One advantage to writing a column or blog over
a period of years is that the same populist, though foolish, political ideas
resurface and can be addressed by simply pulling out a previous column. Receiving the honor this time is Obama’s promise of
free community college tuition for everyone. Yes, it was John Edwards who tried
to buy popularity with that promise in his try for the presidency before his
chances flew south over philandering. This column can be found in my published
collection of columns on education, “Education: A Contrarian View,” found in
the Kindle Store for 99 cents.
Presidential
candidate Jonathan Edwards says if he is elected, he will push for legislation
to create a program he calls "College for Everyone." Government funded education for all of us. Sounds good!
Who could possibly be against it?
College professors, for one, might consider opposing it. The unintended consequences might be
hazardous to the health of higher education.
The
same unintended consequences will follow a program of government funded college
for everyone. There are really only two
reasons to go to college: because your chosen career path requires it, or
because you really enjoy learning. But
there are two other groups of students found on college campuses: those who are
there because their families expect them to be there and those who see it as a
way of staying off the job market for another four years. As the affluence of our culture has grown and
as government programs for funding higher education have increased, so has the
growth on campus of these latter two groups.
Government funded college for everyone will only further bloat colleges
with students from these two groups.
While
students in these groups are not forced to be there, their interest in learning
is minimal. Professors complain about
students showing up on campus in need of remedial instruction, incapable of
doing college work, or unwilling to strive for academic excellence. When given assignments worthy of college
level work, these students complain or simply enroll in courses taught by less
demanding professors. In times past, a professor could tell those not
interested in learning to leave.
However, colleges are in the business of selling credits and
administrators need every dollar they can get to pay for their country club
campuses, so professors are encourage to accommodate these low performers. So, the education becomes diluted. It doesn't really matter whether those not
really interested in learning are there by force or by choice; their presence
will have the same corrosive effect.
Not
only should the government not pay for a college education for everyone,
neither should parents automatically shell out the funds for their children to
go to college. Many parents who failed
to get a college degree and have had to work hard to move up the ladder of
success see college as a way for their children to avoid the same
struggles. One time I got in a squabble
with my editor and quit before I had a new job lined up. Out of necessity, I took a job in the roaster
department of a zinc plant. I was a
college graduate among a group of factory workers. I soon realized the workers were uneasy with
my being there. They had all pinned
their hopes for their children not having to work there on their getting that
coveted college degree; my presence took away from that hope. I might add, though, that I got paid more
doing that unskilled labor than I did using my college degree.
However,
unless a student falls in one of the first two categories mentioned above, a
college education might be a setback.
Let's take two kids graduating from high school at the same time. Tom loves automobiles and gets a job at a big
dealership as a parts runner right after graduation. He's a hard worker, dependable, and because
he is curious, he is always learning and takes advantage of all the training
classes the company has to offer.
Henry,
however, goes to college because his family expects it, but he really doesn't
want to be there. He has no sense of
direction so he just barely scrapes by grade wise, taking easy classes and
getting a liberal arts degree. He
manages to graduate, but can’t find a good job, so he takes a job as a lot boy
at the same agency that hired Tom four years earlier. Tom has now been through several promotions,
has a decent income for a 22 year old and is buying a house of his own. He has earned a reasonable income over the
last four years and his future looks bright.
Henry,
on the other hand, has an entry level job, is receiving minimum pay, and is
making payments on a $50,000 student loan for a degree he didn't really want
and which will do him little good in his aimless pursuit of a career.
The
college benefited financially because it got to sell him all his credits and
collect all those athletic fees.
Unfortunately, the professors had too many students like Henry. They were called on the carpet for flunking
too many as the college needed to sell all the credits they could, so they
begrudgingly modified their syllabi to make it a little easier on students like
Henry.
College
for everybody and paid for by the government sounds good at first, but my sense
is that the unintended consequences will ruin our schools of higher
learning. In fact I would guess it is
already happening to some degree just from the government funding now
available. College is not a smart choice
for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment