In this week’s Pope Center Clarion Call, I write about college and university trustees, and conclude that it would be a mistake to count on them to do much to steer their schools on a better path. I find illuminating the case of T. J. Rodgers. As a Dartmouth board member, he was stymied in his desire to improve educational quality at his school, but as a CEO, he could demand a board composed of people with expertise who would tell him when he was making a mistake.
Economic professor William Anderson is writing about Duke, but his observation applies to most universities — some professors take scholarly work seriously and others use their positions to beat the drums for their ideological causes. He goes back to the ugly lacrosse case and concludes with the recent uproar over a study showing that black students are apt to gravitate away from hard majors and into soft ones. Whether that’s true or not doesn’t matter. Feelings have been hurt and that trumps everything else.
In this EconLog post, George Mason University economics professor Bryan Caplan observes that the “college earnings premium” is said to be 34%, but that the “marriage premium” for men is substantially higher — 44%. So if it is good policy to promote college attendance and graduation because people will earn more, why not do the same for marriage? The “marriage premium” helps to show the silliness of the notion that just because someone does something (getting a college degree, getting married), he will therefore vault into a higher earnings bracket.
Charles Murray’s latest book is entitled Coming Apart and in this Minding the Campus essay, Rich Vedder argues persuasively that our higher education system has played an important role in that.
In this week’s Pope Center Clarion Call, Jane Shaw and I argue that a free market in postsecondary education would not leave any students out or behind, but rather would benefit all. The heavy federal thumb on the scales favoring accredited college degree programs lures many students into options that are not good for them, while at the same time impeding the growth of alternatives that would be better.
Here is a recent announcement at Cal State Chico:
Conversations on Diversity – Spring 2012
As you begin preparing your coursework for Spring, please consider incorporating Conversations on Diversity into your syllabus and encouraging your students to attend. The Conversations on Diversity series (COD) focuses on the complexities of group and individual identities and how they influence one another. The gatherings provide a safe space for members of the campus community to consider the often sensitive issues surrounding identity. COD has been the committee’s attempt to expose and treat the various ills we see reflected on our campus and in our community–xenophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, classism, ignorance, apathy, etc., as well as celebrate our differences.
The series will be held from 12:00 – 1:00 pm in BMU 210 on 2/22,3/7,3/28,4/11,4/25 (COD Awards). Themes and topics will be announced soon.
That is the question Scott Walter addresses in today’s Pope Center Clarion Call. He argues that the claimed threat to “academic freedom” if outsiders get to have any influence over the curriculum and the faculty is imaginary, and gives some interesting cases to support his point.
In this essay on Minding the Campus, emeritus professor Robert Weissberg delivers a powerful indictment of the idea embraced by the American Political Science Association that knowledge is race-based and political science must adapt by changing its standards.
This shows just how far the race hustlers have gone in (as Tom Wolfe put it) “mau-mauing” the American university.
Yesterday, the Manhattan Institute and the Pope Center sponsored a debate over higher ed. The question was, “Do Too Many People Go to College?” I argued the affirmative and Peter Sacks the negative. You can read our prepared statements here.
One notable aspect of the debate, I think, was the continuing confidence of Sacks (and other defenders of the higher-ed establishment) in what “the research shows” on the purported “returns to higher education.” Nobody is paid just for having sat through courses — with the exception of a few government employees who get automatic raises if they complete various degrees. People are paid for using productive skills. If you learn something that improves your productive skills, you stand to earn a return on that education. The trouble is that for a large percentage of American college students, what work they do in college does little or nothing to enhance their productivity. What sense does it make to talk about “the return to education” for a college grad with weak basic skills and a job serving coffee?
Last week, I reviewed Richard DeMillo’s recent book Abelard to Apple. I just found that he has an iconoclastic blog and strongly recommend it.
Recent Comments