No Time to Back Away from Access to Higher Ed

Charles Murray's op-ed piece in Saturday's New York TImes has a core idea that is unobjectionable: job credentials should be based on what you can do and not where you went to school. This appeals to a core democratic value: success should be based on merit rather than identity or family background. We want to promote excellence, and we want to do so on the basis of equality not pedigree. But the Harvard and MIT educated Murray goes beyond this in arguing that most people just could never do "genuine" college level work.

"For most of the nation's youths, making the bachelor's degree a job qualification means
demanding a credential that is beyond their reach. It is a truth that politicians and
educators cannot bring themselves to say out loud: A large majority of young people do
not have the intellectual ability to do genuine college-level work.

If you doubt it, go back and look through your old college textbooks, and then do a little
homework on the reading ability of high school seniors. About 10 percent to 20 percent of
all 18-year-olds can absorb the material in your old liberal arts textbooks. For engineering
and the hard sciences, the percentage is probably not as high as 10.

No improvements in primary and secondary education will do more than tweak those
percentages. The core disciplines taught at a true college level are tough, requiring high
levels of linguistic and logical-mathematical ability. Those abilities are no more malleable
than athletic or musical talent."

While Barack Obama is calling for more investment in higher education, including support for community colleges that provide wide access to post-secondary learning, Dr. Murray would have us return to the days when colleges and universities were either finishing schools for the rich or hot houses for the cultivation of only the 'real geniuses.'

Dr. Murray's analogy to athletic or musical talent is telling, but not in the way that he intends. Sure, most of our nation's youth will never be able to shoot a basketball like Ray Allen or throw a football like the Manning brothers. But does this mean we should make sports participation available only to those who have the potential to play at the professional level? Would Dr. Murray say, since musical talent isn't evenly distributed across the population and most will never play and instrument like Winton Marsalis, that we should give up on getting people to participate in choirs, bands and orchestras?

One of the great virtues of America's universities and colleges is that they provide educational opportunities to those who want to appreciate and understand works of art, technology and science, as well as to people who will go on to advance these fields with their own original work. Universities and colleges offer students an opportunity to acquire literacy concerning the sciences and economics, to develop a framework for understanding literature and politics. The multiple modes of access to higher education must be preserved and enhanced. I work at one of the highly selective universities that is expensive but that also has enough financial aid to make it possible for talented students to attend - regardless of their ability to pay. I've also taught at a large public university with huge lecture halls, and a small private art college where one learns by making. Giving Americans a multiplicity of higher education opportunities helps to create a more informed citizenry and a culture and economy more capable of thoughtful innovation. From the community colleges across the country to the large land grant universities, from the state universities to the residential liberal art schools, American institutions of higher education provide access to learning and promote achievement at the highest levels.

This is exactly the wrong time to give up on the goal of access to a college education that combines breadth with focused competence. But in order to make this goal a reality we will have to do a much better job of making secondary education meaningful for more of our young people. We will have to ensure that they acquire basic math, science, and reading skills, as well as inspiring in them a taste for cultural participation. That is a tall order, but it is a challenge worthy of our ambitions for equality as well as for excellence.

Comments

[saibotchilizm]

The current focus on cross-country standardization has contributed heavily to the erosion of our secondary education system. This includes a religious devotion to standardized tests, but also such things as regularized curriculum.

It is a flawed assumption that every child will be able to learn material in an identical, government-prescribed fashion. There should be a much greater focus on individual learning.

There should be many forms of alternative education supported by the public education system. Other successful education models include homeschooling, Waldorf, etc. These will work for some students, but not all; students and their parents should be able to attend the type of schooling that suits them best.

Right now much of this variety exists for private schools, but no one can afford that. Public education needs to emphasize that type of variety, so anyone can attend

Let's have some imagination and creativity in the way we teach our kids, and not just stuff them all into stifling classroom situations, and then have their intelligence judged by flawed standardized tests.

[pm247]

Doing away with all standards is how the schools (and society in general) have sunk to where they are. There is a basic core of knowledge that every child should be taught. The tests are for holding teachers accountable, not for judging the kids.

Since teachers don't want to be held accountable, and seem to feel that kids are unteachable, let's say adios to teachers and let students learn at their own pace with interactive computer programs. This would cut the dropout rate, save billions of dollars, and it would be more effective than daydreaming in a classroom.

[saibotchilizm]

I agree that there is a core of knowledge that all Americans should have the privilege to learn. My beef has to do with how we go about teaching that core, and how little flexibility is provided for students to learn beyond that core of knowledge.

In the present system, students are supposed to learn everything in the same fashion at the same age. This is a recipe of disaster for many kids. Think ADHD is a new epidemic? It often has more to do with labeling those who can't learn well in a classroom environment, rather than any meaningful syndrome. I have seen bright kids in this situation get demolished by boring classrooms and stifling teachers. If there was any flexibility in the system, they would never have had a problem.

[Aaror]

Now for a counter point...
The best and brightest high school students are harrassed and pushed down in service to the "equality ideal." Don't know what I am talking about? What are the three first insults students throw (other than sexual slurs), bet you came up with geek, dweeb, nerd, or spaz. All refer to those kids who do well in class, raise their hands, do their homework, etc.
If you isolate those students from the general population, they will do a lot better, and the US will tap a valuable resource we have been plowing back into the ground. Note that this is something to do in the high school, or even jr high level, not at college, but you will have smarter kids in college to help everyone else there.

[TopProf]

Murray has been around a long time pushing one agenda and pretending that it's based on science. Like all neocons, he's out to kill the public sector. If higher education is reserved for the intellectual elites (by his definition) there would be much less public higher education and rich people could keep their tax money. He made similar arguments decades ago about public income supports. His arguments about education are unrepentant IQ nativism, which has been shown repeatedly to be scientifically incorrect and morally indefensible. High schools and colleges should be providing more and better opportunities, not fewer.

[formerprosecutor]

Here is a list of subjects from my public high school curricculum ( regular high school in Tulsa Oklahoma)
Physiology
Latin
American Literature
Ancient and Medieval History
Chemistry
Microbiology
American Government
Oklahoma History
Comparative Religion and Philosophy
English Grammar
Business
Thirty years later, my son's high school only offered Chemistry and Literature. And both those were a joke; reading Harry Potter instead of Twain, making stink bombs instead of learning the periodic table.
There can be no doubt that High School has been dumbed down. I collect old textbooks, from the early 20th century. Those textbooks, from high schools then, are much more rigorous and advanced that my high school era. But, back then, high school was big deal; few made it that far. We need to pay our teachers their value and recruit from the top minds. We also need to quit turning our teachers into "babysitters". The first thing I would eliminate is that stupid "study hall" /"independent study" ; a waste of school time. "A's" should be rare; and kindergarten is the place to start the no nonsense standards. The word "requirement" should be literal and enforced. I do want "free" college (by some means) but only to those that show the dedication to learning and the discipline to succeed.

[Aaror]

Under "no child left behind," schools can't afford to teach such optional subjects as Microbiology or Business, the kids have to pass the standardized tests!
Of course "no child left behind," was written by math experts who expect all children to be above average by 2028. Think about that for a second, 100% of students must score above the 50th percentile-is that scary or what? Thank you Laura Bush!
As for kindergarten being "no nonsense," the biggest problem we have teaching math and science is that children are taught at a young age to hate school, especially math. Think about that, children, natural sponges of learning, are taught to hate school and avoid learning the single most important subject in a high tech world. The original reason for kindergarden (literally garder for children) was to teach children to like school and learning, and ease them into scholastic standards.
Did you know that students who have recess learn better than students who don't? Too bad we got rid of recess to improve test scores...

[formerprosecutor]

I am so conflicted on this subject. I do beleive that education above high school should be free, under certain circumstances. We have such a complicated and exclusionary finance system for those that are not able to pay out of pocket for higher education. Basically, there are only two venues. Veterans can obtain VA assistance. Or , one can obtain federal school loans. Except in the case of some medical professionals and teachers in some regions, there is no forgiveness for school loans. We need to create some sort of government "servitude" option, so those that wish to repay school loans , can do so through government service; federal, state or even local. Imagine the benefit to some regions , to have actually qualified people work for the stressed parts of our country. In addition, the graduate would recieve valuable experience, while still earning a modest living and eliminating that school loan that weighs so heavily as to prohibit any other financial investment (like a home) I see so much educated talent, fresh out of school or not, forced by finances (school loans a huge part of that position) to seek employment in larger cities. Cities already with a glut of talent. To spread the wealth, we need to spread the brain power.

[partyofone]

College and job ready are increasingly the same thing. Many informed estimates say that 80 percent of jobs that provide financial security (e.g. living wage, healthcare and retirement benefits) require some postsecondary education. Access is less an issue that adequate preparation of academic success in college. As many as 80 percent of entering students in urban community colleges need some form of remediation before they can begin college level study,. It is not because they are not "Intellectually capable," it is because their school years did not prepare them adequately for the future.

The Education Trust says "college begins in kindergarten," others emphasize "zero to three are the years that last a lifetime." Foscusing on improving high schools is essential, but inadequate. Early investments in developmental daycare, early childhood literacy, and reading by third grade at third grade level for ALL STUDENTS would help many more students achieve earlier on the trajectory they need to prepare for, accesss and succeed in college, and have more econcomically secure and satisfying lives.

[formerprosecutor]

You just made the argument, outlined the reasons, why the government (the people) have a compelling interest in higher education. It is in the public best interest to have an educated society, not just for the nuts and bolts of survival, but as a civilization. An educated and informed society is not eaisly led by those that don't actually have the best interest of "everyman" at heart.

[booksnmore4you]

Digg it: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Access_to_College_For_All_Must_Still_Be_Top_Obama_Priority#

[SiberianRat]

I'm a long-time higher eduction professional and very much value higher education and its preparatory role for success in life. However, I completely disagree with Murray: "A large majority of young people do not have the intellectual ability to do genuine college-level work." That's ridiculous, and I'm a living example of why it's ridiculous. Like many, I went to a mediocre high school and later went to college (and later graduate school) with my mediocre education. I had a lot of ground to make up--it wasn't because I was intellectually incapable, it was because I was a product of the nearly broken primary/secondary US education system. Sadly, my h.s. education was probably stellar compared to what many kids are getting now. As a result, some universities are dumbing down their standards and neither h.s. diplomas nor higher ed degrees are the "public guarantee" they used to be of knowledge and ability. Also, for the last 8 years, we've had an administration hostile to actual standards and intellectual development. "No Child Left Behind" is a disaster re: actual learning.

Education on all levels must be a top priority of Obama and Congress immediately. Quality and accessibility are key to our country's ability to not only maintain international competitiveness but to even maintain functionality. Roth wrote, "Giving Americans a multiplicity of higher education opportunities helps to create a more informed citizenry and a culture and economy more capable of thoughtful innovation." He's completely correct.

[darker]

Charles Murray is yet another ACADEMIC FISHING FOR MEDIA ATTENTION.
College is NOT where you train for all jobs or any job.
Everyone LEARNS on the job at work.

This is why law school graduate must APPRENTICE ON THE JOB
as "associates" before they know what the hell their law practice is all about.

Charles Murray has "an opinion" but no common sense; he is no expert.

[booksnmore4you]

At college one learns how to learn - rapidly, and at a high level.

Jobs that as yet do not even exist are thus accessible to the college educated much more so than those not.

[formerprosecutor]

Beyond "learning" is "reason"

[TopProf]

He is not an academic; he's a think tank hack.

[mlaiuppa]

Without the opportunity for higher education, plenty of "talent" might never be discovered. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Public universities should be free. K-16 education should be standard. Scholarships should be available to those with the desire and ability to go beyond to master's or even PhD.

I have two masters. I'd like to get a PhD, but have had to let go of that dream. Not because I do not have the ability, but because I cannot afford it.

"Dr." Murray is entitled to his opinion, but that is all that it is. There is no research basis for his opinion.

Our economy would be in a lot better shape if every penny invested in the bailout (and in the war) had instead been put into education. Education represents the future strength of our economy.

[Bluedrgn]

I pretty much agree with you... but I would add had that students had to be able to reach certain benchmarks in order to continue to advance... some people really aren"t capable of learning beyond a certain level... what we need to do ensure that EVERYONE regardless of race or class has access to the same opportunities. I believe there is huge untapped potential in middle and lower classes that is unachieved because higher education unaffordable to them.

Unfortunately the republican realize that an uneducated populous is more likely to buy their bull, and will do everything they can to limit equal opportunities for everyone.

[formerprosecutor]

DITTO

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

Why should public universities be free? So that people with enough aptitude to benefit from these universities are subsidized by those without. Why should someone who may spend their entire life as a gas station attendant have to pay for someone else to become a lawyer? If someone wants to grant money to those with the ability, but not the resources to attend college, that is their right. But it is inconceivable that those that may never benefit from college be forced to pay for those that will.

[booksnmore4you]

Why should public universities be free?

So that everyone can reach their highest potential and thus lift up the entire country and not be left behind by those that so function by this.

When the most possible rise that can rise we all rise. It's not just about me or you.

[MichB1]

Freedom Before Democracy? You're being ironic, right? Right? Please say "yes."

[pm247]

The computer age makes it feasible for anyone to reach their full educational potential without great expense. We need a new paradigm with the major emphasis on interactive educational computer programs. Teachers, textbooks and blackboards are obsolete, or at least should be.

[DasBoot]

Wow. It seems what Murray's saying is, "the plebs is just too stupid, so why bother with college." What an unbelievably elitist statement. If I had gone to one of today's public high schools, I might not be able to finish a real book myself.

Instead of gambling away public money in Wall Street shell games, our politicians should have invested it in education.

[formerprosecutor]

"Instead of gambling away public money in Wall Street shell games, our politicians should have invested it in education"

wouldn't that have been something; invest in people instead of paper fiction

the whole "wall street" debacle and your comment , brought to mind the guy that used all of his extra money playing the numbers, so he might win the money for his children's education

yeah, good choice