A new report from Harvard’s Graduate School of Education admits what many of us have known all along—the traditional four-year college degree is not necessarily the best path for everyone.
A new report released by Harvard Wednesday states in some of the strongest terms yet that such a “college for all” emphasis may actually harm many American students – keeping them from having a smooth transition from adolescence to adulthood and a viable career.
“The American system for preparing young people to lead productive and prosperous lives as adults is clearly badly broken,” concludes the report, “Pathways to Prosperity” (pdf).
Despite a clear message that college is important – and a pervasive desire among young students to attend college – only about 30 percent of Americans complete a bachelor’s degree by their mid-20s, with another 10 percent completing an associate’s degree by then. A massive effort in recent decades to increase those numbers has improved them only slightly.
February 3rd, 2011 | 12:39 pm
I wish I had a dollar for every person I know who have dropped out of college in the fourth or fifth semester for want of accessible financing – only to end up with no degree, no career, and a five-figure debt.
Vo-tech is a lousy solution for most of the degrees they offer. Too many of them are exactly the sort of industrial job being sent overseas right now, and most of the rest of them are subjects that those who can afford it study in four-year, not two-year, programs.
But the financial resources are just not adequate/accessible for students who are too low income to get the sort of education needed to compete for “merit based” aid, but are not eligible for “need based” aid now that it’s been skewed to “skip over” people who don’t fall into politically correct subsidized groups.
I don’t really get how all of this leads to the conclusion that we should just accept an ignorant populace as inevitable and/or desirable. I guess lowering the standards is just easier than providing the real financial assistance needed.
February 3rd, 2011 | 3:01 pm
Blake:
I would challenge your assertion that college reduces ignorance.
As for vo-tech jobs going overseas I highly doubt that electricians will ever be outsourced. Same with carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, janitors, building managers, barbers, hair stylists, pilots, printers, farmers, crab fishermen, truck drivers, painters, ship builders and plenty others.
My university degree has gained me nothing monetary and left me still paying for it almost ten years on. It was simply unneeded, but no one told me that fourteen years ago.
February 3rd, 2011 | 4:36 pm
Most vo-tech programs originally were things that you didn’t study in a 4 year college, Blake: Machine tool operators, auto and avaiation mechanics, and machine drafters filled roles where a 4 year degree is overkill. You are right in that a lot of the vo-tech jobs are being sent overseas.
Peter, the problem is that many of those are dedicated to local economies and are very vulnerable to saturation. Some even exist solely to funnel candidates into a specific local business, and if it dies you have a lot of people with nowhere to work. Many of the service-based votech jobs also are vulnerable: there’s a hard cap on how many mechanics or hairdressers you need in a local area.
Encouraging entreprenuership might help in addition to this. However there are a lot of caveats, too long for a comment to go over.
February 3rd, 2011 | 6:37 pm
Peter: When it is done right, college education does not reduce ignorance. Right now, there is ample evidence that universities are being misused – but that is wrong and needs to be fixed, because education is important.
Ultimately I believe the answer is going to lie in making “lifelong education” more than just a catchy phrase. We have a radical shift in how we conceive of our productivity in progress, whether we like it or not. Part of that is the recognition that we, as workers, will need to shift as needed to accommodate the economic climate. Along with that recognition comes a second recognition: that what is “wrong” with our educational model might very well be the assumption that college is something you do when you’re young, then leave behind as you enter your career.
February 3rd, 2011 | 8:12 pm
I went to a traditional 4-year college and obtained a B.S. in I.T. — with my areas being in networking and information assurance.
I can honestly say the degree is worth no more than the paper it’s printed on. I didn’t learn much and the fact is the IT field doesn’t care about college degrees, what they want are industrial certifications. You can have a Ph.D from the best college, but if you don’t have any certifications, the job will not think twice about you.
I am now going to a technical college and getting hands-on experience with the equipment (in my case, routers and switches).
However, it should be noted — that my case doesn’t apply for all.
The hard sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) and the soft sciences (philosophy, anthropology, sociology, physiology etc.), and the like will require a traditional 4-year college degree, if not more.
February 3rd, 2011 | 8:17 pm
Oops, typo, it should be psychology under soft sciences, instead of physiology: which is indeed a hard science. Forgive me.
February 4th, 2011 | 3:36 pm
I am surprised at the number of people who have misunderstood this study: it is not saying that “we should just accept an ignorant populace as inevitable and/or desirable.” To the contrary, the report emphasizes that the US needs a much better second track for young people whose talents are not necessarily academic. Indeed, it points out that polytechnics and apprenticeship programs in places like Germany and Finland are highly regarded and carry a great deal of prestige. The problem is that we in the US have, by default, adopted a “one size fits all” approach to education that seriously short-changes students who are are unsuited for a traditional four year university. As a university professor I see this all the time: my classes are filled with very nice, well-meaning kids, but kids for whom reading philosophy books, writing literature papers, and learning foreign languages are sheer torture. Many, I suspect, would be much happier building a house, cooking in restaurant or working on computers. And these are not “inferior” occupations or skills: I myself am as much in awe of a classically trained French chef such as Jacques Pepin as I am of any scholar in my field. (And it is ironic that, in of all places, vocational education should have a lower status in the US than it does in supposedly snob-ridden Europe!)
February 4th, 2011 | 5:24 pm
Heraclitus, I understand phrases like “whose skills are not necessarily academic” as meaning “those people whose skills are not necessarily academic should be excused from current general ed requirements required for secondary education”.
I think every American citizen should be getting more, not less, general education than is currently the case.
My family is full of people whose skills are “polytechnic and apprentice” in nature. The ones who went to full-degree state universities are considerably better off than the ones who got vocational training in a local program.
When I say “better off”, I mean:
- better education is a personal advantage
- better education makes you a better citizen
- better education means stronger employment credentials
- better education translates into a stronger ability to diagnose and identify when it’s time to go back and develop new skills to keep up with changing economic conditions.
What’s not to like?
(Also note: that my family has any college grads at all is courtesy of the G.I. Bill.)
February 5th, 2011 | 5:26 am
Perhaps there is something to be said for the French system of “Grandes Ecoles.”
Just as the state trains officers for the armed forces in military acadamies, so the state trains scientists and engineers in the Ecole Polytechnique, High School teachers, school inspectors and university lecturers in the Ecole Normale Supérieure, civil servants in the Ecole Nationale d’Administration and so on. So far from paying fees, the students receive a salary of approximately $2,580 a month, so the government can afford to be selective.
Admission is by (very) competitive examination in the two-year preparatory courses, which are taken in certain High Schools and are free. The Khâgne taken at the end of the second year of the preparatory course is at least as demanding as a US bachelor’s degree. The first year of the preparatory course in humanities includes 5 hours of French literature, 5 hours of history, 4 hours of philosophy, 4 hours of the first modern language, 4 hours of ancient language and cultures (2 hours of Latin or Ancient Greek and 2 hours of antique culture), 2 hours of geography and 2 hours of a second modern language a week. Then there is the student’s chosen special subject (10 hours) Most students spend another 20 to 30 hours a week in private study.
There are a number of other specialised schools; the Ecole des Mines now trains graduates of the Ecole Polytechnique as scientists and engineers for the French Nuclear Industry. There is even an Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature, which trains judges and magistrates, including public prosecutors.
February 5th, 2011 | 6:40 pm
It is a foolish man indeed who mistakes schooling for education. Most college professors are, by that definition, very great fools.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact