I was at Wal-Mart yesterday, doing my part in the oppression of third world workers by shopping at Wal-Mart, when I eyed a local political newspaper that was on sale at the in-store Subway. I picked it up and noticed an article by Charles Murray of The Bell Curve fame. In waiting for a presciption to be filled, I read the article and it was quite compelling-I must admit that I thought of the fine members of when I read it.

Murray's Wall Street Journal editorial deals with his argument that there are currently too many students in college. I'm just guessing-but I believe that he thinks anyone below a certain test score should be steered away from college. In short, we have a system whereby unqualified students and students who are qualified, but who don't want to be in college, sit and occupy space at our educational institutions who would best be served in the working world or through vocational eduation. Instead, we push these kids through general studies, history, or psychology bachelor's programs that in effect, provide training for nothing. Or so Murray believes.

Questions for debate:

1.)Are too many students attending college?

2.)How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?


3.)Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?


4.)If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?

1 - Yes. Yes there are. I have helped out some of them with their English papers and History papers and I assure they were woefully unprepared to enroll in higher education. These are not stupid people, thye were just poorly educated.

2 - Not being able to take a test is a deficiency. If you can't take a driving test you don't get a license. That's a good thing.

3 - I don't know that it does. An MCSE, a CCNE, and a PMP are all vocational and they aren't looked down on seriously. If it does have a stigma that's wrong and I don't know how it would be removed.

4 - Being rich has advantages. It is why everyone should aspire to be rich too.

1.)Are too many students attending college?

How many is “too many”? If a person somehow qualifies (GPA, SAT, scholarships, money) to go to college, and has the desire to do so, then they should have that opportunity. If they can’t hack it, then they should be subject to expulsion. I disagree vehemently with Murray on this issue:

Online courses are great for people like me, who work best alone, but many people learn far better when there is more human interaction. I still think the lecture hall has a place in higher education. And Murray conveniently forgets those degrees that may require more than a research library and a computer (fine arts, for example). Of course, I guess they don’t “count”.

2.)How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?

I find Murray’s views to be arrogant and self-serving (like he is soooo much better than you and me). He talks about people who struggle with math, and if they can’t handle it, then they shouldn’t be in college. Well, that would be me. I struggled mightily with math at all levels, but hey, whaddya know, I had a 3.5 GPA in community college and a 3.8 through my business management degree program. Higher learning institutions are just that – for LEARNING. They aren’t Stuff-you-already-know institutions, fercryinoutloud.

3.)Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?

I don’t think it does. Obnoxious, egotistical, quasi-racist people with PhDs writing scholarly articles may look down on it (i.e. Murray). What I find insulting is his selecting a particular IQ that automatically disqualifies one for other forms of higher education. As far as I know, schools don’t test IQ anymore (I’ll defer to some of the parents here); and besides, the tests are not always accurate. Pinning a number on someone and then deciding what a person can or cannot do with their life based on that number is…creepy, on a level I’m hard-pressed to define.
(emphasis mine)
4.)If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?

Who says there is no class war? Sheesh, all you have to do is look at Paris Hilton for evidence of that. If a dumb, worthless twit like her can be successful even with a dearth of any shred of talent, what else could it be? Even if a Rockefeller, Kennedy or a Trump was dumber than a post, they could still go to college and receive good grades. That’s the advantage of being rich, and being an alumnus and/or huge financial supporter of said college. The extremely wealthy don't send their children to vocational schools because the brats will never have to really work for a living, anyway.

1.)Are too many students attending college?

Yes. it may seem a little cold blooded, but a capitalist country operates on the division between the rich and the poor. i'm pretty sure, that most of us, given the fact that we have the time to access debate sites like this, are middle-class and above. The middle class sustains the upper, and is itself sustained by the lower class, who, read carefully here, generally have no college education. a college education is generally a ticket, straight out of the middle class. our country, however much it preaches education for all, is nonetheless dependent on the fact that we have millions of blue collar workers supporting our economy.

2.)How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?

Unfortunately, they'll have to go on with their lives, diploma-less. society has rules. this is why we are a society. and, if you can't conform, no matter the excuse, you are differentiated. these poor victims, spurned by the system, are just another necessary part of it.

3.)Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?

I would say the media. popular opinion states that all community colleges are obviously poor, second class copies of four-year colleges, and that ivy-leagues are the only place you can go to get a decent education.


4.)If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?

Like i said, class difference. we depend on the poor staying poor, and us staying middle class. sending your kid to an ivy league school is just another way to make sure he/she stays in the upper crust.

To a certain extent. On one hand it may seem hypocritical for me, a student at a college with 18,000 undergrads to say there are too many people in college, but I think that the "there are too many student arguments" really apply to some state-schools. Where I am currently living, in Western Massachusetts, the thing that you're "supposed to do" after high school is go to college...For about 60-70% of people that means the local colleges, but more often than not, UMass-Amherst. People see that place as a kind of "13th grade", it's just what comes after senior year in high school. To an extent that many of these people have real-world skills, I do believe that a vocational school would be a good idea, but for others, 4 years of college cannot hurt. So in summation, yes, I think too many people attend colleges [but I'm not one of them ] but it really isn't "too" too many...If that makes sense.

Because you are "supposed" to go to college after high school, it's just a social/cultural thing; it's ingrained in our minds early and often. We watch college sports, read the guide to the country's best colleges [Northeastern is severly underrated due to flaws in the ranking system, by the way] and watch movies about college life...College is all over the place and by the time we're juniors in high school we just assume that we shoudl just start applying to college. Vocational schools just don't carry the same social value.

I don't know if it's a class war as much as it is a natural balance. Some people do well, some don't, it's inherent in capitalism and the system depends on it.

CP

Are too many students attending college?
I am an undergrad who spends what must be over 100 hours every semester tutoring (I've slowed down a bit this semester, but overall this is likely a low estimate), often times on subject I learned in high school.

Most of the time I do it for free because I don't like to charge. (though that may change a bit as I am also quite broke )

My answer:

No, No, a thousand times no!

If a person is deficient in many of these skills they need a system that helps them to become proficient. College, especially community college, can serve this function.

The great benefit of college is a well-educated, intelligent populace not simply a ready work force.

In my people centered view of the world just about everyone could and should benefit from at least some college education.

Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?

Because life is more than food and the body more than clothes, to paraphrase Jesus of Nazareth.

Education has greater value than means alone.

I read an article last semester, by Walter Karp. Yes, it was written in 1985, but I think a lot of what he says still holds true today. About vocational schooling he has this to say, which I think is why vocational schooling should have be seen with stigma:



Why Johnny Cant Think

Do I think there are too many people in college? Absolutely not. If we want to get past class divisions, everyone needs to have an opportunity to obtain a higher education.

1.)Are too many students attending college?
Well, as someone who works at a major, elite university, of course you might expect me to say no. I'm divided on the subject somewhat. I teach occasionally at the ESU (Enormous State University) branch campus here, and it is clear many of the students enrolled are unprepared. However, that is not the same as saying too many people are in college. Like it or not, we live in times when getting a job and making a decent living almost require that a person have education past high school, especially when we consider how poorly many high school graduates are prepared. We are often in the position of having to rectify the oversights of the high school education.

2.)How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?
I'm not commenting on Murray's ideas...


3.)Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?
I believe this depends on the type of vocational education. For example, those trained as nursing assistants or who go to chef's school don't have, in my opinion, any stigma attached to their education. Likewise, those who go to auto mechanics school, machinist training or the trade union schools have nothing to be ashamed of about their training. However, there is the problem of "training" for jobs that simply don't exist any longer, which is what happens with some industrial vocation training, and that plagues the reputation of the other schools. Also, to be truthful, I think the ESUs of the world are worried about the value equation of their education versus the vocational training, and tuition increases that have no relationship to the normal cost of living increases are driving the value equation out of whack.

4.)If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?
Simple - the kids of the super rich don't need to get jobs...

Are too many students attending college?
Education is always a good thing. How many college students are really into what they are learning?
That's another story. I happen to be a college student at this moment and I love it.

How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?

College is not the end-all. I would say the majority of students are doing it because "that's what you do." And so many of my peers at college don't exactly know what they wanna do. They're trying to figure it out. I think a vocational school is good, if someone is motivated in a particular vocation. Most students I come across aren't that certain about what they want to "be", however.


Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?
Because we put so much emphasis on wealth and prestige. The stereotype is that vocational school is for someone who cannot "do better".

If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?
Because they aim for the top. And the top isn't vocational school.

Are too many students attending college?

Absolutely - many, many times over. But, as Murray argues, this is not the fault of students, but of our culture - especially our business culture. The most salient thing he has to say is this:
There is something of a tacit conspiracy between academia and corporate America to enshrine higher education, regardless of its efficacy, and make at least a bachelor's degree prerequisite to the most inappropriate positions. Professional sociologists, according to Wikipedia, define "professionalism" as self-defined power elitism or organised exclusivity along guild lines - with Freemasonry being the paradigm. Or, as George Bernard Shaw said, all professions are "conspiracies against the laity". Achieving a college degree is one way - arguably the main way - in which these professions maintain their level of exclusivity. It's about being a member of the club far more than it's about being skilled, talented, trained, or even able enough to perform certain tasks.

I would probably go further than Murray in this regard. I would discourage every curriculum in universities except those which require professional certification or licensing beyond a mere college degree, professions which are "regulated" - like medicine and law. These are professions that benefit from a qualified elite. Others, like architecture, engineering, and the applied sciences, should be taught in specialized schools more akin to vocational colleges. Qualifications for these professions require a certain level of training and proficiency, but need not be quite so rarefied.

I see nothing wrong with community-based colleges offering two-year liberal arts curricula should people wish to continue their personal education and further develop critical thinking (or tread water while deciding what they want to do with their lives - which is, after all, the primary function of universities in the United States), but to devote the amount of time, labor, and money that we do to four-year liberal arts degrees is so wasteful of our human resources that it verges on the criminal. The primary function of such colleges, though, should be practical training - in any field that demands it.

As to the fine arts, such training belongs in the studio, the conservatory, the clinic, or the workshop (though the best training for the creative arts is practical experience) - and we should probably have more of those, should such courses of study disappear from our universities as would be appropriate.

But the biggest waste of resources - perhaps in the history of humankind - is business colleges. I have never - ever - met a single individual with an MBA that I would trust to run a lemonade stand (or the dozen people they would hire to run the lemonade stand for them while they "manage" the lemons). Indeed, the couple of times I've had input into hiring personnel for various businesses, any resume that listed an MBA as part of a candidate's qualifications would immediately go into my "reject" stack. Apart from basic accounting (which could be taught at any decent vocational school), the teaching of business courses should be a felony offence in every state of the union. I have encountered nothing in more than fifty years of life experience that is a bigger waste of time and resources than attaining a business degree. The only advantage to such curricula is that they tend to keep the chronically incompetent out of the workforce for an additional four to six years. But then they emerge into the culture that Murray describes and immediately become part of the highest paid group of morons the world has ever known.

And while we're on the subject of colossal wastes of time, I would argue - strenuously - for the total elimination of college sports. Such pursuits have no place whatsoever in higher education. If someone is interested in professional sports, let them try out for them. There is utterly no point in wasting tax dollars and limited educational resources on four-year training camps.

I would love to see a decentralization of the Education Industry altogether, with an increase in smaller (in terms of student body), more specialized colleges for "the professions" and expanded vocational training schools (engineering, design, and computer science belong here, for example). There should also be schools for those few who seriously wish to study the more liberal arts and sciences - history, literature, languages, sociology, and so on - but such schools should only be encouraged for those with a genuine interest in pursuing education for its own sake (becoming writers or educators themselves) and for those training for specific occupations (translators, for example) or fields of research (anthropologists, for example). There is a place for large universities where interdisciplinary research and so on can be conducted, but it's not like every state in the union needs one - or two or three or four. About a dozen should suffice for a country this size and they should be reserved for the most serious and accompished scholars, with entrance based entirely on merit.

Otherwise, it is the job of our secondary schools to train young people to be critical and analytical thinkers and to have a basic grasp on math, the sciences, languages, history, basic vocational skills, and the arts. Were we to divert even half of the money that our state and federal governments throw at third-level education into improving our primary and secondary schooling (including paying enough to attract and keep good teachers), we wouldn't need half of the colleges and universities that litter our countryside. Hell, we wouldn't need a tenth of them.

I think there is much to be said for self-educating (I've certainly learned far more through my own study than I ever learned - or could possibly have learned - during six years of formal college education) and here Murray makes a reasonable point about research resources on the internet. I can't entirely agree with the "human interaction" theory of education put forward by DaffyGrl. Sure, additional resources are required for practical "lab work" (be it dissecting cadavers or doing acting improvisations) and there is something to be said for mentoring (especially for those with minor learning disabilities), but if one doesn't have the discipline to sit down and digest a book on one's own or even watch and absorb a lecture on DVD, then perhaps one should be considering a career in the food service industry - regardless of one's class. I think most of us can agree at this stage that we'd all be better off were George W Bush flipping burgers, however ineptly, rather posing as "America's CEO" with his useless MBA.

Bottom line: there is no more ridiculous notion than the one that "everyone who wants a college education should be entitled to one". Poppycock. For one, we simply don't have the resources - and even if we did, college educations are vastly overrated and largely a waste of time. Sure, everyone who is demonstrably qualified for a college education and sincerely interested in pursuing a specific profession should have the opportunity to compete for one - and their ability to self-finance their studies should never be a factor - but to argue that every citizen in a nation of dunces should have the right to mark time for four years before even contemplating doing a day's work simply because they were born and managed to make it through high school is certifiably insane.

How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?

I don't think they would affect them at all. There is much in this article with which I disagree, but I don't see him anywhere discouraging adult education or basing college entrance solely on testing.

Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?

It is a class issue, pure and simple. If, suddenly, professions like architecture and engineering became part of "vocational training", though, I suspect we'd soon see a change in attitude. Being Americans, we'd also require a change in the name "vocational training": once we attach a stigma to a person, place, thing, or group, it tends to stick. We are, as a society, extraordinarily slow learners - and that's a problem that a million colleges will not solve.

If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?

As DaffyGrl has pointed out, class war is at work in our society - on every conceivable level. And there's no better (or more accurate) answer to your question.

What an interesting question.

In some ways, this question hits really close to home. I've often asked myself, "Man, what the hell am I doing here?"

I came from an exceptionally competitive high school culture, were being two years advanced in mathematics wasn't special and one year was the minimum if you wanted to get anywhere. Most of my classmates were UC bound, if not to some elite private college.

This incubated my insecurities, and during the summer before I transferred to UCSC I did some serious economic studying, figuring college was going to push me to the intellectual extreme. Upon arriving, I was in for a shock: There were a ton of unprepared students, and my high school experience way over-prepared me.

I laughed with my friends over the phone that I was offered a job as a writing tutor after just the first quarter. Ironic, it seemed, because I was kicked out of honors english my junior year.

Flash forward three years and not much has changed. I can still barely show up for class and receive a passing grade. Its kind of a game now: How much can I get away with? My favorite so far has been avoiding linear algebra for three weeks, studying for the midterm the day before, and still making an A. There have been many other successes as well.

Is this due to my amazing intellect?

Well, maybe partly (not amazing). I have strong reading comprehension and an excellent long term memory which have definitely helped.

But I really owe it all to my high school education and the fact that others weren't as educated (this differs from intelligence) when they came here. If there was something I couldn't understand, I knew how to look inside the textbook and figure it out. In fact, I really get nothing out of lectures at all, I never take any notes. Book learning is the best.

If you lack the ability to figure out things on your own to the extent that you constantly ask teaching assistants and tutors for explanations, college is not for you. There, I said it. In fact, I might be so bold as to suggest that if you need a tutor at all, you might want to reconsider college (not to put Turnea out of a job). Of course, everyone learns differently (I'm not particulary bold, no pun intended).

I bring this all up (I don't talk about myself that often, do I?) because your topic has sparked an interesting revelation.

What if bringing in "Low IQ" to four year universities had an impact beyond frustration? What if bringing in these students had the effect of lowering the performance of "High IQ" students? (Though I dismiss the notion we have a reliable means of measuring IQ on philosophical grounds; what is intelligence, that sort of thing).

This reminds me of an interesting argument I ran into a couple months back regarding education and liberal economists. The argument for letting poor preforming High school students into well preforming High schools was the assumption that good students would confer a "positive externality" onto lost students. In other words, there would be some benefit for the poor preforming students by being in an atmosphere that encouraged education.

But this invites the question, if good schools have some effect on bad students, then shouldn't bad students exert some bad effect, or "negative externality" on the rest of the school? For instance, If we took out half the high achieving students in Standford university, and replaced them with students fit for a community college, would the other half of the student body preform worse as a result?

Well, the obvious answer is that standards would have to be lowered. Afterall, you can't flunk half the student body. The lowering of these standards would directly effect the students who could have achieved at a higher level.

Now, with that in mind, let me confer to you that income is a prime selection tool used by California public universities. Lets assume that low income students receive a worse pre-college education and are therefore less prepared than their higher income peers. Voila, a situation is created were standards must be lowered for uneducated students ("Low IQ"), which should, in my theory, exert a negative externality on the learning environment for highly educated students.

Seems to be whats happening from my perspective. If its true, the influx of "Low IQ" students has a negative effect on the college system as a whole, either by lowering the educational quality in order to spend more time playing catch up, or by saturating the academic standards thereby lowering a Bachelors as an effective litmus test.

1. No. There may be too many students whom are unprepared for the rigors of college due to the failings of the American educational system, but I think this is an elitist argument advanced by a elitist (Murray).

2. Consider the source. Charles Murray is the co-author of the virulently racist The Bell Curve. He is funded by right-wing foundations such as The Bradley Foundation and his credentials as a scientist are tainted by his barely concealed advocacy of eugenics.

Charles Murray - Murray, author of “The Bell Curve,” which argues that intelligence is predicated on race, and “Losing Ground,” whose thesis is that social programs should be abolished. Murray’s work was so controversial and objectionable that the right-wing Manhattan Institute, supported by Bradley and for which he worked, asked him to leave. However, the Bradley Foundation stood by him because Murray, according to former Bradley President Michael Joyce, “is one of the foremost social thinkers in the country.” Bradley extended Murray’s $100,000 per year grant when he went to the American Enterprise Institute.

Social thinker? More like Social Darwinism.

3. It seems to me Murray is making the case for a permanent working class with little or no hope of being able to advance into the upper class.

Are too many students attending college?

Too many freshman start college, but the ones who don't belong there tend to drop out. Too many colleges once allowed too many students so much leeway with financial aid that they could become a drain on society as "professional students", but states are cracking down on that problem. I think the current system works. Most high school grads try college-- if they fail or don't meet entry requirements, they can still try vocational training to improve their earning potential. Otherwise, they either enter the workforce, learn a trade, go on the dole, or live off a trust fund. It's a natural sieve with plenty of merit-based financial aid to overcome economic barriers.

I sympathize with many who think there are too many students in college, but I would rather live in a country that allows students the freedom to over-educate themselves rather than one that actively obstructs access to formal education for students who have demonstated the necessary aptitude.

How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?

Late-bloomers: not much. I see nothing preventing anyone from going back to school when they're ready. Test-taking skills can be learned, and are taught at most large colleges on a non-credit basis. There are also special programs to reduce the effects of dyslexia and various learning disabilities for the truly intelligent.

Why is it that vocational education has such a stigma?

Snobbery of college grads. Lack of appreciation for skilled labor or hard work. A widespread assumption that people smart enough to handle book-learning will eventually get a college degree, and otherwise, they must be slow or slackers.

It's hardly a fair stigma. Some of the smartest, wisest, and wealthiest people I know dropped out of high school or college. Now that I think of it, I dropped out of college after three years to start a company, but I finished soon afterwards, thanks to off-campus courses. I have continued my formal education almost constantly since then (on my own dime), although I'm not currently enrolled in any courses. I enjoy learning, and it's nice to have a paper trail for it. As an entrepreneur, I have never really needed any of my degrees for employment, but it's nice to have them as an example for my kids and to impress any potential business contacts or employees who value such things.

If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?

The best entry-level opportunities are still available to the college-educated. That won't change even if vocational schools get better at marketing themselves.

Vocational education is only "just fine" for those who have neither the need nor desire to demonstrate themselves intellectually curious and disciplined enough to earn a college degree. The "wealthy class" who don't mind erecting glass ceilings for the "working class" would inevitably try to keep the masses from even attempting college and otherwise improving ourselves. However, our current education system provides incredible amounts of college-level financial aid based on merit, need, or affirmative action. So, the fact that rich people send their kids to college is irrelevant-- poor people do, too-- my parents and grandparents, for instance.

Some rich kids who can't handle college can revert to a trust fund rather than a trade, or may otherwise have their futures planned out for them from birth. I have heard rumors of rich people admitted to college based on affluence rather than merit; or getting enough special treatment from professors to pass classes that others would have failed. However, I have never actually met one. The few rich kids I knew were either highly motivated, mediocre, or failed out like anyone else. The only special treatment I ever witnessed was extra mercy for financial aid recipients sleeping through an exam after having to work late the night before. And I was not the only one.

Well, I find myself in total agreement with Wertz on this one. College is, in many cases, vastly overrated and specialized schools geared towards practical training would be more helpful. We need a HUGE academic overhaul. As it is today, most graduates obtain that sheepskin both highly in debt, and completely unprepared to face the real world.



Again, I couldn't agree more. Perhaps someone from the international community could tell me...isn't this how they do things in Europe? I believe they have different tracks for different career pursuits, and it starts at the highschool level.

This is one thing I LOVED about Italy. A mechanic was a mechanic, not some grease monkey who robbed you and didn't know how to fix your car. A plumber was an expert; we actually had to buy a book on plumbing to fix some freelance idiot's work at the last house in Las Vegas. A hairstylist would go to school for several years (here it's a few weeks), and few Americans have ever experienced that type of expertise at the salon, for any amount of money. Our "vocational programs" are by and large worthless in comparison, and that's why no one takes them seriously.

And why doesn't Trump or the Rockefellers take their children to vocational schools? Please... Most of their offspring aren't going to work seriously for the entirety of their lives. You don't see them going to medical school either, do you? They are our equivalent of a nobility class.

1.)Are too many students attending college?

The entire premise is based on very narrow thinking, namely, that IQ scores reflect intelligence. IQ is simply one kind of intelligence metric, and in Murray's essay, he ignores other forms of intelligence. He must in order for his premise to have legs, which it does not.

For example, one can earn a string of computer certifications and still not be able to fix a computer system. The two activities are not related at all, even with the best of simulations, because, well, simulation is not reality. When the Vice President has his arm around you, the questions asked are not off the exam. Part of this has to do with the rapid rate of change in the computing industry. Cramming for a cert does not prepare you for this, while learning how to be flexible, nimble and quick with newness does.

I also got a kick out of his assessment of the humanities and business. I guess he wasn't paying attention in the 1980s and 1990s when computer firms actively looked for liberal arts majors due to their abilities to think rather than simply react. He does have it right about credentials being overemphasized, and the ironic thing is the string of credentials that he has. Would the WSJ be interested in his opinions if he had just a high school diploma? Or maybe a cert in welding?

He's also ignoring the fact that the building trades boomed with the, imagine this, building boom. That's over. Time to look around, as things have changed.

Overall, Murray has missed the nail, the board, and the entire barnside.

2.)How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?

Since his basic premise is flawed, I'd say no affect whatsoever. Just because someone writes for the WSJ doesn't make the writing accurate, correct, based in reality or true.

3.)Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?

It does? My retired brother spent over thirty years as a plant electrician working for a large mining concern that was once called US Steel. He is comfortable and sits on three properties, two of which are 40 acres and another that's down to around 30 after selling off to home builders, which covered his mortgage and allowed buying the other land. Where's the stigma here?

I know HVAC techs who make a darn good living, along with an army of datacenter personnel, programmers, and yes, those electricians again. On the other hand, I have rubbed shoulders with Ph.Ds who don't get much special attention. The master's tends to open up management doors, and frankly, I don't see that as such a desirable direction. But some folks want it, and that's fine.

Murray does acknowledge that it's possible to make six figures in the trades. It's just that his thinking on this is off the mark. His definition of intelligence is too narrow, and he uses cubby holes where none exist.

A couple points he does make are true: Need to have the math to go into the sciences; need to have the writing to go into English; need to be a little whacked to come up with his premise. Check out his bio on Wiki:

Charles Murray Bio

The man is indeed a walking contradiction. It'd make a good story--former hood and idealist turned conservative hack writer. That's the premise, so what's the climax? I don't think he's hit that part of life yet.

4.)If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?

Maybe some of the kids do go into plumbing. I don't know, as I've never seen any study about this. I can imagine it happening though, a little rich kid wanting to be like a real person. Haven't I read that in literature before? Yes, I do believe I have. And by gosh, haven't I met a few folks like this? Uh-huh, and some of them have been forced into it through trust funds they can't touch.

Here's another problem with Murray's opinions. He makes huge stretches as to how people think without supporting research for his conclusions. Parents don't want their kids going to voc-ed? Who says? Mine were okay with it, but I decided on college.

All those people making good money without college, or with some college, or maybe even degrees but preferring to, you know, work for a living? Who knows what their parents think. I don't see as anyone has asked.

Well, I know how the job market works. Apparently, Murray hasn't explored it much. You have your initial screens that put emphasis on credentials, sure. But, and this is very important, at a certain point experience outweighs credentials. How else does one go from an English major to a senior-level systems administrator in Unix and 14 years of mainframe systems programming?

Who's father was an appliance repairman and mother a baker in a hospital?

I guess there are more paths to the kingdom than Charles Murray cares to mention. He only sees the conventional ways, which is not how reality works at all. It's much more sloppy than that, and thus more interesting.

One of the interesting things A&E, Food and Discovery channels have done with their programming of Do It Yourself and chronicling the life and times of cake-makers, and "chopper" builders is that they have given insight into what an "un educated mind" can do. When one watches the Tuttles create artistic motorcycles with hammers and welding guns in the hands of men elitists wouldn't consider breaking bread with you can't help but think:

<b>Everyone is a genius at something</b>

And to the minutia of cake making we see what a highly specialized training can produce. You may attend a Culinary Institute to become a chef but how would that differ vocationally from going to LaGuardia Aritport's School to learn to become a jet engine mechanic? Have you not honed yourself down to one thing?

Of course for many College is a place to figure out what you're good at. Of all of the college graduates I know 4 have used their degrees in their careers and two are lawyers.

In some ways respect should be higher for vocational studies - I mean what's worse going to Beautician School or getting a degree in Liberal Arts? I guess it depends on whether you need a haircut.

Heh, or would you like some dial tone with that? How about payroll, your banking statement, or maybe a little check processing? Perhaps after the haircut, you'd like to drive a vehicle that is made of stress-tested components, like the suspension and transmission. Care to track that overnight package? This liberal arts major has supported all that and more in his long career with computers, thank you very much.

Respect is earned, and not through any number of degrees or whatever special training one goes through. It's earned through actions, not by taking tests. I do respect those who write well, so essays and dissertations are good for respect. Not so crazy about those who write claptrap for pay, although I've done this too. Left me feeling bad enough that I won't do it anymore, especially not for the chicken feed that was paid, and sometimes not paid (the crooks).

Shortly after college I was a motorcycle mechanic and did build a chopper. So, I guess some people can do while others need a boost up with college degrees. There's something to be said for that. If most people are average, then in the job marketplace they need to differentiate themselves somehow. Differentiation in a commodity market is a fundamental principle of marketing. That's why Kellogg's Frosted Flakes are Grrrrreat!

This could be a problem if college degrees become so common that the differentiation value is lost. However, the problem of getting your shoe in the door has always been around, and there are quite a few books out there on how to get through the door even without credentials.

Funny how that works. My first manager in the computer field, the guy who hired me, rode a nice panhead chopper, black and chrome. I had an immediate in with him, plus it helped that I happened along right after one of his new hires quit. Funny how that works.

Yep, and the research skills I learned as a lowly liberal arts major enabled me to study the computer tech of the era, figure out some of the math (probability, queueing, binary, boolean, stats), follow the programming logic, read blueprints and crank out user/programmer/functional specs/hardware diagnostics manuals. Got so good with the tech that another manager five years down the road offered me mainframe systems programming training, and from there I moved into Unix when the distributed hype was bought by management.

And today, the wheel turns back to the centralized and virtualized ideas of the mainframe. This little liberal arts guy saw it coming a decade ago, but oh well, sometimes very smart people are also very wrong people.

So, what's my IQ? Danged if I know. Maybe people shouldn't know, as according to Murray, people should not try college if the IQ isn't up to snuff. I suppose if the IQ isn't up to snuff, nobody should ever try anything that might be above their heads. Eh, that's just plain wrong.

Maybe they should just do menial labor? No, not exactly, Murray suggests the trades would be a good way to go. But then this begs a question: How much intelligence does it take to cut hair, weld a pipe, hook up electrical networks, lay bricks, overhaul an auto engine, put on a roof, drive a truck?

Makes sense to me that all this takes intelligence. It's just that there are more kinds of intelligence than what IQ tests measure. Social intelligence has garnered attention in recent years. I would add to that practical intelligence, emotional intelligence, and intuition (aka, vision). Throw faith in there too, the faith of a child, a belief that anything is possible, some things are probable, and nothing happens if one never tries.

I think that's what bothers me about Murray's take on college. Too many people go to college? No, his thesis is that some people should never try college, entirely based on IQ. Another part of his thesis is that there's too much pressure on kids to go to college, and in that he might have a point, although it looks more like a conclusion pulled out of his bunghole.

If too many people are going to college, what's the optimum number? If too many people try college and fail, what are the consequences of failure? Shoot, trying and failing is what's it's all about. Not trying and not failing does not ever lead to success, just a boring, flat waste of a life.

So what if in high school one isn't all that great with math? I got good with it in my career to the point of modeling computer systems. Never had to use calculus either, and from what I've heard from engineers, it's not such a big deal in the age of VLIC (Very Large Integrated Circuits). Skills with Lego blocks seem to work better, and maybe that should be part of an engineering curriculum.

This goes back to the idea that you teach people to fish. Teach people to learn, to research, to try things over their heads. We don't understand the brain very well, but it is understood that exercising it makes it work better. I think Murray is all wet because he ignores what we do know, thus making him ignorant.

Ouch! I have to agree with you on the MBA – they are as common as fleas these days. And I almost agree with you about the business degrees. After all, I got one, and all it did was reinforce why I never wanted to be in management (your “lemon” manager is the perfect example of why), but overall it was a decent learning experience. And the only reason I pursued that degree was because I couldn't find an undergrad program for my field. There were those who I would characterize as “chronically incompetent” in the program, but there were also some very bright people. Management is not for me, and as a result, I will never be wealthy, but I will be happier.


Yes, but. The opportunities for such training are scarce (or at least they were when I was that age). My art courses in college were valuable to me in many ways because there were no such classes in high school. Most of them were studio classes, and my skills and technique improved dramatically as a result. I have studied and practiced art in many different ways, and each one has enriched me and improved my skills in some way.

Wertz, I DO agree with you there I would also point out that there are quite a few conservatories and art schools out there, they're just concentrated in metropolitan areas. From where I sit now I could walk to the Boston Conservatory, New England Conservatory, New England Arts Institute and Berklee College of Music. Unfortunately, throughout the rest of this state [and pretty much the rest New England] there are essentially no major art schools. Still though, I do agree that fine arts tend to be, not wastes of majors in a research university, but better served in art schools and conservatories.

CP

Are too many students attending college?

Yes, but only partly for the reasons Murray cites.



At least as big a reason for this is that it is much cheaper for a business to outsource training in the disciplines and skills it requires for its workforce to academia than it is for them to train people in-house (like they used to in the days of apprenticeships, day-release study courses, and so on).

This externalises the cost of doing business from business itself and onto employees (in jurisdictions where higher education is mainly funded privately through fees, loans, or family wealth) or the state (in those where higher education is funded in whole or part by the state).

This externalisation of business costs to somebody - anybody - other than the business itself is something modern businesses excel at, and modern governments in capitalist democracies fall over themselves to deliver, for fear of jobs and investment moving to another jurisdiction. It's going to continue, and to get worse, until such time as governments stop bending over backwards (or forwards, depending on the mental picture you have) to accommodate every business whim and start transnational cooperation with the objective of turning businesses back into the servants of the people, and the governments they represent, rather than their masters.

I think everyone should be encouraged to advance their own skills, but I don't think it should be done to help business any more than it should be done to help the arts or help the sciences. It should be there for it's own sake.

Education should be in the business of giving people the thinking tools to be able to turn their hands or their minds to any number of different tasks. Business should be in the business of training the people it recruits to understand the particular tasks that are unique to their industry or business and apply their native thinking skills.

The first MBA students were generally experienced senior managers from within a business that were sent on secondment to a business school, with a binding contract that they would then stay in the business for a specified period, so the business would not be paying to enhanced the skills base of their competition and so the business would benefit from the additional skills gained by the employee or manager.

These days, business begrudges paying for this because we're all supposed to have portfolio careers now and pay for our own personal and professional development. Which means we HAVE to compete for jobs, to pay off all the loans we run upfor jobs. Handily, for business, this increased competition drives down wages for the high-skilled jobs.

And academia, finding state funding harder to come by (if it was ever there), is more than happy to extend commercially vibrant courses (while happily closing the basic science departments on which most economic progress is ultimately based).

So you're not just right that there's a cosy cabal going on between business and academia because of the interests of the elites in perpetuating themselves, Wertz but also because the mutual interests of business and academia are served by ever expanding student numbers, at the expense of almost everyone else.

How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?

I don't think they do.

Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?

Because, economically, Anglo-Saxon nations are drifting slowly be relentlessly away form manufacturing industry, where the technical skills required are best suited to "vocational" or on-the-job training, and towards service- and management-based industries, which still have a snobbish perception that vocational training is all a bit blue-collar and uncouth. (Quite untrue, by the way.)

The somewhat reduced necessity for full-on heavy industrial vocations has reinforced this class-ridden perception with a sense that it's a need whose time has passed. Which in turn reinforces the snobbery - not only are those who do vocational training uncouth blue-collar oiks with no understanding or appreciation of things more elevated than beer, broads and ballgames, but they are headed the way of the dinosaurs.

If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?

As I and others have said, the perception is that education is not fine, and there is a "class war" (being waged and won from the top down), which is why the Trumps, Kennedys, Rockefellers and - ones you forgot to mention - the Bushes and Clintons don't send their kids on vocational courses.



I can only speak for Britain, which IMO is taking rather too many educational cues from the USA of late (we have a formal government target of 50% of all 18-21 year olds in university) and too few from Germany, Italy and France (among others).

At 16, pupils (I refuse to call anyone in compulsory full-time, teacher-led education a "student") begin to specialise by taking a mix of GSCE courses. At this age, it is still possible to keep a broad base, but those with an aptitude for science or languages may take several subjects, while those without will take only one compulsory subject in such disciplines, while concentrating elsewhere. At A level, students (the term only begins to become valid here) typically take three or four subjects, though often more and sometimes fewer. Usually they are relevant to a hoped for university course (three or more sciences for a would-be scientist, leavened with perhaps an additional arts-based course for fun and variety).

Then at university level, almost all courses are three years in length. These days, it's traditional to take a "gap year" to "go travelling" (= follow a well-worn backpacking trail around the tourist spots and bars of India, South East Asia, Australisia and South America - visits to Europe, North America and Africa just aren't hip enough) either between A levels and university, or university and work, or both.



It's a similar story here, heightened by the fact that, with EU expansion, we now have lots of excellent Polish or Czech builders, carpenters, plumbers and other tradespeople who do a good job, on time, for the money they originally quoted before they got the job.

Such practices compare unfavourably with the natives (press stories about "cowboy plumbers" but, perhaps like America (?) this has mostly been interpreted (or universally, by those with an interest in maintaining the downtrodden status quo of the domestic working class) as evidence of how feckless, shifty, dishonest and workshy the British working classes are, rather than as evidence that they have been poorly trained in their craftsmanship, let alone in the methods of doing business with ethics and rectitude, by a vocational sector which is, at best, Cinderella to the Ugly Sisters of Academia.

At worst, it is underresourced, underappreciated, and villified. Especially by business, which was traditionally it's biggest source of funds. They took the money away some time ago, and wonder why the quality has gone down. Then they demand that something is done by government (funny how businesses are so quick to demand action from governments to make their lives smoother, but demand government inaction in every area that might be deleterious to them but beneficial to the people as "unwarranted interference in the market"), and threaten to relocate to Brazil/China/India/somewhere else if they don't get tax money spent fixing what they broke themselves. All the while campaigning to reduce their tax liabilities, which they don't pay anyway because they use every legal loophole available to avoid paying into the economies they demand so much from in the first place.



Your equivalent of a nobility? They are your nobility, complete with dynasties and hero-worship from a gullible public. All that's missing are the titles.

Questions for debate:

1.)Are too many students attending college?


Yes. Numerous industrial competitors with Germany as the example steer people who cannot meet the highest standards into vocational training, which allows them to actually have a skill that will get them a job after graduation. The over hype put on a college degree drives many to get one even if “liberal arts” then they end up driving a cab. And we all know some of the best jobs are in Science, engineering and “high tech” in general.

As Murray says- “In engineering and most of the natural sciences, the demarcation between high-school material and college-level material is brutally obvious. If you cannot handle the math, you cannot pass the courses. In the humanities and social sciences, the demarcation is fuzzier.”

2.)How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?
Theses folks can, and will be recognized by employers and always have the option of going back to college, or to (usually company subsidized) night school.

3.)Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?

We as a society do not value the craftsman anymore. This is not the case in Germany for example. Too many believe a degree is “necessary”
From the atticle.

“Even if forgoing college becomes economically attractive, the social cachet of a college degree remains. That will erode only when large numbers of high-status, high-income people do not have a college degree and don't care. The information technology industry is in the process of creating that class, with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as exemplars. It will expand for the most natural of reasons: A college education need be no more important for many high-tech occupations than it is for NBA basketball players or cabinetmakers. Walk into Microsoft or Google with evidence that you are a brilliant hacker, and the job interviewer is not going to fret if you lack a college transcript.”

1.)Are too many students attending college?

No. Not enough people are attending college. College should be mandatory, no just kidding on that part.
I don't see anything wrong with wanting to better yourself via education. The reality is when you get out there is no guaranteed future, but at least you gave it a shot. The reason colleges exist is to train employees for various fields for the most part, that companies themselves to conduct would increase overhead greatly. Imagine if there were no computer science majors, or people wanting to be math teachers? These people all get there educations from college. To deny this in my eyes is some act of neo socialism in which a percent of people need to be in this ecology and another chunk in this ecology, to support the organism nation overall, not to say such is a totally bad idea of even realistic, its simply not American.

2.)How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?

I have switched my college major my times then I know, simply orbiting the natural sciences eventually. Back when in computer science college councilors asked me if I ever thought about being a psychologist because I tested so well in that area, I basically told them no. Besides me, what should I do, simply accept some job, what if I actually want to do something in the world, does not matter? Should I get my suit and tie and go to work for stallion. I still don't get the point of the debate question, because I am a late bloomer!

3.)Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?

Because it's a requirement in the real world. You don't come out of high school knowing how to run experiments in quantum chemistry anymore then you come out of high school knowing how to be an accountant for a major commercial industry. These companies do not hire on the basis of will train as you go along, no sir, you have to get that education somewhere else, that node in society typically happens to be college. Most jobs that don't require college in my opinion don't offer the kind of future I would like to obtain, Lenin would be very disappointed in me.

I doubt this. Its more likely to erode after large numbers of people in general have a college degree. If 50% of the population have a degree, its not going to mean much.

I believe the tipping point for the value of a college education will be the point where the cost of the education in current dollars (tuition, room, board, books) for 4-5 years equals the discounted value of the increased earnings made possible by the education over the working lifetime of 35-40 years.

Of course, I learned about net present value in a business class, so perhaps that should discount (oops, financial term there...) the value of the opinion...

1.)Are too many students attending college?
I think there are. But this is probably the wrong question to ask. You see, for every person who's made his fortune without a college degree, there's another dozen or so uneducated people who are having to make ends meet on $7/hr. Not every uneducated has the self-discipline in life that Author Musician and so its difficult for most people to obtain the necessary job skills without doing the paper chase. There's no question that the American education at all levels needs to be reformed and made more efficient. But unless more employers decide to provide on-the-job training to employees, the education system is going to continue to be necessary for any worker to get ahead.

2.)How would Murray's ideas affect "late-bloomers" and people who just don't test well but who are more than intelligent?
If a person is more than intellegent, then that person should be able to learn the skills necessary to pass the test. But any person who enters college should be reading, writing, and doing math at a high school level before entering college. Remedial courses are a major factor in the ballooning cost of the Higher Education System.

3.)Why is it that vocational educational education has such a stigma?
Other people covered the cultural aspect. I think there's an economic factor involved. Since the 1980s, the US has been losing manufacturing jobs and that has helped push a lot of blue collar workers and their families to seek a college degree in an effort to obtain job security that didn't really exist in the blue collar world.


4.)If Vocational education is just fine and there is no "class war" in society at work at any level, then why is it that people like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Trumps, etc don't send their kids to vocational programs?
Simply because the extremely rich people have enough money that they don't really need to work. For them, getting a college degree is more of a status symbol than an actual requirement for getting ahead.

I think in order for this debate to progress any further, perhaps a definition of "higher education" is in order. It seems a lot of people are arguing that college is only necessary (or not, but in fact, has come to be equivalent to) "learning skills." If this were the case, I would whole heartedly agree with Wertz and Mrs. P that there are too many people in college. And that college is, indeed, an unnecessary burden for most people to complete. However, my opinion of higher education does not necessarily lean in that direction. I think higher education is more about expanding your horizons, and challenging your view of the world. I feel like my current university education is a waste on many people, because they do not see their education in that way. For many, it is not about making connections between the theoretical and the practical, but about getting enough to pass and hopefully obtaining a job.

The reason I said that there were not too many people in college is because I do not like the idea that only people deemed "intelligent" enough should be allowed in. Anyone willing to learn and grow as a person should be able to enter univeristy. As of right now, the upper classes control who is labeled "smart" and who is not. It is these arbitrary standards of intelligence that may very well hinder an otherwise willing student. Higher education is not about obtaining job skills, but rather is about being able to see the connections in the world surrounding you. Too many people are focused on one certain matter, and fail to see the broader contexts implicated by one simple action.

A better question for me (in this sense) would be, does a university education accomplish what it should? My answer is whole heartedly no. In my current classes, I see too many people not being able to see the purpose of taking a math or science class (because its not part of their "major"); I see students complaining that classes are "too difficult" but refusing to make the effort to try and understand the subject matter. Yes, too many of these students are attending college. If someone is willing to make the effort (really make the effort, which also includes professors willing to adapt to certain students needs), why should they be denied an education?

1.) I'm 53 years old and disabled (as in I cannot perform the work I used to due to my health), and I'm planning to return to college to earn a degree for a new career. Some people might think it a waste of time for me to return to school after having been a registered nurse for several years and because I'm obviously not a "traditional" student. But there are many men and women like me who are hoping to get a new lease on life, as it were, by receiving more education. Should we be deprived of it because somebody perceives that there are too many students attending college?

What would these people rather have us do? Work as greeters at Wal-Mart?

As far as those who aren't so bright attending the institutions of higher learning, sooner or later they either leave or develop the skills they need to survive college. In any case, they should have the opportunity to at least try.

2.) Murray's ideas have little if any impact on my thinking or my plans. There's always somebody who believes he can engineer society better than it has been engineered already.

3.) Maybe I travel in different circles, but I don't consider a vocational education to be a stigma. Guess I'm not part of the fabled liberal intellectual elites yet...

4.) It seems to me that if you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth, it is logical to assume that "Mummy and Daddy" will want you to receive the creme de la creme of education. So it's classist--big deal. It would be a mistake to assume that the best and brightest students all choose to attend Ivy League colleges. It seems to me Bill Gates did just fine after he dropped out of college, and he's a geek! I'll bet the people who do business with him have no problem with his humble origins as long as he has plenty of money in his account.

The radical left had a tinge of this element with the whole "tune in, turn on, and drop out" mantra that Leary promoted. This is different to me as while Murray is advocating a way to circumvent education, he says nothing about people like him sending their kids to vocational programs. Instead, it is meant for other people's children. That is what disturbs me the most about people like Murray who like to sound like egalitarian citizens when in reality, they are hardly that.