Colleges: An Endangered Species?

February 19, 2005 7:58 AM

Colleges: An Endangered Species? A well-written review that refers to a number of recent books on the subject of college education:"Every middle-class American family with a college-age child knows how it goes: the meetings at which the high school counselor draws up a list of "reaches" and "safeties," the bills for SAT prep courses ("But, Dad, everyone takes one; if you don't let me, I'm screwed"), the drafts of the personal essay in which your child tries to strike just the right note between humility and self-promotion—and finally, on the day of decision, the search through the mail in dread of the thin envelope that would mean it's all over and that, as a family, you have collectively failed. ...
posted by Postroad (32 comments total)

So it's not about education, or the citizenry would pay the taxes needed to make one's local state college truly decent, but about the family's class prestige -- which means being "exclusive" regardless of its real value. Does this surprise anyone over 14?

What is Paris Hilton's major anyway?
posted by davy at 8:17 AM on February 19, 2005

davy and I must have read a different article. Is the link rotating?
posted by bingo at 8:35 AM on February 19, 2005

*sigh* my dream is to someday start a university and do everything the _right_ way. However this same dream must have occurred to some university founder in the past, so I wonder, what is the ultimate corruptive force? Uncertain funding or business model? Poor organizational structure? ridiculous pedagogical technique?

Why should the state of things be so universally deplorable? One would think that students would flock to quality, and that market forces would fix things.
posted by sandking at 8:46 AM on February 19, 2005

"davy and I must have read a different article."

No bingo, you just read it differently. Like sandking.

"Is the link rotating?"

It looks still to me. Is your Friday night over yet?
posted by davy at 8:56 AM on February 19, 2005

I don't know that I just read it differently. Your comment above doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article I read. Parallel universes, perhaps?
posted by bingo at 9:02 AM on February 19, 2005

This does seem a little insubstantial for the NYRB. I found this thought-provoking:

the nation's liberal arts college students would almost certainly fit easily inside a Big Ten football stadium: fewer than 100,000 students out of more than 14 million

As to the main issue —

the United States leads the world by a considerable margin in the percentage of citizens (27 percent or 79 million) who are college graduates ... more than half attend college part-time, typically majoring in subjects with immediate utility, such as accounting or computing ... stringent. One suspects that behind the commitment to student freedom is a certain institutional pusillanimity—a fear that to compel students to read, say, the major political and moral philosophers would be to risk a decline in applications, or a reduction in graduation rates

As the college education has earned so high a rank in our citizens' aspirations, it has become less worthy of all this ambition. Increasingly, in conversations with academic colleagues, I find the worry that even at research universities and liberal arts colleges with high standards, the proportion of students is on the rise who are there only to do whatever perfunctory, resentful "learning" is needed in order to be released into the world with a credential and a higher earning potential.

I have to confess that, during the year in my own college teaching career spent at an institution where students were most like that (a Big Ten university), it was so bad that I even asked myself once whether I was doing the world a disservice to help credential SUV-driving party animals who couldn't be bothered to spend any time studying outside of class with the mighty B.A.

Unfortunately, with state legislatures and the populace, our society's great desire is a steady stream of boorish college graduates able to stimulate the economy by earning more money than they merit.

I keep wondering whether the whole edifice of liberal arts education — where the English professor still teaches Chaucer and Milton only because she's been accidentally wedged in the interstices of the same great beast whose science and engineering grants (& other, much more utilitarian, pursuits) are indisputably "helping the eceonomy" — is going to come tumbling down.

But I take comfort in the fact that even the crassest money-grubbing state legislatures, parents, and students realize, at some level, that (however perversely in their view) they can expect more status in the business, government, or professional worlds, the more their institutions resemble colleges and universities where people do learn to read Tacitus in Latin, take Weber and Marx seriously, or have advanced discussions about the geometry of physics (which of course includes the Big Ten, which are major research universities, though some of them have sold their B.A. teaching mission so far down the river that the parts don't seem to hang so well together anymore).
posted by Zurishaddai at 9:03 AM on February 19, 2005

bingo, to quote Zurishaddai: "I find the worry that even at research universities and liberal arts colleges with high standards, the proportion of students is on the rise who are there only to do whatever perfunctory, resentful "learning" is needed in order to be released into the world with a credential and a higher earning potential."

A "higher earning potential" raises (or these days mostly maintains) their family's class prestige (as in Dubya at Yale).

What else do you need spelled out?
posted by davy at 9:21 AM on February 19, 2005

This link was just some stupid insubstantial whining. What does he want to do "make things better?"
posted by zwemer at 9:28 AM on February 19, 2005

"This does seem a little insubstantial for the NYRB."

Z., what do you think of the NYRB article on Afghanistan?
posted by davy at 9:35 AM on February 19, 2005

davy, a higher earning potential has a value in itself, i.e. more money. And George W. would still be a horrible example, as neither his own earning potential nor his family's prestige were threatened by his choice of college or what he did when he was there.
posted by bingo at 9:40 AM on February 19, 2005

This link was just some stupid insubstantial whining. What does he want to do "make things better?"

You can't solve the problem without defining the problem and making sure other people know there is a problem. Judging by the slow movement on pell grants, the inability of lower class citizens to pay for college, and tuition rising in the double digits at the state schools every year, not enough are concerned about the problem.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:46 AM on February 19, 2005

Interesting to pair it with this article.
posted by googly at 9:58 AM on February 19, 2005

Amid these troubling developments, one hopeful sign is the growing public debate over who should go to college and how they should be paid for.[7] Yet one hears comparatively little discussion of what students ought to learn once they get there and why they are going at all. Over my own nearly quarter-century as a faculty member (four years at Harvard, nineteen years at Columbia), I have discovered that the question of what undergraduate education should be all about is almost taboo.

This opening sentence of part two, I thought, might get into the question raised here, but no. As someone who has been part of curriculum discussions at two universities (one urban comprehensive, one massive land-grant Big 10), I can emphatically state that faculty wrestle with this question continuously, with stakeholders vigorously pursued for their input. Books and articles fill the journals and the debates in the halls of academe. To whom is the subject taboo? To the landed gentry? To the consumers who want nothing more than the paper and aren't concerned? Our students rarely voice their input, but the businesses in the communities we serve are not shy to ask that we be nothing more than training sites. But we strive to teach critical thinking in the humanities. Thanks for the article written by a hide-bound positivist who yearns for the Platonic Ideals rekindled.
posted by beelzbubba at 10:02 AM on February 19, 2005

God save us from anyone who'd try to reform American colleges and universities in any systematic extent. Higher education is one of the few things America does well enough to export. I'd like to see more Shakespeare and less Franz Fanon in the English Department, of course, but it's a pretty minor problem compared to the massive benefits of the system.
posted by MattD at 10:11 AM on February 19, 2005

If I had had my way when I was 18, I would have gone to someplace where I could have spent all 120 credit hours of my undergrad degree doing nothing but my major. Nosirree, none of that liberal arts mumbo jumbo for me! Give me my major, with a side order of my major!

Thankfully, I ended up with a scholarship at a local liberal arts college -- and like most of the middle class money dictated where I could attend.

It turns out that in The Real World, I have used the things I learned in the "core" coursework more than the stuff I learned in the "major" courses. Economics, philosophy, heck even art history has been of more value to me. The only major course that I use today was a course in how to use library and research resources.

If I had it all to do over, I would certainly have taken a minor in *something*.
posted by ilsa at 10:28 AM on February 19, 2005

Getting into a good college is easy ... your transcript will only say "University of Maryland European Division" or asian division as you will. This looks very impressive.

Maybe my state school education is failing me here -- hey, it's an excuse -- but are you being serious?

The fact that scandalously underpaid teachers must carry the teaching burden speaks not to their talent or dedication, but to the meagerness of the institution's commitment to the teaching mission.

Isn't this what Delbanco is addressing in the article?
-- An istitution's appearance doesn't necessarily validate the integrity of the education it provides.
posted by pwedza at 11:30 AM on February 19, 2005

I'm with pwedza, reflection, I honestly hope you're joking. It's a sad state of affairs, since you could be perfectly serious as well.

I'm at a private liberal arts college right now. I'm here to learn about lots of different things; I'm an English major, but one of my favorite classes last semester was Philosophy. My roommate is here solely to get a degree and to get the hell out of here. I'd say we both represenent pretty sizable factions of the student body.
posted by craven_morhead at 1:35 PM on February 19, 2005

Slightly OT:
I went to high school with James Duderstadt's daughter. She was, without a doubt, one of the most disgusting grade-grubbers and brown-nosers I've ever known. A thoroughly obnoxious person. My major consolation: while we were both finalists for a National Merit scholarship, she did not get one. I did. So where did this irritating waste of skin end up going to school? Yale. Same place her daddy went. She took advantage of the same old "legacy" crap that Dubya did.

Pretty ironic that James Duderstadt has subsequently gone on to attack private institutions' tactics in his book when he himself as well as his daughter are recipients of private educations.

Methinks I detect a hypocrite.
posted by MiHail at 3:12 PM on February 19, 2005

What MattD said. An American college degree is one of the most valuable pieces of paper in the world because it represents real learning. I teach history to first-generation college students at an underfunded 4 year state school in the midwest. I am continually amazed at how far my students come in four years. We also have a pretty fair sprinkling of foreign students, some of whose parents make amazing sacrifices so they can come here. And it is not that expensive, a year here costs less than $3000, and you can get loans for almost all of that.

And then I pick up the NYRB and some old fart is complaining about how bad things are compared to the golden days of yore when he and his chums Biff and George went to Yale. Bullshit. There are plenty of things wrong with the American higher ed system, but far more that is right.
posted by LarryC at 4:28 PM on February 19, 2005

If the process of earning an education was easy, that education would have no value. I like what LarryC says. There are plenty of things wrong with the American higher ed system, but far more that is right.

Yes, everything should always evolve and improve, but don't become a part of the Culture of Complaint. Sorry, but not everyone can get the Big Gold Star we're all shooting for. Many of us just haven't earned it anyway.

Singing now: Accentuate the positive!!!
posted by snsranch at 4:52 PM on February 19, 2005

LarryC: An American college degree is one of the most valuable pieces of paper in the world because it represents real learning.

I was with you till I read the words after because. I know many people who graduated in the past couple of years, and most of them can't conduct an intelligent debate any more than they could 4 years ago. Undergraduate studies is just another level in the hierarchy of clearinghouses for the job market. What American colleges offer is opportunity for variety and depth. What most students come out with, in most cases, is just a piece of paper.
posted by Gyan at 6:33 PM on February 19, 2005

Judging by the slow movement on pell grants, the inability of lower class citizens to pay for college, and tuition rising in the double digits at the state schools every year, not enough are concerned about the problem.

Another friend, a music major, went back to school and racked up a $56,000 debt doing a one year certificate program at USC, learning the ins and outs of scoring for film and television. The guy working at the T Mobile store told me he has a four year degree from the University of Washington and $100,000 student loan debt he's going to be paying off at over $300 a month for many decades. And these are debts racked up at state schools. God knows what an ivy league education costs.

God save us from anyone who'd try to reform American colleges and universities in any systematic extent.

Yet more grounds for another potential law suit for rolling eye related injuries.
posted by y2karl at 10:36 PM on February 19, 2005

Upon re-reading my friend's email, I see he got hit for $30,000 for the one year at USC--the $56,000 is his lifetime total. But still, $30,000 seems like an obscene amount of money to owe for a one year certificate program at a state institution. Unless, of course, if you are rich, I suppose.
posted by y2karl at 10:42 PM on February 19, 2005

y2karl: The University of Southern California is a private school. They have a misleading name.
posted by halonine at 1:48 AM on February 20, 2005

four year degree from the University of Washington and $100,000 student loan

You sure you don't mean Washington University, a private near-Ivy in St. Louis?

The only way I can see coming out of a state undergrad program with that much debt is if you were an out-of-state student, which is basically equivalent to going to a private school.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:26 AM on February 20, 2005

I for one loathe the way so many people seem to think that universities are just some kind of grand job-training courses. I also revile those politicians who call for ever-increasing rates of university attendance among the populace, presumably for some reason or other to do with driving the economy. A university education is not for everyone, nor should it be. Whatever happened to vo-techs, trade schools, and apprenticeships?

I'm happy enough here at the poverty line, toiling at a job that has little to do with the relatively obscure but intensely interesting subject of my degree. I still have enough money every year to send donations to Phi Beta Kappa, my membership in which organization continues to be a point of personal pride despite the fact that no one around me even realizes it should be.

googly: Thanks for that article

craven_morhead & pwedza: What part of reflection's post makes you scoff? Is UM not a good college? My non-state school education may be failing me here.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 1:46 PM on February 20, 2005

And these are debts racked up at state schools. God knows what an ivy league education costs.

Not a valid a fortiori. The Ivies do a decent job of meeting demonstrated need. Many state schools do not pretend to be coming close.

Percent of need met: Ohio State 71%, Indiana University 63%, University of Georgia 73%, University of Kansas 69%, University of Maryland 68% — and those are all "flagship" campuses. If 100% is covered, the education is less expensive, so long as your family isn't so well-off that the forms show that you need no help to attend the state school.

Self-criticism: OK, what I just wrote isn't a 100% satisfactory answer specifically to the debt issue, because loans, of course, are part of how colleges meet need. But here too there's a spectrum — I went to Harvard in the 90's, with plenty of aid including a Pell Grant. Also about $10-$12k in loans. But my ever-richer alma mater, these days, would saddle a student like me with hardly any debt, a deal you won't get at many state schools.

I wish more bright students who really want a good education were aware of this. I've met many who are struggling to scrape together the tuition for their stingy and sometimes crappy state school, when they wouldn't have to if they'd applied more ambitiously.
posted by Zurishaddai at 2:25 PM on February 20, 2005

Hal Mumkin: Actually, degree-granting colleges do what they do as a result of the demands of a bureaucratic society. Why else do you need credentials? So you can impress people? No, you need them because, in many cases, you cannot get a job without them. It's Max Weber 101.

What's appalling, by contrast, is thinking that students should have such a great say in how they are credentialed. I was never asked to evaluate a professor as an undergraduate, even as late as 1988. Now, evaluations are standard, and prof rating sites abound. These sites don't do university professors any good, nor do most evaluations, which usually ask students how much they think they've learned, and even how often they attend class (they often - big shocker here - lie). Plenty of students smart off or interrupt profs these days, and bitch to administrators about having to do actual work - not all of them, by any means, but enough to sometimes be annoying.
posted by raysmj at 2:26 PM on February 20, 2005

hal mumkin:

I don't know if this is what they meant, but a degree that says "University of Maryland -- European Division" isn't going to be especially impressive, any more than a degree from the University of Virginia -- College at Wise or the University of Texas at the Permian Basin would be. It will look like a degree from a satellite campus instead of a flagship.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:09 PM on February 20, 2005

An excellent article on student-centered education.
posted by raysmj at 3:09 PM on February 20, 2005

raysmj: What would be interesting with evals would be to have a trusted third party collect not-anonymous reviews from the students and grade and attendance information from the professor and then beat the numbers into submission.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:12 PM on February 20, 2005

ROU: Oh, I'd imagine that it may sometimes be more convenient from an administrative standpoint to have vague evaluation forms.

I don't totally discount most student evals, by the way. Most written ones can still be helpful, even when anonymous, although sometimes students want more discussion or such, when it's impossible to provide much of that AND teach them a laundry list of things in introductory-level classes. I've also had students tell me to do more computer presentations, other less. Curiously, this varied by school, which suggested to me that students had been conditioned to think of a good prof in a certain way. All they knew is what they'd seen on their particular campus, in other words, or in high school.

What all students really like, I think, is being able to make their own decisions, or to be a part of a project. Then they happily come to you for guidance. But it's not always possible to teach a course in such a participatory way. And in almost all courses, you gotta lay down the law sometimes, the democratic ethos be damned.
posted by raysmj at 3:37 PM on February 20, 2005