Academic-Reference Firm Offers $10,001 for Best New Research Tool

Westminster School, one of the five, tuition is about 30,000 pounds (48,000 dollars) for boarding; 21,000 pounds (33,000 dollars) for day. St. Paul’s (another)  is, respectively, 28,000 pounds and 18,750 pounds (you figure the $$). Very egalitarian educational system in Britain.

“A new report illustrates the stark gaps in achievement levels at secondary schools in Britain, showing that five educational institutions sent more students to the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford than 2,000 other institutions put together. … From 2007 to 2009 the five secondary educational institutions accounted for one in 20 of all Oxbridge admissions.

So, if there are about 2000 secondary schools in Britain, and these five account for more than half of the admissions to Oxbridge, how can it be that these five “accounted for one in 20″?

Do not forget about the economics driving most institutions.  Just like their students,
colleges and universities have heavy burdens of debt that must be paid off by putting
students in the classrooms and dorms.  This is the result of years of expansion that
began when the baby boomers started going to school.  Unilateral raising admission
standards, reversing grade inflation, and dropping frivolous programs with little or no
academic content will adversely hit the bottom line as students will go to the school
that keeps the threshold low (and, perhaps, offers enough vocationally oriented
programs like nursing).  Even if the students fail to persist to a degree, the
constant churning of enrollment keeps the money flow through the
university finance office. The equation is: Keister + chair = $$$.

This concern about waste is most clearly associated with the 19th and 20th Century Communist attacks on capitalism and freedom. The Communists claimed that central planning would be so much more “efficient”. One type of shoe, in numbers determined by the 5 Year Plan.  Didn’t they also decry “the corrupt system” along with all those 60′s college Boomers? Didn’t they expect that capitalism would collapse “in due course”.  

All those 60′s Boomers waving Mao’s “Little Red Book” or some other Communist propaganda (in reality or metaphorically), provide the context.  Mass-murderers seemed soooo popular with the college crowd. I guess murder by the million is soooo “efficient”.   But they probably would have hated manoflamancha’s rocket tests (Xenon or not), if they learned of them.

All through the Cold War, Americans were repeatedly berated about how bad their education was and how great the Russian schools were.  So I guess I should not be surprised to see, “. . . it is amazing it has survived without a government takeover.”  Yes, just the ticket ;-) for the Communists.  In a free capitalist society, it is the Market that should decide.  Efficiency is largely irrelevant outside of a price-driven, oversupplied, commodity business.  Where is the efficiency of Prada?  And high-heels? Very inefficient for the factory or farm.  In capitalism, maximizing profit is the highest good, only Marxists believe that products should be priced on cost instead of Supply and Demand (and maybe “useful fools”, “fellow travelers”, idealists, romantics, polemic bloggers, etc.)

As repeatedly documented in the CHE and especially the comments, the Market has spoken loud and clear. “Dumbing down, grade inflation, rampant cheating…” are exactly what students want, they are even paying a pretty price to get them, though for “dumbing down” you would have to dive deep to reach the levels of the late 60′s sex, drugs, rock’n'roll, booze, draft avoiding/dodging/deferring Boomers (or is that the real objective of “critical thinking” and “cognitive advance”. Are these really tricky “code words”, sugar-coated poison or “poisoned chalices”? ;-) ). 

Actually, the “government” has spoken at the school district, state and federal level with its pressures to increase participation, enrollment, retention and graduation which really means, “Dumbing down, grade inflation, rampant cheating…”

“Americans know value” and they know the real value, for 90% of students, of college has been the connections, the clubs, the parties, the fun, the sports and the right credentials.  “It’s not what you know, but who you know” captures the essential truth of going to college for 90% of students.

Bi-partisan government mandated NCLB and its related “accountability” variations raised costs while accelerating “Dumbing down, grade inflation, rampant cheating…” All that wonderful accountability and testing has produced high school graduates that on average need much more remedial work. Defining “merit” via SAT/ACT or other standardized tests has advanced “gaming the system”, “teach to the test”, narrowing thought and creativity suppression.

Of course, way back, there was Savonarola (probably motivated by what Jesus and the Prophets had to say), so some of their ideas did not originate with the Communists, but eventually the Florentines got tired of his lectures and burned him at the stake.  Luxury, parties, variety, freedom, choice and options have long held their appeal, no matter what the scolds had to say.  But I guess one would have had to have remembered something from college to know that (or still had the curiosity to learn about it afterwords), but how likely is that outside of say 10% of graduates.

betterschools, actually, since the vast majority of Americans think they are above average drivers, there should be no problem in convincing them to vote to eliminate those who are not above average (“it’ll get rid of those bad ‘other’ guys”).  A 50+% driver reduction will enormously improve the quality of life of the remainder, with way faster commutes, way fewer injuries and death, and less smog.  So in that case yes, it is an excellent “solution” and yes, it is a “net good”.  Even better, you probably could win with eliminating the bottom 60%. ;-)  

So you may not want to promote this analogy since it does seem very compelling and voter friendly.
 
As a side point, for those who don’t remember the concept, by definition, at most 50% of the population can be above average based on any one specific measurement.  There could be a lot at the average mark, so care should be taken to draft the bill to label as many as possible as average. Maybe “above average” could be defined as greater than the mathematical average plus one standard deviation. This would maximize the benefits :-).

manoflamancha, I don’t think I have ever claimed originality for anything in a post. I think I have only claimed to have read or remembered stuff.  In this thread, I think I have written nothing original (much is conventional wisdom), so I am content with your clever line. Though I don’t claim truth, either.  As I have written in at least one thread, “Caveat Lector” applies to my sources and what I write.

Dear Betterschool,

You are crossing some kind of line here.  I never used the word “default” and never even alluded to the concept and yet you accuse me of being “unaware” of what it means.  For someone who  persistently parades what he regards as his superior knowledge of statistics, you are breathtakingly sloppy and are here reduced to make inferences out of thin air.  

Peter Wood 

betterschools, I forgot to mention that Ignaz Semmelweis’ investigations were triggered by the knowledge that giving birth in the street (!) had the best survival rate, the overcrowded clinic staffed by midwives, the second best survival rate, and the clinic staffed by medical students, the worst survival rate.  In other words, the exact opposite of what you might expect if you believed in higher standards, criteria, education, status, prestige and reputation. 

In 1846, the med students killed more than 4 times as many mothers, via Childbed Fever, as the midwives.  The public knew it, which is why the midwife clinic was overcrowded and some preferred to give birth in the street.  It is an excellent example of how faulty standards and criteria, that appear to be high and rigorous, can be a death sentence. 

Semmelweis’ idea of hand-washing with antiseptic was rejected. He was eventually imprisoned in an insane asylum, soon dying of the general form of the disease that he had tried to fight (maybe due to the guards beating him).

This is not surprising nor anything new.  The problem with these studies is that it’s hard to separate the chicken from the egg.  Many students go to better quality schools, not only because they can pay the freight, but because they have the ability and confidence to go there.  Those traits could carry them throughout their lives, improving their opportunities.  They also may learn (both at home and at school) that this is how you play the game.  You build on your connections.  Lower quality schools are less likely to provide those kinds of connections.  I’m also not sure that it’s a bad thing.  In fields that expect high-level performance, wouldn’t you favor the student who graduated from a school with higher expectations?  Or are you saying that the elite schools are actually poor schools (from an educational perspective) with out-sized reputations?

This bit of business by Vedder and Wood reminds me that conservative critics of education are seldom, if ever, cognizant or even vaguely aware of our country’s history.  One of the tropes bandied about by Vedder and Wood is that somehow things were better back in the good old days.  As Diane Ravitch points out in the 29 September 2011  “New York Review of Books:” …it is well to recall that American educations was in crisis a century ago, when urban schools were overcrowded, swamped with students from Eastern and Southern Europe who didn’t speak English.  The popular press at that time warned that the nations was being overrun by a human tide from inferior cultures, and the very survival of our nation was supposedly at stake.”  Hence, all that I can say about their so-called critique is: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

So the difference in starting salaries for top tier graduates vs bottom tier is 25 percent. The difference between working one’s rear end in high school, spending all that time on virtually required extracurricular activities, and SAT preparation, and getting accepted to Harvard/Stanford vs. hanging out and taking an easy road to Northern Illinois/Boise State that accept everyone with pulse is only $10k of gross income? Too little!

These findings do not support the thesis that educational elitism contributes to income disparity. That may be true, but the conclusion from the data as presented is spurious. The covariation (negative association) of Pell grants with school rank might itself, or factors associated with Pell grants, account for the school rank/income association. The proper analysis would be to include Pell grants and other SES related factors into the equation and regress later income on school rank. If the rank – income relationship still held, that would be evidence supporting (but not establishing) a causal link between school rank and economic achievement. Sloppy social science does us no service.

You realize, Richard, that you just made an argument in support of affirmative action – something that has historically only really happened at the elite schools.

But the other “factoid” that your ignoring is the salary increases that do in fact occur when someone completes a BA or higher – and that that increase is higher for poor and minority students.  

Those darn facts. They just get in the way of those political arguments, don’t they?

This has always been true. There are elite schools in America (and other countries) whose graduates are considered ahead of graduates for prime jobs. Those elite school graduates go on (relatively speaking) to more high level corporate and government success, and perpetuate the system – a system that tends to recycle various biases into the conversation about work, school, and class.

America is a class society, just like most other societies. The difference here is that those who  are a socioeconomic advantage have created a very sophisticated rhetoric to make it appear that “everyone has an equal chance”. Sooner or later, when a culture like America’s – that has a massive resource base along with economic advantage (as we have had post WWII)  -  starts to meet the bumps in the road caused by elite inbreeding (of ideas, and institutions), one begins to see the system begin to fracture. That’s what’s happening in America, today. We live in interesting times.

Boy … sure get lots of knee-jerk reactions to this author’s posts.

Seems like many commenters like to mis-read these posts, and blog away ad hominem.

Course – author does state he writes provocatively … apparently very successfully ;-)