The conservative-leaning American Council of Trustees and Alumni released college grades this semester that sought to change the conversation about what makes a university top-flight. Several schools that rank highly on most college polls, such as Johns Hopkins University, Yale and the University of California, Berkeley, received failing marks. Our own University received the same grade as Harvard: a whopping D.
The Council's criteria was somewhat unorthodox compared with the methodology of other higher education polls, basing its analysis on core requirement courses. A number of colleges, such as the University, received low marks for not requiring students to take enough classes in seven core subject areas: math, science, history, economics, foreign language, literature and composition. Although many of these schools have at least some basic area requirements, the Council found the needed coursework insufficient to justify higher marks.
Like many college rankings, this list represents only one group's perspective of what higher education should be. More than anything else, these lists raise questions about what a college degree signifies and what an undergraduate education ought to accomplish. Fundamentally speaking, universities should teach students to think in a way that will help them in their lives after college, but this approach leaves the door wide open for considerable variation among schools and academic programs.
To be fair, the Council recognizes the limitations of its own analysis, and its president, Anne Neal, suggests the group only points to one particular flaw in these institutions. "We're certainly not saying that Harvard or Hopkins or Yale are not good schools, or that their graduates are not smart kids," Neal told The Washington Post. "What we're saying is that those schools don't do a good job at providing their students with a coherent core." For the record, Neal attended both Harvard and Harvard Law School.
These remarks touch on an important debate in higher education: What should students learn after four years at a university? No one argues there is only one path to academic salvation, but a fair number of people like Neal seem to believe that there is certain knowledge - or at least competencies - that ought to be passed along to anyone with a college degree. There is something to be said for that approach: It is not unreasonable to expect that a college-educated, voting citizen of the United States (or any other country) knows some history or has a grasp of elementary economic principles. Our democracy may be in better shape if more people had this background.
But at least to some extent, the Council may be trying to tackle the wrong problem by focusing on college core requirements. To be sure, there are systemic problems with American education, including a dearth of prospective scientists and engineers, as well as a lack of individuals proficient in critical foreign languages like Arabic and Chinese. Mandating that college students take an extra course in biology or Spanish, however, does little to address this issue. Many of these challenges rest with K-12 education in the United States, which partially explains why we lag behind many countries in meeting certain testing parameters for children while our universities are considered among the best in the world.
So is there a need to impart some basic skills to our college graduates? Perhaps, but it seems likely that a one-size-fits-all model is counterproductive. Just as forcing an extra science course on students will not give America an edge when it comes to developing new technologies, mandating economics classes in college probably will not do much to improve policy-making. (Picking "useful" subject areas for an academic core also introduces some unfortunate politicking into higher education.) Universities seem to have a much better shot at developing smart, productive citizens by helping students learn how to think. Instead of focusing on subject areas, perhaps colleges should concentrate on skill requirements: teaching students to critically analyze, how to write, how to handle quantitative information and so forth.
That is not to say that education should never be about subject-specific learning. But when it comes to teaching across disciplines, K-12 is usually the best time to mandate that students study specific disciplines like math, science, English and economics. By the time most students reach college, they have a general idea of their strengths and weaknesses. Academic exploration is key, but core requirements will not a help a strong writer become a promising engineer.
Of course, each institution is different and attracts a distinct segment of students. Outside polls are useful for offering universities a different perspective on academic priorities, but when it comes to higher education, it seems best to let each school decide what makes the most sense for its students.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
