After America, over-education and perpetual adolescence

[Túrin Turambar]

I don’t have time to return to this topic right now, but I would like to make a friendly reminder that this thread is on higher education rather than healthcare. Steyn, by the way, is an American – he was born in Canada but has lived for twenty years now in New Hampshire.

[vison]

Lord_M, do you think the Australian approach to higher education is a good one?

[anthriel]

The "chemo crapshoot" being discussed in our Coping thread will eventually be a thing of the past. Oncologists will often be able to make a very specific, individual treatment prescription for a patient's specific tumor. There will be a cost for the sequencing involved, and for the studies needed to determine the vulnerability of different tumor genotypes to different drugs, but the upshot will be longer and more productive lives for cancer patients, with far less time, money, and suffering wasted on "standard" treatments that might well not help.

And that's just one disease type. But these kinds of advances tend to be invisible unless you or your friends/family are affected by them.

As someone in the field of medical diagnostics, I see SO many of these targeted treatments that Prim is describing coming down the pike, and it is beyond exciting what we will be able to do with this. The future is very, very interesting, folks.

But all of this data takes people experienced enough, innovative enough, and yes, educated enough to be able to not only conceptualize these ideas, but also to see these sorts of projects to their fruition.

I absolutely agree that universal college/university education is a vast waste of money. A society cannot function without plumbers, mechanics, carpenters or electricians.

I certainly agree with the second sentence here, but not the first. I don't think my education, for instance, was wasted by a dime, and I think I fill a need as important as any plumber or mechanic. I HAD to have my schooling to do what I do.

Did I misunderstand what you were trying to say here, vison?

[Túrin Turambar]

Lord_M, do you think the Australian approach to higher education is a good one?

I think it much better than the American, but I think it could still be improved. There are a lot of people going into essentially meangingless degrees with the expectation that there will be a job at the other end for them that they could not have gotten had they left high school straight for the workforce. And there is still a prejudice against trades and traineeships over degrees.

Still, we are fortunate that the mining industry offers a non-academic path to a good income (although it only employs like 1% of the workforce). And most universities still offer all the professional degrees - law, medicine and engineering - to undergraduates. But I fear that might be changing.

As an immediate point, I think that a lot of courses could drastically cut their intake. Arts, for example. The federal government continues to fund far more Arts courses through the HECS program (ie. interest-free higher education loans) than the country needs, and I suspect that taxpayers are getting little return for their money. Most unskilled jobs are in the service industry, but I expect that a lot of graduates with non-professional degrees end up in service jobs anyway. Obviously the private universities can do as they like, but the wealthy have always sent their sons for a 'gentleman's education' and I expect that will never change.

I also think it would be better if people spent time in the workforce before moving into higher education. Many do, by working over their summer holidays, but I suspect many people would make better choices with the benefit of a years' work experience behind them.

The real issue, of course, is that industries like agriculture, manufacturing, and increasingly, retail, wither away, there are fewer jobs for unskilled workers. That said, I think that a lot of so-called 'graduate' jobs (like the one that I'm doing now) don't require a degree. And the solution to this problem is hardly to give people essentially useless training for jobs which may or may not exist.

[vison]

I think I didn't make it clear: I don't think it is wise or necessary for everyone to aim at a university or college education. That's what I meant by "universal".


An example: a friend of mine in Seattle has 2 children. His daughter is a dancer, and dances with one of the big ballet companies. She has basically a high-school education. She is very bright and very talented, but she decided it was better for her to dance than go to school. Will she regret it later? Who can say? She's doing what she loves and earning her own living and I don't know what more anyone could expect.

His son went to college and got a degree. I admit I don't know what the degree is, but it's not as a doctor or accountant or nurse - it appears to be a completely useless degree since the young man hasn't found a job. (I'm not the one calling it "useless", they are.)

He never really wanted to go to college. But his mum and dad were horrified, they both came from not-very-well-off families and everyone struggled hard to see that they got to college and they were not about to see both their kids not go.

Mum is a nurse. Dad's degree was some kind of business degree but he is not in management. He has a "good job" and earns a good living, but the other guys in his company who do the same work mostly do not have college degrees.

I don't know what it all means. I certainly know that anyone doing the kind of work you do, anthriel, must have a very fine education indeed. You obviously have the brains and the drive - but not everyone does.

[vison]

Lord_M, there are many people who believe that as long as someone's in school he's not out there competing for their job.

And when jobs are scarce, having people in school keeps them off the streets.

It's all expensive. I guess each society decides which is the best way to spend money and ensure social peace?

[Teremia]

Quite tickled to find myself totally disagreeing with vison on something!

I think pretty much everyone can benefit from a good, well-rounded liberal arts education. Train for one particular trade or one specific skill, and the economic world can change, and then where are you? But being able to read, write, and think critically about what you read & write -- those are skills applicable to all sorts of futures. Plus having an electorate that knows some history and something about statistics wouldn't hurt us much, either.

[vison]

Quite tickled to find myself totally disagreeing with vison on something!

I think pretty much everyone can benefit from a good, well-rounded liberal arts education. Train for one particular trade or one specific skill, and the economic world can change, and then where are you? But being able to read, write, and think critically about what you read & write -- those are skills applicable to all sorts of futures. Plus having an electorate that knows some history and something about statistics wouldn't hurt us much, either.

I agree with you up to a point. But why does it follow that critical thinking, reading and writing can only be learned in a college setting?

A college "liberal arts education" is a terribly expensive thing - especially in this day and age. And it's pretty clear to me that few of those graduates have actually learned critical thinking. A lot of them don't even seem able to read and write.

If I was really Queen of the Universe I would be satisfied that a person was " reasonably well educated" if: she could read and understand her native language at the level expected of my Dad in high school; that she could write an intelligible 1,000 word essay and a simple business letter; that she could do plain arithmetic and understand consumer finance and the Rule of 72. Without much joking, Teremia, I think everything else is frills.

A couple of necessities: driver eduction and ordinary nutrition. When you realize that the greatest health problem in the western world is OBESITY, you realize that people have no clue what they're eating or how to eat better.

Those with talents in the Arts should be encouraged, absolutely. But my word, people can't even get work as waiters or loggers right now.

[Túrin Turambar]

An example: a friend of mine in Seattle has 2 children. His daughter is a dancer, and dances with one of the big ballet companies. She has basically a high-school education. She is very bright and very talented, but she decided it was better for her to dance than go to school. Will she regret it later? Who can say? She's doing what she loves and earning her own living and I don't know what more anyone could expect.

And she can always go back to education later, as an adult, if she choses a different course. Then she'll go in knowing exactly what she wants to get out of it. I found the mature-aged students had that critical advantage when I was in law school.

I think pretty much everyone can benefit from a good, well-rounded liberal arts education. Train for one particular trade or one specific skill, and the economic world can change, and then where are you? But being able to read, write, and think critically about what you read & write -- those are skills applicable to all sorts of futures. Plus having an electorate that knows some history and something about statistics wouldn't hurt us much, either.

I broadly agree, but I have always felt the place for that sort of education is high school. That's where we used to teach it.

One of my criticisms of, I suppose, the urban progressive establishment, is that they do not seem to trust ordinary people to be self-taught and try to improve themselves over the course of their lives. It's as if they feel that they 'lose' them as soon as they leave formal education.

For myself, I have no confidence that a liberal arts education teaches reading, writing or being able to think critically. The first two skills are established much younger, if at all, and the latter seems to me a combination of innate ability and life experience. I have a sort-of liberal arts education, and those are skills that I've basically taught myself.

There are plenty of examples of good writers and good thinkers who had no education beyond high school. There are plenty of college graduates who have none of those skills. In contrast, you will never find someone without a law degree who can practice law as well as someone with one, or someone without a medical degree who can work as a doctor as well as someone with one, or an untrained engineer who can do the work of a trained one. That suggests, to me, that those degrees being a definate improvement in someone's knowledge and skillset that the former does not.

And at the end of the day, regardless of the merits of keeping people in education until they're 22, I don't see how our societies can afford it. Our workforce is shrinking from one end, and I can't see how we can keep shrinking it from the other.

[axordil]

People aren't hiring because other people aren't spending money. The reason they're not spending money is because they stopped spending money that, fundamentally, never existed except as an expected win to a bet that was lost.

I return to my previous observation: if you took 5 million unemployed BAs and went back in time, forced them into the trades at 16, you'd end up with 5 million unemployed tradespeople, given the same economy. The root of the problem is not education, but money, and who calls the shots, and Steyn's entire exercise is an effort to obfuscate that fact by blaming anyone except the people actually responsible for the current and ongoing disaster: the banks and captains of industry who, deep down, WANT feudalism by another name, and see college educated citizens as somewhat harder to control than high school dropouts.

[vison]

That's all true, axordil.

But I stand by my opinions on education.

[axordil]

Oh, I'd be happy if everyone could pull off those bits too. But that's a purely economic list. A functioning republic needs its citizens to have some capacity for critical thought, as Teremia noted, or it will cease to function, cease to be a republic, or both.

It should be inculcated before college, though, because while I disagree with pretty much everything else Steyn has ever said, including his dinner order yesterday, I agree there are people in college who would be happier and more productive not being there. But if you're not letting them go, you sure as hell had better have an economy ready for them, and that means jobs with living wages.

[anthriel]

I think I didn't make it clear: I don't think it is wise or necessary for everyone to aim at a university or college education. That's what I meant by "universal".

That totally makes sense, and I misunderstood your use of the word "universal" in that sentence. I also agree with you.

I certainly know that anyone doing the kind of work you do, anthriel, must have a very fine education indeed. You obviously have the brains and the drive - but not everyone does.

We in the lab have often mused that trained monkeys could do what we do.

But we are being a bit facetious with that... while monkeys could probably do some of the tasks associated with lab work (especially in the more automated departments, I would think it would take a pretty unusual monkey to care about the stuff I do), there would be no way to troubleshoot any problems that arise. The monkey (and no, I'm not talking about Ang, here, he'd be a fine lab monkey) could push buttons, but wouldn't know why. That, ultimately, is dangerous.

There has definitely been a push to get lab workers into the lab with less education, and some of the folks with less training do a fine, fine job. Many of them, though, have an obvious handicap when things outside of normal arise. There is probably a normal distribution of critical thinkers represented in all the education levels in our department, but even superlative critical thinking skills cannot help someone who simply doesn't have the necessary education to fix less obvious problems.

[Túrin Turambar]

I return to my previous observation: if you took 5 million unemployed BAs and went back in time, forced them into the trades at 16, you'd end up with 5 million unemployed tradespeople, given the same economy.

True, but a) you'd have saved the money spent on their higher education, leaving both them and state (assuming they went to a state university) with less debt and b) there's a chance that money may have been able to circulate into the economy, creating some more demand.

It's a bit like the situation with retirees. Yes, there's no point everyone working until 65 if there's not enough work to keep people in the workforce until they're 55 anyway. But the money to support them for those ten non-productive years has to come from somewhere.

Oh, I'd be happy if everyone could pull off those bits too. But that's a purely economic list. A functioning republic needs its citizens to have some capacity for critical thought, as Teremia noted, or it will cease to function, cease to be a republic, or both.

On the other hand, the Republic functioned perfectly well for centuries, including through periods of deep crisis, without a college-educated population. Arguably better than it does now. This is why I keep hammering the point that higher education has no real link to critical thinking abilities.

[vison]

Lord_M is right. Critical thinking should be part of you by the time you leave high school.

But nothing in our present culture WANTS critical thinking.

There are so many forces arrayed against it!

I heard some guy on the radio once who pointed out that our ancestors had to make maybe 20 decisions in a day. We have to make thousands of them.

Instant gratification erases the critical abilities, I think.

[Primula Baggins]

I think in the early days of the Republic, an eighth-grade education was somewhat better at producing clear thinking than it is now. But also the "periods of deep crisis" were handled by many fewer people, who actually were pretty well educated. The country was much more sparsely populated. And I would argue that the crises were both simpler and more local than what we face now.

vison, your incredible gift for writing, coupled with your unflinching intelligence and thirst for knowledge, makes you an unfair example of what can typically be achieved by someone without a degree. Yes, much can be. But few people have your gifts. And some who don't can be helped by a fancier education than you had handed to you. (You got yours for yourself. Not everyone has the will to do that.)

[RoseMorninStar]

In the small town where I live, there used to be several factories that had been here for years. Two companies that made pots & pans & small appliances, one that made farm equipment and two leather goods (mostly wallets) companies along with a few other small industries. Most people I went to High school with (I graduated in 1979) intended to work in one of these factories just as their parents did. At that time, a relatively small percentage of High school students went on to college.

However, in the early/mid 1980's these factories moved their companies to Mexico, India, or China. As a result, more students began to consider a higher education in order to find jobs and compete in a changing job market. Although more students go to college now than did in 1979, there still are a large portion of students who do not. Well over half (probably about 75%) of the High School students do not go on to college.

I get annoyed when business persons complain that 'there are no workers' because everyone is going on to college. Young people have looked to higher education because the factories/jobs left.. the companies didn't leave because there were no workers. What companies seem to want are people who will work for next to nothing. They do not want to invest in the workers nor do they want to train them (as they did in the 'glory days' of decades past).

Our local school board is looking into a alternative/trade High school in the area. I don't know enough about it to be 'for' or 'against' it, and although I am sure something like this will be good for some students I do have serious concerns. In this school, students would get a reduced 'general' education in the morning and 'training' (unpaid work) in the afternoon beginning at the age of roughly 14. My concern is, if a person has limited education it also limits their future choices. How narrow will this training be? Where will that leave the people who were trained under this program when/if that industry leaves the country for cheaper labor elsewhere?

I don't understand the rush to get children working these jobs at the age of 14-18 when there are people who are aged 20 - 60 that can't find jobs. If these jobs paid a decent wage there would be people who would do these jobs... even if they had to go to tech school to gain the skills needed to work them... (and yet.. that is still 'education' isn't it?) In the past, companies would give on the job training and there was a sense of employer/employee loyalty-- that one would work for that company for life, or at least a very long time. It's no longer like that.

I realize there are no guarantees in life, but I see an increasing 'I want my to have my cake and eat it to' among businesses. We have plumbers and electricians in the area that cannot find work.. at least, not at a living wage. They may work for themselves, but then the cost of health care for a self-employed person with a family is astronomical.

And I agree with Ax.. I think at least in part, some of this anti-education push is to have a lesser educated population that is easier to control & manipulate because they will have less options to do anything else.

[axordil]

On the other hand, the Republic functioned perfectly well for centuries, including through periods of deep crisis, without a college-educated population. Arguably better than it does now. This is why I keep hammering the point that higher education has no real link to critical thinking abilities.

In the days of Thomas Jefferson, it was still possible to read every book ever commercially published in the English language in one lifetime, if one read fast and lived long enough.

The amount of scientific knowledge, of historical research, of academic examination, and of artistic expression that has taken place since the 1780s means the world is a bigger, denser, deeper and higher place to learn about. And yeah, I'd like it if people I deal with on a day-to-day basis have some inkling of the world as it is, in addition to critical thinking skills. If they don't it leaves a vacuum that all sorts of notions can fill, and there they are, the Idiots on the School Board who want to teach my son that the world is a 6255 year old flat disk drawn through the cosmos by faeries.

Comparing the education needed to thrive at the end of the 18th century to that needed now is comparing a bushel of apples to the annual citrus output of the State of Florida.

vison--given that some of those decisions are things like "can I merge into traffic in front of that semi?" I'm not sure they fall into "gratification," though I do think most people are gratified to stay alive.

We have plumbers and electricians in the area that cannot find work.. at least, not at a living wage. They may work for themselves, but then the cost of health care for a self-employed person with a family is astronomical.

Rose demonstrates why you can't separate education, health care, and the overall economy. Making a living involves negotiating the challenges of all three.

I can tell you first hand that the expectation where I work is that every employee continue to expand and update their skill set, no matter what they started with. So formal education may end at 21 or 26 (if, as River notes, you're quick and lucky) but the ongoing process lasts a lifetime, and is never complete.

[vison]

vison--given that some of those decisions are things like "can I merge into traffic in front of that semi?" I'm not sure they fall into "gratification," though I do think most people are gratified to stay alive.

I phrased that badly, mixing two ideas together. Sorry. I was more or less driving at this: we are overstimulated AND we are spoon fed crap. We eat the crap because we are overstimulated, stressed, and living a life utterly removed from nature. The culture makes it really easy to fall into that lifestyle. Indolent, unthinking, and underneath, angry and uneasy, knowing this is wrong.

I am pretty much opposed to "streaming" kids before they graduate from high school. By the end of grade 12 a student could readily have gained what I regard as basic education. Then, somehow, he has to decide what to do next.

A college degree isn't a ticket to a job any more. It's about what a high-school diploma was when I graduated.

Rose's excellent post brought up a very important thing: the jobs in the mill are gone. When I was in school, many boys left before graduating and got jobs in the mills or foundries or shops where their dads worked. Those jobs are gone. Some of them have gone overseas, but an awful lot just don't exist anywhere any more.

I think the reality is that we are stuck with the ugly truth that a lot of people are not going to be able to get a job that will allow them to buy a house and support a family. On 2 incomes, never mind one.

The simple satisfactions my generation took for granted are mostly unattainable for many. So they look for other satisfactions.

[axordil]

vison--

I fear you are right. And it makes me sad and angry and worried for people like my 18 year old nephew, who is good with numbers and his hands but incurious. He could work with his dad, who's a general contractor, but that's not a full-time job for the dad right now, much less two adults.

ETA:
I can't help but think about how much of mass media markets Attitude with a Big A to kids these days. It's not new--you can point to radio shows and movies about gangsters in the 30s, or even dime Westerns in the 19th century--but it's everywhere, omnipresent in a way that is not good for the more impressionable (and less parented) of kids.

That's why I distrust the "it's all the fault of X" impetus as a rule. It's not all the fault of any one thing, especially the victims.