At RealClearPolitics Peter Berkowitz laments the sorry state of higher education and its lamentable impact on today’s society and politics:
No antidote to the poison that higher education has been pumping into our politics for three generations can succeed without reforming higher education. But prospects are poor for effecting the necessary changes from within. The progressive grip on higher education shows no signs of weakening. Faculty and administrators exhibit little appetite for self-criticism or external accountability. The implementation of inherently desirable practices inside the university such as a core curriculum are likely to be hijacked to serve illiberal ends.
That leaves a variety of alternatives outside of the university. Home schooling and charter schools that nurture the acquisition of knowledge and spirit of free inquiry before college are important options. Another is the expanding network of initiatives, generally supported by conservative philanthropists, that provide undergraduates and recent graduates the liberal education neglected or abused by our colleges and universities. The focus should be on an education for liberty, beginning with literacy and numeracy and proceeding through study of America and the West to the exploration of other civilizations. Successful experiments in education in the private sector might have a salutary influence on public education.
Neither Donald Trump’s antics nor his achievements should be allowed to obscure the urgency of educational reform. Without a basic familiarity with, and an education that is governed by, the norms of free and democratic societies, how will we be able to evaluate properly our current president, or any other one?
I don’t think that reform of higher education is possible without returning to first principles. Presently, 84% of the spending on education by government at all levels is for higher education. Over the last 60 years it has tripled in real terms. Why?
The conventional answer is that the path to a secure, prosperous future for Americans runs through higher education. Considered uncritically, that leaves out half of the American people for whom higher education is a path to failure and debt rather than to security and prosperity.
But is it actually true?
It is no accident that so many millennials emerge from college with $50,000 in student debt. At present starting wages that is debt they will be in their 30s before they discharge if ever. That is a drastic shift in prospects compared to previous age cohorts and affects every sector of our economy and every aspect of our society.
But I’m skeptical that the ROI on higher education is actually what it is advertised to be. What are the differences in lifetime earning prospects for those with college education compared to those without when you discount the very high incomes of a relative handful of college grads, e.g. physicians, graduates of top law schools, graduates of top business schools, and a few others? Factor in the opportunity costs of education, etc. does higher education really pay? Or for most is it a luxury and, for the average American, a luxury they can’t afford?
This is not a disagreement on the main point of the post; but the article meant 84% of spending in higher education that is actually educational (instead of say football stadiums; new dorm facilities) comes from the Federal Government. The 84% excludes direct assistance to students.
I think post secondary education is useful and necessary; even plumbers, welders, and electricians need specialized training that high school does not provide. The problem is in whether young adults are choosing/being directed to the right type of post secondary education. There should also be a rethink about using a 4 year university degree as a screening mechanism for all types of jobs and even graduate/perfessional degrees programs.
“… I’m skeptical that the ROI on higher education is actually what it is advertised…………..relative handful of college grads, e.g. physicians, graduates of top law schools, graduates of top business schools, and a few others?”
I’m not sure what the ROI is either. It worked out for me and many of the people I know. And I think it works for more than the few disciplines cited, but the general point stands.
The snarky answer is that its a gravy train for Big Education. Lots of that going around.
“There should also be a rethink about using a 4 year university degree as a screening mechanism…”
That’s a tough one. My BS and MS included such grand disciplines as how to dig up rocks and refine them into useable engineering materials, how to make parts out of those materials, why those parts break or corrode (or don’t) etc. Useful in my first position as a process engineer. But I have no idea what the UofC thought of that from an admissions point of view other than general capability. Same for the investment world.
And you’re a graduate of a top business school. Would your experience have been the same if you had attended Southern California’s Marshall School of Business? Or Pace University’s Lubin?
No. But I assume you were referring to those who graduated from the, say, engineering schools of Georgia Tech, Purdue or Lehigh. Just as an example, a former roommate from Purdue, and acquaintances from the other two all achieved top management positions. Not an MBA or law school degree among them. And they did better than welders.