credit: syracuse.com
Life sometimes dissolves into farce, and that is nowhere so evident than in the world of Higher Education. I graduated from college in 1986. By then, I had military service and nearly a decade of police work under my belt and was in my 30s. By taking overloads every semester and every summer and interim session possible, I finished in 2.5 years. Because I attended a small Midwestern school focused on training excellent teachers, I managed to avoid much–not all–of the politically correct lunacy that currently infects our campuses.
Consider that many of our colleges and universities are now bogged down in a particularly fetid fever swamp of their own making. Apparently, at least 25% of the women that attend college can expect to be raped. They can probably even make reservations. And young men attending college are all presumed to be rapists, presumed guilty until they are inevitably found guilty by women’s studies tribunals. Yet the federal government wants everyone to incur enormous and crippling debt to attend college so they can be raped or thrown out of college as rapists. Who could resist that siren song? It’s a progressive, politically correct utopia!
But back to business. Here are the first four installments of this updated series:
Education Problems And Solutions, #1: The Wages Of Failure UPDATED
Education Problems And Solutions, #2: Unaccountability UPDATED
Education Problems And Solutions, #3: The Magic Curriculum UPDATED
Education Problems And Solutions, #4: Mission And Responsibility Creep UPDATED
Here’s the updated version of an article first published on January 3, 2012:
I remember back in the 1400’s when I went to high school. Heady days. School counselors weren’t in the least afraid to suggest that some students might be better served by avoiding college. In fact, the commonly held belief was that most people would not attend college, opting instead for one of the skilled trades, trade school, or simply getting out into the workforce and discovering reality. In fact, I recall some students actually being told—gasp!—that they simply didn’t have what it took to succeed in college.
Am I making a simplistic, “good old days” argument? Not quite. As one currently fighting in the education trenches, I have discovered certain realities, realities that my counselors back in the 1400’s also discovered: some people—probably most—simply don’t have the IQ or the dedication necessary to do real college level work. They—and I—are in good company in this much–abused belief.
What?! Some people aren’t as smart as others?! Progressive heads are exploding everywhere! Yes, and if you haven’t learned this fundamental lesson about human nature, I fear for your continuing existence. We do not, for a moment, doubt that not everyone is capable of playing on the varsity football or basketball team, yet we have this odd conceit that resists recognizing intellectual differences despite the fact that we have to do it every day merely to survive.
Charles Murray, the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute is a prolific writer on educational issues. One of his most interesting works (PDF available here), written in 2009, is entitled Intelligence and Education. Murray referred, for example, to a survey that found 90% of high school students were encouraged to attend college by their counselors. It is not surprising, therefore, to discover:
For 40 years, American leaders have been unwilling to discuss the underlying differences in academic ability that children bring to the classroom. Over the same period, federal policy, backed by billions of taxpayer dollars in loans and grants, has aggressively encouraged more and more students to try to obtain a college education. As a result, about half of all high-school graduates now enroll in four-year colleges, despite the ample evidence that just a small minority of American students — about 10-15% — have the academic ability to do well in college.
Using his own research and that of others, Murray came to an interesting conclusion about what is necessary for genuine success in college: an IQ of at least 115.
There is no inconsistency between Kobrin’s results and a 115 mean IQ among white college graduates. The students who make salient points in classroom discussions, who write well-researched term papers, and whose final exams demonstrate that they understood the material are
usually well into the upper half of the distribution of academic ability among those who go to college. In other words, they are somewhere in the top 15% of the population — and usually in the top 10%.
I recommend, gentle readers, that you take the time to read Murray’s article. It is one of the most intelligent, well-reasoned pieces on the topic I’ve yet seen, in large part because it employs equal doses of common sense, logic, competent research, and insight into human nature.
Allow me please to make–in the spirit of Swift–a few modest suggestions:
(1) Most people don’t need to go to college.
(2) Most people can’t afford to go to college.
(3) Most people can’t actually do genuine college-level work.
(4) Trying to send everyone to college is harmful to secondary education.
(5) Trying to send everyone to college is harmful to higher education.
(6) People not ready for college are consumed, and not in the Swiftian sense, by the experience.
Since taking office, President Obama has made no secret of his desire to send virtually everyone to college on the public dime. Even after the passage of ObamaCare, most Americans are unaware that one of the things we had to pass that law to discover (as Nancy Pelosi so arrogantly and idiotically put it) is that the law federalized the entire student loan industry. The entire industry. Under Obamacare all student loans are underwritten, administered, processed and enforced by the government—the taxpayers. But surely Mr. Obama will take pains to ensure the fiscal integrity of the entire student loan structure? Not quite:
Kevin Glass at the American Spectator reports on Mr. Obama’s executive order to undermine the entire house of cards:
The accelerated “pay as you earn” program, which Obama will authorize through executive order, could benefit up to 1.6 million borrowers and reduce their payments by as much as a couple hundred dollars a month, administration officials said. All remaining debt on the federal loans would be forgiven after 20 years — five years earlier than under current law.
Glass provided some sobering statistics:
* College cost inflation is around 6.5 percent/year for the past 50 years.
* Starting salaries of college graduates have been stagnant and even fallen in the last decade.
* Debt per student at graduation has risen from around $9,000 in 1993 to over $27,000 in 2011.
Glass quotes Lindsey Burke at the Heritage Foundation:
[E]conomist Richard Vedder calls the idea of student loan forgiveness “the second-worst idea ever—the worst was the creation of federally subsidized student loans in the first place.”… [i]ncreases in federal subsidies or student loan bailouts shift the burden of paying for college from the student—the person directly benefiting from college—to the millions of Americans who did not graduate from college.
Much has been written about the Higher Education Bubble (Google the term if it’s unfamiliar), which is simply the theory that college prices have risen beyond the point of sustainability. In effect, college costs too much for the benefits it provides, in many circumstances and places, far too much. It remains true—at least statistically and for the moment—that those who possess a bachelor’s degree will tend to earn more in a lifetime than those who do not, but practically, that statistic lost its gloss and practical meaning years ago. Mr. Obama’s seizure of the student loan industry has had a predictable result: it has increased tuition as colleges tout supposedly easy money as a means of increasing enrollment.
But isn’t this an expression of the free market? People providing a service the public wants? Not quite. In this case, most of the colleges are publically supported institutions—the Obamites are overtly hostile to private technical schools and colleges—and most traditional (now 6-7 year) colleges are serving their students poorly indeed. Particularly in the current economy, college enrollment can do nothing but dramatically decline, unless of course taxpayers are essentially paying people to go to college with money they don’t have in the first place. This is not a recipe for economic solvency, for the individual or America.
(1) Most people don’t need to go to college. Despite the suggestions of some that our society has advanced beyond the necessity of manual labor, reality tends to intrude. There are still hundreds of absolutely necessary skilled trades that do not in any way require a college education yet provide a high standard of living doing useful, valuable and satisfying work. One would need to sit in on my classes for only a day—likely less—to understand that most people not only aren’t cut out for the academic life, they have no interest in it.
Understand clearly that I believe that everyone should further their education beyond high school in at least some way. Nothing stands in their way. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have, as adults, traditionally taken classes in community colleges—and now, online—as they pursue their jobs and careers, in some cases because they remembered the joy of learning their high school English teacher helped them find, and in others, because a degree has become a necessary step on their career ladder. This system—self-selected, self-motivated, self-initiated—has worked well for centuries. The current, recent move to send everyone to college is a utopian solution to a non-existent problem.
The proliferation of the Internet and affordable, handheld computers also provides a ready alternative to a traditional college education. Great books and lectures courses are widely available for little or no cost, and books are more readily available than ever.
(2) Most people can’t afford to go to college. I’m almost embarrassed to expand this idea, but in the spirit of discussion… College is becoming, by any measure, more and more expensive, and its rewards have dramatically diminished. At the same time, it is taking people longer and longer to finish a degree. Bachelor’s programs that traditionally were completed in four years now routinely take as long as seven, greatly running up the final debt tally.
“But Mr. Obama is going to forgive my loans!” Right. And when Mr. Obama leaves office and adults once again take over (let us pray), that particular executive order will be rescinded as quickly as pen can be applied to paper. Since Mr. Obama is halfway through his second term and still on track to bankrupting the nation, every dollar of college debt adds to the burden. if our federal politicians under any president prove unequal to the task of reestablishing a functioning economy, attending college for any reason will suddenly be at the bottom of most people’s daily survival lists.
Murray puts the issue in perspective:
About 17 out of every 20 white high school seniors at the 90th percentile of academic ability enter a four-year college hoping to get a B.A. Twenty percent of them can be expected to fail. About two out of three white high-school seniors at the 75th percentile of academic ability enter a four-year college hoping to get a B.A. Forty percent of them can be expected to fail. About half of white high- school seniors at the 60th percentile of academic ability enter a four-year college hoping to get a B.A. Fifty-two percent of them can be expected to fail. About two out of five white high-school seniors at the 50th percentile of academic ability enter a four-year college hoping to get a B.A. Sixty percent of them can be expected to fail.
The truth is that an enormous number of those who undertake expensive college loans will never graduate from college. A substantial number of them will default on those loans. Guess whose pockets will now be picked and whose legs will be broken, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, to make up the difference?
(3) Most people can’t actually do genuine college-level work. Here is where we get into the issues that concern me most. Virtually every college now has a remedial high school curriculum—a school within a school–designed to prepare graduating high school seniors to pass freshman level course, courses past generations of college students were assumed to be capable of passing without help. Some pundits and many college professors and administrators point at the public schools, hyperventilating about the poor quality of students enrolling in their institutions of higher learning. Nonsense.
Back in the 1400’s, students had to actually apply to virtually any college, and those whose academic record wasn’t up to speed weren’t accepted, or were accepted only on a probationary status, a matter that was actually taken seriously and monitored closely. That’s right. Some people weren’t accepted in college, even state schools!
To self-esteem believers, this might seem cruel, but it was quite the opposite. What measure of kindness is extended to a student everyone knows is so woefully incapable of genuine college work that their first semester, even their first few years of “college” work will consist of nothing but retaking the high school level courses they barely passed in the first place—while paying full college tuition for those classes, of course? How do we pat ourselves on the back for our kindness when we know that a huge number of those kids will drop out of school far short of a degree only after incurring substantial debt they’ll be even less prepared to pay back for having missed those months or years building the habits and experiences that have the potential to make them gainfully employable? What will be the state of their self-esteem then?
My students are amazed to learn that I took my undergraduate degree in 2.5 years with a 3.89 GPA. I did this because I was absolutely focused, willing to take up to 22 hours per semester, and full loads every summer and interim session, and had the intellect and determination necessary to do it. I also did it at a time when colleges weren’t in the business of loading as many bodies—regardless of their qualifications or abilities—into the college machine. I did it taking no remedial courses at all, taking genuinely college level work under teachers who had not yet heard of grade inflation.
Well good for me! What’s the point? How many college students do you imagine do what I accomplished? Three percent? One? The simple reality of human nature is that most people are, in most ways, average, and as Murray suggests, about 10%– the top 10%–are capable of true success in an actual college.
I am certainly not advocating keeping those who are not in the top 10% from attending college. I know many people who, through hard work and dogged determination, struggled through a degree. Bless them. I admire their courage and have no doubt they’ll succeed in life. They surely learned more and became better people for their efforts than the legions of more academically talented who majored in waking up in unfamiliar places in pools of their own—and other’s—vomit. The point is always that when we ignore human nature, we pay a price, sometimes on a societal scale.
(4) Trying to send everyone to college is harmful to secondary education. Many states, including my own, are caught up in one of the latest educational fads: College Readiness. It goes by a variety of names, but they’re all the same, one-size-fits-all approach to life, which assumes that everyone should attend college. Many states are mandating curricular standards—even specific curriculums—that must be imposed on every high school student, regardless of their desires, goals and abilities.
Regular readers know that one of my most serious concerns about education is the futile, losing battle to preserve class time so that I can actually teach my students. In that battle, the odds are very much against me, and I find that I have less and less time every year to teach far more material, material demanded by federal and state educrats, much of which is focused entirely on passing the tests they also mandate. Adding another mandate, particularly one so blatantly foolish on its face—the idea that everyone should attend college—only takes more precious time from real learning.
One thing is certain: the student who doesn’t much care for high school is going to be even less impressed with attempts to interest him in college. Even as teenagers, many kids are more than smart enough to know that college isn’t for them, at least not right out of high school. Good for them. Why don’t their self-appointed intellectual superiors know that?
I do encourage kids to continue their educations. I tell them, repeatedly, that education is a life long process, and I tell them of the many opportunities they have to further their educations, college being only one. Only an arrogant fool looks down on those who don’t display a bachelor’s degree on their wall. How many college educated idiots do you know?
(5) Trying to send everyone to college is harmful to higher education. If college really is “higher education,” how can turning a year or more of a bachelor’s program into a remedial high school be justified, intellectually or financially? For the moment, a bachelor’s degree remains an entry requirement to at least some jobs. However, if employers can no longer count on a bachelor’s to tell them anything meaningful, why not hire a non-degreed veteran with real work experience, someone they know is reliable, will show up to work on time, and knows how to accomplish a mission, or a graduate of a specific technical school over someone with a bachelor’s degree that can be relied upon to mean only that its holder spent from 4-7 years taking a great many remedial classes?
I’d prefer not to get into degrees earned in various “studies,” but this coming semester, Columbia University is offering an Occupy Wall Street class. Part of the course–and you saw this coming, didn’t you?–requires students to do “field work” by actually joining OWS-type protests. No doubt, even remedial college students can participate in the kind of complex, socio-political sleeping, drumming, defecating, urinating, rape, petty crime and similar hi-jinks of these advanced, graduate-level educational gatherings. Talk about fitting the curriculum to the student…
By admitting virtually anyone, by diluting the quality of their product, colleges are devaluing that product, and in the real free market, this inevitably means lower attendance—much lower.
I would argue that those who knowingly accept students manifestly incapable of college level work, who send them back to high school while charging them college tuition for classes they should have mastered on their first opportunity, have no standing to complain that their students are incapable of college level work
Such “colleges” are about something other than higher education aren’t they?
Pingback: Business Card: A Business Necessity | AnjumsList
Mike,
Some thoughts:
Recently, in geologic terms, we altered the educational paradigm, from a front loaded system to a goal of life long learning, except no one told the educators.
For example, we used to fear if you didnt learn everything at school before heading out into life and thus we front loaded our education so completely that even those who attended graduate school tended not to complete their educations until their late 20’s.
For women, i’d suggest these are not prime reproductive years.
Mike, you attended college at a later time in life – i applaud you.
I presumed, wrongly perhaps, that life long learning could free many from the burden of the front loaded system.
Heck, if you get to learn throughout your life, why is everyone told they must attend college straight out of high school.
Life long learning, it would seem, could allow.for just in time learning, where one learns what they need to succeed and can edify themselves at some later time in life with all the esoterica and the useless liberal arts pc nonsense that teach us anti-Americanism, anti-male, anti-pigment deprived folk studies
“Recently, in geologic terms, we altered the educational paradigm, from a front loaded system to a goal of life long learning, except no one told the educators.” — in geologic terms, eh? Huh. Good thing you are too smart to teach.
“For women, i’d suggest these are not prime reproductive years.” — that…. the geologic terms you describe are not conducive to a female’s education? Fvcking GeoCrats…. always keeping down the Femmes.
“I presumed, wrongly perhaps, that life long learning could free many from the burden of the front loaded system.” — here, I think, is the most inadvertently poignant thing stated. Technology advances. What doesn’t change, however, is our method of continued education for those plying a trade. This includes bizarre studies and trade studies. I get why an Occupy class exists, I also get why its an elective. What I don’t get is why a multicultural studies decision can be decided between a language and a religion. I could go in detail about a bizarre conspiracy, but it would be just that.
Libby, though, my dear, please regale me about the geologic terms of education. I am confident that based on your curret ran….. er, um ‘lectures’ that Mike might recommend you for a degree in both cultural studies, and/or geological studies, since the two seem to run in similar spheres.
Sorry, no sarc tag.
So, what are the prime reproductive years for women? Is human biology a sacred cow we cant discuss?
The undervaluing of trade education is so sad.
Large numbers of folk,
Who are sent to college,
Only to go broke.
They could have had,
a career, a small business,
or two.
Now, who will we call,
when we find our appliance broke.
Tradespeople,
Are the backbone,
of any country,
just like teachers, fire fighters,
police and the military
Is this a Haiku?
I cannot tell. It
seems to be disjointed and rather hard to read.
Typical.
Is this the pot calling out the skillet?
No, generally my criticisms don’t have odd line breaks.
Its gender neutral and race neutral so i can see where you’d be easily confused.
It might be a form of Haiku.
Apologies if it didnt float your boat.
” Apparently, at least 25% of the women that attend college can expect to be raped. They can probably even make reservations. And young men attending college are all presumed to be rapists, presumed guilty until they are inevitably found guilty by women’s studies tribunals.” — :cough: Um, Mike, pal, there is certain degree of walking the line I can appreciate, but, right here, this is not it.
Nothing like imitating an ostrich, roo old boy, to find an argument. You obviously have not been following the recent spate, in advance of a coming wave, of lawsuits by young men who have been “raped” by their own colleges.
…. in what way, at all, does your reply, at all have to do with women expecting to be raped, or women’s studies about that subject?
You are such a practiced nitwit, roo. Tell mommy to bring a peanut butter sandwich down to her favorite trollie.
Barna, I fail to see a reply to the question posed. Oh, snap, before you wonder what the question was:
in what way, at all, does your reply, at all have to do with women expecting to be raped, or women’s studies about that subject?
Okay, line by line:
“Much has been written about the Higher Education Bubble (Google the term if it’s unfamiliar), which is simply the theory that college prices have risen beyond the point of sustainability. ” — but, speaking realistically, when was it ever? By which I mean a non scholarship attendee coming up from a public education without parental intervention. When based on a boot-straps point of view, college attendance shrinks drastically, and that shrinkage is not wholly linked to a lack of IQ on the attendee.
“every dollar of college debt adds to the burden” — heh…. um, no. Every dollar of college debt adds to the burden just as much as any dollar of college debt could pull us out of it.
“Back in the 1400’s, students had to actually apply to virtually any college, and those whose academic record wasn’t up to speed weren’t accepted, or were accepted only on a probationary status, a matter that was actually taken seriously and monitored closely. That’s right. Some people weren’t accepted in college, even state schools! —- Six. Hundred. Years. Ago. BTW, the same frailties applied, pay a butt load of money, and odds are a student got in, or, heck, its the 1400’s, rumor that a member on the board dabbled in witch craft. The same results will occur.
“College Readiness. It goes by a variety of names, but they’re all the same, one-size-fits-all approach to life, which assumes that everyone should attend college.” — there are those that graduated from a preparatory school this particular based curriculum a PREPARATORY SCHOOL. Its a private institution that sort of.. ya know, charges exorbitant sums of money to ensure to student is prepared for educational hurdles ahead.
“Even as teenagers, many kids are more than smart enough to know that college isn’t for them, at least not right out of high school. Good for them. Why don’t their self-appointed intellectual superiors know that?” — because our not so self appointed employers seek otherwise? Just spit ballin’ here…
“Only an arrogant fool looks down on those who don’t display a bachelor’s degree on their wall. How many college educated idiots do you know?” — many more than those that HAVE a degree, much less hang one on their wall.
“However, if employers can no longer count on a bachelor’s to tell them anything meaningful, why not hire a non-degreed veteran with real work experience, someone they know is reliable, will show up to work on time, and knows how to accomplish a mission, or a graduate of a specific technical school over someone with a bachelor’s degree that can be relied upon to mean only that its holder spent from 4-7 years taking a great many remedial classes?” — beyond immediate assumpt? Lets go with credit risk (not saying its justified, but you asked), ‘they know is reliable’ based on what? Your strawman? Seriously?
“I’d prefer not to get into degrees earned in various “studies,” but this coming semester, Columbia University is offering an Occupy Wall Street class. Part of the course–and you saw this coming, didn’t you?–requires students to do “field work” by actually joining OWS-type protests. ” — dare I say, its tantamount to the variety of ‘World Religion’ 101 classes that I was taught.
My my my, roo, how you pose as a thoughtful, incisive pundit. It is quite clear that you have no idea what is happening in education these days. I do, being quite intimate with the–I call it a vocation, but for too many, as Mike has patiently pointed out, it has become a business.
I have one quibble with Mike: he writes, “sending everyone to college is a Utopian solution to a non-existent problem.” Actually, there is a problem: hundreds of colleges and universities need warm bodies–excuse me–profit centers–no, excuse me–, students to fill empty seats. It only business, you see.
Roo, tell your mom to send down a peanut butter sandwich.
“It is quite clear that you have no idea what is happening in education these days.” — clearly, I graduated from higher education some time ago, Mike, I would wager even further so.
From what I can tell of your reply, though, you (once again) aren’t really bringing much to the conversation.
” as Mike has patiently pointed out, it has become a business.” — heck, this point I evenly ‘patiently’ agreed with.
You then belabor that point.
I brought up a point by specific point criticism. What have you brought to the table that is different?
“Last word” placebo.
Roo trolls:
“College Readiness. It goes by a variety of names, but they’re all the same, one-size-fits-all approach to life, which assumes that everyone should attend college.” — there are those that graduated from a preparatory school this particular based curriculum a PREPARATORY SCHOOL. Its a private institution that sort of.. ya know, charges exorbitant sums of money to ensure to student is prepared for educational hurdles ahead.
Can anybody make sense out of this?
Congrats, Barna, you have combed through a page and came up with one context that should be explained. Excelsior to you.
The concept of the preparatory school, a private institution, has been lauded time and time again with satisfying with college level classes, and of course entrance exams. I will admit, that was a bit disjointed, sorry for the ‘confuzzlement’. Now, the concept of the ‘prep’ school is usually one of private status. If you would like me to further clarify a ‘one size fits all’ situation of admittance seems it to be immediately and regularly cleared by a preparatory school, which relies upon dollars outside of student merit. Is sort of a debt begats debt argument that the argument hinges on. More specifically, teaching to the test in public school is bad. Private schools don’t have a test to teach to. The political ramifications are left to a different debate.
sigh.
Roo trolls: The concept of the preparatory school, a private institution, has been lauded time and time again with satisfying with college level classes, and of course entrance exams. I will admit, that was a bit disjointed, sorry for the ‘confuzzlement’. Now, the concept of the ‘prep’ school is usually one of private status. If you would like me to further clarify a ‘one size fits all’ situation of admittance seems it to be immediately and regularly cleared by a preparatory school, which relies upon dollars outside of student merit. Is sort of a debt begats debt argument that the argument hinges on. More specifically, teaching to the test in public school is bad. Private schools don’t have a test to teach to. The political ramifications are left to a different debate
can anyone explain this?
Try as you can, roo, you only appear to be rational and astute. The contrary is quite clear.
Better to make the attempt to appear that way than blatantly ignorant.
What exactly on the second attempt was unclear to you? Prep schools are very much one size fits all, they get kids into college, regularly, but since its a private institution, it requires personal investment, more than likely from a parent, but there are voucher plans in the works in my fine state. Private schools don’t have the same hurdles to clear that public schools do regarding regulations or admittance, but even with that unequal platform, private schools are judged as the superior choice. Seems a bit… slanted. Some would called it ‘unfair’.
This makes the third time in trying to explain it for you, and currently the definition of insanity seems to be fast being met.
Did you get the same degree in socio-geological studies as Libby? That might be part of the problem. I am curious as to why you are repeatedly asking me for clarification, but haven’t hopped back up to ask Libby wtf she means by ‘geological terms’ when applied to her point. Confirmation bias is both confirming and biased. ;)
Have a magical day.
No, troll. The sign of insanity is muttering a private language that needs constant explanation by the mutterer. You’ve been too long in the basement, whom boy. Give mommy a break and go out into the world.
We should invite roo to our place for a meal as i imagine his mama doesnt like white folk in the housr
If they cant even parse their ideas into viable chunks (called paragraphs & sentences), its often best to ignore
Libby, thats a REAL rich statement coming from you after reading the haiku dissertation above.
Barnabus, unlike you, who will resort to “Its already been explained enough!” when it hasn’t actually been explained at all, I have no problem continuing to elaborate, or in your case, dumb down aspects of my post. So, again, what part needs explaining, now having done so thrice, and as usual, asking for what specifics you are failing to grasp?
You are oblivious to the central point, roo old chum. As an aside, well, it’s been fun rope-a-doping you, so to bed.
“You are oblivious to the central point, roo old chum.”
:snerk: You have a point? I would ask for you to show it, but I think it revolves around your apparent practice and authority.
Since your are off to bed, good night, Chum…..p.
IQ is to higher education
As physique & kinesthetics is to professional athletics.
If every US olympic team were required to include 50% participants in the special olympics, we would win fewer olympic medals as a nation.
This, 1000x. I know. I was one of them. I’m smart by pretty much any definition — I test highly on IQ tests, I score in the top 1% of all of the standardized tests I take, etc. I also knew that high school was an insufferable chore for me, one which I only attended the minimum number of days it took to avoid being kicked out entirely.
I was completely lacking in desire for organized higher education, and knew that meant I would be entirely lacking in the drive and discipline it would take to make it through college. Because I scored highly on tests, though, everyone was pushing me to go to college. “Couldn’t we have had this discussion on Monday or Tuesday while I was skipping your class?”
I already wasn’t going to school. Why in the world would I pay to not go to college classes? If my HS hadn’t had a vocational program that gave me the same R/F/TV training I would have gotten at state college (and in two years instead of four, no less) and actual broadcast credits that would get me hired, I likely would have wasted a ton of money failing out of college anyways, because I would have seen no other options.
Now, in my late 30s, I’m perfectly suited for college — but I can’t justify the cost, both in financial terms and (more importantly) in being knocked off my career track for several years.
Male energy is different than female energy.
Females perform best at homework, sitting still, and daily in class assignments.
Males focus their attention on the big stuff, have trouble sitting for hours in one place and perform best on high stakes testing which they have been saving their energy for (but were labeled lazy).
High school and middle school were a waste of your time (watered down & you couldnt ignore what disinterested you while focusing on your interests/strengths).
Community college isnt everything, but its the best bang for the buck (half your bachelor degree can be earned here – only take classes that transfer or lose credit).
Employers can often foot a portion of the bill.
Just in time.
In your time.
The admissions advisors at most schools are about as dumb as a doorstop.
Their thoughtless babble can cost you dearly
Dearest Mike & Readers,
I have been asked by many worried parents & students how to circumvent the higher education maze with minimal cost without diluting ed quality.
Among the things I tell them is to take as many classes as possible (often you arent charged extra), save intro classes for summer (summer must be equal to at least a semester of credits).
In stem fields, science, technology, engineering,.math, must have every semester.
It took me 7+ years to get a BS in Earth & Geographic science with a minor in physics.
Earning a master in ed was easy. My fellow students were among the least intellectually curious folks i have ever met
Concerns about the macro situation are valid.
Individuals often can focus on the micro.
Nearly 20 years ago, a Pakistani veterinarian was concerned how his son could attend med school at minimal cost, for example.
State school => fancy med school
(Take organic chem at community college during summer and repeat it at other college for greater knowledge AND the higher grade).
I went to a college where a high percentage of students had med school as a goal.
They all took kaplan and nearly all who got into a prestigious med school had taken organic chemistry twice, not once.
Often, the first time at community college never trying to transfer the credit and a second time at their fancy ivy league school (@ 5x – 10x the cost)
Drawback or not, the series of college prep classes at community colleges is a boon to home schoolers.
I knew a 12 y/o taking calculus at college (her parents were both math grad students).
Before anyone gets excited, keep in mind, every school gives homework and homeschooling parents, not getting 125-200 different students each year do not need a teachers certificate.
To really understand where we are, it helps to study the history of education.
The founding fathers tended to attend college from the ages of 14-18 (life expectancy was much lower then- sorry roo to mention human biology again) and average folk would get 4-8 years of schooling, maybe.
The farther you go back in history the more prevalent is homeschooling.
Homeschooling is NOT an either or thing.
We all do it.
Who doesnt read to their kids (or teach them language skills in other informal ways).
Learning can be formal or informal.
People aren’t as dumb as the intelligentsia might think they are.
Higher ed’s declining value is obvious to many.
It could the the next big bubble to burst.
We could be wrong.
But, dont say you werent warned.
Dearest Mike,
I have been both awed by your devotion to the benefit of our youth (in teaching) and concerned (intelligent strong caring men are largely suspect and often unwelcome in our gynocentric/matriarchal school system – I have no idea how you do it).
If everything is fine where you are, stick to it.
When the thrill is gone, get out.
Fight the power.
Move on.
You can do very well selling quality teaching materials to teachers & homeschooling on line schools & parents.
The best on-line teachers earn some big bucks (especially when you have years of service & credentials).
Dude, you could be tutorring/teaching on-line for $25 – $100 per hour and go back to school(piled higher & deeper?) or or or
Millions of homeschoolers need good teachers. Many many teachers need help with quality lessons.
Many teachers are doubling their income teaching young teachers how to succeed with their students.
Our teachers need good teachers
What does this mean?
You can lead a student
To knowledge,
But,
You cant
Make them think
libby, IIRC the original saying included a reference to horticulture… :)
Mike,
When criticism is levied at the US education system, no comparison of goals is ever made.
In most countries of the world, people are led to viable trade education in middle school so they can earn sooner (and neither go in debt nor be a debt to society).
Say, in every other country in the world, 5-20% of people even take college admission exams, but in the US, 40-60% of college students takecollege admissions exams.
Now, lets compare their best 10% to our top 40% or their top 20% to our top 60%.
Its about as useful as comparing apples to oranges.
There are some pro athletes who arent the biggest or the strongest and there are some intellectuals who aremt the smartest, but who through hard work, have achieved great successes.
Einstein was denied entrance to university, but he did NOT let that interfere with his intrinsic interests. He had to struggle to enter the profession of physicists. He was not admitted automatic entrance due to his skin color or his gender. He had to work for it.
Pingback: Free College For Everybody! Wheeeee! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Rejuvenation | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Education: The Joys Of Culture | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The SAT And The Tested Generation | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Free College: Wheee! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: IQ: For Our Sake | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: IQ: For Our Sake–Revisited | Stately McDaniel Manor