More On Higher Education

Regular readers will recall a couple of posts from a few months ago (here and here) dealing with problems concerning attaining a college degree for those who are woefully underprepared. In this month's Atlantic (scroll down), some readers weigh in with their thoughts, which I thought I'd highlight for further discussion.

Keetje Kuipers, Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Montana in Missoula disagrees with Professor X. He writes:

The real travesty is that universities are willing to hire people who aren’t interested in their students’ success. Many of my students pass my courses because of a tremendous amount of work on both our parts, and while it can be exhausting at times, it’s work that I ultimately find deeply satisfying. Perhaps it’s time for Professor X to look for employment elsewhere than in our higher-education system, where he has clearly “los[t] faith in the task.”

I, for one, believe Professor Kuipers misses the point. Professor X seems to care for his students, but questions how they wind up in college. My guess is, that while some students may indeed persevere through hard work and dedication -- both their own and their instructors' -- the majority do not. Professor Kuipers begs the question of how this situation developed in the first instance.

Regarding trends in American post secondary education, James C. Coomer, an Emeritus Professor from Norcross, Georgia notes:

Adult education has become the cash cow for many small regional colleges and universities, and for many freestanding “universities.” One cannot drive through any large city in the country without seeing names with University attached, offering degrees in any subject. One can now get (I do not write earn) a Ph.D. online. For many Americans and their employers, it makes little difference where one gets the degree. Satellite centers are established in shopping centers; part-time faculty is hired on a course-by-course basis; an open-admissions policy allows anyone who can pay the fee to enroll in class.

True, indeed.

I think, however, Professor Coomer is wrong to lump publicly supported community colleges in with the "diploma mills" which have sprouted up in recent years, whether those are on-line or located in shopping malls. The former exist to serve a variety of community needs. They provide a low cost alternative to students seeking four year degree, allowing them to obtain their standard undergraduate requirements before transferring to a different institution. At the same time, they provide vocational programs in everything from auto mechanics to computer aided design and carpentry for those inclined to more technical pursuits. As such, they are invaluable to our societal well being in my view.

(Disclosure: The EMBLOS is an Assistant Professor at a community college.)

Unfortunately, as Professor Coomer points out, there are also the "fly-by-night" operations which exist solely to grant degrees provided the recipient can count out the change. What he doesn't mention is that these institutions (businesses, actually) exist to take advantage of the liberal federal education assistance which is available to virtually anyone pursuing a course of study after high school. Such study can include things like "Cosmetology College" or whatever. Various grants and federally insured loans provide a source of funds which these businesses gladly accept from students who don't realize that they really receive nothing for their money accept several thousands of dollars of debt which they cannot repay. Thus, when they default on their student loans, society winds up paying the bill. Query, whether that is an appropriate use of resources.

Finally, one Jonathon Scott of the Bronx agrees with Professor X's observations, but points a finger at a different culprit:

Anyone who’s been involved in adjunct teaching at the community-college level over the past 10 or 15 years, in particular English Composition I and II, will nod in instant recognition at almost every point he makes and every personal anecdote he uses. Yet his critique falls far short of identifying the root cause of the problem: the systematic underfunding of public higher education.

[Snip]

Professor X will have us believe this whole situation is an indictment of the American ideal of an affordable and accessible higher education for everyone . . . In the end, though, Professor X offers nothing more than a classic case of lashing out in the direction of least resistance—of blaming the victims instead of the U.S. corporate oligarchy.

I'm afraid I don't get Mr. Scott's point. If students arrive at college without the skills necessary to succeed, how can we lay that at the feet of funding for higher education? Indeed, there may be problems with funding of elementary and secondary education, but it seems a stretch to suggest that additional sums for higher education would somehow correct those deficiencies. If any thing, it would seem that such funding would be diverted from accomplishing the mission of the post secondary institution in order to concentrate on filling in the gaps in their student's secondary studies.

Mr. Scott seems to suggest that admitting students who are not qualified is somehow a response to underfunding. Certainly, all colleges and universities are run like businesses. When one is spending the public's money, one has an obligation to get the biggest bang for the buck, in my view. And, as I mentioned earlier, community colleges exist to serve societal needs which are different than those traditional four-year institutions address. My guess is community colleges are required to admit anyone with a high school diploma. How that requirement would be eliminated by injecting more cash into the system is unclear to me.

Also, I don't think Professor X was "blaming the victim." It seems to me, Professor X has extraordinary sympathy for his students and indeed, at least by implication, questions the morality of building up their hopes of attaining a college degree under circumstances where the likelihood of that is minimal to nonexistent. There comes a point where no matter how hard one works, one will not be able to attain one's goals. Someone has to be in the position of being the bearer of bad news. Professor X certainly bemoans being the one with that unenviable task. My guess is he'd be in that position regardless of the amount of money supporting his college.

Finally, the last bit about "U.S. corporate oligarchy" escapes my feeble mind completely. I'm sure in many circles, blaming societal ills on a nefarious cabal of corporate interests is fashionable, but I fail to see the connection with students who cannot write a coherent sentence. What would the incentive be for corporations to foster such a thing? Unknowledgeable people do not make good employees who can make a business competitive in the world marketplace, thereby providing CEO's with piles of thousand dollar bills in which to frolic.

Anyway, your thoughts and comments are welcome. Remember: as always, I'm probably full of crap.

Cheers.

R. Sherman