Higher education is currently under assault in America. Even in the recent past you could count on bi-partisan support of systems of higher education that have long been considered the foundation of American prosperity. We used to think that a robust system of public education was the wellspring of social innovation and scientific invention.
Recent debate in the public sphere, however, has questioned these previously taken for granted assumptions about higher education in America. Indeed, powerful politicians and influential pundits are making suggestions that could undermine higher education, especially public higher education, for years to come.
Consider the views of presumptive GOP presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney. Given his vantage as one of the super-rich, Mr. Romney seems to be ignorant of the financial hurdles that the vast majority of college and university students must negotiate to get a decent education. Until recently he, like the conservative base of the GOP, supported doubling the interest rates on student loans. As for the loans themselves: no problem.
In an unguarded, unscripted moment he told one student that no one was going to just give her money she needed. What she needed to do was take advantage of the competitive market and shop around for the best loan rate. In response to another such question, he advised students to find a less expensive college, borrow money from their parents, or start a business.
This kind of Scrooge-like advice is, to put it simply, insulting to the families of the hard-working students that I teach. What's more, these insensitive comments stigmatize public university students. At my university, the students usually don't come from wealthy households in which floating the kids a college or business loan is "no problem." Many of my students work two or sometimes three jobs to support themselves as they take a full load of courses. Because of their financial circumstances, which are, in large measure, shaped by their social class position, they are forced to incur a mounting load of debt from banks interested less in the prospect of their professional future and more in the return on a financial investment. Such an environment is undermining American social mobility and making us even more cynical of rags to riches myths.
In Mr. Romney's view, society -- which he often conflates with government -- should not make investments in our young people. Young people, Mr. Romney's unguarded comments seem to suggest, should be on their own. Such thinking is a fundamental tenant of GOP and Tea Party orthodoxy.
Mr. Romney's orientation has not only flooded the discourse of Talk Radio, but has even seeped into the pages of The New York Times. In his April 28 "Sunday Review" column, "The Imperiled Promise of College," NYT columnist Frank Bruni ponders the "usefulness" of undergraduate education. Citing Associated Press data of 2011, he laments the "fact" that
53.6 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 were unemployed, or, if they were lucky, merely underemployed, which means they were in jobs for which their degrees weren't necessary. Philosophy majors mull questions no more existential than the proper billowiness of the foamed milk atop a customer's cappuccino. Anthropology majors contemplate the tribal behavior of the youngsters who shop at Zara where they peddle skinny jeans.
Beyond the demonstration of his ignorance of things philosophical or anthropological, Mr. Bruni's somewhat sneering attitude toward anthropology, philosophy, zoology, art history and all of the humanities, unveils an anti-intellectual utilitarianism that is far more sinister than Mr. Romney's awkward insensitivity to economic struggle.
Mr. Bruni seems to suggest that you should go to college to acquire job skills that will give you a competitive edge in an increasingly skill-focused job market. In short, he is suggesting that we use student aid, if such a thing would exist in a Romney Administration, to push students toward math and science education. There's nothing wrong with that idea. Math and science students deserve our support. But does that mean that we should abandon the study of philosophy, the history of art, or the analysis of society and culture?
Is public higher education a place for skill acquisition or is it space for teaching young people how to think? If we move toward the former -- following the short-sighted lead of politicians like Rick Scott or Mitt Romney or perhaps the ideas of pundits like Frank Bruni -- we will produce a highly skilled population of workers who, like automatons, will follow a complex set of instructions, but won't know how to connect those instructions to a broader technological or social context. By contrast, if we train young people in creative thinking, which, by the way, is not limited to humanities and social sciences, we will produce educated citizens who will know how to think, innovate and invent. Without such a fundamental long-term investment, our anachronistic and unimaginative economy will continue to fade away, which means there will be few, if any jobs or anyone.
Follow Paul Stoller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stol1
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Charles Darwin, Hugh Hefner and High Quality Science Education
Jennifer Mishory and Nicholas Kelly: Why the Student Loan Interest Rate Debate Matters
As someone who has live in college towns since 1987, I can tell you that in this day and age, higher education is doing neither while misrepresenting (purposely or not) a graduates job chances and saddling them with decades of debt.
Let's wage war on corporate fraud, and waste.
let's wage war on the support of questionable regimes.
Let's wage war on selfish consumerism.
Let's wage war on debt.
Result: destruction of some of the last remaining lucrative industries left in this country. There's your problem: our own complacency.
They are something that our children should be exposed to from the very beginning of education. More importantly it is a parents responsibility to expose our children to ideas as well as a schools.
The very fact that we have so many under employed people exposes the fallacy of our current system. It is built on the false premise of college for all. Until we recognize that not all are suited or interested in college we will continue to waste not only money, but also, the future of those who are truly suited and interested in higher education.
This brings us to what the main question presented is.
Is the purpose of education job training or thought training.
I would submit that the basic foundation is job training. Without such an underpinning the rest becomes moot because we have no economic base to support the rest.
Further I would contend that we need to examine what we are doing. We need to redirect our limited resources into directions that meet the needs of children who are approaching the work cycle of their lives. This means that instead of the ever increasing emphasis of college for all we recognize the need for mechanics, plumbers, electricians, and just plain button pushers. In doing so we will free up huge sums of money for those who are inclined to the sciences, the professions, and other positions that require a long and intensive stint of book training.
The critical thinking skills that we relish??
The very use of the phrase, "work cycle" would be anathema to someone like a Romney, so why should it be applied to the "working class" as if that is all they will ever be? It connotes a cold cynicism about what is possible for a child in America, as if only the very wealthy have any business getting an appreciation for history, art, music or other wonders of human achievement..
It is not possible to force feed skills. It is also a waste of resource and time to try with adults.
No, Romney would not be content to stand still. That is has as much to do with his inner drive as it does with his winning the genetic lottery (although as a lottery winner he surely has a leg up).
I am simply saying that the majority of jobs will for the foreseeable future be work that requires little more education than the work of 40 years ago.
In those cases that more is needed we train for it however is best. We are not currently doing so and in the process are wasting an awful lot of both money and attention.
The exposure to the "arts" and wonder should be done at early ages. Those inclined to chase them can do so. It is time to face up to the fact that a significant number are not so inclined. They should not be made out as second class and force fed.
01. The current American philosophy of every child to college is flawed. Not every child is suitable for college. Many lack either the talent, the ambition, or the inclination to continue school. Yet we refuse to recognize this and insist, at the behest of the education industry to force these round pegs into the square hole.
02. We have, once again at the behest of the education system, reached a point where a paper with alphabet has become a standard underpinning for most jobs. This dreadful state of affair extends to jobs that in essence require little more than an ability to read and write. We bemoan the loss of production jobs yet fail to understand that these jobs require little more than a middle school educational level coupled with some specific employer led training and common sense.
03. We are sold an all encompassing philosophy that a liberal arts education is the keystone to a thriving society. That such an education must be universal regardless of a child's input.
All of these underpinnings, and others related to them, are simply false.
Continued
2.We have "production jobs" in America that cannot be filled right now because we lack a sufficiently educated workforce. American employers are having work that cannot be done because modern "production jobs" often require more than button pushing. They are willing to do on the job training but need a basic set of skills - those that should be encouraged in high school as well as post secondary education.
Look at the military. A high school education is required, with some college preferable, because the equipment and operations have become so complex. There has to be a basic level of education that an employer can build upon. In an ever increasingly complex world "Just" a High School education is not going to cut it. Check out the salary of teachers relative to those of similarly important careers. The teacher is among the lowest paid, right there with police officers and yet, our society cannot operate without them.
3. A liberal arts education starts in grade school.
I posit that your argument has some merit as it regards the validity of technical school training but your argument that the philosophy of a liberal arts education is not relevant is misleading.
1 -- Technical / Vocational education can and should be taught at a high school level .. It is not growing and is in fact being restricted at that level. The proliferation of post high school courses is the response to that fact, are too costly, and IMO simply an extension of the over feeding of the system. The majority of positions have a path to higher earnings via job performance.
2 -- "We have "production jobs" in America that cannot be filled right now because we lack a sufficiently educated workforce"
We do indeed. That is a failure of our schools at the Middle - High School Level however. The basic skill sets should be well established by grade 12. They are not. In the past I have volunteered as a tutor / mentor at the local Community College. I am / was aghast at the quantity of children who needed remedial help for even the most basic 101 courses. The problem is so severe that a whole series of 099 coursework was developed that was little more than 10 - 12 grade course work.
Cont
While equipment is indeed complex the production worker is not required to "fix" it, simply to make adjustments that require an ability to read and follow instruction.
I own a high tech manufacturing business. We long ago stopped requiring or even inquiring about education background to fill the majority of positions. We simply give tests measuring -- reading comprehension, attention to detail, math and dexterity.
We do a post hire interview that includes education details and have tracked hiring results for several years.
6% of hires had not graduated High School -- 78% are still here
37% Graduated High School or have GED ----- 71% are still here
26% have some college --- 64% are still here
14% Graduated from Community College 64% are still here
17% Graduated from 4 Year Schools 37% are still here
During the same time period 90% of our promotions have been internal ... 71% of them filled by hard working, detail oriented, job trained NON college graduates.
In addition, production output is approx 11% higher from the first two groups above than the it is from the last two groups above. (Please note I am nearly annal when it comes to tracking statistics)
The basics of Liberal Arts should indeed be in place by the end
regressive when there is public espousing from the right
National curriculum standards should be set in accord with the 4 Civic Virtues of ancient Greek democracy: Wisdom, Courage, Justice and Temperance. Those 4 virtues are without religious baggage and yet they contain all the values necessary for free people to rule themselves