college fundamentalism vs. college realism

I have argued that we have too much college. I have also argued that it may not be wise for everyone to go to college considering the astronomical cost. These views have attraced much criticism on this blog.

So why do I stick to these views? As a blogger, I do enjoy the debate, but there’s a more important reason for supporting an unpopular view: I am a “college realist.” I do not take a religious stance toward education. Formal schooling is a tool to an end. If the tool fails to do its job, I can live without it.

What’s the alternative? I think there are three positions one can take toward education:

• College fundamentalism: College is always good for everyone. Everyone should have it no matter the cost or the measured effect. We should massively subsidize college for anyone who asks for it.
• College realism: College is good for some people, but maybe not for everyone. The benefits of college should be compared to the costs and liabilities.
• College skepticism: College is mainly a waste of time. It is not needed and we should dismantle higher education.

There are educational skeptics. Home schooling might be seen as K-12 skepticism. The writer Ivan Illich argued that we needed to “deschool” society. But there aren’t too many hard core skeptics. Rather, the big debate is between college fundamentalists and college realists.

There are many college fundamentalists. For example, policy makers in America often promote more student loans to increase enrollments. Education researchers spend more time, relatively speaking, on access (getting people into college) than impact (see how it matters). The knee jerk reaction to proposal to limit or shrink college education is a symptom.

I’m a realist because there’s too much evidence against a fundamentalist position. We know that many students fail out of college and those that remain fail to learn much. And it isn’t because of finances. Many students lack the ability or maturity to complete college.  Furthermore, there’s evidence that college is overpriced relative to future earnings. This all suggests to me that college education should be focused, not given to all who ask.

I think the right policy stance for a college realist is “targeted access.” Rather than try to get every kid into college regardless of academic skills, we should focus on people who have the ability and desire to succeed. The wealthy will take of themselves. We – the higher education community – should instead work on identifying promising young people from less wealthy families and building financial resources, like endowments and grants, that will make college affordable for these people. Our efforts should be on identification of merit, targetting people who need help, and price control, not merit-blind loans and other policies that bloat and distort higher education.

Adverts: From Black Power/Grad Skool Rulz