A recent study by The American Council of Trustees and Alumni challenges the preconceptions of many Americans regarding the degree of instructional and curriculum disparities between lower-cost public colleges and universities and higher-cost private colleges and universities. In this survey, a controversial notion is advanced that insists that the quality of coursework for each individual student is of much better quality in public, state school higher education then in elite private higher education.
As the survey states,
Even as our students need broad-based skills and knowledge to succeed in the global marketplace, our colleges and universities are failing to deliver. Topics like U.S. government or history, literature, mathematics, and economics have become mere options on far too many campuses. Not surprisingly, students are graduating with great gaps in their knowledge—and employers are noticing.
I attended the University of Alabama at Birmingham (commonly known as UAB) for my undergraduate education, which though it is not listed directly on the study, is a part of the same university system as the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, which scored a B in this survey. Since I had friends and two parents graduate from UA and since I talked to them extensively about their coursework requirements in the time that they were enrolled, I'd be surprised if my alma mater would score any lower than a B it was similarly scrutinized as part of the study.
Even if the conclusions drawn by this study cannot be easily refutable, there is still an ingrained cultural assumption that paying more for the college education of your child provides a corresponding increase in quality of instruction, which isn't often the case. If anything, the reverse is true. As a society, we might be wise to understand whether we honestly believe that education opens doors, or whether wealth, privilege, and name recognition are all that it takes to be successful. It would seem to me that if the latter is true, then we really don't believe in the American Dream; instead, we might be true believers in the American Ruse.
We all know that money can open doors in and of itself and a name on a high-end diploma holds more weight than that same name on a more ordinary diploma. This study also strongly implies is that a person who attends an Ivy League school may be far less qualified to hold a job than a person who attended a state school and was forced to take a much more rigorous slate of courses. I always joke that when I was in undergraduate, we were being trained to actually have to work for a living.
"The top liberal arts colleges have allowed their general education curricula to deteriorate," the study said. "These schools are in effect leaving it up to students to figure out what they will need -- and families are paying dearly for the privilege of a do-it-yourself education."
To echo Walter E. Williams' commentary on this same subject,
The National Center for Education Statistics reports that only 31 percent of college graduates can read and understand a complex book. Employers complain that graduates of colleges lack the writing and analytical skills necessary to succeed in the workplace.
Even though we know well that facts are stubborn things, peoples' ingrained assumptions, perspectives, and opinions might be even more stubborn. Yale, Cal-Berkley, Cornell, and Vanderbilt got an F in this study. Harvard got a D. Most of these are elite private institutions. I don't want to come across as harshly condemnatory. Good intentions are often to blame. Still, I think we also know upon what the road to hell is paved. Many parents want to give their children the best education possible and not only that, they want to give them the best advantages possible to secure a good job and to make a career for themselves. I find no fault whatsoever with that motive. That is how it should be. Moreover, since many people and many employers are still supremely impressed, if not awed, by those who hold degrees from elite institutions, giving children a leg up on the competition is an understandable intention.
Notwithstanding, this study aims to deflate and challenge such long-held beliefs as little more than myth, but unless people honestly recognize that students like me, who came from well-rounded public universities were required to branch out and take courses from a variety of disciplines, thus making us a much better fit for the exceptionally limited number of jobs now available, we'll always be second-rate. If there is any such thing are fairness in our society, it's time to ask ourselves some hard questions. Here are some more statistics from the study that I find quite interesting.
Northwestern University students can fulfill their math requirement by taking classes in music theory.
Cornell University students can cover their literature requirement by taking "International Film of the 1970s."
Wesleyan University students can fulfill their science requirement by taking "Physics for Future Presidents."
The National Center for Education Statistics reports that only 31 percent of college graduates can read and understand a complex book. Employers complain that graduates of colleges lack the writing and analytical skills necessary to succeed in the workplace.
A 2006 survey conducted by The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human Resource Management found that only 24 percent of employers thought graduates of four-year colleges were “excellently prepared” for entry-level positions. College seniors perennially fail tests of their civic and historical knowledge.
To be fair, this phenomenon isn't strictly relegated to higher education. Citing another personal example, I am a proud Quaker. Over the years, Quaker educators established private schools around the country that teach K-12 students. The schools established by my faith group often have a stellar academic reputation, a small pupil-to-teacher ratio, a variety of extracurricular activities offered, an in-depth focus on social justice rarely provided by a public school, and an strong emphasis placed on alternative forms of discipline for students who break the rules. They are, it must be added, also prohibitively expensive. One year alone costs as much as $15,000 per child, and can even cost more than that, so for those who have the money in their bank accounts or might need to consider that third mortgage are certainly welcome to spend it the way they best see fit. And even though I am understandably proud of the schools that bear our name (and proud that our President and First Lady decided to enroll their children in a Quaker school), I also am aware that some have criticized these institutions for being too lax with discipline and too light with actual instruction.
To return to higher education in particular, my father tells a story that, when he was a young man, back in the early seventies, a co-worker of his who held a degree from an elite institute of higher learning mentioned that it had actually been tougher to get accepted to Princeton than to pass his classes. Once you were in, the friend asserted, the school would literally not let one fail, primarily because bad grades brought down its statistics and might discourage those wishing to spend tremendous sums of money to enroll their children, and also because children of privilege tend to have parents of privilege who never fail to interject themselves into the situation when their sons and daughters might be in danger of flunking out.
The questions we might wish to ask ourselves are whether we truly wish to practice what we preach regarding equality, diversity, parity, and democracy. I think if you'd survey most Americans, they would agree wholeheartedly that we ought to be governed on the basis of a meritocracy, whereby the most qualified rose to positions of power and that the most qualified took the top rungs by virtue of their competence and suitability for the role. Instead, nepotism, favoritism, and plutocracy run amok are what we really have underneath the myth. I find it nothing less than ironic that we rebelled successfully from Great Britain and in so doing justified our cause by stating that aristocracy and a complete lack of social mobility were deplorable things that we would never repeat in our own country. Though examples do exist of people who personify the American Dream, they are few and far between in the final analysis. Often it does take money to make money. As I conclude, I posit a question: how many of our Presidents have not been millionaires?
Men of good fortune
often cause empires to fall
While men of poor beginnings
often can't do anything at all
The rich son waits for his father to die
the poor just drink and cry
And me, I just don't care at all
Men of good fortune
very often can't do a thing
While men of poor beginnings
often can do anything
At heart they try to act like a man
handle things the best way they can
They have no rich daddy to fall back on
Men of good fortune
often cause empires to fall
While men of poor beginnings
often can't do anything at all
It takes money to make money they say
look at the Fords, but didn't they start that way
Anyway, it makes no difference to me
Men of good fortune
often wish that they could die
While men of poor beginnings
want what they have and to get it they'll die
All those great things that life has to give
they wanna have money and live
But me, I just don't care at all
Men of good fortune
men of poor beginnings
Men of good fortune
men of poor beginnings
Men of good fortune
men of poor beginnings
Men of good fortune
men of poor beginnings
- Lou Reed
No comments:
Post a Comment