| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"dpr" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2003 04:27:53 PM |
| Object: |
Colleges Charge Big for Worthless Curricula |
http://www.americandaily.com/item/3472
Colleges Charge Big for Worthless Curricula
By Wendy McElroy on 11/15/03
Before they send their children onto a college campus in North America,
parents should read two new reports.
What passes for education at many universities is not merely an intellectual
embarrassment; it is also tremendously expensive. The good news: A spotlight
is now shining on these problems, and students in the near future may
receive the quality education for which their parents having been paying
through tuition and taxes.
The first study, Death of the Liberal Arts?, was released last month by the
Independent Women's Forum. Melana Zyla Vickers examined the curricula of the
top 10 liberal arts colleges as ranked by the authoritative U.S. News and
World Report. She concluded, "Even at the best ... freshmen can't obtain a
sound education in history, literature and other fundamentals of
civilization."
Some of the knowledge freshmen will not find includes a course on
Shakespeare at Bowdoin, any overview of American history at Amherst and an
overview of any literary period at Swarthmore. Meanwhile, freshmen at
William College can explore such esoteric areas as an English course on
"man's desire ... to take, order, idealize and copy nature's bounty while
humanizing, plundering and destroying the environment" even though there is
no comprehensive course in history.
Only three colleges offer students "a course that could roughly be termed
Western Civilization." Only three receive a "pass": That is, they provide a
comprehensive introduction to English, history and political science, which
constitute the basics of a liberal arts education.
Yet the cost for a freshman to graduate from one of the "top ten" could run
as high as $120,000.
A second report issued by the College Board, a non-profit schools
association, Trends in College Pricing 2003, states, "college tuition and
fees increased an average of $579 at four-year public institutions, $1,114
at four-year private institutions, and $231 at two-year public institutions"
in 2002.
Most students will pay less tuition than listed in catalogues but their
parents, as taxpayers, will still foot the bill. The report explains,
"Almost 60 percent of undergraduates receive some form of financial aid to
help them pay for college." 2002 to 2003 saw a record amount of student
financial aid -- $105 billion. Although the majority of aid is awarded as
student loans that must be repaid, "over $40 billion of [non-repayable]
grant aid was distributed to college students by federal and state
governments and by colleges and universities."
Using research from the National Center for Educational Statistics, Neal
McCluskey of the Cato Institute offers the ratio of tax to private funding.
"More than half of public universities' revenues -- $79 billion -- were
extracted directly from federal, state and local taxpayers, while only 18.5
percent came from student fees and tuition."
An increasing number of parents are questioning whether the money -- public
or private -- is well used. That is, does it actually educate their
children?
On Oct. 5, the New York Times ran a piece by Greg Winter entitled, "Jacuzzi
U.? A Battle of Perks to Lure Students." Winter chronicled the competitive
spending on amenities through which some universities hope to attract
students.
Among two of his examples: "Ohio State University is spending $140 million
to build what its peers enviously refer to as the Taj Mahal, a
657,000-square-foot complex featuring kayaks and canoes, indoor batting
cages and ropes courses, massages and a climbing wall big enough for 50
students to scale simultaneously. On the drawing board at the University of
Southern Mississippi are plans for a full-fledged water park, complete with
water slides, a meandering river and something called a wet deck -- a flat,
moving sheet of water so that students can lie back and stay cool while
sunbathing."
It is not clear whether the foregoing examples are exceptions or a trend.
Nor whether the curricula of the "top 10" are typical or the result of other
factors, such as their elitism. Whatever the answer, it is clear that
significant amounts of tax and tuition money are being diverted into
non-academic projects as well as being spent on courses that do not raise
the quality of education. Arguably, the courses lower it.
Those who believe that a university education should prepare students for
life and for making a livelihood want to know how curricula can be improved
and money better spent.
On curricula: Many of the problems today are attributed to the pervasiveness
of political correctness on campus. "Death of the Liberal Arts?" concludes
with a encouraging section entitled "It Wasn't Always This Way." Vickers
notes that the "shift toward political correctness is relatively new." For
example, as late as 1989, both Wellesley and Swarthmore "still offered
comprehensive reviews of U.S. and European history for freshmen." There is
an obvious solution: Return to a curriculum in which knowledge is valued
more than political correctness.
University academics will resist an attempt to make them accountable to
those who pay their salaries. One solution: Remove obstacles to
accountability, such as tenure. At the same time, privatize as much of the
university system as possible so that it becomes responsive to "clients" --
that is, to the parents and students who purchase and consume its services.
If clients value political correctness or water parks, then they can pay the
cost both in lower academic standards and spiraling tuition. Meanwhile,
those who value knowledge and skill can enjoy the comparatively modest,
stripped-down tuition it would cost to acquire them.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
.
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Colleges Charge Big for Worthless Curricula |
15 Nov 2003 05:35:59 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote in message
news:vrd9kdrov8qhee@corp.supernews.com...
http://www.americandaily.com/item/3472
Colleges Charge Big for Worthless Curricula
By Wendy McElroy on 11/15/03
Before they send their children onto a college campus in North America,
parents should read two new reports.
What passes for education at many universities is not merely an
intellectual
embarrassment; it is also tremendously expensive. The good news: A
spotlight
is now shining on these problems, and students in the near future may
receive the quality education for which their parents having been paying
through tuition and taxes.
The first study, Death of the Liberal Arts?, was released last month by
the
Independent Women's Forum.
Independent? You decide.
From http://www.iwf.org/about/board.shtml
Board of Directors
Chairman
R. Gaull Silberman
Vice Chairman
Heather R. Higgins
Carol Crawford
Kimberly O. Dennis
Wendy Lee Gramm
Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer
Sally C. Pipes
Directors Emeritae:
Lynne V. Cheney
Midge Decter
Elizabeth Lurie
Kate O’Beirne
Louise V. Oliver
From http://www.iwf.org/news/010301.shtml
Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer brings to IWF extensive experience in relating
public policy issues to the media and public. As a daily morning talk show
host for NET (carried on cable and television networks nationwide), she made
the case for free market policy solutions to problems facing the nation. She
has also appeared on the CNN, ABC, NBC, and FOX networks. In 1994, she
appeared on the cover of the National Journal, which called her one of the
“Best and the Rightest” 30-somethings in D.C. Newsweek, George magazine, the
Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, among other publications, have
covered her television work.
Ms. Pfotenhauer joined IWF in 2001 from Koch Industries, where she was
director of the Washington Office. Koch Industries is the second largest
privately held company in the United States. At Koch, Pfotenhauer
experienced first-hand the legislative and regulatory labyrinth that faces
American companies and ultimately impacts consumers.
Nancy Mitchell began her career in Washington, D.C. in 1987 as a Senior
Economist at the Republican National Committee and was promoted to Chief
Economist in 1988. Selected by the Bush transition team at age 24, she
served as the economist for the independent agencies task force for
President-elect George Bush, overseeing the policy, budget, and personnel
recommendations for both the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate
Commerce Commission. For the next two years she worked as Economic Counsel
to Senator William Armstrong, a member of the Republican Leadership serving
on both the Finance and Budget Committees. In 1990, she was appointed Chief
Economist of the President’s Council on Competitiveness, involving daily
interaction with the highest-level career and political personnel at OMB,
EPA, DOE, DOT, USDA, Interior, and Treasury. She has also served as
Executive Vice President at Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE).
Melana Zyla Vickers examined the curricula of the
top 10 liberal arts colleges as ranked by the authoritative U.S. News and
World Report.
From http://www.iwf.org/news/020521b.shtml
Melana Zyla Vickers
Senior Fellow for International and Economic Affairs
A former editorial board member at USA Today, Ms. Vickers holds a Master's
degree from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins
University. She speaks five languages including French, Spanish, Russian,
and Ukrainian. Her areas of expertise include defense, foreign policy, and
international economics. Ms. Vickers also comments and writes on a variety
of other policy issues for the Independent Women's Forum.
In addition to serving as a policy analyst at the Asian Studies Center of
the Heritage Foundation, she has been a writer and editor on the editorial
boards of several major publications: USA TODAY, Canada's Globe and Mail,
the Asian Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review. Ms.
Vickers currently writes a column for TechCentralStation.com, a free market
and technology think tank and magazine, often appears on television, and
contributes to the Weekly Standard.
She concluded, "Even at the best ... freshmen can't obtain a
sound education in history, literature and other fundamentals of
civilization."
Some of the knowledge freshmen will not find includes a course on
Shakespeare at Bowdoin, any overview of American history at Amherst and an
overview of any literary period at Swarthmore. Meanwhile, freshmen at
William College can explore such esoteric areas as an English course on
"man's desire ... to take, order, idealize and copy nature's bounty while
humanizing, plundering and destroying the environment" even though there
is
no comprehensive course in history.
Only three colleges offer students "a course that could roughly be termed
Western Civilization." Only three receive a "pass": That is, they provide
a
comprehensive introduction to English, history and political science,
which
constitute the basics of a liberal arts education.
Yet the cost for a freshman to graduate from one of the "top ten" could
run
as high as $120,000.
A second report issued by the College Board, a non-profit schools
association, Trends in College Pricing 2003, states, "college tuition and
fees increased an average of $579 at four-year public institutions, $1,114
at four-year private institutions, and $231 at two-year public
institutions"
in 2002.
Most students will pay less tuition than listed in catalogues but their
parents, as taxpayers, will still foot the bill. The report explains,
"Almost 60 percent of undergraduates receive some form of financial aid to
help them pay for college." 2002 to 2003 saw a record amount of student
financial aid -- $105 billion. Although the majority of aid is awarded as
student loans that must be repaid, "over $40 billion of [non-repayable]
grant aid was distributed to college students by federal and state
governments and by colleges and universities."
Using research from the National Center for Educational Statistics, Neal
McCluskey of the Cato Institute offers the ratio of tax to private
funding.
"More than half of public universities' revenues -- $79 billion -- were
extracted directly from federal, state and local taxpayers, while only
18.5
percent came from student fees and tuition."
An increasing number of parents are questioning whether the money --
public
or private -- is well used. That is, does it actually educate their
children?
On Oct. 5, the New York Times ran a piece by Greg Winter entitled,
"Jacuzzi
U.? A Battle of Perks to Lure Students." Winter chronicled the competitive
spending on amenities through which some universities hope to attract
students.
Among two of his examples: "Ohio State University is spending $140 million
to build what its peers enviously refer to as the Taj Mahal, a
657,000-square-foot complex featuring kayaks and canoes, indoor batting
cages and ropes courses, massages and a climbing wall big enough for 50
students to scale simultaneously. On the drawing board at the University
of
Southern Mississippi are plans for a full-fledged water park, complete
with
water slides, a meandering river and something called a wet deck -- a
flat,
moving sheet of water so that students can lie back and stay cool while
sunbathing."
It is not clear whether the foregoing examples are exceptions or a trend.
Nor whether the curricula of the "top 10" are typical or the result of
other
factors, such as their elitism. Whatever the answer, it is clear that
significant amounts of tax and tuition money are being diverted into
non-academic projects as well as being spent on courses that do not raise
the quality of education. Arguably, the courses lower it.
Those who believe that a university education should prepare students for
life and for making a livelihood want to know how curricula can be
improved
and money better spent.
On curricula: Many of the problems today are attributed to the
pervasiveness
of political correctness on campus. "Death of the Liberal Arts?" concludes
with a encouraging section entitled "It Wasn't Always This Way." Vickers
notes that the "shift toward political correctness is relatively new." For
example, as late as 1989, both Wellesley and Swarthmore "still offered
comprehensive reviews of U.S. and European history for freshmen." There is
an obvious solution: Return to a curriculum in which knowledge is valued
more than political correctness.
University academics will resist an attempt to make them accountable to
those who pay their salaries. One solution: Remove obstacles to
accountability, such as tenure. At the same time, privatize as much of the
university system as possible so that it becomes responsive to
"clients" --
that is, to the parents and students who purchase and consume its
services.
If clients value political correctness or water parks, then they can pay
the
cost both in lower academic standards and spiraling tuition. Meanwhile,
those who value knowledge and skill can enjoy the comparatively modest,
stripped-down tuition it would cost to acquire them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
