Thanks to Jeanne at Necromancy Never Pays, both Academically Adrift (Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa) and In the Basement of the Ivory Tower (Professor X.) are on my nightstand. (See this piece in the June 2008 issue of the Atlantic for a preview of the latter.)
Naturally, then, Louis Menand's essay in the June 6 issue of The New Yorker caught my attention, as it not only explores similar territory -- the value and meaning of a college education -- but also discusses both books.
From "Debating the Value of College":
I could have answered the question in a different way. I could have said, “You’re reading these books because they teach you things about the world and yourself that, if you do not learn them in college, you are unlikely to learn anywhere else.” This reflects a different theory of college, a theory that runs like this: In a society that encourages its members to pursue the career paths that promise the greatest personal or financial rewards, people will, given a choice, learn only what they need to know for success. They will have no incentive to acquire the knowledge and skills important for life as an informed citizen, or as a reflective and culturally literate human being. College exposes future citizens to material that enlightens and empowers them, whatever careers they end up choosing.
2 comments:
Menand's piece in The New Yorker was a good, thought provoking read. What do you think? Care to share an opinion? I know, on the internet expressing an opinion is like shouting in a crowd; nonetheless, this reader would like to know what you think.
I think Menand always provides a good, thought-provoking read. How's that for sharing an opinion? (*wry grin*)
As for his thoughts on the value of college, to my mind, he describes the history of our country's attitude toward higher education accurately and summarizes the current problem well:
A lot of confusion is caused by the fact that since 1945 American higher education has been committed to both theories. The system is designed to be both meritocratic (Theory 1) and democratic (Theory 2). Professional schools and employers depend on colleges to sort out each cohort as it passes into the workforce, and elected officials talk about the importance of college for everyone. We want higher education to be available to all Americans, but we also want people to deserve the grades they receive. [Boldface added.]
Like Menand, I tend toward a more democratic view of college -- with a dash of "Greatest Generation" work ethic: "College [is] supposed to be hard. Its difficulty [is] a token of its transformational powers."
I think that most students must be guided to the good and great books and ideas. While this should begin well before college, many times, it doesn't. Therefore, Theory II holds that in college, students will be exposed to those books and ideas that will decorate the otherwise fairly spartan rooms of their imaginations. To my mind, the best possible outcome of a college education is the synthesis of those good and great books and ideas with the practical knowledge and skills sought in pursuit of one's life work.
(Related aside: The great flaw of many unschooling and strictly child-led learning programs stems from a similar idea: On balance, we humans tend to be fairly utilitarian in our knowledge quests (i.e., I need to learn *this* to do *that*). So while a child may express an interest in learning to read or write or calculate, it's not likely that he or she will push for The Tempest, a term paper, or trigonometry without having been guided to recognize the value of -- for lack of a better phrase -- more difficult pursuits.)
Early on I mused about college. You might be interested in this old entry:
http://mentalmultivitamin.blogspot.com/2003/11/about-college.html
Hope this proves helpful.
MFS
Post a Comment