I’ve thought for a long time that the opulence of American higher education – universities with tuition greater than the average income of an American family, fundraising departments raising hundreds of millions to fund endowed chairs for tenured faculty who produce nothing of worth and will earn six figures well into senility, unnecessary administrative employees as far as the eye can see, with most of the actual work of teaching students being done by minimum wage adjuncts and TAs – is unsustainable. It simply makes no sense to have so much of our national wealth and resources tied up in doing so little, when it could be done for so much less.
This probably isn’t the reckoning I’d like it to be (though it would be delicious if said reckoning began in the UC system), but I think we’re going to see much more of this. When soft institutions meet hard times, Reality won’t much care how much it’s denounced in scholarly journals.
The sorts of complaints that are getting aired about Obama’s speech to the children are correct in their end – Obama shouldn’t be making national speeches to schoolchildren – but, largely, wrong about why.
The correct why is thus: public education is a frickin’ joke. Students don’t take it seriously, teachers are mostly interested in protecting their tenure and benefits, and administrators and politicians view it as nothing more than a means to achieve their private ends.
Case in point: what the hell can the president say to children that will be of any use to anyone? He’s going to tell them to work hard and try to achieve? Wow, will that have any more effect than the twenty trillion other speakers students will be subjected to this year? I’ve been out of public schols for almost a decade, but back in my day I heard washed up football players telling me not to use drugs, old school marms telling me not to have sex, and prudes of various varieties warning me about the hazards of tobacco and booze. Administrators and teachers patted themselves on the back for their efforts to change our lives, but at the end of the day the kids who were going to do those things did those things, and those who weren’t going to do those things didn’t. The lectures, the assemblies, the endless Magic Johnson Don’t-Sleep-With-Thousands-Of-Women-Like-I-Did-Or-Else-Um-I-Guess-You’ll-Wind-Up-Famous-And-Wealthy-Like-Me videos – it all washed over us like water off a duck’s back.
The abstinence-only versus condoms-for-everyone fight, the evolution versus creationism fight, the liberal environmentalist indoctrination, the desire of politicians to use students as props – this is all irrelevant and stupid so long as the public education system is governed by low expectations.
Michael Barone has observed that America produces very mediocre 17 year-olds, but the world’s most competent 30 year-olds. I think he correctly chalked this up to the fact that people rise to whatever level they need to: expect very little of students, and you’ll get very little; expect a lot from adults, and you’ll get a lot.
Perhaps one day we’ll stop treating our teenagers like children and start demanding that they behave themselves well. Perhaps one day we’ll expect more from our elementary students than simply showing up somewhat consistently.
But it is not this day. And it won’t be next Wednesday either. Next Wednesday, the president will make a national speech to all school children, extorting them to greatness, or whatever he thinks he’ll be doing, and virtually every one of them will ignore him. So it’s good to complain about the president making this speech, but not for the reasons that are getting all the press. He won’t indoctrinate our children with Marxist propaganda; he won’t politicize the classroom; he won’t turn children into missionaries to convert their parents to godless left-wingery; he’ll just waste his time.
It would be neat if Obama could pick one aspect of American public life and simply keep out. I think it would be really neat if he’d pick three or four, but I’d settle for one to start with. Speaking to every school kid, and telling teachers (i.e. government employees) to have students “Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president,” is not in line with American ideals. Teaching students that they should be thinking in such terms (as opposed to what they can do to help the country – Obama’s ego may not fit within the lower 48, but this country’s still bigger than him) is not right.
Apollo posted this at 5:52 PM EDT on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009 as CHANGE!, Edjamacation
Jonathan Cohn, on why we should control health care costs: “But the money spent on medicine is money not spent elsewhere–it’s government dollars that didn’t go into schools or public housing;”
As Mickey Kaus points out, the idea that we need to spend more money on public housing – pretty much the definition of a failed government program – is laughable.
But it’s the bit about education spending that gets me. I can’t remember a Democrat ever, even once, saying that we spend too much money on education. We’re up around $10,000 per student per year now for public eduction, and this increased spending has basically done squat to help improve results. Yet every single year, in every budget fight – state or federal – we’re subjected to cries from Democrats that we need to spend more on education.
But when we start talking health care, Democrats are suddenly telling us that we’re obviously spending too much money, and that this spending constitutes a crisis.
I don’t get it. It seems to me that if you’re going to complain about overspending, it makes more sense to complain about education overspending.
The vast majority of education spending comes from the government, so there is very little competitive market pressure on schools to control costs; that’s not the case for healthcare, where private entities exchange good for services and try to turn a profit off of it by being more efficient than their competitors.
Education is based on the relationships between teachers and students, and convincing students to perform their best; it seems that there would be an objectively optimal level of spending, anything above that would just be used to hire more layers of administration. Modern health care requires that vast sums be spent on research and equipment, and while there’s certainly a point of diminishing returns, additional money spent on health care seems more likely to be put to good use than additional money spent on education. Another secretary for the deputy assistant superintendent, or another CT machine?
It doesn’t bother me one bit that it costs more to save lives than to educate kids. That it seems to bother Democrats should be telling, but I’m not sure of what.
Apollo posted this at 12:21 PM EDT on Saturday, August 29th, 2009 as Edjamacation, Health Care
I would not use it to pay for Michelle Obama to speak. I simply can’t think of anything interesting that she has to say. Would students at UC Merced rather have had Michelle Obama deliver a canned speach, or get $370 each? Or, if we make this a matter simply for the graduating class, would the 493 graduates rather have Michelle Obama speak at their commencement or get $2000 each? I wouldn’t have payed a wooden nickel to hear my commencement speaker – the insufferable Bill Bradley – but I can’t think of anyone a college graduate, without a job and with lots of debt, should be paying $2000 to hear.
Because of security concerns, the audience had to show up hours before the ceremony in the campus’ grassy outdoor amphitheater and sit without shade as temperatures reached the mid-90s. Eight people were hospitalized for heat-related problems, a campus spokesperson said. About 80 others were treated at the site.
I hope every one of those people is suing the university. It is completely idiotic to force families to sit through that to watch their kids graduate, just so that Michelle can spout out 25 minutes of Oprah-lite.
I’ve long thought the culture of high-end commencement speakers was stupid. Virtually every college in the country would benefit if it just gave up on that game and instead had a well-regarded professor speak to the students. It would save money, have more content, better connect with students, and not subsidize the egos of political and media elites.
“A lot of people in the last couple of days…they’ve mentioned ‘intellect,” Gibbs said. “I’m not sure what number they graduated in their class at Princeton, but my sense is it’s not second.”
Because we should all bow our knees and bang our foreheads when an Ivy League graduate comes near. Frankly, I think we mortals are fortunate that Sonia Sottomayor continues to bless us with her presence in this realm.
I mean, she finished second in her class! Has anyone ever done better than that? Um, well, presumably, if we could find the guy who finished first, he could criticize her. Though we’d migh have to compare SAT scores to determine whom to believe. I’m sure the richness of the experiences of this wise Latina woman would overwhelm whatever that guy had to offer.
The chairman of the Texas State Board of Education is a Creationist. Not an IDer who accepts the basic outlines of evolution with insistence that God has nudged things along, but someone who thinks the evidence for common descent is too shaky to be taught in public schools. Wowzers.
Every once in a while numbers leak out from universities showing the reality of racial preferences. Here’s some numbers from Duke. This one is super special, because it doesn’t just show the differing criteria for admitted students, it shows the different GPAs once the students are admitted. There’s half a point of GPA between Asians/whites and blacks.
The actual paper seems to cost $5, which is about $5 more than I’m willing to pay for an academic paper. It seems to be making the point, which anyone in their right mind realizes through common sense (thus college administrators are able to feign ignorance on the subject – we presume they have neither a right mind nor common sense), that admitted students with inferior credentials tend to do less well.
Apollo posted this at 3:10 PM EDT on Thursday, May 7th, 2009 as Edjamacation, Race
I’ve been seeing Kathryn Lopez link to this list of books that some people think “all” high schoolers should read before graduating. I’m definately with JohnDerbyshire on this. Back in high school I somehow got it into my head that I needed to read a bunch of Great Books in order to be smart. I read most of the stuff on that list (though I didn’t know of the list’s existence until a couple of days ago), as well as a few dozen books not on the list. I read a lot, honestly.
Then about half way through Anna Karenina, it dawned on me that virtually everything I was reading was a crashing bore. In the ten years since that reading spree, the only fiction I’ve read that wasn’t assigned to me in a class was Tolkien. Turning reading into something I had to do completely killed my desire to read. I think forcing any 16 year-old to read Virgil would have a similar effect; it’s simply more fun to watch television.
The negative consequences of forcing teenagers to read aside, I looked at the list, and I would actually advise against high schoolers reading most of what’s on there. Read the rest of this entry »
While we’re covering freedom of expression on campus, Republican Oklahoma State Rep. Todd Thomsen is trying to pressure the University of Oklahoma to un-invite Richard Dawkins from speaking on campus during a Darwin celebration.
Again, we have censorship in the name of open-mindedness, and bullying in the name of protecting feelings:
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry; and
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma has planned a year-long celebration of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s theory of evolution, called the “Darwin 2009 Project”, which includes a series of lectures, public speakers, and a course on the history of evolution; and
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and
WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the University of Oklahoma, the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma, and the Chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma.
I’ve blogged before about my mixed feelings about Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, specifically about how — given current religious attitudes among the general population — their promotion of atheism comes at the expense of better science education. At his best, Dawkins is a brilliant provacatuer; at his worst, a total jerk. Regardless, he’s one of the most effective and engaging public scientists, an authority on Darwin, and a best-selling author. He’s the perfect guest for such an event.
Unfortunately, petty wimps like Rep. Thomsen are just as eager to censor debate as the authoritarian leftists at Pomona College. Shame on them all.
It seems as though Pomona College has seen fit to ban from its campus two Claremont McKenna College students who recorded a public event featuring a Planned Parenthood PR representative. Charles Johnson is, obviously, the go to man on this, and I look forward to watching the video he says is forthcoming.
He has some other posts worth reading on the subject: here, discussing the history of campus leftists seriously disrupting events or committing crimes and not getting punished or getting the slightest of taps on the wrist; here, discussing the “Dean of Women” and her past thuggish behavior.
Honestly, I’ve hated that college for years. It revels in ignorance and consistently punishes, in one way or another, those who disagree with its majority. But to see its punishments become so open, so thuggish, and with complete disregard for the punished party’s side of the story manages to surprise even me.
I have a lengthy article about home schooling in California — and the legal battles surrounding it last year — on C11.
Update: Good Lord, it appears that my article may well be the last regular article on C11. Best wishes and luck to the crew and kudos for their fine work over the last six months.
Tom posted this at 9:37 AM EST on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009 as Edjamacation, Journalism
Harvard University’s endowment suffered investment losses of at least 22% in the first four months of the school’s fiscal year, the latest evidence of the financial woes facing higher education.
The Harvard endowment, the biggest of any university, stood at $36.9 billion as of June 30, meaning the loss amounts to about $8 billion.
Oh woe are they! Only left with $29 billion to run a university, excluding, of course, the tens of thousands they charge per student. I can’t imagine how you can possibly run a university on such thin shoelaces! It’ll no doubt be thin gruel in the dining hall this spring.
Apollo posted this at 10:24 PM EST on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008 as Edjamacation
I have, by way of informing one friend or acquaintance about another, said, “He went to Princeton and then to the Harvard Law School, but, really, he is much better than that.”
