Skip to main content

Education inflation

I suppose that I have, through my own prose, become something of a sourpuss on the subject of education. In my defense I must say that if I really didn't think it was valuable, I wouldn't bother. I do think it valuable, and that's why it's a topic that I seem to come to again and again. Today, via Blimpish, I came across a new English blog, Stmbling and Mumbling. Stumbling would appear to be an economist of some sort. In his posts Educating the Stupid and Signaling in Education, he observes that universities have grabbed on to expanding their base as good economics. More students, more tuition, more leverage on the government for tuition subsidies. I suppose that's all fine and dandy if - if - all those students really are better off for all the time and money spend on their degrees. I suspect that at least some are not and Stumbling backs me up. Too many people with a degree is inefficient and inegalitarian, he writes:
Inefficient, because the more people that have a degree, the weaker is the signal that someone has the sort of ability that an employer really wants. That increases the chances of poor hiring decisions. Inegalitarian, because if mere possession of a degree doesn’t send a strong enough signal about ability, employers will use other reasons to hire people. These factors – “a good attitude”, “will fit in” – are likely to discriminate against able people from working class backgrounds. That’ll reduce social mobility.
I would speculate that this situation is not entirely due to money. That's an after effect that helps perpetuate it. What's really going on here has everything to do with class. We seem to be losing our grip on the idea that you can learn yourself a trade, make good money and lead a healthy, happy and above all -a respectful life. It's a good thing to make an effort to find talented youngsters from all classes and encourage them to think about whether or not university is for them. I'm not disputing that. Where we go wrong is when this good step metamorphs into a "no child left behind" kind of vision, where every child in the land must, absolutely must, have at least a BA or he will be a miserable and unfulfilled human being. When we stop looking to universities as centers of excellence, I think we are all poorer for it. Some schools will continue to be centers of excellence and the upper class kids are the ones most likely to know which ones they are. So will their best potential employers. The larger mass of the population will see schools turn out graduates whose quality is not what is hoped for. The university degree declines in value and students waste time and money. They could have been earning and - this is important- they could have been learning on the job. It's a mistake to think that all learning, or even the "best and most valuable" learning takes place in a classroom. For some, an apprenticeship would be much more engaging and rewarding. It would also be shorter, leading to a quicker turnaround from study to money. If you've been watching the new season of the Apprentice, you've seen how well uneducated but experienced workers can compete with those whose experience is more classroom oriented. I don't say any of this to deny or degrade what people do in university. I do think, however, that university should be a place for the really bright, regardless of class. It is not being used properly when marginal students are pressured into going, in the hope that somehow just being there will tap into the real genius that has been hiding so deep that no one ever saw any hint of it in high school. Parents being parents, you can understand why they tend to think this way. An objective outside view would be valuable. A respected apprentice program should not be seen as a consolation prize. We have many kinds of minds. The ones that repair helicopter engines are no less valuable than the ones who design them. You can't fly safely without them both. I once made similar points to a mom (who's daughter really was terribly bright) and she countered by telling me how high students grades had to be to even get into university today. A "B" was barely good enough. I think what I've outlined here explains that. If every child has to go to university, there is tremendous pressure on teachers give out the kind of grades that will allow that. And teachers, being university educated themselves, are pretty bad about advising any other kind of educational route. The result is grade inflation. That "B" might only be as good as a "C" used to be, with the result that students are beating themselves up to get less and less of what they really need, which is a proper assessment of their skills. If they have that, they can plan their future accordingly, as can universities (as centers of excellence and not as high school part two) and employers (holding a degree really does signal an above average thinker, writer and speaker). Grading on a curve, anyone?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi