Ooh, Matt.  Everyone needs a college education.  It's so very, very important.  Look at the difference in lifetime earnings.  Now, don't tell me that that's because people who graduate from college are smarter (read more productive).  No, no; it's because they went to college.

Voc-ed high schools have been largely abandoned, though to some extent they've been replaced with community colleges. When one considers that many school districts have started "Jump Start" programs for collegebound seniors, why not offer a similar deal for non-collegebound seniors? Just make high school a three year affair, followed by some combination of community service & college freshman courses, or voc-ed training for a specific field where 2 years at community college is plenty, with a few mandatory classes where everyone gets to mix (like, say, financial literacy, which would reduce the demand for things like payday loan industry).

There are certainly some qualms to be had here. Tracking students at early ages (even high school) always has a vaugely Brave New World-esque quality to it. And this system is very ... well ... European. But surely there is some workable solution here.

I completely agree.  I have had heated arguments with friends regarding this topic. 

Some think the liberal (arts) education often received at a University is crucial, but I tend to disagree...

1.  Many students no longer receive much (if any at all) of a liberal arts education.  Budget cuts and department downsizing are facts of life.  Even at an institution like Yale (my current address) you commonly see cutbacks (consolidations) in departments that aren't profitable.  At the same time, the school's endowment is now between 10-20 billion (last I heard).

 2.  Many (most) students waste time at a "four year" university.  They waste way too much time AND MONEY.  "Mandating" college for the entire middle class simply means putting off the decision of what to do in life.  Rather than having focused students, who take advantage of the opportunities presented to them at college, many students treat college like the "C student" treated high school... only, they show up to class a lot less in college. 

About half my friends changed majors at least once during the first two years of school, if not more than once.  And what might have been a four year school a generation ago, all too often takes 5 or more years.... why????  Because most students ARE NOT focused when they go to college and all too often they waste the first year partying it up, enjoying their new found freedom.  Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of students who work hard and study hard during their college education, but there are a lot of other students who have it easy.  These students don't pay for their tuition, their books, their beer, or anything else.  As far as I am concerned, that's fine... my parents paid for my four years of college, and their assistance made my life easier.  What did I get out of my experience?  A B+ average, and graduate school at Yale.  However, many of my classmates, whose parents also paid their bills wasted their personal time and their parents' money.  These students come out with a *pointless* degree--pointless because it is in some BS major that had no real curriculum, and then they go and get a fairly low paying job that made their past four years an utter waste of time...  But hey, they can always go and get a business degree of some sorts or maybe go to law school in a few years.

Some people are cut out for college, some are cut out for trade/professional schools, and some people are cut out for going straight into the work force, and perhaps acquiring additional training later (if needed).  However, by forcing--social pressure-- EVERYONE to go to college we have done very few things.

 1.  We have RAISED the costs of college.  When I was a freshman at UCSD, you could be guaranteed two years of living on campus.  By the time I was a senior, you were only guaranteed one year.  Other public universities have no dorms at all, or have even worse housing options.  What does this mean?  Well, it means you have to go out and find an apartment in San Diego, or LA, or whereever your school is located... not gonna be cheap.  This also means you have to find a means of transportation to get to campus..... more money well spent.

2.  We have LOWERED the standards.  This is a hard comparison to ever make, but I believe it is true.  In an effort to be "more modern", many colleges at a University have lowered requirements, or completely done away with the "less useful" ones (such as humanities, writing, or other fine art classes).  And students find these lower standards and shoot straight for them.  I shared a dorm with students from another college my freshman year... Their sole "humanities" requirement was a single pass/fail writing course.  My humanities requirement was 2 years of humanities courses...  But I was going to be a biochemist, and they were simply going to be electrical engineers or computer programmers.  So, it's not like they need to know anything else, is it?

 3.  Have you seen the article about the number of students who are actually at a "college prepared" level upon entering college???  Maybe I should go find the latest statistics.  It's amazing how many "straight A" high school students aren't prepared for college.... Not only have we lowered college standards, but we have lowered High School standards... no longer are kids being prepared for the next step in life.  Instead, they are being coddled so that they are all "good enough" for college.  How can the average freshman at a university have a GPA of almost 4.00??

Well, this is turning into a rant.  I think there are serious problems with our universities, and quite frankly it's time people acknowledged that college for everyone isn't the answer.  Some people should go to junior colleges until they are ready AND focused.  This alone would relieve many of the problems our university systems face.

-Zen Blade 

That's the modern reality. But a) it's irrational, the system shouldn't be like that; b) if everyone had a college education, and the instrumental value of it derives in large part from its scarcity, then it would lose almost all value.

Agree with Matt and Atrios.

The problem is more complex than merely most people in the work force don't need a college education.  As Zen Blade points out, the great democratization of university education in the US has been achieved to a great extent by watering down standards.  

While Cohen's article about how math is silly is wrong on many accounts, he does have a point that most adults don't need to understand higher mathematics to make their ways through life.  (Having said that, Cohen's assertion that math is for nerds and that writing reflects the highest order of thinking is so much pompous nonsense.)  

 Having taught some university-level mathematics, my greatest frustration has been that the vast majority of the students absolutely don't give a rat's ass about the topics they are purportedly studyiing.  Their apathy affects the teachers, who dislike teaching apathetic students, who then become jaded with teaching, and negative feedback feeds upon itself.  On the other hand, older students are almost uniformly tremendously motivated about what they are studying.  Rather than funnel 95% of high school graduates into university educations that they do not appreciate, and which will ultimately be irrelevant to the future employments of well more than half of them, perhaps we should encourage the tradition of 'gap years', whereby 18-year olds are given a year to figure out what, in fact, they wish to do with their lives. 

Better to think about it then than at 22, or even later.

Of course, universities have the financial incentives to push as much education as possible, as a generic product.  The economic incentives for quality control are much less. 

DOROTHY: "Follow the Yellow Brick Road?  Follow the Yellow....?" (Dorothy, puzzled as she looks about)
DOROTHY: "Now which way do we go?"

<LS: Dorothy standing in the center of cross roads. A Scarecrow on a pole in the cornfield at right -- he speaks, points to right -- Dorothy whirls about and looks at him -->

SCARECROW: "The direction which is being indicated vis-a-vis my extended appendage yeilds a path which, although not awe-inspiring of the likes of the touch of a Seraph, nor of lowest value in the type of a festering swampland replete with members of the species alligator mississippiensis, has adequate merits to support a modest journey, provided sufficient provisions are made, and many and various events do not befall us at the whims of fate."

DOROTHY: "Who said that?"

<CU -- Toto barking at the Scarecrow -->

DOROTHY: "Don't be silly, Toto.  Scarecrows ..don't talk."

SCARECROW: "Dotty brat. Those of my perhaps unusual persuasion are obligated to remain in silence in order to attract, and subsequently repel, those of the species nycticorax nycticorax. Reference to the non-aural faculties of many of my brethren is..."

I really used to believe in this point of view and back in my younger days, I remeber writing a column for my college newspaper about how, "College isn't for everybody."

That column embarasses me now.

College isn't just about job skills.  Yes, that's part of it, but that's not all it is.  In fact, I now say that's not what most of it is.

When I was 18, I thought I wanted to be something that, it turned out, I never became, or even really tried to become.  Choosing a life path that might be very hard to alter is too much to ask of an 18 year old.

It's too often implied that some people would be better off learning a skilled trade than by learning a bunch of liberal arts mumbo jumbo.  But, there's no reason you can't learn a skilled trade AFTER college.  And, college might motivate people, even people who hate school, to pursue some other goal or it might reinforce the impulse towards going the trade route -- either way, the decision will be informed.

I also worry that a lot of the people we're talking about, when we say, "they don't necessarily need college," are, well, poor.  But, a lot of people who we would have said that about after World War II, who went on to college on the GI Bill, went on to lead a decades-long post-war economic boom.

I think college is the kind of thing that we should encourage, even in instances where we think it's not necessary -- the additional education beyond high school serves to help young people think about how they want to live.  A seminar where you sit around discussing Plato might sound like a waste of time to a lot of people, but I think it also has benefits even for those who think, as they're doing it, that they're wasting their time.  Some things just aren't easily quantified.  And, to be honest, learning to deal with the unquantifiable is one of the most valuable things that I learned in college.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

good points. another point is that whenever an article reads, "a college education isn't necessary", it's almost guaranteed that it is being written by someone who has enjoyed a college education (just as wealthy people like to lecture others on how unimportant money is).

if you change a system, but do not address the underlying forces, ie: the need for a method of social stratification, then it will have no real impact, as these forces will simply act upon whatever new system you implement. (as someone raised within the ever-changing UK education system, i have witnessed the depths this can sink to - no matter how education is organized, the working classes always lose)

it actually makes zero sense for a system that requires only a small number of highly skilled workers to invest in early education. it is so much easier to identify and nurture potential against a background of low expectation and why would the kind of dumb society that is being constructed by business leaders and politicians want to shoot itself in the foot by raising a whole generation of well-informed people who know how to think? the author's notion that such a surfeit of thinking people would benefit society, rather than each individual (who may well benefit), is bizarre. anyone who works a crappy job while completing their education will testify that being intellectually curious and serving coffee or wiping tables is worse than being a dumbass and wiping tables.

i am not asserting that college graduates can think, i doubt the percentage that can think is any higher than in the general population. the fact is that college graduates are the most obedient, rather than the smartest, the Best in Show, if you like, and are prepared to mark that obedience by investing money and lots of time, being trained for their role (unless the individual pursues a "useless" discipline like philosophy or history, where the chance of being educated suddenly spikes.) this is why a distinction must always be drawn between being educated and being trained.

Are college admissions really the most meritocratic?  I mean, you've got the issue of legacy kids and a college's (I think) legitimate need not only to admit the best students but to create a real community and to include people from various backgrounds, locations, races anc economic conditions.  Nothing's a pure meritocracy and I don't meant to say that colleges should be a perfect example of one, but... aren't admissions just more complicated than simple merit?  Also, even if they were, we're talking about the merits of teenagers here.  No doubt that grades, test scores, extracurriculars, essays and interviews say a lot, but they can never tell the whole story, especially when the subject in question is so young. 

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

If "The educated person is one who has received the culture of beliefs and appreciations which are central in the society," and if by virture of being a college graduate one has absorbed that culture of beliefs and appreciations, then I'm off to see the wizard.  Did he not give Scarecrow a diploma and assure him that he was thereby acculturated/encultured/whatever?

If we're talking about beliefs and appreciations on a cultural level, then the liberal arts would ideally bring that knowledge.  HOWEVER, few people get such an education, many English or History majors in state colleges get precious little education and much more training to become teachers, and those students in fields like the sciences and business often receive only a cursory glimpse into the world of cultural appreciations in their freshman and sophomore years.

After the end of the Cold War, however, the US stopped even pretending that it cared about enculturation, except of course for the future ruling class, whose education is far, far different from the education dispensed in third- and fourth-tier state universities.

Such is my perception after twenty years of university-level teaching in several institutions.

"While I was in college, my friends and I joked that half our degree is just proving our ability to follow directions, jump hoops and put up with meaningless bullshit."

There is certainly a good deal of that in college, but, if I may say so, I'm a college teacher known among students for keeping the BS to a minimum. I only mention this because I manage on a pretty regular basis to get Business & Engineering majors to think seriously about, say, Heart of Darkness or Gilgamesh, etc. What absolutely galls me about the recent obsession (in some quarters) with assessment is that the gross sorts of measures being proposed cannot assess the sort of educational experiences some -- most? many? -- of my students manage to have in my classes. I get a pretty good sense of it from reading their essays, but even then, learning is a subtle thing & sometimes the lessons of a classroom do not mature until years later. It is true that many of my students enter college believing they are there to get job training & it is also true that my university accommodates them in this belief to a greater extent than I would like; but it is also true that by the time they graduate, many students have managed to transform into thinking adults for whom a job will be one element in a complete life.

Another thing about the assessment drive: Colleges already do a great deal of assessment. It's called grading. In my department, all our majors also have to compile a portfolio of work & write a relevant, synthetic research project in their senior year.
 

 ================

He's sure got a lot of gall / To be so useless and all / Muttering small talk at the wall . . .

I am now almost at the point where I can legitimately "look back" on my life, though I do still remember what it was like to be Matt's age.  With that experience behind me I am more convinced than ever about the value of a well-rounded, learn-how-to-learn education with a good amount of classical reading and writing practice. 

However, I am also forced to observe this:  I have long been in favor of extending the undergraduate engineering curriculum to 5 years and requiring BS Eng students to take more English Literature, Political Science (political philosophy that is, not the bogus econometric stuff), and History.  BUT - the kind of educational navel gazing in this discussion seems to be more of an issue for pure liberal arts majors who took no more math (eeeew!  yuck!) or science after their frosh survey class.  One seldom finds engineering or hard science majors complaining this way or bothering to even consider whether educational achievement is useful in the abstract.

And no, most 4-year BS Eng programs are not "vocational".  There is an element of actually preparing a person to do useful work their 1st year after graduation, true.  But a lot of time is spent on foundational problem solving skills that should carry the engineer through at least the first 10 years of his career and 1 or 2 technology changes (after that it is up to her to keep developing her own learning abilities).  As I said to the dean of my school at a recent, um, somethingish reunion, there were five classes from my BS that I use almost every day of my working life.  Two were liberal arts and three engineering - but even when working as a design engineer I _never_ used a single technique from those or any other class to solve a specific problem.  It was the critical thinking, problem-solving and learning how to research skills  that  carried me through.

Not sure where all this ends up.  I have hired any number of people with HS diplomas, had them been successful, and then seen them return to college for as AS or BA at the age of 40+ because they were then motivated to do so.   So I don't disagree with Matt's theory.  But at the same time, if Matt and his compatriots had spent a few more Friday nights over in the engineering library grinding out 60 problem homework sets in advance of a 7 AM Saturday lab exam, he might have a bit of a different perspective.

sPh 

Having taken classes at Columbia University in the last couple of years I am aware of the feeling that undergraduates are more concerned with their grades so they can get into an appropriate graduate school than they are what they learn.  This may be unfair to the students but I know this is what a lot of faculty feels.

When I was in college in the 1970s there was a big push to get everyone into college as the high school diploma was becoming "obsolete."  With more people in college college is taking on the character of high school 25 years ago.

There is no doubt that having more degrees helps economically.  In a country that has never valued "book learning" all that much perhaps there should be some thought to how to make wanting to know and desiring to learn a value in itself.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Let's be honest... undergraduate admissions have little to do with merit, and more to do with "knowing the system"... 

 
how many clubs were you in during high school?

Did you do charity work?

What sports were you in?  Student body president? 

What was your SAT score (that you studied for at that training session your parents paid for)?

What was you GPA (which, by the way is completely NOT STANDARDIZED for high schools)?

By knowing these tricks, and being a decent BS writer you can get into most schools.  I would argue the "merits" being reviewed are the merits of business and politics... the winner often isn't the best candidate.

One of the best and most useful STANDARDIZED way of assessing merit is the AP tests.  Unfortunately, most schools don't take these tests into consideration... even though students from across the country are tested in specific subject areas with these exams.  This contrasts with the SAT, which covers a bunch of useless crap that you probably never covered in your course work...  Which test is better?  The one that tests specific subjects in a robust manner, or one that is a formulaic amalgumation of general concepts that may never have been covered.  Are admissions really based on merit, or on the appearance of doing "what is expected"?  And which should it be based upon?

I would argue the biggest meritocracy is Graduate school and Academia.  And btw, meritocracy is great, until you realize that the person who is willing to sacrifice the most of his/her family/personal life to pursue the goal wins most of the time.  I believe in rewarding the best candidate, but I also believe in making exceptions for familial considerations, which are all too often discouraged in academics.

-Zen Blade 

Traditionally, a college education, and a degree, indicated to a prospective employer that the individual had stuck to a commitment.  That personality type is valuable on any job.

I agree with you on the screening aspect. My four year degree was never anything more than a “door opener”.  Screeners, be they outsourced (recruiting firm) or internal (HR dept.) go with what they are given.

If the hiring manager lists ‘four year degree’ as a requirement, then your resume never gets to him/her unless you can claim you have it. You could have 10 years experience and be the dream candidate for the job – but the hiring manager will never know you exist unless someone can check that box off. If they knew you existed you would get the interview and maybe the job – but they will never know.

I entered the IT field in the late 80’s. I knew most of what I needed (self taught) and everything else was OJT. I can think of very little I learned in four years of college (night school, I still had to work to pay the bills) that I have ever, even once, used in my day to day job(s). Certainly not Calculus I and II that were simply degree requirements you had to have. In my mind, I spent four years of 80+ hour weeks and ten’s of thousands of dollars to get the interviews. That’s it. That is all I got out of it.

Was it worth it? Yes. My career has repaid my investment many times over (well money-wise, time-wise no). But the bottom line is that it was a four year ordeal and many thousands of dollars I did not have just to get the interviews.

I think the dividing line is probably jobs that require a 6 year+ degree. Obviously to get the graduate degree you need the undergraduate. Professions such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, hard science, academia (although this now seems to be more about indoctrination than education) need the degree. More succinctly – the point where classroom training is actually beneficial and OJT can not make up for a lack of classroom training.

There are kids in high school right now who know as much or more about programming (from a technical aspect) as I do. What they lack is real world experience. Four years of college will not give them that. Only applying their knowledge in the real world will.

sphealey writes:

However, I am also forced to observe this:  I have long been in favor of extending the undergraduate engineering curriculum to 5 years and requiring BS Eng students to take more English Literature, Political Science (political philosophy that is, not the bogus econometric stuff), and History.

=== One of my high school science teachers told me the difference between science and liberal arts graduates was that the science graduate could read Shakespeare but the liberal arts graduate could not read Einstein. ===

Going in to my particular 4-year US university, those entering the School of Engineering had higher verbal SATs, a greater rate of placing out of freshman comp via exam, and a greater rate of invitations to the Honors English program than those entering the School of Arts and Sciences. 

sPh

A fresh anegdote: NYT had a story this week that the CEO of Radio Shack claimed to have a dual college degree -- in theology and psychology.  It turned out that he has none.  I guess that he is as inept CEO as he would be after finishing the theology program in a microscopic Baptist college from which he dropped out.

 I think that perhaps we should give more opportunities to people without college degrees.  That would include protecting the existence of good blue-collar jobs, but also recognition that a person can perform well in many "high level" jobs without a degree.

I learned one useful thing in high school: how to type.

On the other hand, I learned several useful things in college: a fair amount of economic reasoning, some historical reasoning skills, how to write a decent one to four page essay, some statistical analysis skills, some accounting, a bit of art history, some ethical principles and analytic frameworks.

I think the whole credentialing/signaling argument is overblown.  Content matters.  The liberalizing tendency of liberal education is a good thing for people and for society.  In police forces, for example, the ability to root out corruption is closely allied with the ability to overcome the tribal instincts of policeman in favor of principles of law and fairness; guess what? the best predictor of whether a policeman is going to choose principles is whether he went to college.

The social stratification thing will go on, regardless of whether people go to college.  

I wouldn't try to get rid of college, but I could be persuaded to shave a few years off of high school.  Put the money into expanding head start and pre-school.  Let's do foreign language education in pre-school, when kids have the ability to effortlessly absorb a second or third language.  

Instead of high school, let's organize a four or five year "gap", with a year or two or three of universal national service, as well as several years of employment thrown in for good measure.  Send people to college at age 20, with money-in-the-bank.  And, while we are at it, let's organize some colleges with truly excellent technical training.

Or health considerations.

The only reason I am still 'in the game' for a PhD is finding an understanding, dare I say, liberal professor.

Soon after I joined his lab I developed a severe case of ulcerative colitis.  I've been through one hospitalization and a near constant series of flareups, treatments, and doctor visits since.

He's stood by me all the way.  I can't put in near the hours or days that alot of professors would have required; he drives me nuts sometimes, but thanks to his understanding I am still in the game.  It's hard, sometimes; working through continuous frustration and continuous illness is, IMHO, every bit as tough as a 70 hour week. But I manage it.

In a true "meritocracy" I would have been tossed aside like any disposable cog. 

I think different issues are getting mixed up in Matt's and Atrios' posts. 

I agree that there is a serious issue relating to "credentialism" nowadays.  However, this relates not simply to some general notion that one ought to go to high-school/ college, but to the requirement that one have a special degree in order to be employed in specific fields.  Witness the proliferation of diploma-programmes and professional college degrees.  This is harmful insofar as artificial barriers to employment are being created and when a specialized educational qualification really ought not to be viewed as a condition of entry. 

The issue of whether people ought, in general, to attend college is a distinct one.  I don't see any harm in high expectations on this score, so long as the perils of "credentialism" are avoided.  For one thing, premature streaming of students away from tertiary education is likely to disproportionately deter people from lower social-economic brackets from considering the possibility of entering fields that do require advanced education - lawyers, doctors, prof's and the like.  Many people only become aware of these sorts of professional options when they are in college.

It seems to me that proposals to soften high-school requirements or to somehow stream people away from college are in effect proposals to lower expectations regarding the education of people from these segments of society.

Check out Warner's senior year of high school initiative in Virginia: that's supposed to allow students to finish their high school coursework in the first three years so that they can get either a combination of AP and college courses equivalent to one semester college in their senior year, or they can take vocational classes towards an industry accepted certificate.  Kids who don't have the basic skills they need yet to pass the graduation exams get extra support to catch them up in those basic skills.

Well, I don't think very many people are actually arguing everyone should go to college.  but there is a good argument that everyone, including non-college bound students, now needs the same level of secondary education in at least math, science, and language arts, as was previously reserved only for college bound students.  

In many ways, to have a decent life, non-college bound students may actually need to learn more in high school, particularly in math, than those going to college.  The Matt Yglesias' of the world can get by on their verbal abilities with little use of math, but most well paying non-college degree jobs require a good bit of math.  Plumbers, tool and die cutters, etc need to know about geometry and algebra to solve some basic problems in their jobs today.  So do workers in a lot of new factories.   Cosmetologists in a number of states have to have at least a decent grasp on math to do the chemistry required to pass cosmetology exams. And all kinds of decent jobs increasingly require basic writing, reading, and communication skills that we've historically relied on colleges to teach only a smaller number of students.

As far as students who actually go to college are concerned, and the usefullness of the degree to them, some data would probably shed light on this discussion.

The National Center for Education Statistics tracks data on the majors of students graduating from college in a particular year.

By far the most popular of the majors is business, followed by "social sciences and history," then education, then psychology, engineering and engineering technologies, health sciences, communication and communication technology, and visual and performing arts all quite close together, followed by computer and information sciences and biological sciences a bit lower. 

Some of the people who are studying "business" are probably learning concrete skills they need in their chosen field, for example accounting, but for a lot of students this is probably a filter and the concrete skills they need are more likely learned on the job.

Social sciences, history, and psychology majors are probably not learning a lot of directly applicable job skills, unless they are planning to go on to grad school in the field, but may or may not be learning useful analytic and writing abilities, depending on the quality of the insitution they're attending.  Most of these people will probably end up either teaching or doing work not directly related to their major.

Education majors are acquiring coursework required by states for certification that in a lot of cases is otherwise not particularly valuable, but there is a strong case to be made that, to be able to teach effectively, secondary teachers need the grounding in a field that a major provides (there's some research evidence teachers with this background are more efective, particularly in math and science), and, there's a base of knowledge about child development and special needs education that elementary school teachers should learn from good education programs (although many are of low quality and don't teach this material).  So, teachers do need college degrees.

Engineering and engineering technologies, health sciences, and computer/information technolgy all require acquisition of specific skills in post-secondary education that are directly applicable to or are a prerequisite for on-the-job learning in future employment. 

Visual and performing arts is more complicated: At least in some fields, people attending quality programs will benefit greatly from the theoretical and technical skills a higher education program provides.  But a lot of people studying these fields will end up doing something else for a living anyway.

I have no idea what communication and comunication technology even means.

There are other, less popular majors, for example architecture, library science, agriculutral science, nutrition, and religious vocations, where people probably do learn specific, job related skills and knowledge.   

It's also worth noting that in the U.S. we allow students to pursue certain fields only at the graduate level after earning a bachelor's in something else.  For example, in a number of countries you can go directly into medical school or law school, but in the U.S. you must obtain a bachelor's majoring in something else first. That's one reason there are so damn many political science majors.