By Robert Samuelson
The college-for-all crusade
has outlived its usefulness. Time to ditch it. Like the crusade to make all
Americans homeowners, it's now doing more harm than good. It looms as the
largest mistake in educational policy since World War II, even though higher
education's expansion also ranks as one of America's great postwar triumphs.
Consider. In 1940, fewer than
5 percent of Americans had a college degree. Going to college was "a
privilege reserved for the brightest or the most affluent" high-school
graduates, wrote Diane Ravitch in her history of U.S. education, "The
Troubled Crusade." No more. At last count, roughly 40 percent of Americans
had some sort of college degree: about 30 percent a bachelor's degree from a
four-year institution; the rest associate degrees from community colleges.
Starting with the GI Bill in 1944, governments at all levels promoted college. From 1947 to 1980, enrollments jumped from 2.3 million to 12.1 million. In the 1940s, private colleges and universities accounted for about half. By the 1980s, state schools -- offering heavily subsidized tuitions -- represented nearly four-fifths. Aside from a democratic impulse, the surge reflected "the shift in the occupational structure to professional, technical, clerical, and managerial work," noted Ravitch. The economy demanded higher skills; college led to better-paying jobs.
College became the ticket to the middle class, the be-all-and-end-all of K-12 education. If you didn't go to college, you'd failed. Improving "access" -- having more students go to college -- drove public policy.
We overdid it. The obsessive
faith in college has backfired.
For starters, we've dumbed
down college. The easiest way to enroll and retain more students is to lower
requirements. Even so, dropout rates are high; at four-year schools, fewer than
60 percent of freshmen graduate within six years. Many others aren't learning
much.
In a recent book,
"Academically Adrift," sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa
report that 45 percent of college students hadn't significantly improved their
critical thinking and writing skills after two years; after four years, the
proportion was still 36 percent. Their study was based on a test taken by 2,400
students at 24 schools requiring them to synthesize and evaluate a block of
facts. The authors blame the poor results on lax academic standards. Surveyed,
one-third of the same students said that they studied alone five or fewer hours
a week; half said they had no course the prior semester requiring 20 pages of
writing.
Still, most of these students
finished college, though many are debt-ridden. Persistence counts. The larger
-- and overlooked -- consequence of the college obsession is to undermine high
schools. The primacy of the college-prep track marginalizes millions of
students for whom it's disconnected from "real life" and unrelated to
their needs. School bores and bothers them. Teaching them is hard, because
they're not motivated. But they also make teaching the rest harder. Their
disaffection and periodic disruptions drain teachers' time and energy. The
climate for learning is poisoned.
That's why college-for-all has
been a major blunder. One size doesn't fit all, as sociologist James Rosenbaum
of Northwestern University has argued. The need is to motivate the unmotivated.
One way is to forge closer ties between high school and jobs. Yet, vocational
education is de-emphasized and disparaged. Apprenticeship programs combining
classroom and on-the-job training -- programs successful in Europe -- are
sparse. In 2008, about 480,000 workers were apprentices, or 0.3 percent of the
U.S. labor force, reports economist Robert Lerman of American University.
Though not for everyone, more apprenticeships could help some students.
The rap against
employment-oriented schooling is that it traps the poor and minorities in
low-paying, dead-end jobs. Actually, an unrealistic expectation of college
often traps them into low-paying, dead-end jobs -- or no job. Learning styles
differ. "Apprenticeship in other countries does a better job of engaging
students," says Lerman. "We want to diversify the routes to rewarding
careers." Downplaying these programs denies some students the pride and
self-confidence of mastering difficult technical skills, while also fostering
labor shortages.
There's much worrying these
days that some countries (examples: South Korea, Norway, Japan) have higher
college-attendance rates, including post-secondary school technical training,
than we do. This anxiety is misplaced. Most jobs -- 69 percent in 2010,
estimates the Labor Department -- don't require a post-high school degree.
They're truck drivers, store clerks, some technicians. On paper, we're turning
out enough college graduates to meet our needs.
The real concern is the
quality of graduates at all levels. The fixation on college-going, justified in
the early postwar decades, stigmatizes those who don't go to college and
minimizes their needs for more vocational skills. It cheapens the value of a
college degree and spawns the delusion that only the degree -- not the skills
and knowledge behind it -- matters. We need to
rethink.
No comments:
Post a Comment