In the State of the Union address of 2011 January 25, Obama raised one of his standard themes, which is the great importance of college education:
If we take these steps—if we raise expectations for every child, and give them the best possible chance at an education, from the day they are born until the last job they take—we will reach the goal that I set two years ago: By the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.Though I don't disagree that we need to give all Americans great opportunities, I disagree that the best way to achieve that is through universal college attendance.
First of all, as pointed out here and many other places, though employers want to see college degrees, they do not really look for many of the things in a potential employee that college brings. That is, it is not clear that college is delivering useful things to employers. A good example is math skills; even high-tech employers do not look for math skills among potential employees.
Second, since most of the important skills for employers are communication skills, flexibility, problem-solving, and ability to learn (rather than specific content knowledge), employees ought to be well prepared by the end of high school. How can (more than) full-time work for twelve years not be enough to teach 18-year-olds the communication and common-sense skills they need to do most jobs? I realize that schools face huge challenges, but why not make helping the schools the top priority?
Third, and related to the second, the reason Obama and other politicians focus on sending students to college instead of improving K–12 is that college is private. Fixing schools takes public money; sending kids to college takes private money. Even state schools in America charge tens of thousands in tuition, and they don't have the capacity to take up Obama's slack. So requiring all kids to go to college is like levying an enormous quasi-voluntary tax on parents, relieving society of the responsibility of providing opportunity to the less fortunate. If a kid has trouble, in this vision, it is because his parents didn't do right by him.
Indeed, this ties it all together: Abandon the public schools, because improvements there would reduce disparity and improve the public sphere. Require (effectively) all potential employees to go to expensive colleges, because that is tax-neutral and increases disparity! What happened to the common good?
ps. And why is college the goal? Shouldn't fulfillment be the goal?
ReplyDeleteBeing a student and trying to decide what path to go down, I have been thinking about this topic for quite a while, and I agree that fulfillment should be the goal. From what I have observed, however, I can say that fulfillment is a different idea for everyone. Some will feel fulfilled working any old job, as long as they make enough to support themselves and their future family. Others will only feel fulfilled if they are doing what they absolutely love, or if they are in some high position, or if they are constantly being challenged, etc. My point: I don't think "fulfillment" can be generally defined. Then there is the question of whether or not everyone has the chance to achieve their idea of fulfillment. What happens when someone wants to continue their education to the point of...say, getting their PhD and conducting research in their area of expertise and teaching. Committing the time and money to that is no joke, and sometimes it may not be the most practical option for someone who needs to quickly get on their feet and support themselves. There's also the question of what type of education is best, a liberal arts type or a vocational type that only provides the skills of a specific occupation or business. Personally, I believe in a liberal arts education. Generally (I know there are exceptions), I believe that this is the type of education that teaches people to explore the world, use their brain, and develop some of the skills you mentioned employers look for. But again, being educated for a vocation may be a more practical choice. This may be part (not all) of the reason that nursing, pharmacy, technician, even pre-med and other programs of this type are so popular: students learn specific knowledge and a certain skill set, and they feel a sense of security that they will be able to find a job and be financially stable, even if they are not happy with what they are doing (Side note: this is one of the criticisms I have of these types of programs. It is almost impossible to separate those that actually love the subject and those that are there just because they think it will get them a financially stable future. This also has to do with why the majority of these programs are comprised of the children of first generation immigrants, whereas liberal arts programs have many more second/third generation. This is a complete generalization though, based on what I have seen in my three years at NYU. But you're a professor, you've seen many more classes than I have. Do you think this claim has some validity to it? It would be interesting to get numbers...but this is a whole other story.) The downside to these programs is that students don't realize that these skills that they acquired probably can't be used anywhere else outside of their vocation, whereas the skills you mentioned can be applied to (and are necessary) for literally any job. We can only wonder how people's decisions would be influenced if money and financial stability were taken out of the equation. A lot of people would probably get the chance to do what they like (and a whole other bunch would probably become lazy bums...)...
ReplyDelete...That was really long, I'm sorry. I have been thinking and wanting to blog about this topic for a very long time, and your description of skills that employers look for and your question of fulfillment were exactly what I needed to complete my though process, so I want to say thank you!!!!!
ReplyDelete