Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Giving the Community a College

October 27, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

I have just begun my 47th year teaching physics at the college level, and although my entire career was spent at four year colleges, I did some part time teaching at two community colleges as well. I don't claim to be an expert, but I did learn that the community colleges have many students who are motivated, bright and far more mature than they were at an earlier attempt at college.

The institutions have other students as well. People looking for a convenient way to take a course or two, and a large contingent of individuals who are seeking a career. Seemingly, the mindset of government has settled on this group as representing the raison d'etre of the community college system and the conversation is centered around terms like training, career, Labor Department partnership and employment and earnings outcomes.

Somehow a vast enterprise that many had hoped would serve as an alternative path toward a college degree, with all the learning outcomes that the degree used to stand for, was subsumed in a process for providing jobs. The question we must ask then, particularly about community colleges, but also about many strongly career oriented colleges, is: Are we misleading our students? Are we prematurely sending them on a path to become workers instead of leaders? Craftsmen and middle level managers, but not creators, visionaries, risk takers?

Not that there is anything wrong with the former outcomes. Most of us -- even some who bear the lofty title of professor -- are really not much more than journeymen trying to do an honest and effective job. But these are outcomes that are determined by circumstances, by the economy, by fortune, by need.

They should not be goals set by a postsecondary institution, let alone by a government. The goals of a community college, like the goals of a college, should be to contribute to the transformation of the individual, to sharpen his/her thinking skills, to expose students to a wealth of ideas, and to create the lifelong learner who is an active participant in the intellectual life of society, even as s/he is engaged in a more prosaic career.

College should be sending a message of internal growth that creates the confidence to deal with a rapidly changing world, to know, to understand, to explore, and to think. Interestingly, these factors are essential ingredients in career success as well. Rare is the individual who will spend his/her career in the subject area for which s/he was originally trained. Change is everywhere, incessant and demanding. The nursing graduate who cannot continually adapt to methods, new techniques, and to new equipment is probably obsolete on the day s/he graduated. The same is true for the laboratory technician, the pharmacist, the business person, and the counselor.

Yes, we must have career preparation. People do need jobs and they need entry level skills. More, the potential for a job is a powerful motivating factor. But students must also be prepared for the challenges of change, the new demands of an evolving society, and the new environment which both limited resources and the accelerating scientific discoveries are creating.

The people teaching at community colleges and at career oriented four year schools are as fully qualified as many of the people teaching at research universities, and the fundamental reservoir of talent, of ideas, of a love of learning is as intense and as broad in a community college environment as anywhere else. There is so much more to the community college than what is appropriate for alignment with the Department of Labor, as useful as such tie-ins may be.

The intellectual discourse, and the leadership emanating from the Department of Education, should focus first and foremost on education. Our young people must continually hear the importance of learning, not for any ulterior purpose, but for itself. Just as law schools teach law, while review courses prepare lawyers, the mission of postsecondary entities should be to educate, and only as a secondary goal to prepare for careers.

Bernard Fryshman is an accreditor and a professor of physics.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Giving the Community a College

  • Yea but...
  • Posted by Byron Kohut , Instructor on October 27, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • What good is a college if there are no skilled engineers, technicians, maintenance, and other qualified personnel there to keep things running? Somehow, in America's past and present, vocational education became the dumping ground for the countries unwanted people. Do we honestly believe that people recieving a terminal occupational degree are somehow inferior to intellectuals? Although a two year program in any occupational degree focuses directly on providing courses and skills that apply directly to work, social skills are conveyed through the class as well. There is no problem for our young people to first earn a degree in an occupation, earn a job, perform in the job, and then return later for general education and liberal studies as they so choose and have matured enough to understand the philosophical concepts that they were so "eagerly" needing when they finished secondary school. Academia is not for everyone. How many smart people are running around our streets without career skills and/or a job?

    -Byron

  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee at FHEAP on October 27, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • Fryshman is barking up the wrong tree here, since it was in 1972, in the aftermath of the war on poverty, that the US Congress moved to include career education beneath the newly expanding postsecondary classification (Michael D. Parsons 1997: 46ff).
    At that time, Sen. Claiborne Pell, chair of the subcomittee on education, engineered a way for buy-in for the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant for students that was dead in the water. The shift was to recognize that the Federal goverment had an obligation to students rather than institutions, and this meant placing the decision-making in the hands of the consumer of educational services rather than the providers of those services.
    HEA 1972 amendments shifted policy significantly by including vo-tech under the postsecondary umbrella, with far reaching consequences across the board. Fryshman would do well to familiarize himself with this account, since it does much to explain current policy and its problems.

  • Giving the Community a College
  • Posted by PK on October 27, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Most community colleges are lucky to get 20 percent of their students to graduate with any formal award. There's plenty of room for more completion in both technical and general education fields. In fact, many of those who drop out would be better served if they had a clearer path toward a credential that ties directly to employment. This is particularly true of the older adults entering community colleges.

  • we all work
  • Posted by Pat Lees , project manager at MCC on October 27, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • shouldn't everyone be learning how to work?

  • thank you..and to yes, but...
  • Posted by theron on October 27, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Thank you for finally outlining why critical thinking, literacy beyond the basic level plus a basic fund of knowledge remains crucial for all levels of the work world. While Ezra Pound maintained that good literature (and I would add good writing and serious writing about serious issues of all sorts)in the libraries would continue to attract readers and thinkers, current funding in libraries and current big-box book sellers keep such work at arm's length...and current education keeps people from gaining the skills AND THE INTEREST to pursue it.

    For "Yes, but..." why do you persist in demeaning blue collar work and workers by assuming that such workers cannot handle or do not want the skills laid out in this article? At the same time, why do you persist in pushing an educational strategy designed to limit access to and interest in these skills? And yes, I do think individuals can and do seek out art, literature, music and serious/thoughtful discussion separate from and outside the halls of the academy (must, in some cases). Still, I worry that the line of thought expressed by "Yes, But..." actively reduces access and works to kill such interest.

    Again, as Dawn Powell, the U.S. novelist noted, this trend in formal education is not new in the U.S.....she having railed about formal education's role in the 1940's and earlier. Now, however, such a dicotomy between 'learning" and 'trade" is becoming a benchmark. When it was unstated, it was bad enough. Now, "educators" are using this to evicerate the idea of an educated population. Historically, educators produced lists such as the "Harvard Clasiscs" the Everyman library and themes to explore..and people without college educations looked to these lists. Even Louis L'Amour illustrated the role of books and themes in his popular westerns...to say nothing of how "opera houses" and libraries came to be built in American towns. We can debate the content of the 'academic" lists and how they limited exposure in their own right....but the point here is that there was a sense that education was more than a set of initials....and that all people needed and had a right to at least exposure and access to this fund of knowledge. Why not now?

  • work schmerk
  • Posted by bradley bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls CC on October 27, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • One think PK doesn't address in his or her comments is that while the "graduation" rate at community colleges is generally low, the AA degree is generally not a goal of students, but, instead, the necessary credits that will get them into the four-year school of their choice is what they are after. If they get an AA or AS along the way, it's a bit of frosting on the cake. What this really means is that community colleges cannot be judged solely on graduation rates. If those rates are factored into transfer rates, then success will be higher. This doesn't account for those students who aren't seeking a degree or don't seek to transfer, but it is a step in the right direction.

    As for Pat Lees' comment, why is it the school's place to teach people to work? Why isn't it the place of those who profit from the work to teach their employees? This is an assumption that can't be taken for granted, that it's the job of colleges and universities to train workers. Sure, they've done it for quite some time, mostly since the Second World War, but there's more to college than job training and credentialing. If all we get are stupid technocrats, we're in a helluva mess.

  • Posted by sv on October 27, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Bradley is right. As someone teaching in a community college setting, I can't believe how many times I've seen us train skilled workers, gear our programs in favor of the demands of local industries/businesses and provide cheap labor (internships), only to have local business leaders decry how much state funding goes to highered, how highered is not taking on its fair share of cuts (completely untrue) and how highered is ensconced in an ivory tower unconnected to the "real world."

  • False dichotomy
  • Posted by David Young , Professor/Counseling at Cerritos College on October 27, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • The tone of the argument seems to me to be based upon a false dichotomy.

    There is no inherent conflict or contradiction between a "career" and an "education". I work with students who want to have a meaningful career, a life that matters. They believe that the path to accomplishing that goal involves going to college. It will for some and it won't for others. It is not a symtom of failure that not everyone who begins the process fails to complete it. Quite the contrary. It is a characteristic of our character as a nation that we have invested in an educational process whereby we can identify and develop truely talented young people who will be able to make a far greater contributions to our society than they would have been able to do otherwise.

    Part of this argument also feels elitist to me. Many of my students have to work while they go to college. They do not come from families with the financial resources to allow them to complete a program of studies within the traditional 4 to 6 year window. It is not uncommon for some of our students to take that long just to meet the transfer requirements for transfer to a public university. Community colleges allow these students to both work and go to college while taking care of themselves and their families.

    Again, this isn't about whether community colleges should be either academic or career/vocationally focused. We are both. It is frequently in the process of taking "career" classes that I have seen students discover their true "calling" and transform themselves into academically focused students. The latter would not have happened had the opportunity for the student to initially pursue what they were attrated to not existed.

    I cherish the memories of being a small part of those metamorphoses that happen only in community collegtes.