M.I.T. Dean of Admissions Marilee Jones was fired after revelations that she lied about having a college degree 28 years ago when she first applied for an entry level job that didn't require a college degree. Everyone at M.I.T. seems to think she was doing a fantastic job and will be sorely missed.
If that's the case, why fire her?
Misrepresenting credentials is dishonest and obviously a serious offense. But people do a lot of stupid things when they're younger and trying to make their way in the world. One could say she should have come clean before, but she probably knew that if she did, M.I.T. would demonstrate the same degree of forgiveness they're demonstrating now--namely, none.
This shows how rigid the credentialing mentality has become in higher education, trumping three decades of undisputed good work. It wasn't always that way. When Ludwig Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge in 1929, they simply accepted his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus as a doctoral thesis. The knew that forcing him to go through a formal course of study to earn a credential would be absurd. They were acting in their role as certifiers of learning, which is (see yesterday's post) not necessarily the same thing as being a provider of learning.
At the modern university, that distinction doesn't exist--you have to be certified by the institution that taught you. Indeed, since degrees aren't based on any objective, verifiable evidence of learning, that's all they're certifying--that you've been taught. So I wonder if in addition to deterring future resume-fudgers, M.I.T. wasn't exactly comfortable with the idea of employing someone who is living proof that you don't need a university degree to be really good at a complex, challenging, difficult job--particularly one at a university.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
How Much is That Degree Really Worth?
An interesting debate about the value of a college education starts here, on the Becker-Posner blog, Richard Posner's response here, and then follow-up from Richard Vedder here. In summary: Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker says that all the evidence points to the fact that a college education is worth more today than ever before. Posner and Vedder are skeptical, wondering if colleges are merely selecting and certifying smart people, and that smartness is actually what's more valuable than ever before.
It's a legitimate question, but Posner and Vedder don't offer any evidence to support their skepticism. I hear this point made fairly often, and in every single case it's made by an older white guy with multiple college degrees. That doesn't automatically make them wrong, but there's an unavoidable elitism to people who benefit from a hugely valuable privilege like higher education questioning whether other, less fortunate people would benefit from the same thing.
Moreover, higher education isn't just for the Top 10 percent anymore. Most college students are somewhere in the middle of the smartness distribution, and all the statistics pointing to a high return on education apply to them too.
The reason this debate even exists, of course, is that there's very little good data out there about how much colleges actually increase student learning between students arrive as freshman and leave at seniors. That data void is what keeps debates like this in the realm of informed speculation, rather than something that can be resolved empirically.
The debate also highlights an under-appreciated fact about contemporary higher education--universities have effectively merged two functions that are conceptually and historically distinct: education and certification. There's no particular reason that the institution that provides you with a curriculum and teachers has to be the same institution that grants you a degree certifying that you've mastered a certain body of knowledge and skills. In other higher education sectors--like IT certification--they're handled separately.
Because there's no hard data about how much students at a given institution actually learn, the job market values the degree in ways that are logical given that lack of information. If you get a degree from a selective college, the degree's primary value is a signal that you were smart enough to get admitted. If you (like most students) went to a non-selective school, the degree says that you had the work ethic and discipline necessary to accumulate 120 or so credits. Those qualities have value, which is why employers care about degrees. But the lack of data about learning creates distortions in the labor market that work to the detriment of the students who learn the most, particuarly at non-selective colleges.
It's a legitimate question, but Posner and Vedder don't offer any evidence to support their skepticism. I hear this point made fairly often, and in every single case it's made by an older white guy with multiple college degrees. That doesn't automatically make them wrong, but there's an unavoidable elitism to people who benefit from a hugely valuable privilege like higher education questioning whether other, less fortunate people would benefit from the same thing.
Moreover, higher education isn't just for the Top 10 percent anymore. Most college students are somewhere in the middle of the smartness distribution, and all the statistics pointing to a high return on education apply to them too.
The reason this debate even exists, of course, is that there's very little good data out there about how much colleges actually increase student learning between students arrive as freshman and leave at seniors. That data void is what keeps debates like this in the realm of informed speculation, rather than something that can be resolved empirically.
The debate also highlights an under-appreciated fact about contemporary higher education--universities have effectively merged two functions that are conceptually and historically distinct: education and certification. There's no particular reason that the institution that provides you with a curriculum and teachers has to be the same institution that grants you a degree certifying that you've mastered a certain body of knowledge and skills. In other higher education sectors--like IT certification--they're handled separately.
Because there's no hard data about how much students at a given institution actually learn, the job market values the degree in ways that are logical given that lack of information. If you get a degree from a selective college, the degree's primary value is a signal that you were smart enough to get admitted. If you (like most students) went to a non-selective school, the degree says that you had the work ethic and discipline necessary to accumulate 120 or so credits. Those qualities have value, which is why employers care about degrees. But the lack of data about learning creates distortions in the labor market that work to the detriment of the students who learn the most, particuarly at non-selective colleges.
Charters and Fenty's Mission
A front page Washington Post story yesterday looked at the large and growing share of District of Columbia students served by public charter schools. One-in-four D.C. students currently attends a charter, and slots for thousands more charter students are expected to come online in the next few years--even as the number of students in District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) system continues to decline.
The growth of D.C.'s charter schools reflects the very real dissatisfaction of parents and many city leaders with years of poor performance by DCPS--the same dissatisfaction that led the council to vote last week to give Mayor Adrian Fenty control over DCPS. Not all of the charter schools are an improvement: several have been closed due to poor performance, and several others are struggling or mediocre. But research shows that parents in general are happier with their charter school choices, and the fact that bad charter schools are being closed stands in sharp contrast to DCPS, which continues to operate schools that are unsafe, underperforming or dying a slow death of attrition. And D.C. is also home to a handful of really wonderful charter schools. As Mayor Fenty faces the daunting challenge of figuring out how to fix education in the District of Columbia, he should learn from the city's best charter schools and use charter schooling as a tool to address the desperate educational needs in many of our city's neighborhoods. "Fixing DCPS" is an important goal, but it's NOT how Fenty should define his mission. His real mission should be ensuring that all of D.C.'s kids can attend, free of charge, a high-quality school--DCPS, charter, or private--that prepares them to become a contributing citizen of the District of Columbia.
The growth of D.C.'s charter schools reflects the very real dissatisfaction of parents and many city leaders with years of poor performance by DCPS--the same dissatisfaction that led the council to vote last week to give Mayor Adrian Fenty control over DCPS. Not all of the charter schools are an improvement: several have been closed due to poor performance, and several others are struggling or mediocre. But research shows that parents in general are happier with their charter school choices, and the fact that bad charter schools are being closed stands in sharp contrast to DCPS, which continues to operate schools that are unsafe, underperforming or dying a slow death of attrition. And D.C. is also home to a handful of really wonderful charter schools. As Mayor Fenty faces the daunting challenge of figuring out how to fix education in the District of Columbia, he should learn from the city's best charter schools and use charter schooling as a tool to address the desperate educational needs in many of our city's neighborhoods. "Fixing DCPS" is an important goal, but it's NOT how Fenty should define his mission. His real mission should be ensuring that all of D.C.'s kids can attend, free of charge, a high-quality school--DCPS, charter, or private--that prepares them to become a contributing citizen of the District of Columbia.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Blame the English Department
Over at the National Review Online's higher education blog, Phi Beta Con, Carol Iannone speculates that the Virginia Tech English department is to blame, on the grounds that (A) Cho Seung-hui was was an English major; (B) English departments are awash in postmodernism; and (C) postmodernism teaches students that there is no absolute truth, and thus no right or wrong.
This idea is so transparently foolish that even the other Phi Beta Con bloggers quickly knocked it down. The larger question is why someone smart enough to string words together into coherent sentences would say such things in the first place. The answer, I think, lies with the intersection of hard-line conservatism and Internet-age intellectual combat.
The type of conservatism espoused at NRO Online is founded on a small number of foundational, easily-understood truths, such as:
1) "Liberalism is bad."
2) "Moral relativism is bad."
3) "People need to know their place."
The upside to this approach is that it gives you a handy, wallet-sized set of intellectual principles that can be applied to any situation. The downside is that you quickly run out of new things to say. One solution to that problem is to locate new arenas in which to fight your ideological battles--thus, Phi Beta Con, which is really not a higher education blog at all. It's just an excuse to give principles 1,2, and 3 above a new spin--for #1, railing against the professoriate; for #2, mocking postmodernism; and for #3, nodding with approval at Charles Murrayesque arguments that we're sending too many kids to college who really don't have the intellectual chops for it and should, for their sake and ours, resign themselves to domestic servitude instead.
But even this strategy runs its course after a while--there are (thankfully) only so many Ward Churchills out there to be made of fun of. The only thing left is the popular news cycle. Once Virginia Tech was beset by tragedy, it was just a matter of time before someone at Phi Beta Con connected the familiar dots. The narcissism of the truth-teller also comes into play here--I imagine Carol Iannone believes she's the only one brave enough to speak what others only dare to think.
In reality, the logic of ideological warfare and the constant need to say old things in new ways simply drove her to espouse ideas that are not just facile, but indecent. This is real moral relativism, a kind much more damaging than anything taught in the English Department at Virginia Tech or anywhere else.
Update: In another example of tasteless, tenditious hobbyhorse-riding, a different Phi Beta Con poster offers an alternate culprit : the fake boys crisis that Sara Mead debunked last year.
This idea is so transparently foolish that even the other Phi Beta Con bloggers quickly knocked it down. The larger question is why someone smart enough to string words together into coherent sentences would say such things in the first place. The answer, I think, lies with the intersection of hard-line conservatism and Internet-age intellectual combat.
The type of conservatism espoused at NRO Online is founded on a small number of foundational, easily-understood truths, such as:
1) "Liberalism is bad."
2) "Moral relativism is bad."
3) "People need to know their place."
The upside to this approach is that it gives you a handy, wallet-sized set of intellectual principles that can be applied to any situation. The downside is that you quickly run out of new things to say. One solution to that problem is to locate new arenas in which to fight your ideological battles--thus, Phi Beta Con, which is really not a higher education blog at all. It's just an excuse to give principles 1,2, and 3 above a new spin--for #1, railing against the professoriate; for #2, mocking postmodernism; and for #3, nodding with approval at Charles Murrayesque arguments that we're sending too many kids to college who really don't have the intellectual chops for it and should, for their sake and ours, resign themselves to domestic servitude instead.
But even this strategy runs its course after a while--there are (thankfully) only so many Ward Churchills out there to be made of fun of. The only thing left is the popular news cycle. Once Virginia Tech was beset by tragedy, it was just a matter of time before someone at Phi Beta Con connected the familiar dots. The narcissism of the truth-teller also comes into play here--I imagine Carol Iannone believes she's the only one brave enough to speak what others only dare to think.
In reality, the logic of ideological warfare and the constant need to say old things in new ways simply drove her to espouse ideas that are not just facile, but indecent. This is real moral relativism, a kind much more damaging than anything taught in the English Department at Virginia Tech or anywhere else.
Update: In another example of tasteless, tenditious hobbyhorse-riding, a different Phi Beta Con poster offers an alternate culprit : the fake boys crisis that Sara Mead debunked last year.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
If you're not the lead dog...
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports($) this morning that the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), the trade organization for financial aid officers, will ban lenders from sponsoring events at their national conference. This news comes only two weeks after a Wall Street Journal report($) on close financial ties between lenders and NASFAA.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Admission Impossible?
Over at The American Prospect Online, here's my take on why it's not actually getting harder and harder for high school students to get into a good college, despite what you read in the newspaper every year.
Making Nice with Newsweek
Over the past year or so, you could sort of say that a significant share of my work has focused on criticizing Newsweek: Andy and I wrote a paper questioning their ranking of "America's Top High Schools," a Newsweek cover story on the "boy crisis" got me to look into the issue and eventually write a paper that challenged that article's take on the issue, and the zero-to-three hype I criticize in a recent paper grew in part from a late-1990s Newsweek article. It's not something I planned, but I do seem to have created an odd little subgenre for myself here. But I'm pleased to report that my latest paper on the overhyping of the first three years got a positive mention in a recent Newsweek story on the same topic. Since Newsweek played a role in sparking this hype, I'm glad to see them play a role in correcting some of the misinformation parents and the public have received about the first three years. You can also hear me discuss the topic further for Newsweek on Air.
An Important Day for D.C. Schools?
Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty will sign legislation today adding him to the ranks of mayors who have taken control over their cities' public education systems. The D.C. Council passed the legislation last Thursday. Congress must also approve the law before it takes effect, but is expected to do so with no problems.
I want very much to believe Fenty and his team can bring meaningful improvement to my city's public schools, which so desperately need it. And there are reasons to be hopeful: The team Fenty has assembled to work on this is good. And the hearings that led up to this legislation gave voice to public and political leader frustration with the city's schools that I hope can translate into political will for reforms.
But public education in the District of Columbia faces serious challenges, and the city has a history of failed reform initiatives and governance changes that failed to deliver promised improvement. And the hard work only begins when Fenty takes the reigns. I have two main causes for concern right now.
The first is with the "let's all get along" attitude Fenty's projected throughout this process: offering the City Council increased control over the school budget, the press conference he had Friday with school board chair Robert Bobb and current superintendent Janey, at which they all expressed a desire to hold hands and work together. Now, obviously this approach makes sense if you're trying to pass legislation giving you the right to take over the schools. And there are ways in which Fenty's willingness to play well with others on this is admirable. Too often efforts to improve urban schools get killed by personal and political feuding among individual elected officials trying to advance their own agendas. Fenty's efforts to make nice with the council, the current board and Janey suggest he's rejecting the dictatorial and polarizing approach NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken in running that city's schools. BUT, one of the major challenges to improving education in D.C. has been that too many entities and individuals--the superintendent, the school board, the council, the chief financial officer, the mayor, Congress--have both an agenda and a say in how the schools are run, and that mess of competing forces has made it virtually impossible for the school system to get sustained focus on a coherent reform agenda. One of the major benefits of mayoral control would be to give the system a single ultimate point of authority and accountability, but that benefit disappears if Fenty lets himself get pulled in a bunch of directions trying to keep all those groups on board with his reforms. So far, the only people who've really had a lot at stake here have been the school board, Janey and a handful of home rule activists. But what happens when the Mayor needs to do something that's controversial and counter to the interests of significant groups within the school system, and they get their councilmembers involved? Improving the city's schools will require the political will to do difficult things even in the face of serious political opposition. What Fenty's encountered in the takeover ain't got nothing on what he could face when it comes time to actually take action: Does he have the will to stand up to that?
But that's nothing compared to my second concern: What is Fenty's team going to do? I don't believe there's anyone on this earth who can honestly say that they know how to fix the mess that is DCPS today. I've got some thoughts on things that might be beneficial; so do a lot of other people. But no one's ever fixed an entire system like D.C. to the point where we can honestly say we're happy with the outcomes it's delivering for most kids. There are no guarantees any of these things people might propose will actually work. When I think about what this all means forthe futures of kids in this city--which is what really matters here--that's what really worries me.
Two things worth reading this week if you're interested in this issue:
Rick Hess on Mayoral Control
Andy Smarick on Urban Superintendents
I want very much to believe Fenty and his team can bring meaningful improvement to my city's public schools, which so desperately need it. And there are reasons to be hopeful: The team Fenty has assembled to work on this is good. And the hearings that led up to this legislation gave voice to public and political leader frustration with the city's schools that I hope can translate into political will for reforms.
But public education in the District of Columbia faces serious challenges, and the city has a history of failed reform initiatives and governance changes that failed to deliver promised improvement. And the hard work only begins when Fenty takes the reigns. I have two main causes for concern right now.
The first is with the "let's all get along" attitude Fenty's projected throughout this process: offering the City Council increased control over the school budget, the press conference he had Friday with school board chair Robert Bobb and current superintendent Janey, at which they all expressed a desire to hold hands and work together. Now, obviously this approach makes sense if you're trying to pass legislation giving you the right to take over the schools. And there are ways in which Fenty's willingness to play well with others on this is admirable. Too often efforts to improve urban schools get killed by personal and political feuding among individual elected officials trying to advance their own agendas. Fenty's efforts to make nice with the council, the current board and Janey suggest he's rejecting the dictatorial and polarizing approach NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken in running that city's schools. BUT, one of the major challenges to improving education in D.C. has been that too many entities and individuals--the superintendent, the school board, the council, the chief financial officer, the mayor, Congress--have both an agenda and a say in how the schools are run, and that mess of competing forces has made it virtually impossible for the school system to get sustained focus on a coherent reform agenda. One of the major benefits of mayoral control would be to give the system a single ultimate point of authority and accountability, but that benefit disappears if Fenty lets himself get pulled in a bunch of directions trying to keep all those groups on board with his reforms. So far, the only people who've really had a lot at stake here have been the school board, Janey and a handful of home rule activists. But what happens when the Mayor needs to do something that's controversial and counter to the interests of significant groups within the school system, and they get their councilmembers involved? Improving the city's schools will require the political will to do difficult things even in the face of serious political opposition. What Fenty's encountered in the takeover ain't got nothing on what he could face when it comes time to actually take action: Does he have the will to stand up to that?
But that's nothing compared to my second concern: What is Fenty's team going to do? I don't believe there's anyone on this earth who can honestly say that they know how to fix the mess that is DCPS today. I've got some thoughts on things that might be beneficial; so do a lot of other people. But no one's ever fixed an entire system like D.C. to the point where we can honestly say we're happy with the outcomes it's delivering for most kids. There are no guarantees any of these things people might propose will actually work. When I think about what this all means forthe futures of kids in this city--which is what really matters here--that's what really worries me.
Two things worth reading this week if you're interested in this issue:
Rick Hess on Mayoral Control
Andy Smarick on Urban Superintendents
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)