In an important recent article by James Rosenbaum and his colleagues, “Beyond One-Size Fits All College Dreams,” the authors argue that the over-simplification of the “college for all” movement threatens the futures of many young people with high—but too frequently unrealistic—aspirations.
A fundamental problem, (as we have argued in an earlier post on this blog is that the word “college” sometimes means any form of postsecondary education, and sometimes means a four-year institution where students work towards bachelor’s degrees. In pushing for the idea that most people need some form of postsecondary training in order to succeed in the labor market, we too often lead people to believe that the four-year academic route is the best goal for everyone.
College-opportunity naysayers, who tend to argue that too many people are going to college, that college is not worth it for most people, that few people have the capacity to benefit from college, generate justifiable anger on the part of those seeking to expand opportunities (and on the part of those carefully examining the data). On the other side, those most concerned with assuring that no doors will be closed to anyone, regardless of their interests and capacities, have a tendency to gloss over both the huge hurdles facing underprepared and under-resourced students and the wide variation in outcomes facing students who enroll—and even those who succeed in completing four-year degrees.
Rosenbaum et al argue that idealism and the accompanying attempt to shield young people from discouraging information can end up doing them severe harm. They point out that the negative effects of promoting unrealistic ideals extend to health care as well as education, reporting that abstinence programs appear to produce lower rates of condom use. The idealization of the B.A. degree leads people to pay inadequate attention to the very good options available to students in shorter-term vocational paths. The valuable opportunities provided by open-access postsecondary institutions do encourage the ambitions of many youth, but may shield some of them from the reality of what happens to many students when they actually enroll in these institutions—and at the same time diminish incentives to prepare academically while in high school. Downplaying the barriers facing students in need of significant remediation prevents students from making informed choices, including decreasing the likelihood that they will earn short-term credentials as an insurance policy on the way to their more challenging goals.
The future facing the young people who most need broader opportunities, as well as our potential for increasing the education, skills, and capacities of the labor force, depend on our ability to combine realism, pragmatism and idealism. We can’t accept the level of inequality currently generated by our economy and our social structures. We can’t accept the limited opportunities facing people as a result of accidents of birth or unavoidable life circumstances. But we do have to recognize that there is wide variety in capabilities, interests, attitudes and preparation. There is a vital need for people with many different types of training in our economy. We should be sure that everyone has all of the information available about both the potential benefits and the potential risks involved in whatever choices they make. And we should acknowledge that the anticipated outcomes differ depending on individual background and characteristics.
