|
 t should be no surprise that education is a top priority for this year’s presidential candidates. Polls indicate that voters consider education their top concern, outdistancing issues such as health care and Social Security. To address the situation, President Clinton has stated that he wants to make college attendance as common as high school. He seems to be getting his wish. Currently, 70 percent of all high school seniors attend college, and if present trends continue, that figure could rise to as high as 80 percent during this decade. (See M. Henry, “High Schools out of Sync with College Standards,” USA Today, December 9, 1999, D9.) To most within the political and educational establishment, this trend is worthy of applause. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that American society will benefit from it. In fact, the next president needs to know that America’s obsession with higher education does serious damage to industry, students, and higher education itself.
Education Explosion
The number of young Americans attending college rose continually during the twentieth century. In 1900, only 4 percent of the nation’s high school graduates entered institutions of higher education. By the outbreak of World War II, that figure had risen to 18 percent. After the war, there occurred an increase so sharp that by 1960, 40 percent of all American high school graduates went on to college. By 1970 the number had increased to 50 percent and essentially stayed there until 1980. (See C. J. Lucas, American Higher Education: A History, St. Martin’s, 1994.) The ever-increasing percentage of high school graduates entering higher education after World War II is usually attributed to an expanding economy accompanied by an increase in white-collar jobs and the entrenched belief that a college degree was the key to success. By 1980, however, the pool of potential students began to decline as the last of the baby boomers entered college. Because of the unfavorable demographics, analysts predicted that as many as 30 percent of all colleges would have to close or, at the very least, have to retrench and scale back their programs. (See P. E. Harrington and A. M. Sum, “What Ever Happened to the College Enrollment Crisis?” Academe, September-October, 1988, 16-22.) The only alternative would be to accept more students from a dwindling applicant pool.
Rather than risk closing down or cutting back, of course, colleges decided to go after a larger percentage of high school graduates, initiating major marketing campaigns to lure new students to their campuses. Colleges employed numerous techniques in this quest, including the widespread use of radio, TV, videos, and mass mailings. In addition, schools initiated major construction programs, which usually meant adding as many creature comforts as possible, to attract customers. The National Commission on the Costs of Higher Education estimated that 32 percent of all campus square footage existing today was constructed between 1975 and 1991. (See “National Commission on the Costs of Higher Education: Report,” Academe, July-August, 1998, 32-36.) Of course, even the most effective marketing efforts can fail if the price isn’t right. Hence, many colleges were forced to offer price discounts, usually masked in the form of grants and scholarships, to seal the deal.
The other major change incurred by the decision to recruit more students from a declining population was the lowering of academic standards. To reach their recruitment goals, colleges began accepting less-qualified students. Most four-year colleges, in fact, lowered admission standards to the point of instituting something close to open admissions. To accommodate the increasing numbers of unprepared students, remedial programs became commonplace—one-third of all entering students now take such courses. (See B. J. Taylor, “Bak to Skool,” Reason, March 2000, 16-17.) To offset faculty concerns, college administrators assured them that although more questionable students were being admitted, standards would not decline, because the most ill-prepared students would drop out after discovering their inability to compete academically. That did not happen, however, and freshman attrition rates have changed little over the years. According to data compiled by ACT (American College Test), freshman attrition rates rose by only about 1 percent for all four-year colleges between 1983 and 1996. (See “National College Drop-Out and Graduation Rates,” http://www.act.org/news/releases.) Attrition rates didn’t rise to reflect the decline in student quality, because it soon became apparent that failing large numbers of students was not in anyone’s economic self-interest—it might not be easy to replace them. Hence, colleges resorted to grade inflation (the average college graduate now has a grade point average of 3.00) and liberalized course-withdrawal policies (some schools allow students to drop courses almost up until the time of the final exam with little penalty).
These wayward policies created a uniquely American social phenomenon. Higher education became less of a haven for the elite and the academically qualified and more of an expected destination for almost everyone. This notion has become so firmly entrenched that very soon nearly all American high school seniors will go to college.
Harming Industry and Students
The ever-increasing number of high school graduates pursuing a college diploma appears to be having a detrimental impact on industry. Surveys indicate that nine out of ten U.S. manufacturers say that they cannot find enough highly skilled workers. (See T. J. Marott, “Creating Your Own Workforce,” Plant Engineering, July 1998, 30-38.) As one corporate recruiter put it, “Some of the best jobs in industry go begging now for a lack of skilled workers, and these aren’t jobs that require years of academic study.” The wage levels for many of these jobs are not insignificant; in fact, they can be higher than those earned by many college graduates. For example, machinists can make more than $50,000 a year, and much the same is true for many other skilled trades. Increasingly, these jobs require knowledge of math and computers—the kind of training for which many students now in college are well-suited and would probably find more satisfying.
In spite of these excellent job opportunities, parents and high school guidance counselors simply cannot get beyond the belief that attending college is the only path to a successful life. In fact, the best selling point that colleges have had in their favor is the overall economic advantage provided by a degree. The U.S. Census reports that over a lifetime an individual with a bachelor’s degree can expect to earn about $600,000 more than a high school graduate. (See Brigid McMenamin, “The Tyranny of the Diploma,” Forbes, December 28, 1998.) Closer examination of these figures, however, suggests that the advantage might not be so large. Brookings Institution economist Robert Reischauer suggests that the better students—with better potential as future workers—tend to be the ones who go to college. (With so many young people now going to college, the few who do not pursue higher education comprise a group already less likely to be successful at work than the average high school graduate.) To know the exact advantage of a college diploma, you would need to follow a control group made up of brighter students who didn’t attend college. Anthony P. Carnavale of the Educational Testing Service argues that the estimated wage premium attached to a college degree may be inflated by as much as 30 percent. Hence, one must conclude that the payoff for college is less than advertised, meaning that many students would be better off economically if they pursued technical training.
“Dumbing Down” Higher Education
The rise in college attendance has harmed not only students and industry but academic institutions as well. Colleges are losing their identities as they attempt to attract and accommodate students. They have dumbed down their courses and continuously reduced the core requirements that make a college education unique. Colleges no longer require students to study the parts of the curriculum once designed to appeal to the intellect, broaden one’s interests, and in general, provide for the kind of informed citizenry essential to the success of a democratic society. Instead, they have continued to vocationalize the curriculum to further broaden their appeal. This trend was recently epitomized by the decision of the University of Chicago to reduce its core curriculum because university officials believed that it was hampering the school in the competition for students. Less-prestigious institutions will almost certainly follow suit.
Perhaps the two most insidious trends in this direction are the reduction in class hours and the awarding of course credit for “work or life experience.” Until recently, college classes have been conducted on the basis of forty-five class hours per semester. In the past few years, however, some colleges have reduced the number of class hours to as few as twenty while maintaining (or pretending) that the credentials earned are still the same. To date, these so-called “accelerated degrees” have been marketed largely to older, part-time students who, supposedly because of their experience and maturity, can move along at a more rapid pace. In reality, however, the reduction in contact hours has been aimed at attracting adult students who, because of their hectic schedules, want to obtain a degree as painlessly and as quickly as possible—a demand that many colleges are obviously willing to meet. Much the same can be said for the practice of awarding college credits for “life experience” in lieu of course work, which reduces college to just another activity in a student’s busy lifestyle.
Soon enough, of course, it will occur to younger students to complain that it is unfair to offer these time-bargains only to older students. It won’t be long thereafter before students start to receive college credit for a plethora of nonacademic experiences. And if colleges are willing to significantly cut the time students spend in the classroom while requiring fewer classes (the very essence of the academic experience), nothing is safe. When grade inflation is factored in with the reduction in class hours and course work, it become clear that some colleges are rapidly moving toward the point of simply selling degrees.
Uncertain Future
In some ways, the future of American higher education looks quite rosy. Enrollments are rising: by 2004 the number of people attending college between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four is expected to have increased by 30 percent since 1994. (See Boston Globe, April 9, 2000, A1.) In fact, some large state universities have proposed raising entrance requirements, citing their inability to accommodate the anticipated demand. This might signal a trend toward higher standards for a few schools, but not for the majority, because any excess of students would be absorbed readily by smaller state colleges, private schools, and the rapidly emerging for-profit sector that strongly covets a piece of the $225 billion higher-education industry.
Thus, despite the increased enrollments, the long-term prospects for higher education may not be very bright, if for no other reason than basic economics. The value of a commodity diminishes as more and more people obtain it. Currently, some 24 percent of the population have college degrees (twice the proportion in most other industrialized countries) and within certain age cohorts the percentages are higher. These figures will continue to climb. Thus it was no surprise that in 1992 the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted that 30 percent of all college graduates would be unemployed or underemployed between 1990 and 2005. Surely, the public will eventually become aware of these facts and pursue more fruitful and less expensive paths to economic well-being, such as having high school graduates enter the workforce with the skills businesses require.
The next president will need to be acutely aware of the declining value of an American college education and its damaging effect on the economy. For a college education to have meaning, it must be distinctive and limited to those with the ability and motivation to pursue it. If it is not, any perceived benefits will be largely illusory.
Click here to view a full list of American Outlook Magazine Issues
|
