

Debating the Value of College in America - jseliger
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/06/06/110606crat_atlarge_menand

======
bugsy
I found the article irritating. He trisects reasons for colleges into three
categories, which he sees as worthy goals, but which I paraphrase from a
critical perspective thus:

1\. Society is a machine that trains worker ants for roles in production which
serves the goals of the society. The efficient operation of this machine
requires that intellectual knowledge workers be identified, tested, corralled
into specialties with a certification which is accurate and uniform so that
factories can employ known quality product cogs to place in their production
lines.

2\. People are stupid and lazy and do not like to learn things. College forces
them to learn things so they will not be so stupid no more.

3\. People need specific technical skills and training to do technical jobs
from nursing to product design. Colleges need to provide uniform quality
vocational training to accomplish this end.

He also dismisses much of the research that shows colleges do not teach much
critical thinking by suggesting that if a measurement gives a surprising
result, the measurement is wrong since we know the result should be otherwise.

These are the arguments of a desperate man who does not understand humans or
what education is.

This all said, I was fascinated and amazed that his three reasons for college
match up with the criticism of educational reformers such as John Gatto, who
argues that the _problem_ with contemporary education is that it trains
factory workers, performs vocational education and assumes people hate
learning and must be forced to learn things when in fact people actually are
built to learn and will pursue it naturally unless their spirit is crushed by
institutionalized forced schooling.

~~~
hooande
All of those statements are clearly true.

Most people just want someone to give them a job and let them do it. Being
told what to do by an authority figure is considerably easier than figuring
out what to do on your own. College is a system of authority and assigned
work, and that's a big part of why people like it.

I don't think the purpose of college is to provide people with education and a
love of learning. Most people _don't want that_. The majority of people don't
like to learn things. Learning is for nerds.

The purpose of college (or any form of institutionalized education) is to do
all three of the things that you listed. It's a tool of our society. Changing
it would only make it unappealing to the average person. People who love
learning have wikipedia.

~~~
geraldalewis
_> Most people just want someone to give them a job and let them do it._

 _> I don't think the purpose of college is to provide people with education
and a love of learning. Most people don't want that._

Your stance on this issue strikes me as one-dimensional and solipsistic. Maybe
you're a very smart person who was unfairly persecuted for being different, or
maybe you were persecuted for being different and placed the blame on a
feature.

From my perspective, humans are learning machines, as evidenced by the
totality of human output.

 _> People who love learning have wikipedia._

Wikipedia does not talk to you, debate your ideas, or force you to think in
uncomfortable ways (`Discussion` does not count). I might be nitpicking your
point, but autodidacts are well served by interfacing with people who can
challenge their ideas and also help them articulate their opinions _in
person_.

Edit: I'm getting downvoted, and I hope it's not because this comment comes
across as rude. If it is, please message me directly; I tried hard on the
tone.

~~~
davidk0101
Human are associating machines. Learning requires a bit more because if it
didn't then the AI problem would have been solved long ago by neural nets.
What schools don't do well is teach people about meta-cognition which is how
all learning really happens. Anyone can memorize a few facts and regurgitate
opinions but few people can connect the dots and see the big picture by
collating all the local pieces of information we are constantly bombarded
with.

------
jseliger
Note that this is a subject Louis Menand, the writer of this piece, has
discussed extensively in his book _The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and
Resistance in American Universities_ , which I wrote about in depth here:
[http://jseliger.com/2010/01/21/problems-in-the-academy-
louis...](http://jseliger.com/2010/01/21/problems-in-the-academy-louis-
menands-the-marketplace-of-ideas-reform-and-resistance-in-the-american-
university/) .

------
radioactive21
Was not able to find any sources worth reading but I am interested to know the
comparison between American Universities, and free universities in Europe. It
would be interesting to see how each system works for students during, and
after college.

------
chopsueyar
_Education is about personal and intellectual growth, not about winning some
race to the top._

But, you just wrote...

 _Society needs a mechanism for sorting out its more intelligent members from
its less intelligent ones, just as a track team needs a mechanism (such as a
stopwatch) for sorting out the faster athletes from the slower ones._

~~~
Wuzzy
The author is presenting different viewpoints on the role of higher education,
not saying he holds them all (because, obviously, they are, at least in part,
contradictory, which is also something the author mentioned).

------
showerst
This bugs me so I have to point it out:

His income numbers use average instead of median. I can't find the exact
numbers, but eyeballing it -- it looks as though he's quoting the household
income numbers instead of the individual numbers.

You nearly always use median for incomes, otherwise Bill Gates can walk into a
room and the average income goes into the hundreds of millions.

Someone discussing the value of college education in America should be
educated in the skills to evaluate it, and, fairly or not, it really calls
into question the validity of rest of the article for me.

------
paganel
> college also sorts people according to aptitude. It separates the math types
> from the poetry types.

I'm a college dropout and a programmer. I got an A and an A+ at my 2 Calculus
classes in college, but in the same time I was reading Petrarca, Yeats and
Donne. What does that make me?

~~~
chopsueyar
Apparently, you are a very successful failure (according to the article).

Bygones.

------
juiceandjuice
"Why did we have to read this article"

------
itswindy
Here's the problem: For everyone that makes it with a college degree they are
1000 that might regret it 10-15-35 years from now. College, then, will be like
a high school diploma now. Can you take that chance?

------
rkon
This article is the perfect example of why our higher education system is so
dysfunctional:

" _The obvious initial inference to make about a test that does not pick up a
difference where you expect one is that it is not a very good test._ "

Or maybe the expectation is incorrect because you're a biased, myopic dimwit?
Sorry, former Ivy League professor, but you just failed miserably in 'Logic
and the Scientific Method 101'. How ironic, considering the fact that he was
trying to counter an argument about universities' failure to impart critical
thinking skills.

~~~
kenjackson
Actually I think the professor is right -- that should be your initial
inference if you _expect_ it to pick up a difference and it doesn't.

For example, if I make a test to tell me which item weighs more between two,
and then I weigh myself and my refrigerator and it says I weigh more, then I
should look at the test first. Now it may turn out that the test was right,
and my fridge actually is a new lightweight fridge, but your expectation is
the default hypothesis.

In fact the way you typically calibrate tests is to verify that it signals
differences that you very strongly expect.

