My fiancée and I take the occasional lunch together since we work only 8 blocks apart, and over the course of one recent lunch, she and I discussed my views on education policy. These views are quite controversial and, in places sound vaguely Orwellian. I am primarily going to deal with post-secondary education, but will touch on primary and secondary education.
Let me begin by saying that education is one of the places I am, philosophically, willing to see the Government (capitalization intended) spend public money. This is because I believe than a proper investment in education benefits society as a whole and thus is in keeping with the object of having governance in the first place. (The role of government and why we have one is an entirely different philosophical can of worms than I want to really get into here though.) The important thing to realize is that I see the reason for governmental expenditure on education is because it benefits society overall. Thus, that which maximizes the benefit per dollar spent is to be favored over that which does not.
However, I think we need to rethink the philosophy behind who we educate in what way and when.
PREMISE: The government should fund the basic education of its citizens so that they have the ability to function in society. Thus, we teach the three R’s: reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic. Additionally (pun intended), in a modern world we need to impart some computer literacy. We also need to instill certain values, societal concepts, and basic information in our citizens. I don’t mean brainwashing; I mean more like no stealing, no hitting, no gender discrimination, what a democracy is, basic historical knowledge of the country, etc. This is why we have free public education; because everyone in our society needs to know those things. And these are appropriately what we teach in primary and, to some extent, secondary schools. Anyone graduating from a secondary school should have the skills necessary for a basic job.
However, beyond the basic, necessary, education, a lot changes because we are no longer dealing with things everyone needs to know. I hate hearing that “You go to college so you can get a good job.” That is not what college is and not what it is for. Going to college because of a belief that it will get you a better (more highly compensated?) job treats college like some sort of vocational training ground. This is in error.
Vocational training is important, absolutely, and arguably it should be part of a person’s basic publicly provided education even if I do not personally think so. (I tend to think that if a person wishes to seek a line of employment that requires additional training, it should be on their shoulders and/or be provided by the companies that need people trained in that way.) However, much of college learning is not related to preparing a person for a vocation and therefore irrelevant to those who seek a college degree as a means to pursue a specific vocation. This is, of course, the criticism of many with their college experience.
How did we come to treat college as vocational training then? I think you have to go back to WWII and the original G.I. Bill. All the exiting service men and women had an ability to go to college in a volume previously unknown in the higher education system, and they exercised that ability. College and University enrollment soared and vast numbers of graduates began entering the job market with fancy letters after their name. Facing this glut, companies began to use the college degree, however meaningless it might be for the position they were hiring for, as a selection criteria under the theory that a candidate who had one was preferable to one who did not. With the weight of jobs going to college graduates, the self-fulfilling prophecy that you needed a college degree to get a good job started to come true. Now, for example, to sit in the juvenile detention center in Franklin County, Missouri and watch the residents, you have to have a college degree as a State requirement. It doesn’t matter what degree mind you, you just have to have one. Ergo, the requirement is pointless. Worse, now in many industries you have to have a Masters simply because you need to distinguish yourself from all the people holding mere college degrees. In other words, this is an escalating cycle.
What then is the point of college? At risk of being extremely philosophical, higher education is to fulfill the participants as individuals. It also exists to impart a broader education (as opposed to simple training) both generally and also because practitioners in certain fields (doctors, scientists, etc.) require it. The difference between “simple training” and training of the type that requires higher education is that those highly specialized fields require a much broader general knowledge before the specific training can begin. Otherwise, college is for those who want it, not for job advancement, but for personal fulfillment. This encouragement of the cream of our minds to attend college is especially important considering the challenges that loom before us in the 21st Century, most of which, if they are to be solved, require highly technical and scientific solutions.
What then is the role of Government in paying for the high costs of higher education? It’s very simple: Government should unequivocally support and invest in higher education… for those who merit it. I would completely and utterly do away with “need-based” financial aid and replace it entirely with “merit-based” financial aid. Remember what I said about why the government should support education; because it benefits society? I posit that society is best served by providing higher education to exactly those individuals who demonstrate that they will gain the most advantage from it and thus, can do the most with it to benefit that same society. Having established that college education should not be necessary to become employed, this is not an issue of a civil right or lack of entitlement. I have never seen any evidence and do not believe that providing financial aid to an impoverished dunce simply because of financial status benefits society equally or more than providing the same aid to a wealthy genius. Quite the opposite. In fact, if you think in terms of group projects and joint achievement, then having meritorious people around you in college only enhances the effectiveness of college.
I’m not saying to ignore the people who simply want vocational knowledge. They should be entitled to government aided loans and the like, but even there, I would select and reward merit and achievement. Also realize that I am not de-selecting any individual from enrollment in college based on lack of merit; I would not aid them financially. If they want to save up and go to college, they should be welcomed to do so (and should not feel pressured to have to do so just to get a good job).
Unfortunately, the only way to achieve this is through some fairly draconian changes. Since a glut of college educated workers caused the problem, you need to either create a shortage of such workers or convince business to stop requiring useless degrees (or both). Thus, you need to immediately switch to merit based financial aid for colleges and universities while increasing the aid for purely vocational programs. This should shift people from colleges to vocational schools. Simultaneously, you need to offer incentives to businesses to induce them to hire the vocational graduates for positions which do not really require a college education. I think everyone will be surprised at how many “college degree required” positions that currently is. This will mean that, with fewer college graduates available, the need for the degree will lessen except in the positions that really do need a person so educated. In essence, we will separate the wheat from the chaff in the job market. Anyone else who simply wants a college education for personal fulfillment can still get one, and should have no illusions about why they are getting one.
Thus, my policy towards education would be two-fold:
1) Change all financial aid to purely merit based aid.
2) Create an environment which reduces the need for a college degree to obtain a job which provides income above the poverty line.
No comments:
Post a Comment