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.

education college university higher education liberal arts

How do you prevent American values (i.e. that beauty, wealth, and power are the keys to happiness and success) from taking hold in your children’s mind?

I actually reject the question, somewhat. Beauty , wealth and power are not American values. Hard work, self reliance and perseverance are American values. The values are founders held, which tamed the wilderness and sowed the prairie…I have no problem with American values. It is popular culture I am concerned about, and particularly a most detestable portion of it which has been on full display this week. And just a note: you may wish to exercise caution in following any links from here forward.

Yale, for example, has been celebrating “Sex Week,” described as “an exploration of love, sex, intimacy and relationships.” Looking at the schedule, I do not see where love, intimacy or relationships really have much to do with the line up of events, which includes discussions and presentations on topics such as “Seduction: How to get the girl you’ve always wanted” alongside its “who looks like a porn star” contests, and DVD and sex toy giveaways. This is not intimacy. It is not how relationships are formed. And it has nothing to do with love. More offensive than the program, conceived and carried out by a single student, however, is Yale’s defense of it (pdf) in response to the criticism received.

Sex Week is an educational endeavor that is meant to challenge and teach students by engaging them in lectures, talks, discussions, and seminars regarding the concepts of love, sex, and intimacy. The idea is to have interesting and well-recognized speakers or representatives from sex-related industries (entertainment and media in particular) engage students in conversation so that students can explore sex in a safe and open environment. This affords students the opportunity to better understand what sex is and allows them to define for themselves how sex relates to love and intimacy in their own lives.

In other words: We think that marketers of the sex trade are a better model for learning about sexuality than parental values. We have to break the hold of such values for students to learn “for themselves.” Never mind they represent no more than an expanding market to the presenters. Surely I am not the only one who would expect a university as prestigious as Yale to notice the inherent contradiction? Or do they also have Harrah’s come out to teach workshops on fiscal responsibility?

A similarly degenerate program is making its tour across America right now. The “Sex Workers Art Show” features strippers, prostitutes, film stars, phone sex operators, etc. in a stage performance which promises to “entertain, arouse, and amaze while simultaneously offering scathing and insightful commentary on notions of class, race, gender, labor and sexuality.” A look at the schedule reveals a rather large number of university and college campuses playing host. View from 1776 finds its recent performance at Duke particularly ironic given the university’s recent treatment of its LaCrosse players.

“There is an obvious difference,” Lange responded, “between strippers performing at a private party and a group of artists touring university campuses across the country to present a show with political discussion, musical theater, and displays of sexuality.”

Sure there is. We model the behavior and ostracize them when they copy it. You can read the “highlights” of the performance and decide for yourself how different the activities are. Maybe if there had been more political speech at the party in question, it would have adhered to university policies.

As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man (p. 25):

We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Why is it we send our children away to college, again?

Hat Tip: The Thinking Mother who shares her thoughts.

[tags]education, higher ed, higher education, college[/tags]

Jill Manges, who suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of severe sexual abuse and forced prostitution, was forced to choose between expulsion and a medical withdrawal after an episode in her French history class.  She chose the latter and is not even allowed to set foot on campus for one year.

Michelle Pomerleau overdosed on prescription drugs, a situation her counselor says has now been corrected with her new medication. While she was still in the hospital, however, she received a letter.

“I am concerned for your well-being, Michelle, but your behavior is impacting other students in a negative manner,” wrote a school vice president in a letter delivered while Pomerleau was still in the hospital. Chicago Tribune

Jordan Nott, who was forced to leave George Washington University after seeking help from the counseling center for depression.

Nicole D’Antonio, who sought treatment from the Eastern Illinois University’s counseling center for bulimia in 2004 and ended up on medical leave instead:

“I was told that I was too much of a liability,” she explained. She returned to Charleston the next semester, after participating in an eating disorders program. But when she relapsed a month later and confided in a counselor, she was asked to leave campus again, she said. Chicago Tribune

Washington-based Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, an organization which represents such cases, reports that they used to get about one call per month.  Now it is once per week.  The turning point appears to have been 2002, when Elizabeth Shin committed suicide by setting herself on fire in her dorm.  The case was eventually settled out of court, with MIT paying the family a whopping $27.65 million.  When it looked like the case was going to go to trial, an amicus brief describes the effects of such suits,

In 2006, when it appeared likely the case would go to trial, AACRAO joined the American Council on Education and six other professional organizations in filing a friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) brief. The brief, filed by Boston law firm Hogan & Hartson, argued in essence that, in its ruling allowing the case to go forward, “the Superior Court found that non-clinician university employees are obliged to prevent a student’s suicide based on a ‘special relationship’ purportedly created by the ‘foreseeability’ of the student’s act. As explained in the accompanying brief, this holding has engendered the opposite of its intended effect. By imposing a legal duty on non-clinician university personnel to detect and prevent student suicides, it has fostered perverse incentives for members of campus communities to disengage from troubled students’ lives….”  AACRAO

Although the case did not go to trial, the fact that a judge allowed the suit to go forward has universities worried about what kind of liability they may have should something happen.  So they have “disengaged from troubled students’ lives,” sending those who seek help or have visible signs of mental illness away.  I cannot help but wonder if a federal law designed to protect students from such treatment may actually be making it more difficult for school officials to weigh individual circumstances.

Federal law permits a school to remove a mentally ill student for disruptive behavior, but only if the institution would act against other students for similar conduct, according to the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.  Chicago Tribune 

To protect themselves from law suits, university officials are being forced to distance themselves from any student who has displayed evidence of mental illness, resulting in the expulsion of those who seek help and fear in those who have not.

Right now, at least, universities must rely on behavior and the type of help sought  by students.  What, do you suppose, might happen if TeenScreen becomes more widely available and accepted as a means of detecting mental illness in adolescents?

[tags]education, mental illness, teenscreen, suicide university, college, higher ed[/tags]

…Only a minority of high school students are “non-college-bound” and go directly into the work force. These students are seen as ill prepared to be workers in an economy which values high-skilled workers. It seems we have forgotten that there are people who are not gifted academically and need another option. I wonder if the reason we began noticing the children with autism, fetal alcohol syndrome and dyslexia is more related to the fact that our “new economy” does not make room for these individuals ~ Julie

It is a minority of students who are not college-bound, but it is a rather significant minority. Some interesting statistics from USA Today’s analysis of Department of Education statistics:

10th graders with educational aspirations who expected to earn a four year degree (or higher):

1990: 59%

2002: almost 80%

Percentage of high school graduates entering college:

1990: 60%

2002: 64%

Percentage of Americans ages 25 to 29 with a bachelor’s degree:

1990: 23%

2002: 29%

The most significant change in these statistics is in attitudes and expectations. I suspect the dearth in information that Julie laments regarding preparing young people for not attending college lies not in the minority status of such young people, but in the lack of acceptance of reality for a significant number of American youth.

With this emphasis on higher education, it comes as little surprise that there also seems to be greater political interest in grappling with the perceived barriers to a college education. Last year, the Department of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education released its report (pdf) which included recommendations for change.

The most interesting barriers to me include:

• high schools which do not yet see preparing all students for postsecondary education as their responsibility
• time and money wasted learning skills that should have been learned in high school
• college graduates lacking the skills expected of a college student, with evidence of declining literacy among college graduates.

The problem may not be that high schools are not adequately preparing these students for college, but that schools and parents are setting unrealistic goals of college for young people. By not accepting the fact that not all students are college bound, we are only setting them up for failure.

As Julie notes, there is not even very much information out there on how to prepare a child who will not be going to college. Even though this affects close to 40% of high school graduates (not to mention those who drop out) and even more who begin college never to finish. Matthew K. Tabor, an educational consultant, shares some interesting thoughts on this discordant approach to education:

Many lament the “me me me” culture with young adults in the workforce, but can you blame those kids? This teacher’s approach is representative of young teachers…and their proclivity for creating a mismatch between a student’s mind and the reality of employment. The French call it anomie, which is defined loosely as a a rift between one’s existence in the world [or how they perceive their existence] and its actual structure. A teacher need not batter students with the harsh realities of life to overcome this anomic feeling of self-importance – in truth, sometimes our own thoughts and feelings just don’t factor into the situation. Giving students a blank slate and showing them that defining their own career path to the nth degree won’t match up well when someone kicks them a mop and bucket and tells them to clock out at exactly 5:00pm. Some call it cognitive dissonance; I call it being miserable at your job because you were groomed to be a free-thinking CEO. matthewktabor.com

I am all for increasing a child’s opportunities through education and for encouraging them to set career goals to work toward. But could forcing college as the only path to the workforce actually be limiting real opportunities by not valuing other skills and turning a blind eye to the majority of Americans who do not earn a degree?

[tags]education, college, higher ed[/tags]