Dear readers, I am running from job to kids, kids to job—and thankfully my lovely husband has had a few minutes to guest blog on my behalf. So, please meet Liam Goldrick, co-founder of The Education Optimists and policy director of the New Teacher Center.
“College for ‘Some’”
by Liam Goldrick
Richard Vedder and my wife, Sara Goldrick-Rab, squared off yesterday on Patt Morrison’s radio program on Southern California Public Radio yesterday. They addressed the question, “Who needs college?”
Vedder, the founder of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity in Washington, D.C., recently announced a joint proposal suggesting that some kids shouldn’t go to college at all (as recently described in this New York Times article). As Sherman Dorn notes, making such distinctions is tricky and generally involves suggestions that “the type of people who don’t benefit from college” are “other people’s kids.” In fact, on the radio program, Vedder acknowledged that he would not counsel his own kids away from attending college. Of course. As my wife noted in the radio program, many unprepared rich kids attend college, but many better-prepared lower-income students cannot, due to affordability and other constraints. And she’s got good research to back that up. Between such evidence and these exclusionary advocates up on their soapbox, one’s equity radar begins to ping.
Check it out for yourself.
And here are some other recent contributions on this topic:
Thoughts On Education Policy (Corey Bunje Bower)
Public School Insights – The Purposes of College (Claus von Zastrow)
Public School Insights – Should We Give Up on College? (Claus von Zastrow)
10 Responses to College for Some (a Guest Post)
supertatie - May 26, 2010 at 7:15 am
I’m sorry, but I agree that college isn’t for everyone. Our country having argued that it is, and trying to have made it so, has just made it (in many cases) a glorified high school diploma. The problem isn’t the statement itself; it’s the suggestion that somebody “out there” gets to make the decision about who goes and who doesn’t. That sort of external control is absurd and unworkable.What we need are alternatives to the traditional brick and morter, 4(plus) year educational program. And we’re seeing the rise of options, like online education, and more people choosing community colleges.The community college option is particular is being driven by a number of factors: (a) the increasing unaffordability of 4-year colleges and universities; (b) students’ lack of preparation for “traditional” college; (c) parents’ refusal to spend $1000 per credit hour (I exaggerate, but you get the idea) so that their kids can go spend four years drinking and “hooking up”; and (d) greater numbers of people realizing that they need employable SKILLS – which community colleges unashamedly teach, and too many universities degrees do not provide.All of the above said, however, arguing that “some kids don’t need college” only makes sense if there are jobs for them to take without a college degree. In an information economy, what would those be?
zagros - May 26, 2010 at 7:49 am
However, community colleges are also still colleges. The key is that some people should not be going on to higher education at all (at least not immediately out of high school or for the purposes of securing a job in the future). Of course, the obvious ones would be those who already have a position that is too valuable to pass up (think Lebron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers). However, there are others as well: the person who takes vocational education to become a mechanic or who chooses to enter an apprenticeship program for a skilled trade.Indeed, even in an information economy, the majority of jobs out there do not require training at the collegiate level. However, many of these are not the types of jobs that parents want their kids to seek as a career. I do not think that there are many (if any) parents who dream of seeing their children become a waiter, a garbage collector, or a maid, even though these are positions that need to be filled by someone in society.Of course, the well-paying jobs out there that are desired either require a high degree of natural skill or training of a different character, even if it isn’t a college education (think cullinary academies for chefs or apprenticeship programs for the construction trades). However, until academics learn to have an intelligent conversation about why these positions are not only necessary but also desirable as occupations, the educational system will continue to push college as the (only?) option to the denigration of vocational education in the middle and high schools.Unfortunately, such a one-size fits all approach hurts far too many of our youth and means that in the quest for making everyone competent for a college experience, too many never even finish high school. That, and not bemoaning the fact that not everyone can (or should) go to college is what we should feel our true lament since the skills offered in high school truly are a base minimum standard for society.When I walk into a university classroom and find students who cannot solve the simplest calcuations without a calculator, students who cannot write a coherent sentence, and students who are incapable of following a simple set of instructions, I wonder why we cannot understand as a society that when a student enters a university without the foundational skills, they are doomed to fail. Of course, I could pass them on as they have been socially promoted in the past, but I see my responsibility as telling them, finally, “No, you cannot pass, unless and until you fix these defects.” Yet, you cannot expect the universities and colleges to undo what 12 years of social promotion caused. You have to fix the problem where it lies: in the primary and secondary schools that have abandoned their core mission to educate and replaced it with mission to churn out graduates as if they were the proverbial factory widgets that my field of economics is so fond of using as examples with which to torture first-year university students.Finally, I would like to take aim at the statement that supertatie makes, “The problem isn’t the statement itself; it’s the suggestion that somebody “out there” gets to make the decision about who goes and who doesn’t. That sort of external control is absurd and unworkable.”I am sorry but not only is this type of external control necessary, it is done all the time. We call it admission criteria. The problem with open admissions to colleges and universities is that you often either get one of two results with the least prepared students: (a) failure on the part of the student who isn’t prepared or (b) a lowering of standards such that the awarded degree becomes worthless.If we, as a society, want to make a college education available to all, we must understand that this comes at a cost: we need to provide the remedial courses to allow them to raise their abilities to a level where they can succeed. Unfortunately, too many of our students find out only too late that they lack these abilities and then we have wasted not only their time and money but ours as well. They become disillusioned and with budget cutbacks removing these basic skills courses from the curriculum, I worry that we are going to end up being a two class society: those who are adequately prepared for college becoming the halves and those who are not becoming the have-nots. That is not a society to which I believe the United States should aspire, do you?
jffoster - May 26, 2010 at 9:34 am
Zagros (4) hits several nails on the head. His 2nd paragraph in particular hits one I’ve long noticed. Everybody (and/or their parents) want CAREERS now — mere “jobs” are beneath them. Unfortunately, college marketing minions and Associate Deans for Butts-in-Seats cater to this. But most people don’t have careers. If one is really fortunate, one finds their vocation, be it in a career or a job.
jamary - May 26, 2010 at 9:56 am
That injustice has been and may be one cause of unequal educational opportunity and of educational inequality; that various other structural conditions of unequal educational opportunity have been and may be causes of educational inequality does not mean that there is no residual basis for inequality of individual educational achievement. Decades of ideological social constructivism aside, equal opportunity does not imply equality of outcome. It is not mentioned here that ‘internal control’, i.e., self-knowledge can lead to a decision that college education may not be the best path for an individual, or that college education may be left for a future course of individual self-development, after more appropriate pursuit of career objectives. Richard Hofstadter’s 1966 critique of progressive education, including the views that school children should never experience failure, never be placed into competition for recognition of academic achievement, never be subjected to authoritative direction of academic endeavors, and that the polity in a democracy demands – or can meaningfully articulate – “democratic living” as a bill of rights for children in school (‘Education in a Democracy’ in Anti-intellectualism in American Life) remains apropos, perhaps more so than ever as we encounter growing proportions of ‘underprepared’ college students. The feels-good-to-say-and-hear pabulum that “every child can become” President, a great scientist, a great author does not tred far in the thoroughfare of the real world.Also never mentioned is an American feature – unavailable in some societies in which post-secondary education is ‘free’ – which some who grew up in other nations find remarkable – that it is indeed possible in the United States to practice a vocation and to return to school – night school and in some conditions day school, at trade school, community college or university, and pursue a more ‘learned’ calling than that one holds or held before; it is possible to remake oneself through education, as a seasoned adult – for many it may be more probable than as a superannuated adolescent without intrinsic intellectual curiosity. Those in higher ed who have had the opportunity to teach “non-traditional” students recognize the advantages of increased maturity and focus, of studied, tempered ambition forged through self-understanding, world-understanding, practical analysis of opportunities, conditions, alternatives, and interests – which have been informed by some years of adult living, if not intense intellectual inquiry and striving; of the pragmatic motivation to take responsibility for study and learning.
goldrick - May 26, 2010 at 11:02 am
While this is not my area of policy expertise, my work in the k-12 sphere would not lead me to make a “college for all” argument. So that is not what I’m saying in this post. What seems clear to me based on the research is that today there is gross inequity around who is able to attend college and attain a degree (whether as associates or a bachelors) based on socioeconomic status. My concern is that advocates like Vedder do not make clear how they would distinguish who should go and shoudn’t go to college. At minimum, they need to do that and also must acknowledge that the current system is not efficient from a societal standpoint. Colleges admit well-off, academically unprepared students and shut the door on academically prepared, low-income kids. Any economist should recognize that does not make for an efficient system, although it may well meet the narrow interests of individual IHEs, of alumni, and of well-connected students of means. This inefficiency, however, is a drag on the economic needs of our nation by restricting access to college degrees which create opportunities for higher paying employment to students who hold them. Realistically, not all students will be able to attend and succeed in college. But why are we unbothered that family wealth and socioeconomic status too often act as determinants of college access and, as a result, lifetime opportunities and earning potential?
intered - May 26, 2010 at 12:03 pm
This discussion would benefit from an analysis of “what there is to mean by ‘college education’.” The time when college was an elite service to the smart and the rich is long past, almost certainly invalid before the life of anyone posting here. Inputs have grown and diversified in type and performance criteria. The same can be said about product lines and definitions of success. I believe we may be at the point where the term ‘ higher education’ (if not ‘college’ just yet) has become a family resemblance construct no longer admitting a single non-trivial criterion common to all cases. Most of the posts here presuppose a static and antiquated notion of college.
11159995 - May 26, 2010 at 12:41 pm
I agree with much of what Zagros and Jamary say in their comments. My own two children had quite different educational experiences after attending the same very good public high school. Both attended Penn State: my daughter graduated from the honors college at the top of her class in the liberal arts and clearly benefited greatly from a four-year college education; my son discovered, after not quite two years, that college was not going to help him much with his career goal, which was to become a top auto mechanic, so he went to one of the best trade schools in that area and has had a successful and rewarding career in that line of work. Forcing him through four years of college would have been wasteful and stupid (though he did learn enough computer science to be helpful with his work as an auto mechanic, which is all about computer systems in cars now). I expect that, for many people, college education would be more meaningful and valuable at some later point in their lives, when they have matured more (and are less interested in partying all weekend) and have a clearer idea of how more education can contribute to their own career success. Perhaps all young people should be required to do a year or two of public service of some kind before entering college at all, either in the military or through AmeriCorps. — Sandy Thatcher
dank48 - May 26, 2010 at 4:11 pm
One thing sometimes overlooked is that higher education prepares one for white-collar careers and saves one from blue-collar jobs, so that in ten or fifteen years one’s well-paid position can be outsourced to India or China, whereas that humble plumber or electrician will just have to keep on working and earning.
commserver - May 26, 2010 at 6:20 pm
College isn’t for every one. I am adjunct at a public 2-year school and have a student who doesn’t belong. Can’t spell. Can’t write. No logic. What is this person doing in college, even if it is 2-year?
marka - May 27, 2010 at 12:19 am
I agree that there is great disparity still in who gets in and gets thru college. We should get those qualified disadvantaged into college, and get those unqualifed out.That said, it is the height of silliness to suggest that everyone should get a college education. That sounds a lot like a sales pitch for the education industry to get more to buy their product — creating a need where none existed before.More & more are unprepared, even as more & more attend. More & more drop out, subjecting themselves to being seen as failures. More & more are enticed to assume large amounts of debt, with little prospect of retiring that debt before they retire — ‘subprime loans’ anyone?Are we really prepared to say that all of our citizens need a college education? Sanitation engineers going to engineering school? Food servers going to cuisine college? Construction workers going to Builders U? Bus & taxi drivers going to … You should be getting the point now. It is demeaning to those who do the hard work in our world to say they are somehow incomplete without a college education.And as for those advocates who say we need an educated citizenry to fully participate in civic life, they apparently haven’t reviewed the numerous surveys that show that most college grads don’t have much better understanding of civics than do high school grads. The only thing college grads have over high school grads is that they are a few years older, approaching what we now believe is a tipping point at around age 25, when the neural networks finally knit together. So far as I can tell, has next to nothing to do with attending college.