Charles Murray, best known for his controversial book The Bell-Curve, begins an essay criticizing higher education in America with a rather provocative premise.
Imagine that America had no system of post-secondary education, and you were a member of a task force assigned to create one from scratch. One of your colleagues submits this proposal:
First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn’t meet the goal. We will call the goal a “BA.” The Wall Street Journal
The system caricatured is obviously our current system. Ironically, we do have a task force in place re-examining higher education. And perhaps not so ironically, I’m not sure that its goals (pdf) are that different from Mr. Murray’s.
His “revolutionary” idea? A system of certification tests, modeled after the test required to become a certified public accountant, which would ensure employers that those who passed had some sort of specific knowledge related to the job and would make the origins of that knowledge (be it Yale or the public library) nearly irrelevant.
I have two fundamental disagreements with his proposition. First, his argument fails at the outset because he fails to correctly understand the purpose of the Liberal Arts education (which yields the criticized BA). It is not to impart skills. It isn’t to prepare employees for the workforce.
From the Online Etymological Dictionary (entry for liberal):
Earliest reference in English is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical).
A Liberal Arts education served no practical purpose then, and it does not now. It certainly may have a positive effect on such aspirations, but since the system was not founded to deliver employees, it should not be criticized for not delivering employees.
But is that to say that university study is a waste of time, as Murray contends? Or, put another way, might it be possible that there are higher pursuits attainable with a Liberal Arts education than the efficient transmission of skills in preparation for the workforce?
Earlier this year, I wrote about an “educational pipleline” from Pre-K to college proposed by San Antonio Mayor Hardberger. In the thoughts of politicians and business leaders, one can clearly see Murray’s streamlined, school-to-work type of education plan. But there is one lone voice questioning the real purposes of education–a high school student who seemed the only one present who really understood the importance of the Liberal Arts to a free society.
Indeed, true education consists not of memorizing facts, but of seeking the truth. No matter what discipline we study, rather than blindly believe what our textbooks say, we must remember to read between the lines. It is essential for instructors to teach students not what is on some standardized test, but to question authority. In my opinion, if students come out of high school knowing one thing alone, that should be to always ask questions. My SA News
Thomas Jefferson also looked at the subject of education as one of supreme importance, and nowhere did he mention skills for the workplace.
I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength. 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it. Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810
The highest purpose of education is central to the survival of our republic, and has little to do with the President’s or anyone else’s economic goals. Its real purpose is to “enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.” In so far as our universities and institutes of higher learning are failing in this account, we may certainly criticize them profusely.
As to my second criticism of Murray’s argument, I see no reason to delve into it further when Spero Consulting has already done such a fine job of it.
Yes!
I beg to add that it isn’t only universities that need be criticized, or which educational failure endangers our individual liberties and the survival of our republic.
We were talking in Dana’s thread last week about the ignorance of someone believing religion itself is child abuse. Maybe this explains it, that religion doesn’t actually create dark, dangerous beliefs but grows wild in minds untilled by education, sometimes so thick and dense it can choke off all productive thinking?
Radicalized, anti-intellectual populism absent the liberal education that makes its hyberbole so laughably obvious that it loses its dreadful power, is also perilous to us all.
I spend hours each day in our car getting kids to activities (the 18-year-old still doesn’t drive) and so I listen to a LOT of free talk radio, mostly Limbaugh and Hannity. They never had the mind-expanding benefit of a true question-worshipping university education and so they think they know everything already and need to preach it.
You cannot imagine how often I have heard that I wasted my college education because I am not working or because I am no longer working in the field that I studied. Ironically, I studied English Lit, not education; I just happened to earn a teaching credential as well (planned of course.)
When my response is that I would have obtained my college education regardless of a teaching credential or future employment in a work force they look at me quizzically. I cannot seem to convey how my higher education has opened up my mind and understand and helped me to open myself up to questioning and searching further… that my education helped to make me a better parent, a more enlightened individual and for that was what I was aiming–not a job! It can be very frustrating and sometime a bit demoralizing.
We used to have trade schools to teach skills, but somehow those have died out or aren’t as prevalent as they used to be. Everyone wants the BA and yet they are using for reasons other than its original intent/purpose. That being said, nobody disputes the fact that a higher education aids in the prospect of future employment–the reasons why are what seem to be twisted.
Excellent post.
My favorite quote: [M]ight it be possible that there are higher pursuits attainable with a Liberal Arts education than the efficient transmission of skills in preparation for the workforce?
Even homeschoolers sometimes cross over into this “anti-intellectual populism,” it seems. I don’t know why that is.
I read this article as well. It put so many thoughts in my mind, I had to walk away and let them settle for a bit before I said anything. There are so many aspects to it and education in general. I appreciated your thoughts especially about the value of a liberal arts education. That seems to be lost in the school-to-work argument.
Even homeschoolers sometimes cross over into this “anti-intellectual populism,” it seems. I don’t know why that is.
I know what you mean, and I don’t like to divine other people’s motives too much, but I think a lot of it has to do with a reaction to the culture.
There is a certain sense of their being an “educated elite” but rather than respond to their arguments directly, many seem to prefer to question “intellectualism” altogether.
Shawna, I know how you feel. I don’t get it much in my personal circle, but there is a certain sense that if you are not earning a salary equivalent to the potential others see in you, you have “wasted” something. Even if all the choices were your own and you are content where you are at.
Contentment isn’t a very high aspiration these days, nor is it greatly respected.
While I haven’t read Mr Murray’s entire article(there didn’t seem much point after the first few paragraphs),it saddens me to think that we have forgotten the many wonderous things a well rounded education can provide to child. Things that will serve to enrich his life and therefore the lives of all who know him. If our institutes of higher learning begin to educate with the same goals in mind our public schools have now, I predict our nation’s problems will multiply.
Spot on!
Wrestling with the nature of education and intellectual inquiry is a longstanding practice among educators. (My very first blog post dealt with some of that wrestling!) What are we doing here? and What makes it worthwhile? are perennial questions for all learners. I think homeschooling just highlights the importance of those questions, while connecting them more strongly with Who are “we” who are doing this learning? and Who do we trust?
Those questions are not the sort that are going to go away. So I don’t think we should worry if an off-the-wall voice (like Murray’s) frets in public once in a while. He’s certainly not the whole conversation.
That said, is the “school-for-work-skills” argument something that can be debunked as easily as (for instance) the socialization myth? What can homeschoolers contribute to the public conversation on the nature and purpose of becoming educated?
I think it is easier to argue on the practical level than the philosophical, although both are important to the conversation. Murray’s voice is just one voice in the conversation, but his seems to represent a nationwide trend focused on credentializing and moving students from school to the workplace. There are parts of it which are naturally appealing and I think that is why these kinds of essays get such attention.
Of all the blogs I looked through regarding this essay, most were strongly supportive of Murray. And most of those were conservative. Pandagon was against it. And the one I linked to. So I think it is an important issue to discuss, and perhaps moreso among conservatives who seem to feel like education has served liberal purposes for too long. Me divining motivations against, I guess, but it is the sense I get in these discussions.
To debunk it, I think there are two things to focus on. One is a common philosophical starting point, like what education even is. I don’t think we’ll get far there, but clearly arguing the foundation is always a good starting point.
Second would be to note where the schools are ill-equipped to do this, just as they are ill-equipped to satisfy the “socialization” issue if we look at what parents see their children contending with in school. A similar approach applied directly to this school-to-work mentality would be to emphasize the amount of time children have to pursue their interests, including potential career choices. And of course looking at the amount of volunteer work, jobs and apprenticeship type programs homeschoolers are able, by virtue of their flexibility, to pursue.
So I guess the condensed answer for me would be: There is more to education than work, but it is one purpose of education. And homeschooling presents myriad opportunities for developing skills in this area.
It really IS a sort of love-hate relationship with “education” isn’t it? We want our kids educated, we as homeschooling parents value education to a high level, and yet we are so suspicious if not hostile to the “educated” –
While I haven’t read Murray’s latest book, or article, I’ve read several of his earlier ones and have heard him speak on C-span, etc. He always goes to great lengths to defend his remarks concerning not all children being college material. He also says that IQ is certainly not the only reason to fore go college, but also the desire of many to go straight into the work force or to learn a trade. Many parents and educators push children towards college and anything less than college is considered a failure. Murray also has written that we as a society over value white collar work to the detriment of any other kind of labor. I’d also point out that a college education in itself is not a guarantee of any kind of intellectualism. Many people manage to think quite well without being led by an educator
Thank you for your comments, MTheads. I don’t disagree with any of the points you made, I just think it is important to remember that a liberal arts degree is not failing. We are just failing to have a proper understanding of what a liberal arts degree is meant to accomplish.
I’m all for votech and placing more value on careers other than doctor/lawyer. I’m a housewife, and I think it quite a noble pursuit.
But the liberal arts degree itself is not meant to deliver job skills so it seems odd to complain that isn’t delivering them.
I agree with the post in principle, but in practice it isn’t totally valid. Try talking to a some liberal arts majors. Then go talk to some hard science/math/engineering majors. You will not find that liberal arts majors have any loftier views or more sophisticated mindset. A liberal arts degree in the right hands can produce a great mind, but most of them are drunkards who are too lazy to study something that requires effort to pass.
Whether it’s at a drunken frat party or protesting chopping down a few trees on campus (I go to Berkeley), you will find that the dumbest students are liberal arts majors.