next »

[Jane Doe/Public Univ.]

Part of me wants to air on the side of tradition. That is to say, that a higher education is not only about obtaining a "degree" or creditials in one's chosen professional field, but to also experience culture, diversity and to discover a true sense of self.

But the reality of the world has become (more and more in my experience): 1) dead end jobs, 2) long hours, 3) low wages. Instead of planning for a professional career, graduates are coming out with little or no "experience", loads of debt, and dare I say a jaded outlook?

Therefore, I see more room for internships, research and collaborative team work from the beginning. This prepares students not only with "knowledge", but the experience of being a pro-active master of their own destiny. That sense of ownership of their future needs to be established early on in their educational "career". If they don't learn this or get this, they will be starting over again when they enter the "real world", which to me is an embarassment to the "educated."

[%sig%]

[Midwest Liberal Arts]

What planet are most of you on?  Nearly all colleges and universities offer a wide range of majors from glorified vocational training (flight, nursing, auto repair, welding) to traditional liberal arts fields (philosophy, english).  An adult student enters into the college and chooses his/her major.  This person agrees to take on debt and study a field in which there is a low probability of finding employment.  

Guess what? The college needs to change! The students are leaving without useable skills.  

Enrollment is at an all time high.  Applications are at all time highs.  Students choose to go to college for job training, finding themselves...whatever.  Seems to me, the college is giving the student EXACTLY what they want.  That students waist their time or study foolish topics are don't get the skills they need to be successful is...dare I say this to an entitlement culture or achademics...the students fault.

Xavier

[Elizabeth Kirkley Best PhD]

I found the article by Levine to be interesting, perhaps not new in the formation of the question, but provocative as to the eternal question of what education is, and what its goal is.

Are students fresh out of college prepared for the 'real' world?  I suppose one always means the business or academic world in which one is called to produce a product, intellectual or otherwise,  without exams and guidance, and in which these days rules, policies and even laws are bent at will.   In that case, the most basic answer is 'no', students are not prepared in college for what really awaits them in the workplace and life:  it is far more viscious than the slumber of a 4 year baccalaureate.

I think the most critical issue though about what should be done, must first take into account the often discussed question of the nature of education.  Education, I believe is in its best form often seen as content and skill.  It is less often training young people to think and reason, to solve problems with clarity and apply 'practical creativity'.   I would never reccommend one without the other: content and skill require the other for an effective education.

Having said that, there is a consideration that is far worse than leaving education to mere content today, and that is turning Education into a business, with the University as the "learning corporation" and the student and public as the consumer.  The trend towards this started with the move of diploma mills and business/trade schools into more formidable institutions (e.g. U of Phoenix,  and the other 'get your degree easily')  schools and has ended lately with traditional universities and community colleges failing to make academically cogent decisions in lieu of  ones of financial expediency.    The former institutions often have prepackaged 'courses' or modules with facilitators rather than professors, and gear towards 'exactly what business wants'  rather than forming and training broadbased educated persons with lucid reasoning skills.   With the traditional universities also given over to consumerism, what is lost is the original purpose of the University and Education:  knowledge and ideas considered not for money but for their own sake.

Whenever merchandising takes hold on an estate in our society, i.e. the Church, Education, the Media,  or these days, the Internet, the result is not good nor viable to producing either a free society or thinking individuals.  Caring more about the bottom dollar, catering to what the business world wants, or keeping students for tuition dollars and funding instead of real reasons has long term devastating consequences, and in the end will produced highly trained technicians who cannot think or plan.

Lost also in being too concerned about what is called 'the real world' and what it requires, is the one institution in our society which should be given over totally to the free exchange of ideas: always questioning and always allowing the discussion of the innovative and the distasteful:  that forum is a pillar in keeping a nation free and preventing genocide.   That forum though recently has faced two formidable opponents in the past 25 years:
consumerism, just mentioned , and political 'correctness' in which a certain bound of liberalism must be expounded before one is welcome in that free exchange.  Far from true liberalism,  one becomes bound either by being unable to express certain opinions or ideas because it might cost the institution money, or because the ideas fall outside the norm.

One must remember that in the Third Reich, in 1933 as soon as the Reich took office, the immediate target for limiting discussion and ideas was the Universities of Germany:  Jewish professors equated with 'bolshevism' and 'entarte kunst' were summarily ousted; department chairs were dismissed without party membership.  We think when discussing liberalism as the norm we are speaking of the opposite to this, but National Socialism in its day was not seen as brutal fascism by all but as a bright new marriage of a return to Volkische culture  and technology, with the dawn of a new age propigated on the heels of a 'politically correct' training  of German students.
Even Heidegger fell prey to it. (shoaheducation.com/nazipeopletheo.html)

It is good to have a pragmatic and not just a theoretical approach in our universities, but balance and freedom are required for greater purposes.

[%sig%]

[Student]

So should there be more emphasis on professional and vocational education and downgrade liberal arts since B.A.s lead to dead-end jobs?

[Moominoid]

Recent Grad

I always studied what I liked and was interested in, despite people telling me I should do something else. I am fascinated with the natural world and how the world and economic system works. So I studied geography my first love and economics an acquired taste.

I don't have anything against people studying non-vocational subjects, but then you have to be realistic about the immediate prospects on graduation. As I said I spent 6 months post masters looking around and that was 15 years back and then found a professional job with a firm that wanted people with a masters in geography (because the owners had MBAs they wanted people to have masters...).

The top of the pack in English and history maybe can go on to show those critical thinking skills that the liberal arts boosters go on about. My former employer liked to hire people from snobby schools (I was from the least snobby background of the young consultants) because he thought we would be good at getting new clients among real estate developers etc. (so much for Trump's book smart vs. street smart).

Business is the most popular undergrad major in the US. My opinion of business studies is pretty low too... I have a friend with a business degree from a regional state college to prove the point.

[Vincent Marchionni, Instructor]

The problems are fundamental problems with our children's behavior which cannot be corrected and should not be corrected by changing undergraduate pedagogy.

[%sig%]

[Vincent Marchionni, Instructor]

My fundamental character was formed by eigth grade (parochial school). High school (diocesan) refined and enhanced it. I didn't need the drastic character reformation of the Corp, so I went USAF.  I agree with your fundamental points. It is NOT our job to re-raise our students. I have enough problems with my own two children.

Vincent Marchionni

[%sig%]

[Kristena, Saddleback College]

This phenomenon is true, as I have witnessed this slowly happening over the years in various work environments.  Not only are recent graduates often poorly prepared, they lack interpersonal communication skills and possess an unsatisfactory work ethic.  According to the article, colleges must adjust for this problem (noting also that they can't repair everything).  Although I think it's good to prepare students and know how to better educate them, colleges cannot be overly accommodating because this only perpetuates the initial dilemma.  When will the responsibility be placed on the student?

[%sig%]

[RD Johnston]

The lack of reasonable academic standards is prevalent throughout higher education today.  Unfortunately, many administrators reward those faculty members who hold minimal academic standards.  There is no doubt that many of our college graduates are not prepared for the real world. How could they be prepared given the lack of academic rigor that they are exposed to while enrolled in many of our colleges and universities across the country?  The United States will remain a "Nation at Risk"
until college administrators begin rewarding those faculty members who hold high academic standards.

[whippersnappers]

Why can't they be like we were
Perfect in every way
What's the matter with kids today?

from the Bye Bye Birdie song, Kids, 1960.

Has there ever been an adult generation that hasn't lamented how much worse prepared the current young generation is to face adulthood? This so-called "Not ready for the real world" generation will be saying the same thing 25 years hence. Face it, you're all a bunch of cranky old fogies.

[Graduate Student Guy]

There is one question that seems to be missing from this discussion.  What criteria are businesses using to hire graduating students?  What I always found strange in college was that people I knew who were extremely lazy seemed to get jobs after college despite the fact that they had received all C's. I went to a state school that had the reputation of being just a little below the ivy leagues in terms of quality.  It seems to me that if you go to a school that has a good reputation many people will hire anyone with a degree from that school.  They seem to assume that a C from a Harvard or its equivelent is better than an A at a "lesser" school. The thinking seems to be that just passing from a "great" school is enough to show a person's worth. I personally think that if you get C's at any university, there is a very good chance that you  might have a low work ethic.  It shows that you did the bare minimum to pass.

Another important question has been implicitly asked in previous posts.  Does high school prepare people for the real world?  I think this is a more important question.  I personally think that it is not college's job to develop a work ethic in students.  I took a year off before to graduate school and worked at a Walmart.  I found while working there that many former high school students weren't willing to do any work.  If management asked them to help an old lady shop, they'd refuse.  They would get angry if they got fired for coming late to work multiple times. These behaviors reminded me of some of the undergraduates I knew in college.  Students who failed becaus they didn't follow in class attendance policies were exactly the same as the Walmart employees who got fired for being late multiple times.  There was nothing anyone could do.  If a student or employee doesn't care about their degree or job you can not force them to be a good student or employee.

[In my opinion...]

The people that received "A's" very often did so because they took easy courses, with little if any challenge to them, thus creating a "glut" of high GPA graduates.

I would personally hire someone with a C-B average if they actually took challenging coursework and could apply the knowledge over a cattle call, general education, high GPA student ANYDAY.

[%sig%]

[S. Krishnaprasad, JSU, Alabama]

Professor Levine does make some relevant observations and suggest some remedies regarding "worklife unreadiness" of our graduating students. He mentions about employers complaining about the inability of novice employees to delay gratification and think long-term. This is part of the culture we live in where instant gratification and short-term thinking are nurtured and encouraged. Thus, the remedy should start at the very beginning: K-12 years. Gradually, the importance of delayed gratification and long-term thinking should be taught to our growing children during these formative years.

Learning is a serious business. Learning is not fun, rather, it results in joy. The state of "being cool" is often a disguise for ignorance. Creative knowledge and skills invariably brings out the warmth in a person. With this mind-set, developed over K-12 years, our students will be prepared for the more rigorous college-level education. And, when they do graduate they will have the necessary skills to learn new things and adapt to changes. College education cannot teach current workplace skills as the latter are transient. Rather, college experience should provide a well-rounded education based on discipline, hardwork, critical-thinking, and team-work. These things automatically generate responsibility, independence and proper perspective.

[%sig%]

[Roger DH]

I'm with you there. This article was a rant that can be summarized by, "College students don't respect ME ME ME! And it's their loss for not swooning when I walk my elder ego into the room."

Maybe everyone needs to change their attitudes rather than expecting others to change their attitude.

[Joe Doe, What do I know U.]

This article as I was reading it started out and continued..I stopped reading after a while...like it was Dana Carvey's "Grumpy Old Man" Character...

"Back in my day, we put skewers in our eyes....and we LIKED IT".....

Also problems with the younger generation and why they can't do things well has been an argument going back to the origins of time...

We should improve and continue to improve, but we do the things we do because we have learned that many times it is the right thing to do, and we learned that over many generations.  We now have more choice than we ever had, and will continue to do so, we will have those who do great things and those that do less than great things.  To make generalizations and stereotypes does not help matters.  What works for some will not work for others.

A bit of compassion, flexibility and knowledge is probably needed by all of us and there are not best ways of doing anything.  

So let us live, drink and be merry for we will always have lots of work to do ahead of us.  To say we must deprive ourselves to make us better is not a very thoughtful approach.