I don’t know who Harold O. Levy is, but he really should know better than to spout idiocies like this lunatic prescription for American higher education:
AMERICAN education was once the best in the world. But today, our private and public universities are losing their competitive edge to foreign institutions, they are losing the advertising wars to for-profit colleges and they are losing control over their own admissions because of an ill-conceived ranking system.
Wait, wait, wait. Foreign institutions? Really? You want to tell me specifically what foreign institutions are competing with American private universities, there? Oxford and Cambridge? Okay. What else. If you are seriously telling me that there’s a long line of American college kids who are breaking down the door of McGill and the Tokyo Institute of Technology and, I don’t know, Southeast Morocco State, then I want to see numbers and graphs and data. What I remember from my days on campus at Georgia Tech were international students breaking down the doors because American students were too fat, dumb and lazy to study engineering and high-level math and science. Tell me that American universities can’t compete with overseas schools. Tell me. I want to hear this one.
And I take it that the “ill-concieved ranking system” is the U.S. News and World Report system. Well, the ratings systems don’t hurt the system as a whole; they help some schools and don’t help others. If your school isn’t ranked that highly on whatever survey, don’t hate on the survey. Suck it up and do better next time.
With the recession causing big state budget cuts, the situation in higher education has turned critical. Here are a few radical ideas to improve matters:
Well, at least he got the “radical” part right.
Raise the age of compulsory education. Twenty-six states require children to attend school until age 16, the rest until 17 or 18, but we should ensure that all children stay in school until age 19. Simply completing high school no longer provides students with an education sufficient for them to compete in the 21st-century economy. So every child should receive a year of post-secondary education.
You have got to be kidding me. My parents are both retired teachers who worked in vocational education with at-risk kids; trying to teach them the job skills they need just to make it in this society. They would have kittens if they knew somebody was trying to force the kids they worked with to take an extra year of school (especially as some of them had to drop out to work full-time to support themselves and their families). They’d be the first to tell you that if kids don’t want to be in school, that it’s a mistake to keep them there - they’ll be disruptive, cause problems, etc.
Look, it would be nice to think that every child who graduates from American high schools is going to have the tools to work in a globally-competitive 21st century workforce. But it’s not true. Anyone who has spent any time in high school - much less been the chancellor for a big urban system like New York’s - knows it isn’t true. And it’s not like every single job in the economy is going to be globally competitive - nobody is going to outsource their auto repair, or their manicure, or their lawn care to India anytime soon. Saying “every child should receive a year of post-secondary education” is like saying “every kid should get a bright red sports car on his or her sixteenth birthday,” or “the Yankees should win the World Series every year.” It ignores reality.
The benefits of an extra year of schooling are beyond question: high school graduates can earn more than dropouts, have better health, more stable lives and a longer life expectancy. College graduates do even better. Just as we are moving toward a longer school day (where is it written that learning should end at 3 p.m.?) and a longer school year (does anyone really believe pupils need a three-month summer vacation?), so we should move to a longer school career.
Oh, Lord, doesn’t anybody learn anything about statistics anymore? If the average college attendee has a better average health and lifestyle, what do you suppose will happen when everyone is forced to attend college? Hmm? Everybody will be included in the average, and the average will go down. Simple as that. Or, if you’re into logic:
- Everybody wants to have a higher income than average.
- People who go to Harvard, on average, have a higher income.
- Therefore, if everybody goes to Harvard, everybody will have an above-average income.
If you can’t see the idiocy in that, then maybe you can benefit from the explanation: the key to better health, more stable lives, and a longer life expectancy is the ability to make good choices, which correlates with college attendance, but is not necessarily caused by college attendance. And taking away the choice to go to college means that it won’t say anything about one’s ability to make choices, thereby skewing the entire process.
President Obama recently embraced the possibility of extending public education for a year after high school: “I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training.” He suggested that this compulsory post-secondary education could be in a “community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship.” (I helped start an accredited online school of education, and firmly believe that the coursework could also be delivered to students online.)
Obama, you see, was using nice, cheap words to suggest that people get more education. Which is different than using expensive money to force them to do so.
If the federal government ultimately pays for the extra year, it would be a turning point at least as important as the passage of the 1862 Morrill Act that gave rise to the state universities or the 1944 G.I. Bill that made college affordable to our returning service personnel after World War II. Every college trustee should be insisting that we make the president’s dream a reality.
You can put this entire paragraph into one word, and that word is bailout. Pure and simple. I have no problem with a college trustee going, hat in hand, to the federal gummint for a bailout, but if that’s what you want, say that. There’s no need to dress the pig of federal bailout money in the dress of compulsory universal education.
And for those who graduate from high school early: they would receive, each year until they turn 19, a scholarship equal to their state’s per pupil spending. In New York, that could be nearly $15,000 per year. This proposal — which already has been tried in a few states — has the neat side effect of encouraging quick learners to graduate early and free up seats in our overcrowded high schools.
That’s not such a bad idea, I guess - if someone had offered this deal to me when I was sixteen I would have taken it. Yes. Drop out of Grand Prairie High after my sophomore year and take $15k a year to go to UT-Arlington and live at home and get a college degree a couple of years early? I would have taken that, just to get out of gym class. Still, a paragraph of sense in a sea of nonsense, and it gets worse:
Use high-pressure sales tactics to curb truancy. Casual truancy is epidemic; in many cities, including New York, roughly 30 percent of public school students are absent a total of a month each year. Not surprisingly, truants become dropouts.
But truant officers can borrow a page from salesmen, who have developed high-pressure tactics so effective they can overwhelm the consumer’s will. Making repeated home visits and early morning phone calls, securing written commitments and eliciting oral commitments in front of witnesses might be egregious tactics when used by, say, a credit card company. But these could be valuable ways to compel parents to ensure that their children go to school every day.
Ye gods. The only good thing to say about this is that you’d end the unemployment crisis by hiring a million truant officers.
I could go on with the rest of this, but it’s mostly one complaint after another - the University of Phoenix has a bigger ad budget than Montclair State, the U.S. News ratings aren’t fair, the public schools are turning out graduates without basic skills, parents aren’t listening to the Blessed Redeemer and are letting their kids play video games. You want real radical reform, try improving the quality of education instead of complaining about other factors you really can’t control, or bringing up ideas that are nonsense on stilts.