Redefining the Role of College
Posted by ajlovesya on June 3, 2008
As I have indicated before, I love my college experience mainly because of what it exposed me to and the kind of woman it has allowed me to become. My life has been enriched immensely because of the mentors and friends that I met and I wouldnt trade the last four years for anything. However, there is a growing demand for more concrete examples of the importance of college. In the end, people are asking, “Is college necessary for us to become competent and competitive citizens?”
When it comes to job related skills you never learn how to do a job until you actually do it. No amount of schooling can show you how to become a lawyer, doctor, teacher, or any other profession until you are on site getting your hands dirty. But school has rarely been about tangible skills—it has been about capital; acquiring the networks, credentials, and mannerisms necessary to give you a foot in the door. People (not just employers) use it as a screening mechanism to assess intelligence. This practice is done with good reason: while two-thirds of all jobs require a college degree, a little more than a quarter of those who start school actually finishes, making a college degree seem that much more impressive.
At the same time, I can think of no other place where skill development is easier than in college. My alma mater practically threw money at us to secure internships, start clubs, and implement programs (locally, nationally, and abroad). The job I landed in New York never once asked for my transcript; rather they asked me about experiences where I was in the lead, where I had to take control of an issue, or where I was creative and innovative when addressing a problem. I had amazing experiences in college because I took my college’s money (and networks) and got my hands dirty as much as I could. Unlike the “real world” where failing projects and programs cost tons of money and time, in college the consequences are less dramatic making it an ideal place to cultivate leadership through trial and error.
College seems useless because the emphasis is on the content, rather than the process and the application of knowledge. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with theory, for example. However, requiring me to memorize a theory and recite it in a way that is pleasing to the professor is pointless. Why not take that theory and require that I apply it through an internship at a local organization? Or have me critique a theory using data and field work? And if the goal is to have me develop important skills such as critical thinking, then historical events must be examined next to current events to assess patterns and thus making knowledge more relevant.
At the end of the day, the world is changing and colleges must redefine their role in it as we as a nation struggle to redefine the importance of education overall. On the one hand, we view education as the “great equalizer”; yet if this is true the exorbitant prices of a college education must be addressed. If college is crucial for a successful future, then the discussions need to focus on retention, not just recruitment. There seems to be resistance and a desire to stick to older notions of the importance of the academy, like knowledge for the sake of knowledge or college being a place of comradery and fun. The former are important yet must work well with a sense preparation for the world that lay ahead.
educatorblog said
I agree – I think that employers are looking for people with critical thinking skills and positive habits that allow them to learn quickly, work in teams, dive into a project with little or no past experience, lead on the fly, and integrate diverse sources of information.
I think that for people who had good experiences in elementary and secondary school, college functions in this way – they go to elite schools that give them access to internships, travel, and other character-building experiences. There are no remedial courses and many classes are student-driven (discussion based).
When you talk about retention, we need to focus on the people who are most likely to fail out of college. Yesterday I read that 30-40% of people who take remedial level reading and math courses in college fail to obtain a degree. I wonder what policies institutions can put in place to help these students – it is probably a mix of financial incentives, bridge to work programming, and counseling services. Your thoughts?
(See my post on loans and community colleges)
ajlovesya said
@Educator: Thank you for sharing that information.
A friend of mine at a big university says that students who arent ready for regular courses have to take 24 credits before being able to matriculate. Since they are not matriculating students, they are ineligible for financial aid. My brother who went to a university down south before transferring said they did the same thing to him–paying full price for classes that dont count towards anything. Sounds like a scam. We keep forgetting that colleges are business regardless of their nonprofit status.
The lack of graduation may be a result of being buried under debt without being closer to a degree. In any case, the first step should be figuring who is not graduating and why then take steps from there. I hear money being brought up a lot so perhaps increasing financial aid would be a step in the right direction.
Daniel Hoang said
The greatest mistake we can make to the education system is to put too much emphasis on applicable knowledge, skills, and abilities. What we then lose would be creative thought and purposeful dialogs. The college is experience, among other things, is a four to five year break in life where you spend time free from the burdens of working life to think, cultivate and express your thoughts. While most college graduates are not prepared for the workforce, those who take the time to hone their thought during college will grow up to be great leaders. Working skills can be trained, thought cannot.
ajlovesya said
@Daniel: Great point–there can never be too much emphasis on being able to think for yourself. At the same time, how often does this actually happen and why is developing the ability to think critically have to be at odds with being able to apply your knowledge tangibly?
As I mentioned before, I have no problem with abstract theories and information in and of themselves, but when you are in a lecture hall with over 100 people and your only measure of understanding is a test, just how much of a thinker have you become?