On Sat, 15 May 2010 19:06:12 -0400, Christopher D. Green wrote: > I can always depend on Mike to have something obnoxious to say when I > post. It has really become so clockwork that I hardly notice it now. It > usually amounts (as below) to his placing the worst possible > construction on something I have said, and then knocking down the very > straw man he has erected. Huzzah! >[snip] Chris, playing the victim does not suit you though I can see how strategically it allows you to avoid certain questions that perhaps you do not want to answer or cannot answer. Again, let's start with the opening point of my post to which you are responding:
[quoting from post attached at the end] |>> "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? Chris started by quoting this section of text from the NY Times but does not address why should one accept it as true or valid? As the article points out, transfer students are not tracked implying that the numbers provided earlier are biased at best. Do all transfer students fail to graduate? If not, then those graduates have to be added to the figures presented. Are the other numbers similarly "cooked"? If the assertion that about a 50% graduation rate is misleading or just plain wrong, then the presentation is sustpect because the facts appear to be "cherrypicked" to suit the argument, the argument that certain people should not be in college -- who these people are are not clearly articulated because it would probably be the case that they are referring to the poor and racial/ethnic groups but not the children of the rich or the middle-class. I am sure that most everyone here is aware of the problem of retention of students, that some bad ones drop out while good students drop out for a variety of reasons unrelated to their academic ability and interests. Not having the money to continue education, personal and family issues to deal with, illnesses, and so on. The impression left by the article is that everyone who drops out probably couldn't hack school but we know that this is only one interpretion and ignores other reasons. But by ignoring those other factors, one doesn't have to address them or deal with them (e.g., how to make sure that every student is able to complete their studies, how to deal with financial problems, personal problems, and other problems that may cause them to drop out temporarily or permanantly). All one has to do is create the strawman that student drop out of college because they don't belong there in the first place, that is, they don't have the cognitive abilities to be there. > (1) I noticed Charles Murray (and was somewhat concerned by it). "Somewhat concerned"? How did you manifest your concern? Was it over the fact that he and Herrnstein bypassed the peer review process in publishing their "The Bell Curve" but still passed it off as a legitimate research report? Or was your concern over the fact the Murray appears to be a big fan of cognitive dissonance. Consider the following which represents Murray's positions on a few situations: http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/09/charles_murray.php Or was your concern over Murray's embrace of elitism and his belief that some people are just better than others? Consider: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2007/1999348.htm and http://www.cis.org.au/events/forums/forumshome.htm http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4228192 https://www.sslcis.org/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=107 Or was your concern over Murray's foolishness as expressed in such statements as the following (taken from Murray's Wikipedia entry): |In the April, 2007 issue of Commentary Magazine, Murray wrote |on the disproportionate representation of Jews in the ranks of outstanding |achievers and says that one of the reasons is that Jews "have been found to |have an unusually high mean intelligence as measured by IQ tests since the |first Jewish samples were tested." His article concludes with the assertion: |"At this point, I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely |parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God's chosen people."[20] I am sure that other people who think that they are God's chosen people (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster"s or the Cosmic Muffin's chosen people) are not amused. > (2) It did, indeed, occur to me that this was a conservative plot to > re-institute racist, classist, sexist, pick your favorite -ist > structures in the college system (which I would not want to be > associated with, despite Mike's suggestion to the contrary). Maybe you should take a look at Murray's book "Real Education"; see: http://www.amazon.com/Real-Education-Bringing-Americas-Schools/dp/0307405397/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274011112&sr=1-1 The review by Publisher's Weekly of this book is provided on the Amazon site but it is relevant to the point being made here: |Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, believes our educational system's |failures stem from the fundamental lie that every child can be anything he |or she wants and that such educational romanticism prevents progress. |Four simple truths, he asserts, would prove better: children have different |abilities, half of the children are below average, too many children go to |college, and America's future depends on the gifted. Murray takes care |with his first point, discussing various types of abilities instead of the |oft-maligned I.Q. measure; however, he does believe that test scores |reflect ability. He argues that there are only a limited number of academically |gifted people and these are America's future leaders, that only this elite can |enjoy college productively and that the nongifted shouldn't be channeled by |their high school counselors into training for that college chimera, which wouldn't |make them happy anyway. Further, he argues, if the Educational Testing Service |created certification tests covering what employers want applicants to know, |these would become the gold standard for applicants, rather than college degrees. |This book is likely to stir controversy even if it appears that Murray is dressing |up an old elitist argument-test scores reflect ability, so high-scorers should be |offered a challenging education, while the below-average should be herded into |vocational training. (Aug.) I am curious as to which of Murray's "Four Simple Truths" (how new-agey!) Chris agrees or disagrees with. > (3) What seemed important, however, was not the source from which it > emanated but, rather, the problem it identified, which is that, > somewhere along the line, we decided that everyone should go to college. Could you provide a reference on this point? Unless "open admissions" (as was implemented in the City University of New York in the late 1960s and early 1970s) has become the international model for how students get into college (i.e., everyone gets in, no entry criteria is used), can you explain what you mean by "everyone should go to college"? Clearly, not everyone can go to college, even if they have the cognitive abilities and interests, because of their financial situation, family situation, and a variety of other factors. However, since colleges are selective in whom they allow in and if these decisions are based on academic criteria (instead of, say, legacies that allow the idiot children of rich alumni to go to college instead of putting them to work in socially productive way, like with street sanitation), then haven't the students demonstrated that they "should" be in college? Or is Chris suggesting the use of some other criteria, perhaps how much a professor would "like" to have a person as a student, no matter how vague that may be. Should professors rely upon the representativeness heuristic as the basis for deciding who should be in their class or school? > (It was not so much parents, Mike, as businesses deciding they would > hire only BAs as a way of "externalizing" their training costs. Reference please. It would be most useful if you could demonstrate that this is true for the students you teach as well as more globally. > There > was a lot of happy talk, at the time of this change, about how > widespread college education would producing a better informed, more > thoughtful citizenry, but I can't imagine that there are still very many > people who believe that this particular part of the plan worked out > terribly well. Prsumably you are not relying on anecdotes and can cite the educational research that supports these points. References please. > (4) I really do wish that kids not interested in learning (episteme, not > techne or doxa) would find something else to do instead of going to > college. I don't think they should stay away forever. I just think that > there is no reason that, at the age of 18, everyone is magically ready > for what colleges, at their best, have to offer. (And some will never be > ready for, or even interested, in that.) Let them come when they want > it, and will work for it. It is true that complaints like this have come > from professors forever but (a) that doesn't mean they are wrong Then again, the evidence that these views are valid have not been produced. Reference please. > and (b) the difficulties faced now are orders of magnitude larger now than > they > were back when, say, there would only a couple of dozen universities > scattered across Europe, each with only a couple dozen faculty members. I am sure that Chris has meticulously detailed the support for this position on the basis of educational research and not just the policy positions of grumpy old White men. I await his references. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] > Mike Palij wrote: >> 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=2661 or send a blank email to leave-2661-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
