The History Book Club discussion

This is a philosophical debate thread. - Equal Opportunity in Higher Education

Watch the video first: (it is only three minutes folks)

Here is the link: https://youtu.be/Sx55y4JnIDo

by Alan Ryan

“Law and Justice" is a free online course on Janux that is open to anyone. This is from youtube.

Created by the University of Oklahoma, Janux is an interactive learning community that gives learners direct connections to courses, education resources, faculty, and each other. Janux courses are freely available or may be taken for college credit by enrolled OU students.

Dr. Kyle Harper is Associate Professor of Classics and Letters,

Questions that Dr. Kyle Harper poses are the following:

"a) What are the purposes of our system of higher education?

b) Is it one - to create a fair equality of opportunity? Does everybody deserve to go to college because it's sort of like getting a free farm-it's your foundation to succeed in a postindustrial world?

c) Is it two - to cultivate virtue to train people morally to be the kinds of citizens who can think and reason morally - who are courageous - who are thoughtful - the kinds of virtuous individuals that we would like to inhabit our democracy? So, is the cultivation of virtue the purpose of a college education?

d) And thirdly - is it a meritocratic education? In other words is there a certain justification for the way we administer higher education in that it sorts people according to merit? Is that the way it should be? Should we allow people to be sorted by a higher education system? Does that in any way contradict the ideal of equal opportunity? Why or why not?"

Source: http://janux.ou.edu. (from the youtube Law and Justice video)

Remember watch the short video first! See message one.

Please feel free to watch the short video and read the questions for discussion and then post your thoughts here.

I will be very interested to read everybody's posts.

Who is going to go first? Remember we are always civil and respectful and everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

Remember many of these attitudes that we have today in our government come to us from the beliefs and government of the Greeks, the Persians, the Macedonians, Spartans, Athenians, Carthaginians, Corinthians, and the Romans. And also many of the early historians and philosophers we are studying shared these beliefs too - including Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Herodotus, Thucydides, Cicero and many others.

And how they developed their schools and higher education as well as what was learned most assuredly goes back to these days of the ancients.

So the influence is there even though the founding fathers added their own slant on things.

OK, I'll bite. Mostly because as a professor and an administrator of a graduate school program, I think about these issues a lot.

Higher education has been buffeted by tremendous changes over the past few decades.

1. The demand for a college degree has skyrocketed. Largely this is because more and more people realize that a college degree is necessary now for entry to the middle class, something that was not true 50 years ago.

2. With that increased demand has come students who want from their college skills for the job market. The interest in a classical liberal arts education (that will make them good citizens according to the video) is not what these newer students want, at least consciously.

3. Also with the increased demand has come more students who are less prepared than the smaller number of college students in previous generations. Maybe this is because of failures in secondary schools, maybe it is just because more people who wouldn't have come to college before are doing so now. Either way, colleges have to deal with it.

4. Decreasing state support for public higher education has made it much more challenging for schools to deal with the above trends. Colleges (particularly public ones) have to look for ways to either decrease costs or increase revenues.

5. The internet has come into this discussion promising to solve these problems but can it? Online education is not the same as in person education. But maybe it is the way to extend college education to the increased number of people that want it.

So the answers to the question in the video, what is higher education for may have changed dramatically recently. And those of us in universities have been slow to figure out how to deal with this newer landscape.

Welcome, Stuart - glad that you have jumped into the conversation.

Colleges these days have more of a problem than they did in the past. Many high school students did not want to go college years ago. Nor did they feel a need to be obligated to do so.

But nowadays what you say is very true. If you want to be part of the middle class, you need at least a college education.

I tend to think you must come from a classical education yourself - maybe that of an Ivy League school - because Ivy League schools have always emphasized the core curriculum that centered on the classics.

Maybe because we do not have the emphasis on classics and ethics (or at least civics in high school); we find ourselves facing different problems. We find ourselves not handling the same issues as well as we did historically - because we now have deficits in our students' character development.

Historically, the schools were the center of our lives and everything centered around the school and its activities and its classes - nowadays that is not the case - the school is not the center of these students' universe. They work, they have cars and have to pay for their gas, they have tons of technology and iPhones and iPads to take up their free time. And unfortunately, the community and the parents are not filling any void they might have - in fact the parents do not see them much either. Everybody makes excuses for what the students are not doing, and nobody is telling them to do what is critical and necessary. The teacher used to be always right and now they are facing an uphill battle.

Many of the families cannot afford the cost of college these days - not that some could afford these expenses in the past. And now to make things worse, the cost of a college education has skyrocketed.

Most colleges have relatively stringent testing requirements - so why do you say that most colleges have to deal with a less prepared student body. I imagine that is true in community colleges, etc. Are the students less prepared in the basics or other ways? It does not appear to me that a Harvard has lowered its standards or entrance requirements. The problem is that they have tens of thousands of students now who want the few slots they have.

I understand about the costs and the revenues - that must be increasingly difficult. Should federal and state contributions be increased since this in some ways is a societal and a government issue. Do we continually want to lag behind other countries in terms of our students?

You are right - there is no substitute in terms of attending a class in person or a school in person versus an online course. But in many cases for those folks who have small children and still want to learn - it is a leg up. For others, who have an erratic work schedule and cannot afford to go full time - it is something.

Being a perpetual student myself and loving every minute of the classroom and campus experience - I know there is no substitute for the campus opportunity and all that it offers.

I do disagree with your last statement so maybe you could elaborate - I think the need for higher education is even more important than it has ever been.

We do not have the manufacturing sector jobs or other jobs like that to fill the void.

Maybe that is why the emphasis for many is on the particular job or career they plan to have when they finish. I think that has changed from the past.

Many folks in the past went to pursue their higher education but did not select a major until after they had figured things out a bit.

Usually, they had taken their basic core curriculum before they had to declare their major. They were looking at their college experience as a true liberal arts experience to make them more well-rounded; as a first step to additional education requirements whether those would be a master's degree or law/medical school, etc. or something else. Nowadays, students want to be assured of a good job when they graduate.

The needs of our society for well educated, civil, erudite, skilled, respectable and honorable citizens who take their civic responsibilities seriously has not changed since Cicero or Aristotle - or even the founding fathers.

I do agree and sympathize with the hand that the colleges have been dealt.

Their mantra has become - educate the masses, take them from where they are and turn them into highly skilled citizens in four years, do it at a low cost and give them as many grants and scholarships as possible so that they are not burdened with loans when they graduate; and yes, make sure to pay your faculty top dollar - so you attract the best. That is a terrible responsibility and burden to carry.

It must be difficult in the extreme. But don't you think the colleges to a certain extent when they are admitting students are sorting them according to merit? It does not appear to me that higher education is something that everybody has an equal opportunity to obtain. It would be nice if that were the case. But your response is that the colleges are having a hard time figuring out how to do this on their own. That I can believe. Thank you for posting your input and thoughts.

Folks please join in - there are no right or wrong answers - just a friendly philosophical discussion.

Wow that is a lot to respond to! :>

I got my graduate education at one of those "classical" schools but my undergraduate education as an engineer. I teach in a state university which is a different environment.

There were some good articles on this subject in the New York Times Sunday magazine a few weeks back. This one in particular http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/mag... points out that what we think of as higher education is really three separate systems. The first is the elite schools (probably about 30-50) that form the image of higher education in the popular administration but really just educate the elite of the elite, and largely the wealthier. The second is public institutions which educate far more people but are very dependent on state subsidies. The third is community colleges and for-profit institutions where the poorer students end up getting sent and often drop out of, deeper in debt and without a degree.

As someone in the middle of these categories, I can attest to the perpetual squeeze we are in. We are pressure to admit more students and then educate them at a lower cost. On the one hand granting these students (often the first in their families to go to college) a ticket to a college education is a very good thing. On the other hand, their level of preparation is lower on average and they need more remedial work which we are not institutionally set up to provide. One answer is to set us up to provide it. But that takes money.

Colleges are and always have been sorting mechanisms. But the idea that we are sorting according to ability is as untrue as it was when college was more elite.

Not sure I answered any of your questions (and certainly not all of them) but I doubt I have the answers. I'm struggling with a lot of these questions myself on a daily basis.

Good for you Stuart and I am glad you are posting - welcome again.

Hmmm. I do not agree with all of what you say - although I agree with a large portion of it.

So you are not talking about a Harvard or a Yale but something along the lines of a SUNY or a Rutgers. I think in both cases they are still selective and look at SAT or ACT scores before admitting. So they do sort and select and admit based upon their set of standards and their admittance criteria.

At a Harvard for instance the poor student who might also be the first in their family to go to college still has to be admitted even though once they are in - more than likely everything is paid for by the institution if their family income is below a certain baseline or ceiling. But they still have to get the grades and the test scores although they may have a leg up that the average person does not know about.

I absolutely do not understand how you do not sort by ability if you are asking students to take the SAT or ACT and you are asking for references and high school grades and class rank. Why would you need these if you were not sorting or evaluating. You have to have some sort of list and way to tell who is at the top of your list versus who is at the bottom and there has to be a criteria used to do that kind of list.

I am sure that you do and I do not want to counter what you are saying since you are closer to things than I am. But I do know a fair amount about Ivy League schools and their admittance criteria which is absolutely sorting and score cutoffs and ranges. And frankly a lot of the state schools - the good ones - also do have minimum standards as well and evaluate based upon grades and test scores and interviews in some cases. They do not just admit a person because they are a resident of the state although that does give them a great opportunity to get in (smile).

For example how many applications did you get this past year and what percentage of these applicants were admitted - how many folks are in the freshman class. For example - at Harvard - here is a brief profile of the admitted class of 2019 - only 2,081 out of 37,307 applicants were admitted - they had to have one heck of a sorting criteria.

Students - Total Applicants = 37,307

Admitted = 2,081

Matriculates = 1,665

Yield = 80.0%

Admitted from the waiting list = 93

Now a State School like Rutgers (total university - all locations) - for example, had 33,712 applicants - these are their 2014 numbers. They admitted 23,040 and enrolled 7,860. They admitted 68% but only 34% of the 68% they admitted - enrolled. A lot of these students must have used Rutgers as their safety school.

I can see that their admittance percentage is a lot higher than a Harvard for sure but they still have a selection criteria and they sort (my humble opinion).

By the way - I am not saying that the admissions criteria used is not a fair system nor am I questioning it - I am just saying I believe it exists and in some respects (more so in some schools) is meritocratic. I think there is an equal opportunity to apply and you can get vouchers to waive the application fees for a lot of these schools so that levels the playing field for sending in your application. But once that is done you are really competing for the available slots. More slots in some schools (state) than the elite ones (the Ivies) for sure. So everybody has the right to apply but the colleges have the right to decide who they want to admit. The choice to apply is equal but after that it is based upon merit.

Also I think that is probably the way it should be - why shouldn't applicants be required to possess some minimum standards for admissions. I think it is a good idea to have standards - I think colleges have been placed in a tough position if they are required to take everybody - even the student who cannot read at a certain level or write a complex sentence and just got by in high school. I do feel that these students should be allowed to remediate themselves and develop their capabilities - we should not give up on them but there should be a separate track and these students need to succeed at certain levels.

As far as the cultivation of virtue - I think the classical core curriculum teaches students a great deal about life, decisions, ethics, leading a good life and what that encompasses. In a way it is fostering virtue - but I cannot say that our colleges should be required to teach what it means to be virtuous. I think there should be classes in civics and ethics etc. at the secondary level and college level. We do want to turn out good citizens of course. I do not think going to college is like getting a free farm. But I do think that the government needs to do more for the students going to college to make it more affordable - whatever that happens to be.

Sorry, I expressed myself poorly. We are sorting based on scores and grades. The point I was trying to make is that these metrics are so dependent on socio-economic status and opportunity that it is more accurate to say that we are sorting by status first and ability second. Sure, within the privileged group, the better students get to go to Harvard and the worse ones get to go to a state school. And within the less privileged group a couple get to Harvard, some to State U. and most either community college, U of Phoenix or no college at all.

And yes on civics and ethics! Also more honing of critical thinking skills is essential to good citizenship.

Stuart - I think now you are getting to where the video was going. And I agree with you; it is a double whammy for the lower income student I would imagine. I thought you expressed yourself well - there are no worries here. And all opinions are welcome. I do not think any of us have the answers to these issues but I think it important for us to think about the issues. Thank you very much for jumping in.

I think the video raises some points to consider. There are many that feel that college education should be free and heavily subsidized. Great Britain is an example; where even though the subsidies are not what they used to be; they are still darn good for even their finest schools like Oxford or Cambridge (equivalent I would say to a Harvard or a Yale).

Having said that - they actually make their students compete and take tests to sort out the ones who will be accepted to these schools and it is not easy to take for the average UK student - very tough, very selective and students are weeded out into tracks. But I am amazed at how much better their average students communicate in writing and speech (areas that you point out).

Somehow our local schools have lost their way - and are trying to add too much to the curriculum that really entertains the student versus teaching them the basics that are needed to compete locally or nationally. I think they have it tough too because the parents are not on board either and are busy trying to make ends meet, and there is not the support that there once was for teachers and schools. The PTA is in most instances a thing of the past.

I think some communities feel that throwing more money at the problem is going to fix what is wrong with society or what they value. It does not work that way and as far as college tuitions - colleges here might find that nobody can afford to go (smile).

To be honest, I am not sure how this is going to improve in the short term - on one hand I think a student needs to work hard and be competent. Then I consider that we also want to lift folks up to have a better life and at the same time cultivate the kind of citizenry that will keep our democracy strong and competitive. We do want citizens to be informed, discerning, ethical and civic-minded; but right now I am not sure how that is achievable given our minimal standards and current outlook.

I am not for the free farm theory either - although paying your dues can be done with other currency aside from money - i.e., good grades, strong work ethic, accepting help with remedial courses, if necessary. I do not want to see the door slammed in anybody's face who does jump through the hoops. Very tough situation.

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/09/1...

Thank you very much for being first. Great job (smile) and very worthwhile comments.

I do hope others give their viewpoints after watching the very short video in message one created by the University of Oklahoma.

Thank you Stuart for being the brave person - I enjoyed and learned from you posts.

I remember a comment from a college administrator when they were asked why is the institution was asking for such a high tuition. The answer was "because we can".

My brother is an academic Vice-President at a small mid-west college. He also teaches both graduate and undergraduate classes. He has been a professor for over 30 years. He has noticed a great change in the 18 year old students: They balk at a lot of homework, and expect to be entertained in class.

He has also noticed that they are becoming less and less prepared for college classes, even if they were at the top of their high school class, hence the need for remedial classes.

I often wonder if the U.S. would be better off doing what the Germans do: Have different tracks for different types of students. Not every student will go to a four year college, some will go to trade schools instead.

I hate to see the track approach because many young people wake up sooner or later. I agree with you about wanting to be entertained - look at our cable news - the texting craze - spending inordinate amounts of time on video games alone in their room versus team sports or other school club activities. And they feel entitled much of the time - folks use to finish in four years - now it takes many young folks 5 or 6 years. Tough commentary on our educational standards - I do see your point though - but I think the college tuition amount is getting out of hand and this may be due to the lack of funding to these institutions that they one had.

I am not sure the video is really honing in on becoming a doctor or medical school and I agree with you that you certainly would want somebody who is qualified. I do not think that was the message of the video or the questions that they were raising. I think they were asking whether college should be affordable to all and should everybody have equal access to higher education (of course I have paraphrased the video to a large extent).

I do agree with you Quanjun about the basics and learning the basics is hard work and you do not need to entertain students in order for them to see the importance of what they should be learning. But unfortunately many students want to be entertained versus putting in the hard work. There are many who want to learn but there are a fair amount who expect a free ride because they have been getting one all along.

It is tough to understand what to do with these students who are just passed along.

Quanjun - you are making me smile when at 23 you are talking about the good old days - I can assure you that my good old days are older good old days than yours are - I am sorry to say (lol) but things have changed a fair amount. In my parents good old days - it was tough to go to college at all and you needed the money to go or a scholarship of some type or you needed to work to earn the money - to work your way through. Things were somewhat better when loans and grants came along but even then there was work study. But you could still go if you got a scholarship or were willing to take out the loans. Then there is now - where the tuition is like buying a house and there are grants and subsidies at some schools but still one might be left with loans and debts.

It is a tough time period and I agree with you that there is an increased gap between the wealthy and the poor and that does affect us all.

By the way I don't think the good old days were that good (lol).

I would say:
(e.) to have the credential and basic foundation of knowledge from which to build upon to compete and succeed in an increasingly specialized and competitive global economy.

Quanjun - you raise some very interesting points - it sounds like Canada has some additional loans available but they are only for students with families who all fall within certain salary brackets. It appears that you feel that your tests are even more difficult that those for native English speakers.

There does seem to be room for improvement.

Eileen wrote: "I would say:
(e.) to have the credential and basic foundation of knowledge from which to build upon to compete and succeed in an increasingly specialized and competitive global economy."

Thank you Eileen

I do not think they do. But I think in terms of whether higher education should be more affordable and easier for every citizen to afford higher education as an opportunity for all Americans - I think a case could be made.

I agree that you are Quanjun - I think the problem is that most nations have a preferred language and there are many in this country for example who believe that English should be the preferred language and that we should not teach English as a second language to begin with. That might be the reason in Canada that things are so difficult for those who do not have as their primary language - English; but I do not dare to speak for Canada or any Canadians (smile). I do think that a primary language for nations is not unheard of or outside the norm and every country I imagine has their own set of hurdles that they make non native speakers go through. But this thread for example is not about that topic so I think we need to get back to what the video was about.

These are the topics:

Questions that Dr. Kyle Harper poses are the following:

"a) What are the purposes of our system of higher education?

b) Is it one - to create a fair equality of opportunity? Does everybody deserve to go to college because it's sort of like getting a free farm-it's your foundation to succeed in a postindustrial world?

c) Is it two - to cultivate virtue to train people morally to be the kinds of citizens who can think and reason morally - who are courageous - who are thoughtful - the kinds of virtuous individuals that we would like to inhabit our democracy? So, is the cultivation of virtue the purpose of a college education?

d) And thirdly - is it a meritocratic education? In other words is there a certain justification for the way we administer higher education in that it sorts people according to merit? Is that the way it should be? Should we allow people to be sorted by a higher education system? Does that in any way contradict the ideal of equal opportunity? Why or why not?"

Source: http://janux.ou.edu. (from the youtube Law and Justice video)

Remember watch the short video first! See message one.

No everything is fine Quanjun - I just wanted to make sure that we were not going too far astray.

I agree about high school - but I wonder if the point the video was making which is a valid one - is that college has now become the new high school diploma and a high school diploma is like what graduating from 8th grade use to be.

I see that you are for the meritocracy and feel that it is warrented - more difficult schools to get into provide the deserved prestige with their diplomas.

I think the purpose of higher education should be to teach students how to think critically. The liberal arts should continue to be encouraged as part of the curriculum (Philosphy, History, Creative Writing, Politics). We need leaders who can think and act with wisdom, which is what I believe our Founding Fathers wanted. Yes, they need to learn skills to enter the work place, but they also need to be wise citizens.

Yes, I think the tuition should be a lot lower. As a nation, we should be demanding lower costs.

Couldn't agree more with your post.

I don't know Quanjun - I think the core curriculum in Colleges like the Ivies would be a good required program for everyone. Like the Harvard Classics and be able to do the basics - reading, writing, math - and be able to show mastery at some established level. There is always more and more to be learned in specialized courses of studies or advanced degrees but the basics which make you a good citizen should I think be mandated at some levels maybe based upon your tract as you suggested. But by trying to be everything to everybody we seem to be missing the boat and charging an outrageous stipend for it.

Hard to understand what people want for their country and their populace and what they think is important.

Quanjun wrote: "Bentley, as we learn more and have more to teach, the years of "necessary" education will be prolonged, I think. But I think that curriculums of elementary and high school will be changed to contai..."

I completely agree that knowledge does not equate wisdom in any sense of the word. I have known a few very educated people that cannot make a wise decision. I have also known people that have had almost none of the advantages that this country has to offer and yet they are able to see a problem and know how to fix it; having said that, education will only enhance those that have that seemingly innate wisdom.

Very good point Karen.