The Hechinger Report of Columbia University recently did a series in the Washington Post on trends in higher education around the world, including Canada, Japan, India, and the UK. In broad strokes, the reports suggest three general ways in which higher education is currently evolving: the proliferation of university study in regions and among populations previously devoid of such opportunities (India); the expansion of cheap, online degree programs that, in some cases, do away with the traditional college-campus altogether (UK); and a renewed emphasis on gearing higher education toward the cultivation of practical skills and the needs of employers (Canada, Japan).
Arguments abound to explain these trends, including the economic imperative of a highly-educated (and skilled) population in a globalized world, the perceived incongruity between higher education's "product" and the needs of job-seekers, and the rising cost of higher education compared to the benefits it (at least in previous cases) grants on its customers. In short, some now argue that, like general education in earlier times, higher-education has become a matter of national concern.
Coupled with the emerging consciousness that future economic growth may well depend on the quality of a country's higher education is, in the United States at least, a back-lash against college education in general. The reasons for this back-lash are nebulous and varied, but many cases seem to share in a belief that the costs people incur to attend college are not worth the benefits it brings. My sense is that this is partly due to two, related reasons: that a college education often requires a fair bit of debt to fund, and that a person can graduate college without sufficient skills or opportunities to find work that pays off that debt. This makes some people quite angry, particularly if they were raised in an environment that assumed a college education assured, if not success, at least a healthy crack at it. And while unemployment figures show far lower unemployment for college graduates than non-graduates, "a healthly crack" at success may no longer be a natural consequence of higher education.
Taken together, that is, higher education as a national concern, and the general back-lash against education that doesn't lead to jobs, these issues seem to provide the impetus for some of the trends noted above by the Hechinger Report. In developed countries where traditional higher education is readily available (assuming you have the funds), colleges are responding to various feedback loops that point toward a greater emphasis on skills and a reduction in costs. Kosen schools in Japan and two-year colleges in Canada increasingly tailor their curriculum according to feedback from employers; a practice that not only makes college graduates from these institutions more employable, but also makes companies who hire them more productive. These benefits may well provide new avenues for national economic growth in a post-industrial world.
Yet is the purpose of education merely economic in nature? I ask in part because I went to a liberal arts college which prides itself on its ability to teach critical thinking skills to students. This type of education is under attack, in part because it is very expensive, and in part because while "critical thinking" is generally useful in life, many employers in the present economy seem intent on finding employees with more tangible skills. I've heard several stories of classmates from high school who acquired a trade and currently earn more than classmates from college who acquired a humanities degree and now work in retail or the food-service industry. Clearly the right set of skills can pay, but should higher education move solely in that direction?
What if the merits of a skills-oriented program of study were combined with a liberal-arts emphasis on critical thinking? That is the subject of Scott Carlson's recent article in The Chronicle for Higher Education, in which he explores the issue of applying a college education to real-life problems. Mr. Carlson suggests that certain types of college educations (presumably "liberal arts") do a good job of getting students to see and understand an issue from a variety of perspectives, but often leave them powerless to do anything about it. For instance, knowing all about the issue of sustainable farming does not mean a person knows how to farm sustainably. If all a person knows is books, it seems rather unlikely they'll have the technical background to convert intellectual understanding into practical solutions. Put another way, a clear understanding is no substitute for a dearth of skills; whether acquired before, during, or after one's intellectual education, skills seem to be the tool which people use to conceive of and convert ideas into realities.
It seems fair to think then that the distinction between mechanical and intellectual knowledge is artificial at best, and downright harmful at worst. Cultivating a "life of inquiry" is a worthy goal for college educators, but inquiry does not stop at books, nor does it exclude knowledge of everyday usefulness. It requires tools and experience, as well as a discerning mind. Perhaps then the future of higher education will see these two educational-tracts move closer together. Something to consider, perhaps.
Happy Tuesday, friends :)
No comments:
Post a Comment