After trying (and mostly failing) to set up the piece with a World Cup hook, Brooks proceeds to his main contention: the American higher education system is the best in the world because, unlike its inferior European counterparts, it's unregulated by the government:
[American universities are] spirited competitors in the marketplace of ideas, status, talent and donations. The European system, by contrast, is state-dominated and uncompetitive. During the 19th century, governments in Spain, France and Germany abolished the universities' medieval privileges of independence. Governments took over funding and control, and imposed radical egalitarian agendas. Universities could not select students on merit, and faculty members became civil servants. The upshot is that the competitive American universities not only became the best in the world — 8 out of the top 10 universities are American — they also remained ambitious and dynamic. They are much more responsive to community needs.
Not only have they created ambitious sports programs to build character among students and a sense of solidarity across the community, they also offer a range of extracurricular activities and student counseling services unmatched anywhere else. While the arts and letters faculties are sometimes politically cloistered, the rest of the university programs are integrated into society,performing an array of social functions. They serve as business incubation centers (go to Palo Alto). With their cultural and arts programs, they serve as retiree magnets (go to Charlottesville). With their football teams, they bind communities and break down social distinctions (people in Alabama are fiercely loyal to the Crimson Tide, even though most have not actually attended the university).
There are two words missing from this long list of virtues: learning and teaching.
Universities compete for "ideas, status, talent and donations." That's basically true. Competing for ideas and status means recruiting faculty who are distinguished in their academic field. Talent means recruiting students with high SAT scores. Donations means begging for money. None of these things have much to do with how well universities teach students or how much students learn while they're there.
Brooks' further list of good things universities do--character building, extracurricular activities, business incubation, retiree attraction, community integration, sports--is also accurate, and full of admirable qualities. But none of them matter when it comes to the most important thing universities are supposed to do: educate students.
Brooks sinks to fourth-stomach mode in blithely asserting that "8 out of the top 10 universities are American." The criteria used to generate that list are as follows:
Number of alumni winning Nobel Prizes or Field medals: 10%
Number of faculty winning Nobel Prizes or Field medals: 20%
Number of faculty who are "highly cited researchers": 20%
Research output (articles published): 40%
Size: 10%
Again, I'm glad we've got lots of big universities that are filled with highly-cited Nobel prize winners. The more the better. But again, these things have nothing to do with teaching students. Nor does the presence or absence of the top eight in the world have any impact on the 99% of American college students who don't attend one of those institutions. Saying we're the best because we have Cal Tech is like saying New York City has the best K-12 system in the nation because it has Bronx Science.
Brooks is right to celebrate the lively competition in our higher education market. But when the terms of competition aren't related to learning, institutional incentives are skewed. Colleges and universities have every reason to engage in morally dubious practices like giving more financial aid to rich students and less to poor students, and no reason to make sure that faculty actually know how to teach. As long as higher education is judged by every factor except learning, too many students won't get the education they need.
No comments:
Post a Comment