• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Professor X vs. Professor Carnevale

June 29, 2011, 11:40 am

“Professor X,” an anonymous adjunct English instructor at a community college and a small private four-year institution, has received a great deal of attention for writing a scathing critique of higher education for The Atlantic in 2008 and amplifying it this year in a full-blown book, In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: Confessions of an Accidental Academic.

In a very clever, if sometimes cruel, memoir, Professor X makes two related arguments to suggest that egalitarian impulses in higher education are creating problems similar to the push for home-ownership for all. Just as George W. Bush helped enable unqualified buyers to artificially inflate housing prices before the bubble burst, the author contends, so Barack Obama’s college for all agenda is pushing under-prepared students into higher education, creating “credential inflation” that is bad for the country.

Professor X’s argument has two related but distinct components.  The first—that many students are woefully underprepared for college work—has received the most attention, and the most criticism, because the author pulls no punches in ridiculing the deficiencies of his students. “Many of my students have no business being in college,” he writes. “They think that Edward Said is a literary technique, and ‘allusion’ the author of Ulysses.”

But the second component of Professor X’s thesis—that we are educating too many students—deserves separate consideration. “When everyone owns a house, the economic benefits of home ownership diminish,” he writes. “The college market is equally mature.” He quotes a George Mason University economist to suggest that a college degree is used “to signal to employers that students are smart, hard-working and conformist.” But now too many people are getting degrees. “Going to college is a lot like standing up at a concert to see better. Selfishly speaking, it works, but from a social point of view, we shouldn’t encourage it.” As a result, Professor X writes, “the number of jobs calling for college has become artificially inflated.” Granting college access isn’t the problem, he writes. “We have done too good a job.”

The two strands of Professor X’s argument are related—part of the reason he thinks too many students are going to college is that too many are underprepared and won’t profit from the experience—but also are severable. If the problem is student preparation, we can redouble our efforts at education reform. If the issue is that the economy doesn’t need college graduates at the rate we’re generating them—if Americans are over-educated—then what’s the point of improving preparation?

But a new study out this week by Georgetown scholars Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose emphatically concludes that Americans are undereducated, not overeducated. Despite the anecdotes about college graduates serving as janitors, the skyrocketing of the “college premium”—the wage differential between college and high-school graduates—suggests that “the United States has been underproducing college-going workers since 1980.” (Full disclosure: Carnevale and Rose have both contributed to volumes on education that I have edited for The Century Foundation.)

At certain points in our history, the supply of college educated workers did outstrip the demand, Carnevale and Rose write, but for more than two decades, demand has exceeded supply, which helps explain why the college wage premium increased from 40% in 1980 to 74% today. If we were to add 20 million postsecondary-educated workers by 2025, Carnevale and Rose project, supply would meet the economy’s demand—and the college premium would decline to 46%. That wage differential would provide sufficient incentive for students to pursue postsecondary education but would reduce income inequality from today’s high levels, they contend.

Professor X has underlined, in very vivid terms, the reality that too many students in college today are utterly underprepared. But Carnevale and Rose’s study makes clear that the remedy is not to toughen college admission standards and weed out those who aren’t “college material.” The more sanguine—but also more challenging—news is that the economy will need us to reach many more of the students that Professor X dismisses as having “no business” being in college.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • gayetuchman

    Right on. Our economy does indeed need to educate the very students who are being dismissed as a waste of professors’ time.  But that education would be vital even if it didn’t contribute to the collective economic welfare.  Education is, after all, supposed to stretch the mind and encourage analytic and critical thought.  Research also shows that the children of ill-prepared students who graduate after years of struggle also benefit from their mothers’ education. ( Sorry, guys. Attewell and Lavin’s research is about mothers.)  These mothers read more to ther kids than uneducated women do; they take their kids to museums.  They stretch their kids’ horizons and we all benefit.  There is no such animal as over-educated..

  • raza_khan

    The issue is not whether the we are undereducated or overeducated but rather…. Are we appropriately educated for the next step?

    The next step may be gonig to middle school, high school, community college, 4-year, graduate or employment.  What I find interesting that we are not preparing our students well for the next step in their lives at any of those levels!

    best,
    Raza
    ____________________________
    Raza Khan, Ph.D.
    Dr.Raza.Khan@gmail.com

  • _perplexed_

    Regardless of our President’s goals or our enconomy’s needs, we will be seeing fewer, not greater numbers of college educated workers in the future.  Just take a look at your state’s higher education budget…

  • bcbailey64

    Excellent analysis! Yes to point #1 – too many students are unprepared for the rigours of college. Yes to point #2 – we are not producing enough university graduates. If we want to progress as a species it is a necessity that our future citizens have continuously increasing levels of education. Point #2 is so obvious it’s a no brainer! That some think this is even debatable indicates we have a long ways to go to solve point #1!

  • manhire
  • olympicctc

    About Professor X’s In the Basement, I have to say a word in his defense.  While Kahlenberg’s contention cannot be disputed that the book does challenge the general preparedness of college students and attempts to cast doubt about the widely held need to provide access to higher education to many as we can, those arguments were largely anecdotal and incidental, not scholarly. 

    The book’s purpose was to share the observations, insight, inner dialogue of an astute English composition instructor.  Since adjunct instructors are the most numerous type of instructor in the academy, outnumbering tenured instructors, his observations, in and of themselves, warrant consideration and reflection.  It is noteworthy, I think, that his rumination are largely personal, and are rarely influenced by “water cooler” discussions with a community of peers.  One has to be an attentive reader to notice mention of tenured faculty. 

    It is also noteworthy that for Professor X, as an individual who has invested effort in considering  the state of U.S. higher education, faculty unions are not considered as agents of reform.  In describing adjunct instructors, Professor X recognizes that “the use of adjunct instructors like me was probably not good for students” and that “adjuncts were an exploited class, and that they were, in effect, faculty-union-sanctioned scabs.” But he confesses that he “didn’t think about any of this.  I was glad to have the work” (p. 11).  

    Perhaps if the majority of instructors could be granted a measure of job security, they would be more inclined to be active agents of improvement for the system–and I think, Professor X, Carnevale, Rose, along with the rest of us, can agree that U.S. higher ed needs improvement.  

    Jack Longmate
    Adjunct English Instructor
    Olympic College, Bremerton, WA

  • texas2step

    There is no such thing as an over-educated population.

  • 22081781

    Carnevale and Rose argue that, were the U.S. to add 20 million college-educated workers by 2025, the college wage differential would “reduce income inequality from today’s high levels.”  Please get real.  Increasing inequality in this society is due to the economy pushing out more potential workers into unemployment and poverty, while the richest 1% get wildly richer.  It has nothing to do with the minor amount of shuffling in the middle. Carnevale and Rose’s ridiculous claim undermines everything they have to say. 

  • jsalmons

    If students are unprepared then it seems that we have two choices: 1) improve K-12 education to include more rigorous thinking and fewer standardized tests or 2) offer more remedial/support services at colleges and universities. I don’t think the answer is to dumb down college or to just say let’s exclude people if they need more help. I would pay more taxes to support both in my state’s schools and colleges.

  • wilkenslibrary

    A recent e-mail that I received contained these two quotations from Thomas Jefferson:  “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. ME 12:393) and “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and will never be.”

    We don’t necessarily need more college graduates, but we do need more educated citizens.

    Betsy Smith/Adjunct Professor of ESL/Cape Cod Community College

  • misanthropic789

    It’s not just about graduating students.  It’s about what they learn.  If they learn nothing than their degree isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.  More importantly, if they learn something it needs to be the right something.  We need statisticians, programmers, engineers and scientists.  You know; the hard subjects.    If you don’t believe me, take a look at the top job descriptions for H1B recipients.  That should give us a clue for where we need to start educating students.  Just churning out more graduates isn’t enough.

  • micheleme

    Great links!

  • tardigrade

    “ the skyrocketing of the “college premium”—the wage differential between college and high-school graduates—suggests that “the United States has been underproducing college-going workers since 1980.””

    To me it suggests that a college degree is over-valued for some insane reason.  I know the job I do does not require a college degree, despite the job description requiring said degree*.  It requires a person who can learn on the job, and learn a bit on their own (granted, going to school simultaneous with having this job did help my performance minusculely, but I still don’t have that four-year degree*, just a two-year degree).

    * – What I said doesn’t make sense outside of the fact that I gained this job as a transition from an internship of my A.S., and was given more job responsibilities as I proved capable of handling previous responsibilities.  Despite that, the majority of the work could be done by an intelligent H.S. graduate with a couple months of training.

  • marka

    Many of these so-called studies continue to confuse correlation with causation.  For example, ‘the skyrocketing of the “college premium”—the wage differential between college and high-school graduates’ suggests to me something very different from the article author.  Plenty of other potential ’causes’ of the differential, not the least of which is our continued hypocritical support of unauthorized aliens continuing to flood the lower-paid positions, thereby lowering wages even further, and pulling down others with them.

    I agree with tardigrade & misanthropic789.  

  • philosophile

    The review quotes Professor Shepherd as saying, “astonishingly, the sense of flavor is a mirage,” and says he believes that flavors (and the smells that help constitute them) are no different from our sensations of touch and sight. They are “images” or “mirages” created by the brain. That suggests that our entire world of sensory perception and experience is a “mirage,” and raises the question how we can use “mirages” to discover that they are mirages. Of course that is the question that worried Descartes.

    However, what I want to say is that a few years ago while working part time as a fact checker at U.S. News & World Report I wrote to Professor Shepherd asking whether he knew of any attempts by neurobiologists to graft neurons between organisms. 

    Not only did he write back (saying he knew of no such attempts), but he suggested that if it were possible, then if you connected afferent neurons on the hands of two people a stimulus to a hair follicle of one of them might produce a tickle in both!

    There are not many professors who would bother to respond to a question such as mine; and still fewer who would see what lay behind it and offer a suggestion. 

    No doubt his broad range of curiosity and interest led him to write the book you review. But it is also evident in his textbook “Neurobiology” (1994), which I believe is a leading text in the field (translated into a dozen languages), and which I keep on my desk alongside Wilhelm Windelband’s “History of Philosophy” and Thomas Mann’s “The Magic Mountain.”