12/12/2004 01:07:19 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

I have been slack in the blog department as of late. Thanks goes to Sarah who has picked up said slack and blogged some good entries.

We were discussing post-secondary education yesterday and came to two separate but convergent conclusions. There are two problems with post-secondary education. The first is the counterproductive institutional liberalism of the professor class. The second is the belief that everyone, no matter what their desires or talents, ought to get a degree.

The general line, which is certainly true, is that academica, especially in the "elite" institutions of higher "education" (my apologies for the excessive appropriately placed scare quotes), is not educating our young people at all. They are indoctrinating them, teaching them not how one should think critically, but instead teaching them what to think, and how to do so unquestionably. This is obviously abhorrent, and leads one to question what positive societal good comes out of this mass of academic bafoonery. The problem is not that professors are so overwhelmingly liberal, but that they allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their one true purpose - to teach their students how to think in a rational and effective way. What I'm essentially doing is asking the quack to heal thyself. It's simply not going to happen.

This would not be such a big deal if there wasn't an emphasis nowadays on everyone going to college. I am not trivializing the benefits of higher education. Some professions and specializations are better served by formal education beyond the secondary level. Law, medicine, science and engineering among them. But most are not. One does not need a college education to have a successful business or trade. One certainly does need to communicate clearly and effectively, but this skill can be obtained in less than four years of full-time study. There is a widespread argument that an education is essential to become a well-rounded person. I agree. But what education is achieved by indoctrination?

Further, what education is achieved by a program of study absent a challenge? To expand on the fallacy that "everyone should go to college", the flip-side of the Eastern elite institutions are the "everyone gets in" local institutions and the dumbing down of the curriculum to make sure any person with a pulse obtains a two or four year college degree. On paper, this looks great - but the paper it's printed on is all it's worth. Without reservation, I believe that college ought to be hard. It should be a challenge of discipline, mental toughness, and character. It shouldn't be easy. You should get more C's than B's and A's. And you shouldn't like it, and you should want to try harder. The "gentleman's C" is nonexistent. For those familiar with the statistical concept of a bell curve, the hump has gotten too big. It's not just grade-inflation, it's a formula to ensure that no matter how many remedial reading, remedical math, and remedical study skills classes you have to take, you still ought to be in college seeking a degree.

I believe the higher education system is broken. It's as broken as the public schools that are now destroying the potential of our collective future. In some ways, the problems plaguing the post-secondary education system are a direct result of the failings of the public schools. Those failings, obvious to all but the most union-devoted public school employee, will be left to a later post.

Right now, there's some football to watch.

|||110287987959693088|||More Thoughts