Thursday, May 31, 2007

Choice for the Chosen Ones

Matt Yglesias responds to the post below, saying:


There probably isn't a unique best way to handle this. Which is why it's fortunate that even if you restrict your attention to the relatively small set of elite colleges and universities there are still a whole bunch of 'em. It seems to me that there's a set of defensible approaches to the issue (including no requirements whatsoever) and it's good for some colleges to adopt each of them. I worry that pressure on each individual school to strike the "correct" balance leads ultimately to a kind of bland uniform compromise that serves no good purpose.

If you don't restrict your attention to a small set of elite colleges, this argument breaks down. The vast majority of college students don't have the opportunity to choose from among many or even some elite schools. They attend a local public university or community college. So the choices universities make matter--most undergrads don't have the luxury of voting with their feet, or wallets.

Moreover, there really isn't a lot of diversity out there on this issue, a point made by a commenter on Matt's blog. Even among private colleges and selective universities, there's not a normal distribution of decision-making ranging from laissez faire to tightly prescriptive. The elective system as it stands has been unchanged and widely adopted for at least a half-century now.

Moreover, the need for colleges to make some choices here doesn't mean they should all make the same choices, or even the same choices for all their students. Far from it. It would be great if their were some real intellectual diversity and competition around questions of the undergraduate core curriculum, among and within universities. What we have now is sameness via near-universal lack of any meaningful decisions. There's a huge, reasonable middle ground here between flexibility and guidance. Universities just aren't interested in going there, because it would mean contentious fights with the faculty, and who needs that kind of grief?

Blessed are the Tastemakers

I went shopping for indie rock CDs in Canada, and figured out what's wrong with higher education in America.

Specifically, I was in a CD store on Rue St. Denis in Montreal, where my lovely wife and I were on vacation over the holiday weekend. Since the Canadian good bands per capita ratio is, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, at least 50 times greater than the American ratio, I had high hopes upon entry. But it soon became clear that I was out of my league. I'm one of those people who's heard of all the good Canadian bands that everyone's heard of (the New Pornographers alone have made three of my 25 favorite albums of the decade) but none of the bands that nobody's heard of. This store seemed exclusively dedicated to the latter. There was an obligatory copy of Neon Bible for sale, but that was hardly the point.

After getting over being confronted with the limits of my coolness, I noticed some interesting things about the store itself. Even though it wasn't very big, they were only using about 20% of the available floorspace. Most of the CDs were on single row of tables in the middle. They could have easily fit 10 times as many CDs into the store if they had wanted to, but they obviously didn't, because this store wasn't selling access to music. They were selling taste.

Our younger readers may not believe this, but there was a time not so long ago when you could know that a CD (or LP) existed, want to buy it, have the money to buy, but be unable to buy it, simply because you couldn't find anyone to sell it to you. There was no Amazon or eBay or iTunes; if they didn't have it at the local Strawberrys or Tape World, you were out of luck. That's why a visit to someplace like Tower Records in New York City was always so great--it was a whole building full of music, where you'd spend hours flipping through the racks looking for the early Smiths album you were missing or--even better--the fabled "European import" of some Neil Young concert from the early 70s.

The point being, Tower records was selling access to stored information, in this case sonic information. Then the Internet came along and opened up that access to everyone, everywhere. Not surprisingly, Tower went bankrupt. But the store on Rue St. Denis is still open, because the challenge of the information age isn't in gaining access to information, it's making sense of it. It's not figuring out how to buy CDs, it's figuring out which CDs to buy--and which not to. Those are issue of judgement and taste, which only people can provide. The value of the Montreal CD store was as much in the albums that weren't on sale as in those that were. In that context, only using 20% of your floor space makes a lot of sense.

The store also had a single wall rack that took this principle to even further extremes. While the rack was built to hold CDs about 10 deep, only the first three rows were in use. They were devoted exclusively to the gods and giants--Hendrix, Bowie, Neil Young, the Stones, Iggy Pop, Johnny Cash, Leonard Cohen (this being Canada), the New York Dolls, etc. (Although this last selection strikes me as somewhat false; I think it was Chuck Klosterman who noted that while everyone can recite the one-paragraph version of the Dolls' seminal place in the late '70s NYC punk scene and thus life as we know it, no one other than self-serious rock critics ever listens to their music, owns their albums, or even knows what they sound like. The image and idea of the Dolls were infinitely more important than any music they actually made).

Moreover, the CD store wasn't just selling the standard "essentials" catalogue for each artist. Instead, there was a carefully selected combination of iconic works, under-appreciated studio albums (i.e. Axis: Bold as Love), obscure concerts, BBC session outtakes, etc. It was pretty cool.

What, you may ask, does this have to do with higher education?

Beyond the obvious point that Hendrix appreciation is a higher education in and of itself, this CD store embodied the promise--and in many cases, the failure--of the undergraduate curriculum at the contemporary American university.

In some ways, universities went through all this a long time ago. While recorded music wasn't widely available until the mid-20th century, recorded words have been in circulation since Guttenberg. But even until recently, universities were judged by their prowess in storing and providing access to information, embodied in statistics like the number of books and journal subscriptions held by the library. They're still judged by the percentage of professors with PhDs--information stored in human form.

But these assets are--and really, always were--essentially irrelevant to the needs of your average undergraduate. Those students don't need access--they need taste. In other words, they need the university to apprehend the vast array of human knowledge and make some very smart, considered judgments about where to start and where to focus in building an education. They need the equivalent of the CD rack of gods and giants for the realm of ideas instead of music.

Unfortunately, most big universities moved away from this kind of core curriculum a long time ago. Instead they set students loose in the equivalent of Tower Records, with instructions that amount to "Buy at least one CD from Rock/Pop, Jazz, Classical, Soul / R&B, Folk, and Country. Then pick one of those categories and buy 10 more CDs from that section, plus another 10 from that section or any others."

In fact, it's worse than that, because universities are more limited than Tower in terms of what they can offer, and their offerings tend to skew toward what the faculty want to teach, not what students need to learn. It's like the above scenario, except there are only 50 CDs in each section, selected by a socially maladjusted record store clerk who looks down on the clerks in charge of the other sections (who feel the same way about him) and who has decided that the 50 albums in Rock/Pop will include the complete Yngvie Malmsteen catalogue, but not Exile on Main Street.

This doesn't mean every student needs exactly the same core curriculum, like some kind of rote march from Revolver to Never Mind the Bollocks to Nevermind. But it does mean that universities need to do a better job of applying some degree of judgment in working with their students to decide what they need to learn. Otherwise, they may end up like Tower Records, while the little CD store up the street thrives in selling the intellectual taste that, more than anything, students really need.

Statistics with Meaning

NCES released their annual report this morning on the condition of education in the U.S. They took the opportunity to highlight high school coursetaking trends. More states are requiring more coursework for graduation, and overall, the average number of course credits completed by graduates increased from 21.7 in 1982 to 25.8 in 2004. More students are taking more math, science, and English courses with no declines in art or social studies, but to the detriment of study halls, vocational education, and career training. They’re taking more advanced courses as well. The number of students taking at least one AP exam doubled between 1997 and 2005.

Great news. Bust open the bubbly. Surely additional credit hours in the basics translates to higher test scores, right? That is the assumption behind the drive for the basics, no? Actually, the data suggests there was minor, incremental, or even no change. On NAEP in 1971 in reading, 17 year olds averaged a scale score of 285. On NAEP in 2004 in reading, 17 year olds averaged a scale score of 285. That’s not a typo. During the same time frame, math scores increased from 300 to 307, a 2.3% increase over 33 years. For some comparability, the coursetaking trend discussed above is a 19% increase since 1982. The numbers don’t quite compute.

When asked about this conundrum, Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, admitted there was a “legitimate concern” that courses had been watered down. He labeled it a top priority to analyze what exactly these courses are teaching, and said data including course syllabi and the textbooks used in the classes exists, but has yet to be fully analyzed. That’s why I left “the condition of education 2007” feeling like I had been bombarded with statistics without much context.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Special Treatment for Private Loans, No Way Out for Students

Robert Shireman, President of The Institute for College Access and Success, is guest blogging over at New America Foundation—check out his post today on how private student loans (not the government-backed loans) can’t be eliminated in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy allows people who have serious financial problems a chance to start over by relieving them of most of their debt and preventing creditors from pursuing lawsuits and garnishing wages. But these protections do not extend to private student loan debt. Private student loan debt is in a special category of debt, along with child support, taxes, criminal fines, and government-backed student loans, that can't be eliminated with bankruptcy.

How did private student loans end up in that category? Well, apparently no one is quite sure. But one thing is sure -- preventing students from discharging private student loans eliminates a valuable safety valve for students with the most serious financial problems.