The demise of the humanities

With the start of the fall semester, high school seniors who intend to earn a college degree will soon have to begin thinking about their major (“Oh, the Humanities!” The New York Times, Aug. 8).  In fact, some colleges and universities require applicants to state their major.  It’s little wonder that the humanities are way down on the list.

I say that because skyrocketing tuition today means most students must take out loans, which are not dischargeable in personal bankruptcy.  As a result, students are far more cost conscious than my generation was.  I realize that the value of a college degree cannot be determined solely by what its holders command in the marketplace.  But who can blame them for shunning the humanities?  They have to earn enough to pay off monthly student at the same time they have to pay the rent and other necessities.

Studies show that those majoring in the humanities earn far less at the start of their careers compared with their peers who choose technology.  That was not always the case. There was a time when college students had the luxury of majoring in whatever truly interested them, without worrying about its market value.  For example, when I was an undergraduate in the late 1950s at the University of Pennsylvania, tuition was $800, plus an additional general fee of $135.  Both were payable in two equal installments.  I spent the next 28 years as an English teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

Elite high school admission’s conundrum

The obsession with diversity in schools has reached a new high in New York City (“Study Shows Scores on Elite High School Test Predict Success,” The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 4).  A study commissioned by its Department of Education found that the controversial Specialized High School Admissions Test had predictive value, particularly in math and science.

Yet despite the conclusion, Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to eliminate the exam and use a mix of course grades and state test scores in order to engineer diversity at the city’s elite high schools.  I understand the benefits of a diverse student body, but I think abolishing the test will have unintended consequences.  When students lack the wherewithal to handle rigorous material, they will become discouraged and drop out.  If their teachers attempt to adjust instruction to help them, their more advanced classmates will be shortchanged.

A better way of solving the problem is to continue to use the SHSAT as a screening device and then use a lottery to select those who surpass the cut score.  The Principle of the Flat Maximum explains why.  All applicants at the top of the curve possess the necessary qualifications for success.  Trying to distinguish among them is a waste of time.  A lottery will avoid charges of bias and favoritism.  But I seriously doubt that will ever happen.  Diversity trumps excellence as the ultimate goal.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

Sex education in primary grades is risky

When is the right time to introduce sex education?  The California Healthy Youth Act, which took effect in 2016, requires schools to do so in middle and high school.  But for reasons I don’t understand, the Oceanside Unified School District board decided to jump the gun for children in K-2 (“Oceanside school district halts sex ed for K-2,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 6).

I support age-appropriate sex education, but K-2 is far too soon.  Children that young do not understand nor need to understand reproductive health education.  Predictably, parents in the district objected, and the board reversed itself on the matter. I realize that attitudes and values about sex vary widely across the nation.  What is acceptable in, say, California would be unacceptable in, say, Mississippi.  But common sense should dictate that the primary grades are far too early.

A more nebulous situation exists when students are in middle and high school.  Their exposure to graphic images, coupled with their raging hormones, make them prime candidates for sex education.  How it is done, however, will always be the source of intense controversy.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

College acceptance is no assurance of enrollment

Lost in the debate over college for all in this country is that large numbers of students who have been accepted at college never actually enroll (“Why so many poor kids who get into college don’t end up enrolling,” voc.com, Aug. 3).  Although this so-called “summer melt” affects students from low-income families the most, it also is seen among students from more affluent backgrounds.

One explanation is that high school counselors have not done their job by fully explaining the steps needed once acceptance is offered.  I’m referring now to the various financial forms that have to be completed.  Unless students have parents who can pay the full cost or are sophisticated enough to understand what is entailed when student loans are involved, many students are simply overwhelmed and never show up for enrollment.

There is much truth to that explanation, but I don’t think it is the entire story.  Community colleges provide the kind of guidance such students can turn to.  Moreover, community colleges are a financial bargain, which means that most students don’t have to saddle themselves with onerous debt to earn a degree or certificate.  I don’t understand why students do not take advantage of these services.  They don’t need their parents to guide them when counselors exist for this very purpose.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

 

 

The college degree paradox

If a four-year college degree is the key to a well-paying job, then why are far fewer Americans making less than their parents?  “The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940” found that the share of children with higher inflation-adjusted incomes than their parents declined from about 90 percent for those born in 1940 to just 50 percent for those born in 1984 (“Fewer Americans are making more than their parents did – especially if they grew up in the middle class,” Brookings, Jul. 25).

Yet during this same period, the percentage of Americans of both sexes earning a bachelor’s degree skyrocketed.  According to Statista, 3.8 percent of females and 5.5 percent of males in 1940 earned a bachelor’s degree.  In 1984, 15.7 percent of females and 22.9 percent of males did. This data call into question the assumption about the overall monetary value of a college degree.  Moreover, the data challenge the assumption that the affluent are those most likely to benefit.  According to the study, the bulk of the decline was concentrated toward the top of the income distribution.  Equally startling was that those born into the very bottom of the income distribution were still highly likely to earn more than their parents.

You don’t have to be a statistician to realize that something vital is being overlooked in the debate about the indispensability of a college degree.  I’ve written often about this assumption.  So much of the marketability of a degree depends on when it was earned, from which institution and in which major.  Yet we ignore these essential questions, preferring instead to make sweeping generalizations about the indispensability of a college degree for the financial future.  I continue to believe that when student loan debt is factored in, a college degree today is worth far less than believed.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

High standards and student enjoyment clash

Teachers can teach their subject well but teach their students to hate the subject in the process.  There’s now evidence to support that adage (“What Do We Know About Teacher Quality?” National Education Policy Center, Jul. 26).

A recent study in the peer-reviewed Education Finance and Policy found that “teachers who are skilled at improving students’ math achievement may do so in ways that make students less happy or less engaged in class.”  In other words, it’s a pyrrhic victory.

This conclusion has far-reaching implications for how teachers are rated. One of the most important goals of instruction is to make students lifelong learners. That means trying to inculcate positive attitudes about a particular subject.  If all we focus on is the ability of teachers to boost test scores, however, we will never know if they have been effective in non-cognitive areas.

One of the ways to get feedback is to ask students to complete a Likert inventory.  Students anonymously respond to a series of statements to which they register their agreement or disagreement.  Typically, their responses are on a five-choice agreement scale.  For young children, three response options (e.g. agree, don’t know or disagree) can be used.  Unfortunately, we give short shrift to students’ affective status.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

 

Measuring the value of a college degree

The Education Department intends to look at the earnings and debt of college graduates by major to help students compare schools and programs (“Will Majoring in Psychology Make You Better Off? The Government Wants to Know” (The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 2.)  I support the move, but I hasten to point out an important caveat.

The value of a college degree should not be weighed solely in terms of its market value.  There are benefits that go beyond salaries earned.  These non-pecuniary rewards will be given short shrift under the proposed Education Department’s plan.  Nevertheless, I believe the intent is admirable.  The reality is that too many students are going into heavy personal debt to earn a degree in a field for which there is little demand. Decades ago when tuition was a fraction of what it is today, students had the luxury of studying whatever happened to catch their interest.  That is no longer the case.

I’ve written often about the harm being done to students by the sheepskin obsession.  The oft-quoted wage premium attached to a college degree is substantially reduced when the major studied is factored in.  It is further diminished when loan repayment is included.  Yet we persist in the fiction that college is for everyone.  It is what Charles Murray correctly calls “educational romanticism.”

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

Special-ed students in charter schools

Special-education students in charter schools deserve the same support as their counterparts in traditional public schools.  Unfortunately, that is not the case in New York City, where those enrolled in the Success Academy charter schools are denied the help they would otherwise get in regular public schools (“Special-ed kids suffer in de Blasio’s grudge against Success Academy,” New York Post, Jul. 21).

The Department of Education in New York City processes only three percent of special-ed applications for Success Academy within the legally required 60-day time period, as opposed to 66 percent for traditional public schools.  That’s outrageous, which is why a lawsuit has been filed by Success Academy on behalf of six parents.  Special-ed students shouldn’t be used as pawns by those opposed to charter schools for one reason or another.

 

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

Yeshivas can’t have it both ways

Although New York State law requires that nonpublic schools must provide an education “substantially equivalent” to that of public schools, a lawsuit says many yeshivas do not (“A Law Tailored for Orthodox Jewish Schools Is Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Says,” The New York Times, Jul. 23).  That’s because these ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools exist primarily to study Jewish texts, which denies students instruction in English, math, science, and American history.

Supporters of yeshivas argue that the number of hours spent on secular subjects is not an indication of a quality education.  There is some truth to that view.  But how else can the education offered by yeshivas be objectively measured?  If yeshiva students were required to take state tests, then perhaps the results would answer the question.  But they are not required to do so.

I support parental choice, but I also support the law.  Exempting yeshivas from the state law creates a dangerous precedent that other nonpublic schools will eventually cite to avoid accountability.  Lost in all of this, of course, are the students who are being shortchanged for life after graduation.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

Integrating school districts is daunting

School districts are permitted under federal law to use race as one factor in devising voluntary integration plans.  But how to do so remains one of the most controversial issues in education today (“Rollback of Affirmative Action Guidelines Could Reshape K-12 School Districts,” The Wall Street Journal, Jul. 14).

Jefferson County School District in Louisville, Ky. found that out when it attempted to have black students constituting no less than 15 percent and no more than 50 percent, with bused students providing the desired balance.  The plan was rejected by the court.

The problem is that schools have no control over housing patterns.  I remember vividly what happened at the high school in the Los Angeles Unified School District where I spent my entire 28-year career after the court ordered busing to achieve a stipulated racial balance.  Although black and white parents supported the goal of integrating schools, they opposed busing.

I don’t think much has changed in this regard.  Until neighborhoods are racially integrated, most parents will continue to oppose busing and other forced strategies.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)