I told you, you are in jail. Do the time if you want the dime. As you can tell from my last post where I wrote on my toshiba, I still can't spell unless I use my macintosh with the built-in spell-checker. But not even a world famous Yale history professor could keep my illiterate butt from getting the parchment I needed to practice law. Now I run a bar in my spare time too, just for fun. But I'll always have those degrees to fall back on. Beats working for a living.

College may be bad, but are you sure grade school isn't even worse?

Oh, you're right, Mark. I can't make myself stop pointing to its futility, or what a ripoff it really is.

The best argument for it that I've heard is that employers can safely say that if someone has a degree, the odds of them being knowledgeable and competent are slightly higher than someone without one. But that doesn't excuse the many people I've known who have years and years of proven experience and worth in their chosen field, only to be fired one day because the company decides that people without degrees can't work there anymore.

But, whatever. I can say the Emperor has no clothes, but if no one cares, then no one cares. Let the Emperor be naked.

Colleges have always had that problem of "growing richer by degrees" - but you're right, there's a fundamental collapse in college education in the United States these days. Its built into the system - we have this absurd and asinine public school system built around the theory that after 12 years of school, everyone will go to college; rather than face the reality that most people are not capable of desireous of going to college (when you come right down to it), they have instead dumbed-down college to the point where its not really higher education at all.

The Arms of Krupp, The Fall of the House of Hapsburg, Bismarck, The Two Ocean War, The Campaigns of Napoleon, A Military History of the Western World, On Thermonuclear War, On War, The Incredible War of 1812, World War One, Stillwell and the American Experience in China, Disraeli, John C Calhoun, Mussolini, Peter the Great, Selected Lives, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, George Washington, The Last Lion, Carnage and Culture, France and England in North America, At Dawn We Slept, The Path Between the Seas, The Tragic Dynasty, Ordeal of the Union, Annals of Tacitus, The Bonaparte's, The Boer War, A History of the Ancient World, The Great Heresies, The Shadow of the Winter Palace, The Spanish Civil War, Japan's Imperial Conspiracy....these are books currently within arms reach of me as I type; I challenge anyone who might be out there who has a doctorate in history to claim they've read half these books....heck, a quarter of them.

They haven't because they aren't educated - because their educators can't educate them, lacking the knowledge to even know what they aren't teaching. Anyone with knowledge, however, recognises the pattern - they are all books which deal with seminal events of the past centuries; knowledge vital to anyone who will make a claim to understanding the way the world is today.

I'm with you, Dean; get your scrap of paper and enjoy the (hopefully) higher wages it will entail - but you were educated before you started, and you'll get far more educated on your own as you go forward in life.

College degrees ARE a scam by the education industry. One CAN succeed without the paper, but it is much harder. One has to decide how much garbage one's ego can take. What's more important, the money or one's pride?

I have a family.

The money's more important.

(Hey, weren't you just chastizing me for complaining about this, Ted?)

Dean,
Good memory! There goes my anonymity.

For my money, you're right. The money's more important. In my own life I face a similar situation. As a reseller of Microsoft Great Plains they force me to pass certain tests to sell their software.

I'm not pleased, but the money comes first.

Originally, elementary/high-schools were designed to keep kids busy until they were of work age, teaching the skills they needed to be good workers. Things like respect for authority, the ability to direct concentration and attention to uninteresting things, how to keep to a strict schedule. Now, there are so many behavorial problems in most public schools that even those skills aren't being taught.

Last week I withdrew the children from a gymnastics class because the teacher simply couldn't control two of the boys. And I'm not one to suggest that boys should be "quiet and polite" all the time. But those boys are extremely agressive. Frankly, the teacher can't protect all the children all the time and still teach anything at all. They make the class miserable for everyone, all the time. It was an aggravating exercise in futility. I can't even get my money refunded and we still aren't going back. I shudder to think about those boys in public school.

So, I suppose my point is: Yes, colleges most likely are beginning to need to focus on things our public school system can no longer deliver, especially since incoming-freshmen are of such lower calibre. Basically, a highschool degree only proves that you've done some kind of attendance and you're probably about 18 yrs old. Its no longer an indicator of a "good worker-bee". Thats pretty much what college undergraduate degrees have become. They prove that the student has the following characteristics: demonstrates ability to jump through administrative hoops, adheres to a schedule (dealing with deadlines), works toward clear-cut goals, "plays well with others" (ie not killing the stupid people around you), functions acceptedly well under stress.

I'm sorry you're disappointed and frustrated because you want to learn actual facts and intelligent theories. Admittedly, that would be very nice. However, you're wrong when you say you're learning nothing. You're learning plenty, its just that most of it isn't about the topic discussed in class. Good luck!

I was watching Victor Davis Hanson this weekend on the tube.

He said that an 8th grade education three generations back became a high school education two generations back, and starting about a generation back, that h.s. education is now an undergrad. He said right now you have people who are certified, but aren't really educated in a classical sense.

There is a strong component of self-motivation in education: You do need to take control of your own learning. I still hold, however, that whether in college or out, if you read a lot and don't discuss your understanding of the reading with someone who knows more about the book than you do, you'll just end up misinformed on a wide array of subjects -- or with only a rudimentary or fairly obvious grasp of subjects. Real education is dialogic and requires a teacher and a student.

Unfortunately, our education went off the rails a long time ago -- some because of ill-conceived reforms predicated on faulty views of human nature, but the big problem it faced was competition from the influence and pervasity of television. But that's a story for another day.

Dean,

I'm not being dismissive, simply noting that you're not the target audience of traditional undergraduate programs. Anything aimed at 18-year-olds is going to be irritating to a 37-year-old.

If the complaint is large, lecture-style classes that demand regurgitation of information, then you're either at the wrong university or you're still taking mainly introductory courses. When I was teaching college, I taught all the upper level classes as graduate-style seminars, using roundtable discussion format. Indeed, the only thing I taught using a pure lecture format was the introductory American Government course.

You'd likely be far better off at a smaller school, a liberal arts college, or a school that mainly offers night and weekend courses because it's geared to "non-traditional" students.

that's "our education system went off the rails"

James,

Your main point is wrong. Dean is, in fact, the main target. He is going to a university that specializes in non-traditional students. You can't even get into this school if you aren't over 25.

See?

Bill: I strongly suspect that Hanson is quite correct.

We'll have to agree to disagree somewhat on the matter of discussions, however. I would agree that discussing something you have read with someone can be very helpful, but I do not see it as necessary for the motivated self-learner with critical thinking skills. Some of the most difficult subjects and concepts I have mastered have been subjects where I had absolutely no one discuss them with or ask questions of except what I could find in the books. On the other hand, some of my most profitable learning experiences have involved having another person to explore the subject with, wherein neither one of us was an expert on the matter. We learned together, and this has always been more powerful, for me, than the mentor/student arrangement.

Perhaps I am unusual, but I know I am not all that unusual, as many of my friends are the same way. I note again that traditional educational systems seem to have huge trouble dealing with people like us, or even acknowledging that we exist. But we do.

And I have never--and I really do mean never, in my entire K-12 education or my college education--found any value whatsoever from sitting in a traditional classroom.

Never.

James: I'm in a classroom setting specifically designed for returning adults, and none of my classmates are under 25. My criticisms still stand. I despise learning in a classroom environment, do not function well in a classroom environment, and never have, so that may well be part of my problem. My other is with so many arbitrary ways the modern university operates.

Not much to be done but complain, I suppose.

Lucy: I believe that, as cynical as you are, you are probably correct.

Hoop-jumping is the name of the game in most undergrad programs these days. An increasing number of people I know even say that you don't start to learn anything until you go to your master's degree. Funny thing is, I used to think they were kidding.

I'm sure it's different in some of the better liberal-arts schools, but I've even had people tell me it's just that bad at some of the Ivy league schools.

By the way, I note once again that there are exceptions, especially in highly technical upper-division classes at some of the better schools. You're certainly not going to cruise through calculus, just for starters.

Funny thing is, math teachers also tend to be more logical about things like this. If they understand theory and not just mechanics, anyway. (I'm one of those people who needs theory.)

As a college senior, I can attest to the incredible stupidity of many of my fellow students.

BUT, I go to an a small Christian liberal arts school, and I have often been impressed with many students, esp. Bio, Chem, Physics, Math, etc. majors; Bible majors (although CERTAINLY not the Mrs. ones); the music majors, who work themselves very hard learning much more than just how to strum their instrument (isn't music theory part of a classical education?); and the more intelligent of the econ, polisci, international studies, and history depts. These people work hard, study hard, and apply themselves to a broad base of education before specializing too deeply.

On the other hand, you have: ed (of course), English, pysch, soc., rec and leisure, business, etc, all of whom do nothing, and ruin gen ed classes by their inability to grasp simple concepts. Another problem is the state requirement that all ed majors have to double, which means that they infiltrate serious majors and destroy them from the inside.

At any rate, I think that there needs to be a thin line drawn between large state schools (and maybe even the larger privates) and the solid small liberal arts schools.

Am I as well-educated as my parents were in school? I have no idea. Quite frankly, as a modern history and European politics major, I focus on completely different material than my parents would have 40 years ago. Events happen, theories change... my mom was learning bs theories 40 years ago- why is it surprising that some of our theories are bs, too?

My school doesn't offer "Rocks for Jocks." Core classes vary in difficulty, but you have to at least do the reading to pass, and we have mandatory attendance.

Mark Noonan- that's a long list of books. I've read a few. But let's be serious. What non-history major is going to have read even a couple of them before he's 22? You don't need to read a whole book on Teddy or George or Bismarck to learn the important points. Unless it's the prof's favorite subject (as it is mine), no class will assign The Spanish Civil War for an intro course, or even an advanced one. History is very long, and your what? 20 years headstart? gives you much greater opportunity to create that list. Please don't pretend that those books represent current historical thought, because I'm sure many of them are outdated. Let's play a contest... I have books in 6 languages on my shelves. What- you haven't read this widely? I must be better educated, although I haven't had your life experience. Maybe my diploma come May won't be such an empty piece of paper.

A view from the other side of the lectern...

I teach a graduate business class ("Business, Government, and Society", covering business ethics, corporate governance, social responsibility, regulatory compliance, and the like) part-time at a public university. I would like nothing better than to run my class as a roundtable discussion, but too many of the students just won't bite. Try to get them to talk about whether they agree with an assertion made by the authors of the text--insert sounds of crickets chirping here.

Some classes are better than others. I've also found that there are some you just can't draw into a discussion, particularly international students (and particularly particularly from Taiwan or the PRC, at least in my experience). Some may fear their language skills, though on the whole their English is quite good (and I've said so). I rearranged the syllabus to replace the two midterms with informal team debates and a position paper just so I could hear someone talk other than myself. :-)

Part of it is my fault; I'm still fairly new (in my second semester of teaching), and know I have room to improve. Part may be the fact that students from other cultures may be more used to being talked at, and aren't comfortable to talking back. Part of it may be the "check off the box next to MBA" mentality you sometimes find in an urban/commuter setting like this one (I got my MBA at the same school I'm teaching at now, and plenty of my fellow students had that mentality).

I'm planning to go back for my doctorate starting in 2005. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but it matters to me whether my students learn something useful while they're in my class.

Ken..maybe this tactic would be worthwhile: warn the students in advance to be prepared to discuss some broad topic (say, 'do you think the current insider trading laws are rational and well constructed?') Then, at the next class, pick a student *at random* to come up to the front and present his views.

Wouldn't the fear of looking like a jackass in public encourage good preparation by all, and wouldn't listening to one of their own maybe increase the class attention level?

Dean:

Have you read Peer Gynt?

Dean

You might find this book ("Rapid Learning") to be of use.

Although it's aimed at a technical audience, the techniques could be applied to other subjects (with varying degress of success).

It seems like the value of a college education seemed to deteriorate starting in the 60's when college became a way to avoid the draft.

Oops sorry I forgot the URL for the book, it's:

http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore/rl.htm

Dean, regarding your "house of cards" remark...I think the current situation in academia has strong resemblences to a classical financial bubble. Just as during a bubble shares are valued for the circular reason that...they are valued, rather than because of expected future net income...today, diplomas are valued under the belief that they will be valued, rather than for any actual knowledge that they represent.

More thoughts on this here:

http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_photoncourier_archive.html#93683654

When someone responds and says, "it's your fault you're not learning," I can only respond and say, "I'm paying you to teach me and the grades you're giving me say I'm doing fine. If it's up to me to learn, what the hell am I paying you for? To be my arbitrary stamp of approval?"

:: applause ::

I am both a college student and a TA. I really wonder why it is that my professors don't seem to want to teach. I teach the students in my section and they always thank me for doing so. Apparently having a teacher who ... well ... teaches is new to them. The apathy has spread to high school as well.

I teach professional students in both the didactic and clinical parts of their veterinary medical education. It always amazes me to find kids who, after struggling in the classroom, become stars in the clinic. And vice versa. Every year we will have a student who got straight A's in the didactic part of the curriculum fail miserably when they get into the clinic. Students DO learn differently, they process information differently, and - most importantly from my perspective - they apply their knowledge to situations differently.

To underscore one of your other points, my univeristy was the leading provider of REMEDIAL education in the state. In other words, we had undergraduates coming to the university without the basic tools to succeed - so we had to first teach them entry level math, science, english, etc. Over the past 5 years, my university has tried to reverse this trend by setting stricter admission standards. Only time will tell if this is an appropriate path.

Sorry for the "my university" bit, I guess I'm a bit timid about speaking for the state.

I concur with your sentiments, Dean. I received my BS in engineering from an Ivy school over ten years ago. Almost none of the coursework has been applicable to my career. The primary benefits have been ten years of paying off the student loans and colleagues embarrassingly introducing me to new clients, "Here's John! He's 'Ivy-Educated!'"

Like John P, I am Ivy educated and I graduated in the early 60's. The only thing I got out of the experience was from interacting with the people I met, students, grad students and professors, OUTSIDE of class. I know that there were supposed to be great teachers there, but I never found them in the class room. On the other hand, many "lousy" teachers taught me a lot outside the classroom....

Dean, I'm kinda curious. Which would you prefer? To not have to get the degree at all, or to have a learning experience that you actually enjoy and find rewarding and useful and whatnot?

An observation: IT seems to exist in a unique in between spot. It's not quite the same as this engineering/hard science stuff that we all seem to agree you probably do need a degree (such as they are bestowed) to practice/advance in the field. But it's not quite as learning-for-learning's sake as a more "classic" "liberal" education, although you can learn it all on your own well enough to practice it. I know a ton of people who do IT (with varying degrees of aptitude and success), some with degrees, most without.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

Mark Twain (1835-1910)

hmm, points where i tend to disagree.

tuition isn't paid so that you will be taught, tuition is paid so that you can learn, and more precisely learn where you are learning. it is paid to the institution, not the professor or instructor. there are other educational relationships where ou do pay the instructor directly and then they have a personal responsibility to you. the responsibility of a professor in a university isn't entirely toward the students though, it is mostly to the university, which may require that a certain topic is taught, etc., but don't assume that it has anything to do individuals. The university experience isn't about you the learner, it is about you the student at the university, and that role is probably not as clear as you might like, primarily because it is intended to be more than simply learning. There is enculturation occuring on a number of levels. There are networks and relationships being constructed, affirmed, or disavowed. There are many other things occuring in a university education that are very important to the future success of their partipants.

as for those that say 'education is a bubble' or that it has significant problems, i think they really missed what actually occurs in these institutions, and forget why they exist, what they provide, and why that has been important since around 988 A.D. and why it will likely keep being very important to many people. I'm not going to give a history of the institution or argue its importance, but I will say that if you think just in terms of economic multipliers in state economies, you will make some progress toward understanding why we have these institutions, though that is only one of many significant reasons.

that said of course, it isn't for everyone and if you look at successful entrepreneurs in the u.s., you'll usually find they quite education at some point instead of finishing. that speaks toward the audience of higher education in some significant manner.

Jeremy, the fact that an institution has a glorious history does not automatically mean that all is well with it in the present. Indeed, institutions that have been successful generally become arrogant and dogmatic, leading to their own failure and destruction (cf French Army, 1918-1940)

and that an institution does not serve the needs of small population does not mean it does not serve the greater needs quite well.

Dean,

You say you aren't learning anything...is that because they are teaching you stuff you already know, or because they are teaching stuff at such a low level that it essentially like not teaching anything?

If the problem is the first, then one solution would be to major/take classes in something you are totally unfamiliar with. I realize that you are fairly well read, but there must be subjects you haven't covered in serious detail (even if they are trivial to you, at least they would be new). Also, many schools will let you do independant study for many of your credits...maybe you could write a thesis on something near and dear to you?

If the problem is the second...have you asked about 'testing out' of classes, or credit for 'life experience'? Frequently you can skip some classes and graduate early or take more advanced classes. My mom just finished her bachelors degree (at the age of 52, and with a thirty+ year break from her associate degree!) and she was able to skip much of the pre-requisite work: now she has started her masters after only two years of part-time study.

As far as whether or not the Emperor is truly naked...I doubt it. If it was really such a waste to employ degree holders, companies wouldn't do it. And I suspect the market already punishes companies that hire/overpay people solely because of their education.

PS: Mark, your reading list might be applicable to a history undergrad, or maybe even a Masters student...but a Phd is expected to read actual first-person historical documents and to do new research. Browsing through someone elses interpretations or summaries of history can be interesting, but doesn't really qualify one as an authority.

Oh fine. Here I am about to embark on a $70,000, 8-year ordeal to educate two teenage daughters. This isn't exactly cheering me up.

On the other hand, they'll be outta the house.

I believe the Mark Twain quote said it best.

A couple of quick points since I do not have the time: I believe Ted Kaczynski (yes, THAT one) had a bit to say about the motives of education and science in his Manifesto - cf. 'The Motives of Scientists'. Ask yourself - what is the true point of the current academic system? It's largely to turn out semi-intelligent drones who can work MS Project and write coherent interoffice memoes, write SQL scripts, etc. I hate to break it to you, but "free thinkers" aren't a tremendous asset to employers.

Secondly, academic institutions are no different than any other large organizational bureaucracy - they seek constant expansion of their size and influence well beyond their originally intended scope. (Think about how the DEA must find new "villain drugs" every couple of years or so, or how the U.S. military must constantly find new enemies in order to justify continual expansion.) Hence, the ability for all typical state schools to just give out degrees. If they cared about real "learning" they'd implement more rigorous academic standards - but as it stands right now you can be pretty damn dumb and graduate from State U. with a BA in a liberal arts field.

Basically, school should just be looked at as a series of hoops that need to be jumped through if you need school to facilitate a certain career goal. If you look at it as much more than that you're bound to be dispappointed - which has obviously already happened. Any real learning is going to be done in your off-time.

Best regards,
Jonathan

Another quick note: anyone who wants a scathing indictment of academia and its true purpose could not do better than to pick up a book called "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt. You can read my review on Amazon.com if you want.

Patrick's comment regarding about how companies like degrees: well, on one hand, a degree probably means you can string a sentence together (although often not more in this day and age). However, I believe it also shows that the degree holder ascribes to a particular set of values that are not exactly going to be disruptive to the corporate system. Given the impossibility of supervising all workers, there must be some way for corporations to ensure that they are getting people that will be able to perform their work without a high degree of oversight and not pose any sort of ideological threat.

Perhaps this is too Chomsky-esque or "conspiratorial" for some of you to swallow; again, read the Schmidt book for more.