Let me start with my deepest apologies. I have not written anything for you
since July. I have recently gone
back to school for my Masters, and that process involved a lot of changes. I have moved to Dublin, Ireland, where
I am attending Trinity College.
The transition to living outside the states, adjusting to a new culture,
and going back to school has made it difficult for me to find time to
write. That being said, I have had
the time to do so, and I have simply not gotten around to it, and for that, I
do apologies, as it is not fair to you readers.
Going back to school has gotten me thinking about education,
its purpose, and its negative aspects.
I was recently on facebook, and I came across an article by Matt Walsh
on college education. Normally,
when my friends post articles by Mr. Walsh, I tend to scroll past, because I
find his style didactic and annoying.
However, for no particular reason, I decided to give this one a
shot. And while I did find Mr.
Walsh’s prose as shallow as ever, I was surprised to find myself somewhat
agreeing with him. His point was
that the university system has become a scam, a scam that negatively impacts
both students, and those who never go to college. The massive amounts of debt and lack of job experience put
the college student at a disadvantage when looking for a job, while the lack of
a college degree causes difficulties for the non-student. Furthermore, for most students, a
college degree is a useless piece of paper. Understand, I am going back to school for my Masters, in the
hope of one day getting my PhD and becoming a college professor. I have nothing against colleges in
general. But looking at students,
I am not certain that college is a benefit to the vast majority.
Consider what the purpose of higher education should
be. In technical fields, it is to
provide experienced professionals, who can help younger students to gain both
knowledge and experience in their particular field of study. In the fields of medicine or applied
science, higher education makes sense, as it is training for a particular
profession. In this sense, college
can be seen as a variation of a trade school, where a specific subject is
taught to students looking to specialize in the field, to provide them with the
skills necessary to work in that field.
The fact that these areas of specialization are highly technical and
require a knowledge of the history of the field and an intricate knowledge of
the subject make them obvious candidates for the usefulness of higher education
(one would not want a surgeon who had never taken anatomy to operate).
When one moves to the area of Liberal Arts, however, the
argument changes. One does not
require a detailed knowledge of the works of Shakespeare or the writings of
Homer in the average career. And
while it might be fascinating to know the causes of the fall of the Roman
empire, or to discuss the implications of post modernist theory on the
conception of the individual, neither of these directly correlates with the
students ability to, say, work in a management position in retail, or run his
own business. Thus, the purpose of
a liberal arts education must lie outside the direct application of the
subjects being taught. Aristotle
posited that the purpose of education is to make the student a better
person. When considered this way,
the defense of the liberal arts degree is that study of the arts teaches the
student to think critically about a subject, and the process of learning how to
think in a particular subject shows the student how to think critically in all
subjects. Thus, knowing the causes
of the fall of the Roman empire can allow the business owner to look at his
dealings in a critical manner and to recognize those that will be
detrimental. Unlike those fields
of education that deal with application then, it is the role of the university,
to quote an old cliché, not to teach the student what to think, but how to
think.
This is where the danger to the modern university system
lies. Because, based on my
experiences and those of many of my friends in college, this is not what higher
education does. In a system where
good grades are paramount, the temptation for the student is to answer
questions in agreement with the professor, rather than out of some process of
critical thought, Students are
taught to parrot back their professor’s opinions and to compromise their
personal ethics in order to be “successful” in college. The process of teaching out of
textbooks further compounds this issue, as it encourages students, not in the
process of actual research, discovery, and learning, but to skim a boring
collection of biased “facts” for just enough information to pass the test. Thus, colleges are not producing
students who have been taught “how to think,” but rather those who have skated
through on minimum effort by conforming their answers to the standards of their
professors.
The blame for this, however, does not rest entirely with
colleges. It is a part of a
vicious circle. Employers,
believing that a college education will engender students with the ability to
think, require applicants to have a college degree. Young people are forced, therefore, into an institution that
is designed for a particular type of person. The student who sees college as merely a step on to a
specific career will treat his education as just that: “this is something I
have to get through to get a real job.” For the student who is goal oriented
instead of learning focused, getting through college with as good grades as
possible is paramount. Thus, the
student gives the professors the answers they want, as this is the simplest,
most effective way of getting that good grade. The student then emerges without the requisite skills of
critical thought that he was supposed to attain through education, having been
taught, not to think for himself, but to conform himself to authority to make
life easier. In the end, employers
do not get workers who can think critically, and students enter adult life with
massive amounts of debt, and no critical skills to help them in the work
place. And this becomes a self
perpetuating circle with no winner.
But wait, there does seem to be a winner in this
situation. The university. They have a captive market: young
people have to have a degree to get a job, and are willing to put themselves
into debt to get that degree. The
university can charge what they want, and the students will pay it because they
have to pay it. From a business
standpoint, this is a win for the university.
Except it isn’t.
Remember, the purpose of a liberal arts university is not to teach
people what to think, but how to think.
The university is failing utterly at its single purpose. Its financial success comes at the
price of its integrity. By
teaching students what to think, the university undercuts its own value. If the arts are valuable because they
teach a process of critical thinking and self-reflection, then any system that
teaches the arts must esteem these values most highly. In sacrificing critical thought on the
idol of financial gain, the university sacrifices not just its integrity, but
its purpose for existence.
Again, however, the situation is more complex than simply an
“evil” corporate institution sacrificing its integrity for financial gain. Students and employers bear some of the
blame. It is shortsighted and lazy
on the part of an employer to assume that a college degree implies a particular
set of qualities in an applicant.
When college education has become so common, it is no longer a standard
of excellence, nor are all qualities that make for an excellent employee best
cultivated in the classroom. By
perpetuating the myth that a college education makes a person more qualified to
work, the employer forces young people, who might have been better served by
transitioning straight into the work force, to instead spend four years and
large amounts of money to obtain an essentially useless degree. On the other hand, the student is also
to blame. It is possible to learn
critical thought in the university setting. The same standard that promotes conformity in the majority
of students also produces genuine critical thought in others. The attitude with which the student
approaches his education dramatically changes the way in which that student
learns, and the end result of the process. For these students, learning is an enjoyable practice; they
study because they like pushing their minds to think in different ways, and
the college environment stimulates this
type of studying for them.
I am trying not to sound elitist as I say this, but some
students are not cut out for academic studies. They would learn to think more critically through
independent study, or casual conversation with friends. To force these individuals into the
specific college setting does not benefit either the student or the college, as
the student will perform poorly by the college standards, (not grade wise
necessarily, but ultimately in achieving the goal of independent thought), and
the student will inevitably lose any love for learning he might once have had,
which will stunt any further development of critical thought in the future.
I do not
propose a solution. At this point,
there is none. There are not
enough students who would willingly boycott the college system and imperil
their work future to effect change from that area, nor will employers recognize
the failure of liberal arts college to teach critical thought. Change also cannot come from within the
university because there is not really an alternative. There is no universal process for
teaching critical thought, and so there will always be some students left
behind in any attempted universal education system. The only option for change from an academic perspective
would be to limit the system to such an extent that only students who excel in
an academic system can possibly succeed there. The negative impact this would have financially on colleges
and psychologically on students, however, makes this unfeasible. Thus, I cannot think of any way,
currently, to change the system. Perhaps
a combined effort of students, employers, and colleges could work, but such a
change would require large participation from a group of people that has been
and is being accidentally schooled in compliance to the status quo.
Before I leave, I want to make a few disclaimers. I am giving my opinion based on my
experiences, and the experiences of the people I have seen around me. I make to academic claims, offer no
proofs of study, only the evidence of my experience. As such, my conclusions are simply my own. Others, who have had dramatically
different experiences might differ with my conclusions, and be well within
their rights to do so. I encourage
those who disagree with me to comment, so I can see how your experiences have
varied from mine. As this is a bit
of a loaded topic, however, I have a couple of conditions. If you want to comment, please do so in
a respectful manner. Just because
someone disagrees with you does not make them evil or stupid. Please submit comments that further
discussion, not argument.
Well, back to reality.
