What is a higher education for?

[oldfart]

Another thread on this board focused on whether or not a college education is necessary for any particular job or whether it is all a "sheepskin effect", a college degree being a filter to reduce large numbers of applicants to a manageable number.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...d-right-no-job-requires-a-college-degree.html

My answer to that is first, that a "sheepskin effect" has value to society by making labor markets more efficient; second, that higher education has traditionally had goals beyond vocational education; and thirdly, that many fields of education require resources not often found outside of universities (laboratories, museums, libraries, performing arts groups and venues, and concentrations of scholars who meet regularly).

My reason for starting this thread is to raise the subject of what good higher education should be and if we are advancing it or losing it. My focus is on upper division education and graduate school, as the "general ed" courses of the first two years are pretty vanilla in most schools.

Personally I am a product of integrated public schools of the 50's and early 60's, of a public university which was not a "research university", and a graduate school which was. My brother had a similar academic path in another field and spent 40 years in upper level university administration in Illinois and Texas. My sons had similar experience and one is a PhD level researcher in chemical engineering in Pittsburg and the other is a successful business owner in Florida (and yes, I am the junior partner in the firm now, which means I only do what I damn well want to!).

In the end, I think we got world-class educations. If the system had been a bit different, I think we still would have ended up getting a superior education. You don't have to be elitist to recognize that family culture has a large influence in how well students perform. I learned things in junior high school that other graduate students struggled with at the higher level. The biggest reason I saw for people dropping out of programs had nothing to do with intelligence or desire; some students just did not know what to expect and could not adapt quickly enough. This happened at every level. Smart kids in high school who were overwhelmed in college; good undergraduate students who were unprepared for the next level.

That said, higher education has multiple purposes, the one I am focused on is the need to produce a cadre of our best and brightest, to inculcate them with certain habits and values, to expose them to a community of scholars, and to encourage them to develop a wide range of skills and talents, as well as professional expertise, to fill leadership roles in our society. A few have sufficient talent and ability to do this almost on their own, but we need more than that. We need not only the Albert Eienstein's, but also the thousands of scientists, engineers, craftsmen, and administrators who made up the Manhattan Project.

I do not think anyone has devised a way to produce great thinkers. The are born and exist. We either create an environment where they can elevate to their potential, or we do not and they languish; but no educational system produces them.

So where do we stand today? This is the Golden Age of Science in America. Vast profits based on advances in science are being made, but they are not going back into science, nor are they generating benefits for the scientists. The laboratory has become another kind of high-class sweatshop. Finance has moved from being the servant of industry to the overlord of business. The smart money no longer thinks about planning beyond a few quarters and the distinction between criminality and aggressive business is blurred beyond recognition. I'm not hankering for the good ol' days (I lived enough of them to remember the warts), just calling what I see.

And I don't think America is replacing the human resources it is using up.

[/jeremiad]

Jamie

 

[DGS49]

Colleges and universities should be a place where the most intellectually capable citizens can pursue learning and knowledge in an enhanced environment, under the guidance of Great Minds. It should be reserved for the "best and the brightest."


But our egalitarian mindset has convinced us that "everyone" is "entitled" to a college education, so we have built millions of classrooms to accomodate (a) the Baby Boom, and (b) everyone who could scrape together the tuition money, one way or another. And the colleges have been required to lower their standards, offer remedial courses, and offer watered-down coursework, so that the masses who are filling the seats will not fail, be discouraged, or stop paying tuition.

In 1965, a college degree meant that the person had made it into a selective institution and completed a rigorous program of education. Even if the subject matter had no connection to possible employment, the employer was assured by the "sheepskin" that the person was, in effect, intelligent, had perseverence, and was very capable of solving problems.

The combination of the Vietnam War and the Baby Boom devastated the quality of education in all but the most selective of institutions. Where failure was a constant threat before 1970 even is state schools, it became only a rumor after that date, as professors fretted that they might give someone a failing grade that would cause them to be dismissed, get drafted, and get killed on the battlefield. Horrors.

Today, a sheepskin (other than in a technical or quantitative field) is nothing more than proof of above average intelligence. It does not guarantee that the applicant can solve problems, persevere when the going gets tough, or even write a coherent paragraph in a letter to a customer. Most cogent employers assume that a recent college grad will only be around for a couple of years until they get bored, so if they can't produce immediately they won't get hired. Think Enterprise, Mickey-Dee's, and Verizon.

Presumably, a degree from a "name" school carries something akin to the weight that a 1965 degree did, but as for a degree in "business" from State U., is - I'm being kind here - of marginal value to any prospective employer.

 

[oldfart]

Colleges and universities should be a place where the most intellectually capable citizens can pursue learning and knowledge in an enhanced environment, under the guidance of Great Minds. It should be reserved for the "best and the brightest."

But our egalitarian mindset has convinced us that "everyone" is "entitled" to a college education, so we have built millions of classrooms to accomodate (a) the Baby Boom, and (b) everyone who could scrape together the tuition money, one way or another. And the colleges have been required to lower their standards, offer remedial courses, and offer watered-down coursework, so that the masses who are filling the seats will not fail, be discouraged, or stop paying tuition.

In 1965, a college degree meant that the person had made it into a selective institution and completed a rigorous program of education. Even if the subject matter had no connection to possible employment, the employer was assured by the "sheepskin" that the person was, in effect, intelligent, had perseverence, and was very capable of solving problems.

The combination of the Vietnam War and the Baby Boom devastated the quality of education in all but the most selective of institutions. Where failure was a constant threat before 1970 even is state schools, it became only a rumor after that date, as professors fretted that they might give someone a failing grade that would cause them to be dismissed, get drafted, and get killed on the battlefield. Horrors.

Today, a sheepskin (other than in a technical or quantitative field) is nothing more than proof of above average intelligence. It does not guarantee that the applicant can solve problems, persevere when the going gets tough, or even write a coherent paragraph in a letter to a customer. Most cogent employers assume that a recent college grad will only be around for a couple of years until they get bored, so if they can't produce immediately they won't get hired. Think Enterprise, Mickey-Dee's, and Verizon.

Presumably, a degree from a "name" school carries something akin to the weight that a 1965 degree did, but as for a degree in "business" from State U., is - I'm being kind here - of marginal value to any prospective employer.

In my observation, some of the biggest problems are at the "elite" universities. It is possible to get a first rate education at any of the say, top 300 institutions, more if you pick one in your field. Not all students at such schools are receiving such an education, but a lot of students at the elite schools are turning out poorly educated as well.

I agree with you about the timing in general. Ultimately the responsibility for the quality of the product rests with the university governance who control the money and the faculty (a basically self-perpetuating body in the aggregate). Students can be a catalyst, but it's unfair to fault them for not being what we are supposed to be training them to become!

 

[DGS49]

What most people forget is that it is the STUDENTS that make the elite universities elite. They can be incredibly selective, and admit only the best of the best.

If you took the incoming freshman class at Princeton and put them on an island for four years without teaching them anything, they would still be a pretty outstanding group of humans at the end of the four years, and they would still accomplish great things before they died. The Princeton education undoubtedly helps, but its the students that are outstanding, more than the school.

 

[Moonglow]

I've found that many that graduate college are not that smart and on the job training is still required.

Many of the richest people in the US never went to college.

 

[ralphgrant]

Higher education leads to a more advanced knowledge for us and the best we can make out from it.

 

[editec]

Higher education serves many masters.

It can serve to make us more productive citizens and it can also serve to make us better people.

If it does not do both then truly bad things happen to society.

 

[DGS49]

Sorry about rambling here, but most of the American public is the victim of a cruel illusion about the purpose and value of "higher education."

If MAKING MONEY is the objective of your life, then in most cases a college education is a waste of time. The life paradigm that "college" promotes is basically that if you want to "get ahead," you have to get a degree, get a good job, work hard, get promoted, and one day have a "corner office," a big salary, and beautiful assistant and ultimately a golden parachute.

But most fortunes in this country come not though corporate "success," by rather by way of either, (a) smart investing, (b) entrepreneurship, or (c) selling something for more than you pay for it, none of which has anything to do with education. My wife is an Italian immigrant, and she has a slew of uncles and cousins who couldn't write a coherent sentence if their life depended on it - people who have never had a normal job in their lives, but most of them (they all own small businesses) are much better off than my wife and I, who are both 60+ mid-level corporate managers. One pizza shop pwner recently retired at 55; he has no pension, but has accumulated 25-30 houses - most of which he owns outright - which will provide rental income in perpetuity.

The "Learned Professions" require a solid college education and graduate school, but as many of us know, a law degree and membership in the Bar is no guarantee of financial success.

But if your plan is to work hard in college and acheive "corporate success," your chances of actually getting rich that way are quite low. In most cases you will be moderately successful, and have to work until you are 65.

Sigh.

 

[DGS49]

Are we all happy with the eggregious grammatical error in the title of this thread?

Dare one ask, "What is the purpose of Higher Education?"

 

[Moonglow]

I went to college starting in 1979 and my last year was 1997. Although I worked on three degrees I was never able to stand working as an intern for little pay. I amassed my fortune by starting my own masonry company.

 

[Moonglow]

Are we all happy with the eggregious grammatical error in the title of this thread?

Dare one ask, "What is the purpose of Higher Education?"

He was probably speaking of getting stoned and being educated.

 

[longknife]

"Higher education" is nothing more these days than a scam to keep ultra-liberal and anti-American eggheads in jobs mostly paid by taxpayers.

 

[DGS49]

But even ultra-liberal, anti-American eggheads would understand the difference between a scan and a scam.

 

[itfitzme]

"Higher education" is nothing more these days than a scan to keep ultra-liberal and anti-American eggheads in jobs mostly paid by taxpayers.

So that's your excuse....

 

[Samson]

I've found that many that graduate college are not that smart and on the job training is still required.

Many of the richest people in the US never went to college.

The average net worth of Forbes 400 members without a college degree is 6.6% higher than members with a degree.

The question becomes, what is the chance anyone will become a member of Forbes List?

Very unlikely.

Much more likely will be that anyone will compete for middle class jobs, and that you will be paid near the $60K average salary most Americans make. The likelihood of this average, middle class livelihood increases with education.

 

[Moonglow]

"Higher education" is nothing more these days than a scan to keep ultra-liberal and anti-American eggheads in jobs mostly paid by taxpayers.

Yes repubs only have beauty, barber and clown colleges to attend.

 

[pacer]

We are told college builds character and teaches the value of hard work and scholarship. It adds value to ones resume and increases earning potential. Yadda yadda yadda… I only attended several courses in college, not a full-time program. You certainly need a lot of self-discipline.

 

[Unkotare]

Any thoughts on the idea that education is its own reward?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I've found that many that graduate college are not that smart and on the job training is still required.

Many of the richest people in the US never went to college.

The average net worth of Forbes 400 members without a college degree is 6.6% higher than members with a degree.

The question becomes, what is the chance anyone will become a member of Forbes List?

Very unlikely.

Much more likely will be that anyone will compete for middle class jobs, and that you will be paid near the $60K average salary most Americans make. The likelihood of this average, middle class livelihood increases with education.

How much of that 6.6% can be attributed to (a) Bill Gates and (b) inherited net worth?

 

[Samson]

I've found that many that graduate college are not that smart and on the job training is still required.

Many of the richest people in the US never went to college.

The average net worth of Forbes 400 members without a college degree is 6.6% higher than members with a degree.

The question becomes, what is the chance anyone will become a member of Forbes List?

Very unlikely.

Much more likely will be that anyone will compete for middle class jobs, and that you will be paid near the $60K average salary most Americans make. The likelihood of this average, middle class livelihood increases with education.

How much of that 6.6% can be attributed to (a) Bill Gates and (b) inherited net worth?

I didn't have the entire list, however the point remains: The chances of making more money are greater if you have an advanced degree, but there is also the very small chance that one could make much more money without the degree.