 2008 6:28 PM

The issue begs a larger question: What is college for?

If it is to ensure higher earnings, then sending everyone to college is a fool's errand. If everyone has a college degree, then the premium associated with graduating college becomes zero.

The college premium, BTW, is largely constructed by HR departments who routinely use graduate and post-graduate degrees as a proxy for quality, and routinely downplay the value of experience and common sense, which requires them to actually make judgements and thus put their jobs at risk.

Our nation's first MBA president is proof that even graduate degrees have no relationship to ability.

But if college is to enrich the knowledge of our citizens, then everyone should be encouraged to go, to broaden their horizons and learn how to think, not just how to regurgitate the answers that pass tests.

Posted by west coast | May 18, 2008 6:29 PM

Anyone have info that the "college premium" varies depending on the college one attends, or is it the same for graduates of Harvard, Yale and Princeton as it is for graduates of Humbolt State?

Posted by west coast | May 18, 2008 6:39 PM

"The fact that many European countries now have a higher proportion of people graduating from college also suggests the same to me."

Really? Which ones? Because I have never seen that statistic and would be really surprised if it were true--since on the continent there is a heavier emphasis on technical training, with which I definitely agree.
Posted by David | May 18, 2008 2:41 PM

* * *
" The fact that many European countries now have a higher proportion of people graduating from college"

isn't a fact. As far as I can tell, it is true only for Norway.

Our high schools aren't all that bad. We have twice as high a fraction of the population with an IQ in the 80s as you see in Europe: that's hardly the fault of the high schools. That's the problem - that and the fact that Harvard philosophy graduates can't count.

Posted by gcochran | May 18, 2008 4:27 PM

MY made this same assertion a couple of days ago and I questioned it then, asking if he could perhaps furnish some evidence. France has about 25% of its 18-24 years olds in higher education and about 19% complete the course eventually. Germany's percentage is lower. England's is a lot higher, around 37%, but not higher than the US, as far as I can tell. In the US, 43 percent of females and 35% of males in the 18-24 age group are in college. I haven't looked at every European country but suspect that is just an idea that MY got stuck in his head and won't give up. (From Library of Congress Federal Research Service Division country profiles.

Also, the vaunted "college premium" is pretty damn unimpressive, with wages of recent male graduates at $21.07 and of female graduates at $18.17 per hour.

The notion that sending everyone to college is going to undo the effects of globalization of the work force, like the notion that all the displaced manufacturing workers need is some retraining for the 21st century workplace, is based on fantasy.

Posted by gordonminor | May 18, 2008 7:56 PM

The setup at Harvard Extension should be the model for all adult degree programs. You can't apply for admission to the program until you have gotten at least a B- in three courses. One of them has to be Academic Writing (you need a C- or better in that). You have to take a placement test for the writing class, and there are three writing classes below the level of the one you have to pass.

It spares people from getting in and flunking out immediately - and the emotional and financial toll. Taking people's tuition money for courses they don't have the skills for is just wrong. Especially when a placement test could easily weed them out.

My main complaint about the American education system is that every level of it is designed independently. All through school, you would show up in tenth grade, and the English teacher would complain that you should have learned sentence diagramming in middle school. Whatever a teacher didn't want to cover you should have already learned, or would be covered in coming years. The gap between what middle of the road high school students learn and second tier colleges expect is large.

Posted by Mo | May 18, 2008 8:05 PM

they often read slowly and have difficulty memorizing. Some of them have significant learning disabilities or mental health issues. ... They will be teachers, social workers, probation officers, nurses, substance abuse counselors, sales people, daycare operators, and small business owners.

Is this not precisely the problem?

A lot of people mention how there should be more vocational programs. Vo-tech programs were not eliminated because we thought it would be nice to put everyone on the college-prep track. They were eliminated because they were expensive, and they served communities who were least likely to agitate for more school funding.

My calculus class in high school required the expense of 20 desks, a teacher, and a 20 textbooks. An HVAC-repair class requires a much larger capital investment with a teacher who is just as well-trained and experienced as my calc teacher (one of the finest) was.

Posted by Tyro | May 18, 2008 9:18 PM

Just to finish