Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

On 'Real Education' - II

August 21, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Bell Curve author Charles Murray takes direct aim at higher education in his new book Real Education by asserting that we are wasting our time trying to educate too many people. Murray contends that only 10 to 20 percent of those enrolled in four-year degree programs should actually be there. His pessimistic view of people’s ability to learn ignores not just good evidence to the contrary but the real pressures the American economy is facing. Removing some 80-90 percent of our students in in my state, or just about any state would interrupt the pipeline of skilled workers, making it nearly impossible to meet the needs of a society that has defined postsecondary credentials as an entry point for most professions.

Consider the following:

  • The U.S. Department of Labor reports that the country needs more graduates if we are to keep up with, let alone lead, other nations in the global economy.
  • By the end of the next president’s first term, there will be three million more jobs requiring bachelor’s degrees and not enough college graduates to fill them.
  • 90 percent of the fastest growing job categories, including software engineers, physical therapists, and preschool teachers, 60 percent of all new jobs, and 40 percent of manufacturing jobs will all require some form of postsecondary education.

We need more, not fewer university and community college graduates, even in rural states like mine. South Dakota’s aging population will require 30 percent more health care workers in the coming decades -- and those workers will require degrees. We’re also facing a teacher shortage; educators of all levels need postsecondary education to successfully command and manage a classroom, let alone impart wisdom on elementary and secondary students. Our state also lacks accountants, and the industry has informed us that tomorrow’s professionals will require 150 hours of postsecondary education to successfully complete the Certified Public Accountant’s exam.

Those left out of higher education would have fewer employment options than they do today. Low-wage, low-skill careers are disappearing rapidly, as manufacturing jobs head overseas and American companies are looking for new ways to compete. Those workers who hope to maintain their current standard of living must have some sort of postsecondary credential -- participation in the knowledge-based economy demands it. Without some type of degree, their ability to pay for basics like housing, food, and gas will diminish greatly.

We cannot survive in an international economy by simply working cheaper, as there will always be companies overseas who are willing and able to use unskilled work at a lower cost. If we are to work smarter, our workforce needs to acquire more knowledge and skills that are adaptable in a constantly changing world. The people who have proven to be the most knowledgeable, skilled and adaptable are those with postsecondary credentials. Murray’s suggestions are completely contrary to this. Dummying down our workforce would result in a lower standard of living for most Americans.

The United States has long enjoyed the enviable position as the leader in educational attainment -- just a decade ago, we led all other industrialized nations in this area. That’s no longer the case. Now, we rank tenth behind other nations in the percentage of young adults with postsecondary credentials. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems indicates that the U.S. will need to produce 63.1 million degrees to match leading nations Canada, Japan and South Korea in the percentage of adults with a college degree by 2025. At our current pace, we would fall short of that threshold by 16 million degrees.

Educating a larger percentage of the population does not amount to “educational romanticism,” as Murray contends. It simply makes sense -- both economically and socially. Higher education allows people of all backgrounds to hone their writing, reading, cognitive and critical thinking skills that enable them to actively participate as citizens. Not everyone who completes a four-year degree will be able to write like William Faulkner -- and some may argue that’s a good thing. But the papers students have to research and write in college are valuable and marketable experiences to future employers who need workers who can craft memos, reports and strategic plans, all valuable skills in the knowledge economy. Moreover, people with postsecondary degrees also tend to be healthier, are more productive throughout their work lives, are more engaged in their communities, more philanthropic and are less likely to be involved in crime.

The State Higher Education Executive Officers are calling on political leaders make college access and success a national priority. To heed this call, SHEEO believes we need to take immediate action by:

  • Targeting low-income and first-generation students (populations who are historically least likely to succeed in college and complete their degree programs), by allocating greater public resources to community colleges and regional four-year institutions, while also providing adequate need-based financial aid.
  • Overhauling the notoriously complex financial aid system. We can start by making most of the required data for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid directly transferable from the federal income tax form. Also, Pell Grants should be pegged to students’ basic living costs, rather than tuition, to highlight the responsibility of states and colleges to moderate tuition and fees and to provide grants for tuition to low-income students.
  • Developing information systems to better track students’ progress and determine whether they are at risk of dropping out.

In South Dakota, we’re committed to raising our graduation rates by 20 percent by 2010, so we can be competitive both nationally and internationally. To do so, the state is reaching out to nontraditional adult learners by offering more university classes in urban centers. The state’s public institutions are opening our doors to more out-of-state students by cutting our non-resident tuition rates in half. So far, the increase in students has offset any potential revenue shortfall. The state is also providing $5,000 scholarships to students who take more rigorous courses in high school, maintain a B average, receive a 24 on their ACT and pursue their education in South Dakota. We also want to make sure that those students who start college, finish college. To that end, our Board of Regents has tied retention rates to a pool of performance dollars; retention rates are on the rise.

To Murray’s point, people do vary in academic ability, and not everyone can handle the rigors of a postsecondary degree program. I’m not suggesting that everyone needs to spend four years at a flagship state institution, or even two years at their local community college. However, everyone should have at least the option to participate successfully in some form of postsecondary experience -- be it a Ph.D. program or a short-term certificate program for dental assistants. Educators need to help more average Americans and educational elite succeed. It’s common sense. And our future depends on it.

Robert T. Perry is executive director of the South Dakota Board of Regents.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on On 'Real Education' - II

  • Posted by JBM on August 21, 2008 at 8:25am EDT
  • Murray's point is that we need more people who are educated and trained to effectively perform vital professional services. That is in no way the same thing as producing mere "graduates." There's nothing to that: Take the tuition and issue the diploma. End of story.

    And many places do precisely that, which has led to legitimate questions and objections.

    So many places are merely tuition-for-diploma businesses that produce complete incompetents. "Faculty" in those places are classroom customer service representatives who readily sacrifice education in order to please paying customers. Graduates of such places do nothing except fill tuition coffers and keep a restricted segment of society employed, though the value of that employment is wholly questionable.

    Such graduates certainly cannot be entrusted with labor of any import. From any perspective apart from that of administrators, staff, and classroom personnel whose livelihoods depend on tuition, it is entirely unclear why such "students" should be enrolled in the first place, much less at taxpayer expense.

  • SDAK is great; the international & other data hysteria isn't
  • Posted by Cliff Adelman , Senior Associate at Institute for Higher Education Policy on August 21, 2008 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Dear Bob: SDAK is spot on with its approach to non-traditional adults and incentive scholarships, and I have little regard for Murray's IQ/early test score-based analyses, but let's get some data points straight:

    1) If you study international comparisons and the way they are done (something called "net population ratios") to overcome incredible variances in data reporting, definitions of data categories, etc. from country to country, you simply wouldn't use them. Furthermore, among the countries with whom we are compared, we are the only one with an increasing denominator---and our increasing denominator includes a mass of immigrants with limited prior education in their countries of origin. Stay away from this "bad news." OECD will have a new indicator in Education at a Glance this fall they call "cohort survival rate," which, though it still has some problems, is a lot better. And read the footnote to the U.S. data when EAG is published.

    2) Also stay away from the typical NCHEMS hysteria, mongering the worst story they can dream up with dubious data. Think about it: in a country of 350 million people, with a third of that population (and growing) at baby-boomer age or higher--hence beyond the age of additional schooling, they tell you we need 63 million new bachelor's degrees in the next 20 years. It just doesn't make any sense. Remember that these are the same people who told us that "out of every 100 9th graders only 18 would wind up with an associate's or bachelor's degree 10 years later" in the face of Census and NCES data (which are publicly reviewed with strict statistical standards) showing 35 percent. And when you look at the technical notes for that "only 18 out of 100" you have to conclude that somebody must have been smoking a controlled substance to come up with those numbers.

    3) The fastest-growing high volume occupation in the country is that of home health aides. Presumably, you include these among the health care workers South Dakota will need.
    Think about what a home health aid does. How much postsecondary education do you think is necessary to do it? A bachelor's degree? You know better! Look carefully at the list of "fastest growing jobs" in DOL's Occupational Outlook Quarterly or Monthly Labor Review, and ask yourself (a) what is the volume of projected need?, and (b) just how much of what kind of postsecondary education is necessary to execute each job on the list? You may also have noticed that one of the fastest growing high volume occupations in the US over the past 5 years is "security guards." Whether the pace of growth in that occupation will continue is another matter, and whether "once a security guard always a security guard" is also another matter, but it's another occasion to ask yourself how much education is necessary to do what you see security guards doing.

    I am not defending Murray's prescriptions, but if we are going to move forward, we have to start with sane and realistic data points. Your final paragraph says that you understand what's at issue. I would urge that all of us take that message---without the clouds of data hysteria---more and more into the public and policy arena.

  • Mr. Perry,
  • Posted by Former SD Assistant Professor on August 21, 2008 at 12:00pm EDT
  • If you want college graduates that "acquire more knowledge and skills that are adaptable in a constantly changing world," then perhaps you should consider the idea that student retention is far less important than maintaining academic integrity.

  • Challenge to JBM
  • Posted by The Librarian on August 22, 2008 at 2:20pm EDT
  • JBM says "So many places are merely tuition-for-diploma businesses that produce complete incompetents."

    Could you please name some names? While I'm sure that there probably are *some* tuition-for-diploma institutions, I doubt that "so many", with the implication that this is a vast number, may be such.

    So, please, Name Names. Give us some examples, lots of examples would be even better, before you whitewash numerous, unnamed, institutions out there just trying to do a good job with whatever (usually inadequate) resources are available to them.

    Thank you.

  • Real Education - II
  • Posted by Jim Jinkins on August 23, 2008 at 3:50pm EDT
  • Mr Perry said "Removing some 80-90 percent of our students in my state, or just about any state would interrupt the pipeline of skilled workers, making it nearly impossible to meet the needs of a society that has defined postsecondary credentials as an entry point for most professions."

    Today HR departments have to guess whether a graduate learned real work habits and skills in post secondary schooling or just passed that schooling and received some credentials. If they had to evaluate 80% more applicants without school credentials, they would use other criteria such as successfully completed military service or experience in work similar to what is being applied for.

    I have more faith in society, even the HR part of it.

  • South Dakota Questions
  • Posted by George on August 31, 2008 at 10:40pm EDT
  • Dr. Perry notes "our Board of Regents has tied retention rates to a pool of performance dollars; retention rates are on the rise." Performance of students or faculty? Retention of students or faculty? South Dakota faculty are paid among the 10 lowest states in the nation after years of reducing their overall numbers in an attempt to up their wages--which hasn't appreciably moved them ahead numerically. Rather than awarding low paid faculty for student retention with a few compensatory and "incentive" dollars--if that is what Dr. Perry has in mind--the competitive quality of the graduates he has in mind as well as the quality of the faculty and SD university system would be better fostered by hiring quality faculty at top dollar. In light of declining SD demographics which will bottom out five years hence and the low tax base in SD it may be time to consider closing another of South Dakota's universities if student, institutional, and faculty quality are the objective.