Higher Ed, Part 2

I am concerned with "critical thinking."  It's the phrase I dislike; it's an education-type term.  I approve of the concept.  I think our college courses at Amherst, "Problems of Inquiry," introductory courses of sorts, addressed this.  They were interesting, very much so, but unlike anything I had experienced in college.  And they weren't easy!  For instance, Problems of Inquiry Social Studies (PISS?), studied totalitarianism of the 20th Century by comparing Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia/Soviet Union.  We had a dozen books (I remember counting.) and a number of other monographs to read.  Examination of the topic was made through the eyes of history, economics (a Marxian view), psychology, political science, etc.  There were a lot of papers, 3 to 5 pages, one due each Monday.  Mondays were lecture days, while Wednesdays and Fridays were seminars of about 10 students.

I wonder, though, if such courses, which actually engage in critical thinking fit in with the "safe spaces" today's campuses promote.  These courses, which challenge one's thoughts, might be out of place.  Maybe; maybe not.

Another thing that is troublesome, too, is the dearth of apparent concern over knowledge.  It seems facts, actually knowing things, are out of style.  But how is one to thing critically without knowing something?  I would think that knowledge is the basis for this.  Or are we still in "feelings" mode?

Let's return to "Is love of learning no longer enough?"  Back in another lifetime, I had very few things on my classroom bulletin boards.  I tended to just take down and put up the same stuff from year to year.  One was a quotation from Mark Twain, "In the first place God created idiots.  That was for practice.  Then he created school boards."  Another was an ad, a fake one that looked very real, for "Vegie Pops," popsicles that had flavors such as "peas," "onions," "carrots," etc.  Yummy.  Maybe my favorite was the one asking "Is love of learning no longer enough?"

I have always been somewhat disturbed that more and more, a college education is seen mostly as a step to getting a job, a quality job that pays a lot.  Even students, as well as the universities themselves, see the primary goal of education as procuring "good-paying jobs."  I would think, though, that a quality education would prepare a student for any job.  Some of my college mates exemplified this.  One majored in fine arts, his senior thesis a sculpting.  He went to medical school.  Another psychology major ended up managing literally millions of dollars of properties for various companies over his career.  A math major became a college athletic director.  And so on.  There's nothing wrong, nothing at all, at preparing a student for the marketplace of careers.  I don't think a basic, but strong, liberal arts curriculum precludes that; no, it doesn't.  Yet so many, esp the corporate-types and even many politicians, decry such degrees in liberal arts as wasteful, having little value in that they don't prepare students for jobs.  (That's one reason the corporate-types have favored the Common Core.  They have the schools do their work of training employees.  And, of course, a multi-billion dollar industry to supply Common Core curricula has emerged.)

In the same vein as viewing students as customers/clients, schools compete for customers/clients, er, students.  No doubt they have always done this.  But prior to recent decades, the selling points were strong academic standards, different programs, etc.  (I won't stray into the business of college sports.)  Such competition might still be based, at least somewhat, on academic excellence.  But listen to or read the advertising--yes, colleges are now spending money on ads.  I suppose these are all in the name of survival.  Students find schools touting their dorms or food.  But mostly I find grating the ease of requirements.  I still am not sold on the increasing number of online courses.  I've had one who teaches them tell me, when I asked about their rigor in comparison to traditional courses, "Oh, lord no!"  Maybe; maybe not.  Does even a cursory examination of this not result in the relative ease of online courses?  Don't some ads even show students still in their pajamas going to class, in their rooms on the computers?  And what about the boasts of colleges that students can satisfy four-year degree requirements in one year?  How rigorous can those programs be?

This leads us full circle.  Is a college degree today the equivalent of a high school diploma of 50 or 60 years ago?  The costs of a college degree, I think it's a relevant question.