By Professor Doom
Me, as a college student, whining:
“How come you will only let me sign up for two electives?”
Advisor: “Because we want you to
graduate in four years.” (which I, and many of my friends of the time, did).
--nowadays, around 60%
of graduating students needed 6 years to graduate.
It used to be that going to college was a
plan, and students were expected to choose a major within a semester or two of
arriving on campus. Changing majors was allowed, but required the signing of
forms and getting permission. It was not done frivolously.
This was back when institutions acted with
integrity. Institutions realized that high school graduates were still quite
young, and needed direction and good advice. Thus, there were policies making
it very difficult for a student to spend half a dozen years wandering through
dozens of introductory courses and a handful of majors before finally settling
on a “General Studies” degree. Students went to advisors, who kept them from
wasting time.
Student, in tears: “But you have to
pass me through College Algebra. I need this course to graduate, and I don’t
have any more loan money left. It’s not my fault I don’t know any of this, I
haven’t seen it since high school!”
Me:
“This is an introductory course. You are supposed to take it your first
semester. Why did you wait six years?”
--Nearly every year I have such an
exchange with a student. Typically, students in this position have taken 4 or
more years to get a 2 year degree, with a 2.01 GPA. A question I never ask, but
should, is “Why is my introductory level, freshman high school, course so much
more difficult than the most advanced college courses in your degree?”
Administrators, void of integrity and
feeling no responsibility to the young in their care beyond fleecing them as
thoroughly as possible, changed the policies. Now students can sign up for
basically any courses they want, whenever, regardless of whether the courses
lead to a degree. A student can withdraw from courses repeatedly, delaying his
education and making it easy for him to blow off semester after semester,
rather than develop the real skill of working hard when it’s time to work hard.
These changes in policies certainly went a long way to supporting bloated
campuses and bloated administrative salaries, but have obviously harmed and
taken advantage of the weaknesses of a great many young students—the latter issue
only a concern for those acting with integrity.
With “protect the young” discarded for
“grab more loot” every time, it’s no wonder that typical students take 6 years
or more to get a 4 year degree. Educators clearly need to have more influence in
administrative policies, more influence than even that which needs to be given
through accreditation. But first we’ll go through more easy fixes to higher
education.
So, again, the fixes here are easy.
Instead of the “infinite drop” policy we have now, a student can only drop a
course three times at a university. That’s what the rule was for most of the
previous century, and back then we didn’t have most students taking 6 or more years
to get a degree, along with many thousands of dollars of debt.
We
also need to scale back all the elective and introductory courses, or at least
the capacity to take them (which ultimately is the same thing). Maybe the 6
credit hours I was allowed was too small, but the 120 credit hours allowed now
(or so it seems) is too much. After a certain number of hours (30? That’s over
a year, enough time for people to make a decision), a major must be picked, and
courses going towards that major need to be taken. The old “student advisor”
system needs to come back, making it impossible for students to register for
classes without that advisor approval. I know, it’s so easy to register online
in today’s system, but so many students, our young people, have been screwed
over by that system that it’s time to acknowledge getting rid of adult
supervision was a bad idea. Again, this will help to end the “six year degree”
student that is so common on campus. Students can still change majors…but it
needs to be for a better reason than “I can only pass Psych courses,” which is
why there are so many Psych majors today.
“159,645”
--this is the number of waiters
and waitresses with a college degree, up 81% over the last decade. The
number of janitors with college degrees is up 87%. You want to bet some of
those degrees were in questionable fields like Diversity, Urban Studies, and
Communication? You want to bet some of these poor fools are in debt for those
degrees? You want to bet they’ll be making payments on those debts for the rest
of their lives? I do.
Will these simple reversions to the
working system of times past cause students to drop out, with no degree (i.e.,
“nothing”)? Sure, but this isn’t a bad thing, since most of these drop outs
would otherwise spend years on campus, getting deeper in debt and learning
nothing, gaining no useful skills at all, and, at best, getting a worthless
degree that is good for nothing outside of getting a job as a janitor or waiter.
It
used to be, “some college” meant something on a resume, but with open admission
colleges the norm, obviously having gone to college today means
nothing—possibly even less than nothing, since it’s such a foolish idea for
most people.
So end the “open admission” game, admit
it’s a failure, and bring back entrance examinations; again, this is just a
reversion to how it used to be. Different schools can have different levels of
examinations, but having seen the mentally disabled exploited by
administrators, I think even a small examination might help keeping these
latter from being exploited into a lifetime of debt to enhance administrative
salaries. This may seem discriminatory,
but if a prospective student can’t be bothered to study for an entrance exam,
maybe academia isn’t the right choice for that student? How did that idea not
occur to anyone?
For the most part, I’ve proposed
mindlessly simple fixes, but I do want to at least propose one fix that’s more
clever than “go back to the way that we know works,” which summarizes much of
what I’ve said so far. Next time.
I agree with you but there are some other factors as well.
ReplyDeleteThe first is that the middle and high school system is broken so "students" are entering "higher" education without the foundational skills of reading comprehension, writing, and basic math. Often they spend a couple of years on remedial courses that should have been done in high school -- or even middle school. This is nothing new -- Baran and Sweezy comment on this in their book, "Monopoly Capital," published fifty years ago.
Secondly the delusion that everyone is capable of higher education is a culprit. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The fake egalitarianism of the USA manifests itself in the conviction that everyone can be made "college-ready."
Thirdly, general course requirements are a major time-waster. Why do math undergrads have to take courses in history, philosophy, chemistry, English composition? It's a colossal waste of time and indicates the utterly frivolous nature of US undergraduate studies. In Britain, Germany and Russia, they don't waste time and resources like this. My own degree is from an English university -- and for the three years of my first degree all I did was math. My first real analysis course, for example, was in my first year. The first undergraduate course in analysis at Oxford covers the Lebesgue integral (they don't bother with the Riemann integral). The first undergrad course in mechanics at Imperial begins with Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics. This is higher education. In contrast it's quite usual for US students to have their first taste of Lebesgue integration, of Galois theory, of Lagrangian mechanics only in their first year of grad school. What were they doing as undergrads?
There are absolutely students that have no skills coming out of high school...but there have always been such students. The US does produce very good high school students, as much as always, but the 'open admission' game has tricked people into going. They pay just as much as the good students, but get screwed.
ReplyDeleteMath undergrads have to take that stuff as a hold-over from old accreditation, which mandated material from "the classics." Don't worry, US schools are abandoning general education requirements as fast as they can (instead of, say, a course on Chemistry, you can now take a course on how White People are Evil Bastards, and it counts/costs just as much). I'm a little conflicted about the necessity of Gen Ed, but I'm sure what we're doing now is wrong.
In the US, a math major could see real analysis his junior year (I did in senior), and same for Galois theory. A second year student could see dynamics and mechanics (I'm teaching some 150 second year students this semester the divergence theorem and the like). The Lebesgue integral, I concede, is for graduate school.