Presidential politics continues its typical dishonest and disgusting path toward what we can all look forward to -- a vote next November and an end to the misery. The latest weirdness comes courtesy of Rick Santorum who is desperately trying to distract the right wing from his occasionally pragmatic voting record in Congress. Last week he called President Obama a snob for saying that everyone should go to college. He went on to say that the reason Obama wants everyone to go to college is so that liberal professors can indoctrinate them in the president's socialist ideology.
The absence of truth in Santorum's statement is breathtaking. First, much of the president's emphasis on higher education has been directed toward sciences and technical education -- especially in two-year community colleges. Second, the president's emphasis on education has little to do with elitism and everything to do with America's economic survival. We are in an increasingly brain-based economy. Labor that used to require muscle now must have the capacity to run complex, labor-saving machinery. Even crafts increasingly utilize machines and computer-generated designs in their production processes. Santorum does no favors to anyone when he equates education with elitism.
I was thinking about Rick's ridiculous rant when I was reviewing applications to several masters programs I direct. What is notable about the applicant pool is its increasing international composition. In particular, we are seeing more and more applicants from China. Today, America's research universities are still the best in the world, and attract applicants from all over the globe. However, a generation of Santorum's ideological crusade against universities could weaken this national asset, and require our grandchildren to learn Mandarin before they could enroll in the world's top universities. That would only be the most visible impact of allowing our universities to slip. The more devastating impact would be economic.
If you examine economic progress and growth over the past century, you see constant technological invention and manufacturing innovation. Think of modern life and the modern economy without the electric grid, light bulbs, the auto, the refrigerator, the radio, the jet, TV, cable, the computer, the internet and on and on. Think of modern manufacturing without computer-controlled machinery. Think of shipping without containers and bar codes. Participation in this economy requires education. Leadership in the global economy requires constant scientific and technical invention and innovation.
An anti-educational theme by a modern presidential candidate is beyond astonishing. It's hard for me to believe that he really feels this way, and it makes me think that in the campaign to appeal to the Republican base, these guys will say just about anything their focus groups tell them might play. The problem will come if President Obama somehow manages to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory and one of these fellas actually becomes president. They might have to deliver on some of their extreme promises.
Republican primary voters are far from representative of the broad American public. Americans are not a bunch of socialist, atheist, drug addicts -- but they increasingly live in households that do not conform to 1950's stereotypes. Children are increasingly being born to single parents. More and more women work outside the home. Contraception and abortion rights are widely supported and in fact assumed as fundamental rights. Support for gay rights and gay marriage continues to grow. Much of America's population increase in the past several decades has come from immigration. American values have evolved along with America's society. We are not the same place we were fifty years ago. There is still a sense of community, charity, obligation and personal responsibility hard wired into our culture. But we are more tolerant, less violent, more health conscious, more exposed to global media. When I was growing up, being a parent was a type of status. By the time I became a parent, parenting had become a verb -- a set of actions one is responsible for taking. One of those actions is to make sure your children are educated and prepared for the world of work. The American majority does not think that you are a snob if you think everyone should be given the opportunity to go to college.
To find a contrast to Santorum's anti-intellectual approach, we need look no further than New York's City Hall. As a key element of New York's economic development strategy, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his team have worked hard to attract a new engineering school to New York. They have allocated land and $100 million in infrastructure and attracted a team led by Cornell University to build this new school. And it is not as if New York lacks engineering capacity. Cooper Union, NYU-Poly and Columbia all have excellent engineering schools. But the Mayor correctly decided that the 21st century New York City economy needed more. His goal is to foster high tech start-up companies. As someone who generated considerable wealth from his own high tech start-up, Bloomberg has a crystal clear understanding of the technical foundation of the brain-based economy.
Similarly, in Arizona, Arizona State University President Michael Crow has worked for the past decade to establish what he has termed the "New American University," a college that conducts education and research in service to economic development and other societal goals. Writing in the Washington Post this past November, Crow observed:
"The only path forward for the United States is to continue on this historical trajectory of perpetual innovation, a path forged by education. Following the Second World War, our nation emerged to lead the world in educational attainment, and from there led the way to scientific discovery, new business start-ups, new industrial sectors like biotech, pioneering military preparedness, and astonishing feats of human creativity and technological genius, like landing humans on the moon or creating an Internet economy. We are now falling from the lead on many of these indicators of success."
Crow concludes by noting the close connection between higher education and economic wealth: "In order for our nation to retain its economic competitiveness, we need to change higher education's criteria for, and measurements of, success."
As Crow indicates, educational institutions must change if they are to continue to play a key role in the nation's economy. But Santorum's attack on education is the wrong approach. I admit, working at a great research university, I am far from an objective observer. In fact, as the chief operating officer of a research institute that employs hundreds of scientists, I am as biased as one could be. But come on Rick. Pander about something else. (How about the separation of church and state?) Education is fundamental. It is the basis of wealth in the modern world. Americans understand that connection. I suspect you do too.
Follow Steven Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earthinstitute
Brian Rooney: God Wants a 10% Corporate Tax
Jonathan D. Fitzgerald: Sorry, Santorum: I Am Christian College-Educated and Liberal
Denis Lacorne: Breaking Down the Wall of Separation from JFK to Santorum and Romney
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Santorum took back his earlier notes regarding education , however the later candidate -Mitt Romney- blamed EPA and environmental impact studies for slowing growth of the U.S. economy!,
In this progam he was talking about hurdles in the economy of the USA, specifically regarding businesses and entrepreneurs, he said that one of the problems we have that there are too many of bureaucrats in Washington and they lived there so long they and they are trying to do so many things to make America better. He pointed to the interstate highway system, and that it could not be built today because the EPA and environmental impact studies will take decades to put in place. And that we could not have the country we have if we had the regulations of today imposed on our past.
I understand that Mr. Romney has a private sector background and private sectors tends to look at regulations as impedance to growth. Private sector looks at business environment not the ecological environment.
This kind of thoughts for a very strong candidate can imply a threat to sustainability of the environment in the U.S. it seems that environment is losing in race against economy!
What is your say regarding that?
He actually remindes me of a right wing version of the lead character in the film "Wild in the Streets."
*Bragging rights to the 1st person to identify the film where this line became famous.
So Santorum believes Satan is attacking the smart people in academia and has corrupted just about every major American institution. (except the RCC, of course, while he ignores the institutionalized pedophile protection racket that the RCC has perpetrated for hundreds of years)
Does this mean Santorum feels nobody is really responsible for their actions?
If Satan can attack and defeat smart people unbeknownst to them, imagine how much easier it is for the Father of Lies to gain control of people with average and below average IQ!
It boggles my mind that someone with such far-fetched beliefs as Santorum's has gotten this far in the race for President!
I'm imagining a Biff's world dystopia with Santorum as President!
2. Basic education in chemistry and biology would make clear to youngsters, that humans are active part of natural flow of curbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Our nutrition consists of the same elements: C & H in curbohydrates, H & O in fats, only proteins add to it Natrium and other elements.
3. Basic physics would help to understand, why loaded truck with a hybrid engine can make only half of a steep San Francisco street, going uphill: because it's only source of power is that undersized IC engine.
4. Basic economics would explain, that Chevy Volt is exactly opposite to Ford T: Ford didn't invent the automobile - he made it affordable. GM took an electrical traction motor vehicle, which is in use since 19th sentury (think streetcar) and made unaffordable automobile from it.
5. We need more educated high school graduates first and some of them may later go to college.
I would not try to get 100% of the population through a 4 year liberal arts college - the standards have already been dropped too far. But I would try and get the bulk of the population through a community / technical college. The community / technical college certificate / skill programs are what is needed for medical service / manufacturing / etc level. It is also a more cost effective way of doing the first 2 years of college.
Steven Cohen does no favors to anyone when he equates college with education.
I do not agree. I do agree that "maybe most?" of college education does not equate with substantial jobs after graduation. Education is learning even if that learning is not easily applied to making a living. My biggest concern is that freshmen college students should be mentored in understanding that their particular field of interest may not easily lead to a significant job after graduation but if that is what their interests are then go ahead knowing their chances.