David B. Shemano wrote:
> A couple of months ago Michael Perelman complained (in generalities of
> course) about the quality and interests of his Chico State students, many of
> whom were obviously not going to college for the academic experience. I was
> going to point out, (but did not at the time), that his frustration is a
> product of our societal decision to subsidize higher education, which has the
> necessary (and presumably intended) effect of encouraging many students to go
> to college who would not go if the opportunity costs were experienced more
> directly. While it is impossible to dispute that certain individuals benefit
> from education subsidies, there is also the reality that many young people
> who would be better off immediately entering the workforce or marrying
> instead go to college, saddle themselves with significant indebtedness, learn
> little of value because they are unprepared or not up to the demands, and
> then enter the workforce in no better shape than if they had skipped the
> college experience. Furthermore, as Michael has experienced at Chico State,
> the presence of these "students" is a distraction for the students who are
> willing and capable.<
For what it's worth, the students at Loyola Marymount University (a
private university) are not that much better than those at the
California State Universities. There are no subsidies from the
government except for guaranteeing payment of student debt to the
lenders. The problem is that most members of both groups of students
come from the California public school system, which has been
systematically starved since the 1970s, falling lower and lower in
quality and fighting Alabama schools for the title of "worst."
This reminds me of an old flick that Milton Friedman produced ("Free
to Lose"? "Fleas are Loose"? I forget the title) where he showed
students playing Frisbee at some state school and other students
studying hard at Dartmouth. He indicated that the reason why the
former were goofing off (Frisbee-playing isn't productive??) and the
latter where grinding their noses was because the students at the
state schools were only there because of government subsidies while
those at Dartmouth were paying full freight (David's point exactly).
Of course, MF's film, like all his work, was fiction. The comparison
was not based on a significant statistical sample (even though MF had
studied statistics at one point). Among other things, the students at
Dartmouth goof off as much as those at state schools, producing lots
of beer busts and such dreck as the "Dartmouth Review." (Who says
these students there don't play Frisbee? No-one who's been there
during warm weather.) Instead of the state subsidizing their stay in
Club Dart, it's their parents. Usually it's a much larger subsidy than
the state provides.
Having gone to a (different) Ivy League school, I noticed that a lot
of students did not work hard at all, because they _felt entitled_.
They had been told over and over again that they were born to be
members of the ruling class. Looking at their parents, the main lesson
they got was that connections (networking) was more important than any
hard work. (That's not a wrong message: some lazy, drunk, and dyslexic
frat-boy from my _alma mater_ used his father's connections to rise
all the way to running the White House! Can you believe it?? Truth is
always stranger than fiction.)
The students at the state schools, on the other hand, often see going
to college as a major step forward and try to make the best of it.
However, having a job on the side often makes that difficult, as not
having any connections within the power elite.
--
Jim Devine / "If heart-aches were commercials, we'd all be on TV." -- John Prine
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
