Recent responses to SciTeacher’s excellent post, “The Devil’s Bargain in Education,” has prompted me to muse over the role of higher education in the modern world. In the past decade, rising tuition costs, increasingly competitive applicant pools, and greater emphasis placed on college “rankings” have elevated the “cultural capital” of college, especially small, private liberal arts schools. The middle class, once happy and boastful to have their children attend the largest public school in their state (or the one with the best football team), now sit at home strategizing over the latest US News Rankings. Why should Junior have to go to Michigan State when the rankings tell them that his SAT and AP scores (thanks to public school’s greater inclusion of them) are good enough to go to, let’s say, Washington St. Louis, or hmm…Carleton College? These institutions, once unheard of by people outside of the reigion, are now hot commodities, names to be dropped in the right circle. No longer is the college world bifurcated into “state schools” or “ivy leagues”: instead, the increasing demand of the middle class for their chilidren to have access to the “best” has led to the rise in prominence of “potted ivy” schools…small, private liberal arts colleges with big pricetags. Couldn’t get into Princeton because your uncle doesn’t know the dean of admissions? That’s ok…you’ve gotten into Northwestern. Fork over the money, and that name will pave your way into Wharton Business School. Hello Middle Class student. Welcome to to the big time.
This “new” method of higher education has greatly changed the relationship between colleges and student. Previously, colleges — both public and private — had a great amount of power in regards to the requirements for curriculum, the size of the dorm rooms, and the grading system of professors. Now, the overwhelming amount of college “shopping” has led to a power shift, where the student (or, more accurately, the parents) can take her business somewhere else. What’s that you say? Community bathrooms for my child’s living arrangements? Screw You Oberlin….we’re going to Brandeis. They have private SUITES for their freshmen. Junior’s got to study you know, if he’s going to go to Johns-Hopkins for med school. Or maybe Miami-Oxford college; they have that special undergrad internship with the Mayo Clinic…ooh! and sparkling mineral water….I’m sold!
From my perspective, a great irony exists in this process. While colleges are now clamoring to show parents and students the inherent “value” in their school, and parents are placing greater achievement demands on their children in order to have the ability to go college shopping, what gets lost/forgotten is the very thing that gave these colleges worth to begin with: a stellar liberal arts education. Why has Harvard Med School continued to choose applicants from private liberal arts colleges over state schools? It’s not the name, but the quality level of education that the name is believed to represent. A liberal arts college means several things to an Ivy-league admissions committee: this student has been given a low student-teacher ratio, has been exposed to a broad range of world knowledge — both historic and contemporary — and has been taught how to make connections within the world around her. Because of this exposure to this kind of education, she can write a paper: unlike this applicant at X state school who didn’t have to take composition thanks to the CLEP test. I think it would be wise for parents and colleges to remember this point. While US News and your next door neighbors may care about the name of your child’s school, Harvard and Yale care about the education received. Parents who want their child to have the prestige of attending a liberal arts school while simulatenoulsy insisting that they forgo a liberal arts education clearly do not understand the “true” nature of higher education: in a world of “the best,” ideas — not names — are the highest form of currency. A lawyer does not win her case because she went to UChicago Law, but because she absorped the critical skills she was given there. If parents truly want to pave their child’s road to “success,” then they should DEMAND a liberal arts curriculum: one that is challenging, rigorous, and interdisciplinary. Only then, I dare say, can you believe you are giving your child the best education money can buy.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Rebekah
I think the thing that bothers me the most about this phenomenon is the entitlement that comes with it. I worked in housing for two years and dealt much more with students- usually students who were irate that they had not gotten their first choice of rooms, dorms, roommates, room selection dates etc. The thing that used to frustrate the hell out of me was the people who would use the line, “I’m paying $40,000 a year . . . ” and follow it with a demand, as if one meant they were entitled to the other. Often, these demands were (what I thought to be) totally outlandish- “I’m paying $40,000 a year, I should get the exact room I want,” or “I shouldn’t have to wait to hear if I can switch rooms,” or “I should be able to paint the walls of my dorm black and start a puppy farm.” In about 50% of these cases, a firm yet polite, “I’m sorry, that’s against University policy” would be met with anger, yelling and a dial tone, followed 20 minutes later by another phone call from one of the student’s parents! When we had the audacity to say no to the parent, on occasion, that adult would hang up the phone and call the PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY! Inevitably, his secretary would call us, having screened out the call, and demand that we remedy the situation- i.e. give the screaming family anything and everything they wanted, including the puppy farm.
I have been accused of being old fashioned (at the ripe old age of 23ish) but come on, this is ridiculous. First of all, was I the only person on the planet that screamed and jumped up and down when I got my acceptance letter to this school? Was I the only one who felt going to college was an honor, a privilege, a responsibility, not to be taken lightly, but to be worked for and earned on a daily basis? Were my freshmen roommate and I the only ones who sat down and calculated how much money our parents were paying PER CLASS for our college education (boy, it made it easier to get out of bed for 8:30 French once you know that answer)?
Second of all, I know we have all been told since birth that we are exceptional, truly special people, but when did that come to mean that every single person on this planet is above the rules. Now, I get it- our parents do it, politicians do it, CEOs of large corporations do it- they do things that imply that they think themselves above the rules, outside the laws. So why should impressionable 18 year olds when reading the rules of the college think, “When they say no drinking in the dorms, no pets in the dorms and no plagiarism, they mean me too.” Clearly, each and everyone of us are so special that we can just make up our own rules as we go along and expect the world to conform around us.
Third, every single person who applies to The University of X or Y College had the opportunity to read all of the rules ahead of time. As far as I know, every school out there has their student and campus handbooks available to prospective students and most have them posted on line. Also, every single person who goes to a school SIGNS A CONTRACT that states in it, “I agree to adhere to all the policies laid out in these handbooks.” So why does everyone gripe that they think the rules are unfair, or should be changed because they are paying so much money. You knew what you were getting into- or should have if you had done an amount of research fitting for the size of your investment. Don’t like the fact that you have to take General Education Requirements- go to a school that doesn’t have them. Want to study in Guam- make sure to sign up at a school with a program there. Plan to refuse to live with a roommate for your entire stay at a school- attend a school that only has single dorm room. Do not think that a school with 1500 incoming freshmen and 20 single rooms will accommodate you before all others. As strange as it sounds there just might be someone out there who needs it more than you.
If you are the consumer and college is the commodity- shop harder for what you want. During my four years of college it seemed like there were so many people there who had come because it was a good name school, in the top 20, had a Pre-med program, blah, blah, blah. But they hated the campus, hated the dorms, hated the environment, the attitude etc. It is like buying jeans by picking up a pair of a single name brand and then complaining when they don’t fit. Instead of screaming that the inseam isn’t cut to your liking, the pockets are in the wrong place and the designer clearly didn’t take into account hips, buy a pair of jeans that fit YOU. Try on a few pairs, look in the mirror, wiggle around in them to see if they fit. Read the tag for care instructions and think if these jeans will fit in with your lifestyle. I don’t think anyone could get away with saying “I’m paying $100 for a pair of jeans, so the designer should show up at my house and alter them for me for free.”
January 19, 2007 at 10:42 pm
srmencken
Beks, dear, I think you might be confusing two seperate issues. There is a difference between the expectations placed upon a college as an educational institution, and the expectations placed upon a college as a (for lack of a better word) residence. No one would argue that the behavior of certain Emory students with regard to their living accomodations is anything short of spoiled and elitest. Is there a grave sin, however, in expecting a curriculum tailored for the future careers of its students?
A college degree is society’s official stamp of employment approval, for better or for worse. That being the case, that stamp might as well carry with it a set of upon which an alumnus can reliably rely. Naturally certain “liberal arts” skills such as writing, research, and so forth are important for all careers (though the business world seems terribly uninterested in hiring anyone who possesses them) but any properly implemented academic coursework would include all of the above.
The fault, methinks, lies with the colleges. General Education courses have standards considerably lower than the norm. Those unfortunate professors collared into teaching them have low expectations, and the students barely rise to meet them. I can vividly recall gen ed courses in which the students rarely, if ever, read the required texts. For that matter, in one class the professor had to routinely stop her lecture to reprimand the students for chit-chatting too much. Is anyone really learning the lofting values of a liberal college when such is standard operating procedure?
I’ll admit that a more demanding set of entrance requirements would greatly improve things. I can recall vividly one sociology course in which an earnest but rather woefully unlettered coed raised her hand to suggest that the printing press was the most important new invention during the Industrial Revolution. Many is the English class where professors lament the inability of students to write a coherent, organized essay. Many such teachers simply throw up their hands- it is not, after all, the purpose of a 300-level course to instruct the students in the fundamentals of composition.
Don’t misunderstand me: I believe very strongly in the ideal of a liberal arts college. I also believe that many people genuinely seek such an education. I recognize, however, that many, perhaps even most, college-bound students see college as nothing more than a box to check off before they get their first job. For that segment of the population, there is little point in studying Greek art or English poetry- though it may enrich their souls, it will do little to enrich their bank accounts.
And there is one other good reason to let the upper crust completely ignore the rich cultural value derived from a liberal education: it makes our knowledge and our skills a helluva lot more bankable.
January 20, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Leslie
You raise a valid point in the seeming disparity between those students who come for a legitimate education and those who come for marketable, “usable” skills related to one particular field.
Again, though, it makes me go back to my original question: what is the role of higher education in the world today? Historically, the liberal arts college never existed to act as a place to learn vocational skills. Instead, it was an institution of “higher learning” which provided a foundation of knowledge upon which the upper crest of society rested. Being able to read books in Latin and Greek was a great advantage and mark of high class in a society where fewer than 20% of the entire population was literate. The actual vocational skills of the “Gentry” class — perhaps banking or government — were learned after this education, through apprenticeships.
Now, as higher education gears itself towards all high school graduates, the “point” of going to college has drastically changed. As you pointed out, most people going are not there to obtain the knowledge necessary to be culturally suave at cocktail parties. Instead, they are primarily there to obtain a degree which will give them a good job. Ideally, both having the degree and the skills that come with it will have prepared the recent graduate to enter the job marketplace at a great advantage. I would say you are right that someone with an English degree does not necessarily have the advantage that they seemingly should. If I’m interpreting your stance correctly, you point to the general education requirements as the reason for this lack. However, I think it should be up to the individual major to require certain “vocational” classes that are related to your specialty. For example, I think it’s ridiculous that as an English major, I could not apply for the at least 35 job postings I saw this summer for grant propsal writers at non-profit organizations. Nor could I apply for any copy writer positions. The reason I couldn’t is because both types of jobs require a specific skill set in writing and proofreading which I had never been taught as an English major. While I intend to study to literature for the rest of my life and am applying to grad school, I would strongly support classes offered in grant proposal/copy writing skills. That way, even as I’m preparing to go to grad school, I would be qualified to take these job positions related to my field for the year that I’m taking off between school. Instead, I met the requirements for a receptionist position.
So, to sum up my ramblings, I think we’re both right. The leading institutions in higher education need to strategize about ways to remain true to their strong liberal arts background (including keeping classes like Latin and Greek), while offering classes which provide specific vocational skills unique to the individual field. If this could be possible, I think skepticism about the importance of the “humanities” might greatly decrease, and students with such degrees will be respected both in the classroom and the job market.
January 21, 2007 at 3:52 pm
srmencken
I like your thinking here, Leslie- I completely agree about including more job-oriented instruction on the college campus. The average undergrad, after all, is not some artistocratic heir to a vast fortune that will support them after their graduation. In ages past, colleges offered an enlightening and enriching education for the wealthy elite. Today, however, college is a major part of an individual’s preparation for the working world. Students who graduate will not simply return to their vast estates to oversee the tribute paid to them by their vassals.
To dwell for a moment upon the specific area of English, I think that much more emphasis out to be placed upon the mechanics of the language. Too many students lack a thorough understanding of the grammar and origins of the language. I personally developed a keen interest in linguistics through the happy accident of taking a few courses with a professor who specialized in the field.
January 22, 2007 at 8:44 pm
devonmerling
Just as a comment, I don’t think the ivy’s have made as much of a decline as one might suppose. Looking through the list of colleges for my year at HLS, an incredible number come from ivy league schools. Harvard Law is notorious for letting in Harvard undergrads, even those with substantially lower credentials (for better or worse, law school decisions at “elite” schools are almost entirely based on two numbers-your undergrad gpa and lsat- and which school you went to). Over 12 times as many students come from Harvard as come from Emory (87 v. 7). Other mid-sized liberal arts colleges such as Amherst, Carleton, Northwestern, and Swarthmore have even fewer than Emory. State school representation (with the exceptions of notable “fake” state schools such as Texas, Berkeley, and Michigan) is practically nil and those I know from state schools such as U of Illinois and UGA, hardly low on the totem poll of state school-dom, all had at least 3.95s. The admissions people here would argue that more people apply from ivy leagues, they got a “better education” (although I may write a post later on the ridiculousness of the culture here where competition and hunger for grades here rather than knowledge is drastic compared with my undergrad experience), and that they were smarter to begin with (that’s why they got into Harvard in the first place, don’t you know…it had nothing to do with whether their parents went there, of course), and perhaps true their LSAT scores and GPAs were higher (of course, all my friends from Harvard undergrad say that the “gentleman’s b-” myth — that you either get a b- or fail, no c’s and d’s — is pretty much true. It’s definitely true at the law school.
I’m not trying to say that the phenomenon you’re expressing isn’t true, Leslie, because it definitely is. My little brother (who, by the way to bounce off another post, took a total of 13 APs, had a 4.4 GPA, steller SATs and ACTs, played sports, had leadership positions in multiple clubs, and was on the state runner-up mock trial team and was rejected from schools such as Wash U, much less the Ivies) had the choice between honors biomedical engineering at OSU for next to nothing, but decided on the steep 40k/year at Northwestern instead not because he thought it would be a better learning or social experience (my little brother is the biggest OSU fanatic possible–luckily he can still attend 1 OSU game a year), but because it will help his chances on getting into med school down the line. However, I believe it is still also true, as Prof. Elliott once put it, that “people like to make themselves feel better about their earlier decisions by reaffirming them later with little regard to whether they were right or wrong.” Thus the Ivies will continue to take the Ivy leaguer over the Emory student any day. Is it any wonder then that coming in at Emory I was struck by the number of people who were upset that they were there because it was their “safety” school? As a final anecdote, A friend at another Ivy law school put his undergrad GPA on his resume, and the law school counselor responded “Normally, I wouldn’t advise putting gpa’s on resumes because you’re here, obviously you’re smart, but I mean, you did only go to Emory.” Seriously, folks, this is the world in which I’m living. Boutique liberal arts it would seem, are still far from smashing that glass ceiling.