On Sat, 15 May 2010 09:07:45 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: >"Perhaps no more than half of those who began a four-year bachelor's >degree program in the fall of 2006 will get that degree within six >years....
And what conclusion should we draw from this? Before one answers, make sure that one is aware of the parenthetical statement in the article: |(The figures don’t include transfer students, who aren’t tracked.) So, are we to assume that all transfer students fail to graduate as well? Also implicit in the statement above is that the baseline for graduation should be some other number, maybe 100% but in reality, has college graduation rates ever been 100%? Historical comparisons of rates is problematic because those going to college has become much more diverse prior to, say, 1950 at which point U.S. citizens made use of the G.I. Bill to go to college. So, what is the a credible baseline to compare the the figure presented above? Moreover, it is likely that this overall figure is seriously misleading because it assumes that there are no differences in graduation rates on the basis of gender, race/ethnic group, whether one is the first person in one's family to go to college, SES and financial status, and a number of other variables known to affect retention in college. The situation is complicated and, I believe, the argument presented here is simplistic and ultimately spurious, motivated by nefarious intent though appealing to some who simply respond to the statements without much thought, much like the Tea Partyers who shout that the U.S. federal government should stay away from healthcare but also shout for the federal government to stay out of Medicare (apparently not being aware that Medicare is a federal healthcare program). >A small but influential group of economists and educators is >pushing another pathway: for some students, no college at all. One name that I easily recognize in the list provided in the article is that "political scientist Charles Murray" though he is not identified as being co-author of the book "The Bell Curve" nor as a "scholar" at the conservative American Enterprise Institute; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute >It's time, they say, to develop credible alternatives for students unlikely >to be successful pursuing a higher degree, or who may not be ready to do >so." > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/weekinreview/16steinberg.html?hp This is a curious article and I would point out that one should also take a look at the comments to the article which can be found here: http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/is-college-for-everyone/ I say curious because this article seems to be a re-hash of an article published last year in the Chronicle of Higher Education; see: http://chronicle.com/article/Are-Too-Many-Students-Going-to/49039/ A Google search of the leading characters here seems to show that they have been flogging this dead horse for a while. I'll leave it to the interested reader to find them. It seems to me that too many conservatives advocate this viewpoint and I'm sure that it is on purely rational grounds and has nothing to do with being racist, elitist, socially dominant, and working in support of "The Man". >I say: Hear! Hear! Given the number of college students I see who lack >the interest or discipline to benefit much from higher education, I see >no reason they shouldn't do something else instead (like work), at least >for a while, until they feel a need for more "life of the mind." It will >suit them better and it will make schools better (not having to >constantly entertain those who don't really want to be there in the >first place). You're entitled to your opinion, Chris, but, historically, haven't teachers made one form or another of this complaint over the millenia? I can't recall the reference but didn't Socrates or one of the Greek philisophers complain about the lack of seriousness in the studies of his students? >Making higher ed "accessible" is great. Making it a "requirement" is >somewhere between pointless and a disaster. Nobody makes it a requirement though parents may have been sold on the idea that the only way that their kids will do better than they did economically is by going to college, you know, all that "people who go to college make more money" crap. Of course, if they read about the education backgrounds of the richest people in the world, they'd realize higher education has little to do with it, unless like Bill Gates, dropping out of college is somehow as prerequisite for becoming the richest man on the planet. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2649 or send a blank email to leave-2649-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
