Wrong... Wrong... Wrong... Wrong... WRONG...!!!

Oh, Lord... why do I torture myself by reading the papers...?

Yes... today even my beloved Wall Street Journal has brought me low.

Check out the editorial "Yes, We Can Expand Access to Higher Ed." Jeez... I'd expect the authors, M. Peter McPherson and David Shulenburger to both know better, but then again, why should I? After all, their thinking is classic inside the box mainstream. They're not odd ducks out... I am - me and Dr. Charles Murray.

As Murray noted in last year's "Real Education," one of our nation's basic educational failures isn't that not enough Americans are attending college, but rather the adverse, that too many are and are wasting their time and their parents', society's, and their own resources while doing so.

Here... allow me to quote Murray directly:

Too many people are going to college. Almost everyone should get training beyond high school, but the number of students who want, need, or can profit from four years of residential education at the college level is a fraction of the number of young people who are struggling to get a degree. We have set up a standard known as the BA, stripped it of its traditional content, and made it an artificial job qualification. Then we stigmatize everyone who doesn't get one. For most of America's young people, today's college system is a punishing anachronism.

Now... contrast Murray's contention with the diametrically opposite position of McPherson and Shulenberger:

For generations, the United States has led the world in higher education. But today the U.S. has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young adults (age 25-34) who attain college degrees...

Ahh... and here we have the first false assumption - namely, that "education" in the sense of helping one do one's job and serve as a productive member of society is one in the same as attaining a college degree.

Folks... not all college degrees are created equal in terms of "educating" a person to actually... er... be a productive member of society and a productive member of the workforce.

Of course we want our doctors to attend and graduate from medical schools. We want our engineers to possess engineering degrees. Our academicians regardless of field... we hope and expect of them a level of subject knowledge in their fields far above that of any non-generalist.

Seriously, though, folks... do we really need to invest four years (at a minimum - we all know students on the "five year plan," sometimes the "six year plan") of time and money in the average college English major...??? Even to the English major himself... was it worth it? Was it worth the money and effort spent in absolute terms? Must it take four years or more to "educate" the average college student in order to give the student the amount of "education" reasonably necessary for the average job not directly related to one's academic field of study?

Yes... I'm a former liberal arts student - my degree (cum laude from a major university) is in Political Science with a concentration in International Affairs and a minor concentration in history. Except for an unpaid internship with a Member of the British Parliament back in my senior year of university I've never "used" my degree nor relied upon it for actual income producing professional endeavors. (Most of "my kind" go on to law school; I'm not a big fan of lawyers.)

I'm not alone, am I? How many liberal arts majors - what percentage - end up in with a job title and job responsibilities - private or public - having little to do with their core coursework in college?

Even those who have seamlessly transferred their academic pursuits to their professional careers, why four years...? Why not three years? Why not two years? How "broad based" is too "broad based" when it comes to spending thousands of dollars per year, often tens of thousand of dollars a year, on "higher education?"

Let's pick a number... say $25,000 per year for college, room, board, books, expenses.

Seems to me a reasonable suggestion to save $25,000 in this case is to reform the existing four year college bachelor's degree process into a three year process. Better yet... let's save twice as much - $50,000 - by cutting some of the sham elective requirements (com'on folks... everyone reading this who has attended college knows exactly what I'm referring to) and perhaps increase course loads to five or even six courses a semester (as opposed to four - three if a class is dropped) so as to meet the requirements for a B.S./B.A. in two rather than four years?

Next... back to what our "kids" are studying. As I've said, I'm a product of the liberal arts educational system - at a fairly high level I might brag. I took my studies seriously and after screwing up my freshman year and taking a year off never achieved below a 3.5 cum for any subsequent trimester. Still... were all those courses actually necessary? Should I have been paying the same per credit for my stats courses as I was for electives such as "The History of Science Fiction?"

And speaking of the cost of credits... English is native language. I'm sure it's most of yours as well. What is this nonsense about paying the same per credit for a course in advanced physics or molecular biology as for... er... "English 101?"

McPherson and Shulenberger write:

"The more educated a work force is the more value it adds to society."

Yeah. Sounds good. But again... what is meant by "education?" Is all "education" equally valuable in and of itself as it translates into market value and useful, relatively unique skills? Again... how many frigg'n English majors does a nation whose language is... er... English... need? Haven't our kids been learning English since... er... birth?

Sarcasm aside, this leads me to ask... to note... What about K-12...??? I mean, shouldn't we be working to address the well-known failings of American elementary and secondary education prior to pushing for a higher percentage of the products of a flawed system to go on to post-secondary institutions? What - are McPherson and Shulenberger unconcerned with the fact that one third of entering college freshmen have been educated so poorly by their secondary schools that they require remedial assistance? Doesn't this tell us something...???

Folks... again... just labeling a period of time spent as "education" doesn't necessarily make it so. (Jeez... we all went to school... attended K-12... most, perhaps all of us having gone on to college... you all know what I'm not imagining any of this!)

Continuing to excerpt from "Yes, We Can..."

Given the impact education has on the economy, the U.S should set a goal of college degrees for at least 55% of its young adults by 2025.

No. Given "the impact that education has on the economy" what we need to do is refocus and redirect our efforts upon rationalizing our national education strategy. This means "real education" (as Murray titled his book) as opposed to simply throwing money at the problem, dumbing down standards, and pretending that just those two words, "College Graduate," indicate a rational cost/benefit correlation.

No one is saying we shouldn't educate our kids... educate our youth... educate our young adults. No. Folks like me are saying just the opposite. We're saying we need better education - and "better" means quality, not simply quantity (in terms of years spent, money spent).

Are any of you reading this a CPA? If not, who has ever utilized the services of a CPA? Your CPA has a certificate - thus, "certified" public accountant. Is a university level accounting education necessary in all but the most extraordinary cases for one to take and pass the multi-exam CPA text requirement? Let's simply assume "yes." But a four year degree...?

Should every bookkeeper strive to become a CPA? What level of education should be required as a foundation for basic bookkeeping skills? At what level does a business require a CPA vs. a bookkeeper? Can we expect the average bright high school grad to be able to jump right into bookkeeping and if we can't what does that tell us about our high schools?

Paralegal or lawyer... nurse, nurse practitioner, or doctor... there's a place for graduate schools in the educational hierarchy just as there's obviously a place for - and more importantly a role for - our K-12 system; it just seems to me that we don't expect enough out of our secondary school system and thus slowly but surely have centered far too much of our nation's "general education" focus upon the college/university undergraduate programs instead of on high schools and certification programs where it belongs. How much of modern day American undergraduate work is little more than a polishing of what a satisfactory high school education should have provided? And at what cost - direct and indirect financial costs as well as time misspent?

We've set up a system geared more towards providing a path to college and then providing a path to a college degree rather than keeping our focus on education per se as it will assist our youth to grow into productive members of society. In doing so we've lost track of what "education" truly should be - at least the education one spends thousands and tens of thousands of dollars a year on out of pocket and financed by debt. "Education" in many cases has become more about the quest for the "sheepskin" than about the quality of the product or the actual stand alone need for the product as measured by anything other than the artificial "entrance requirement" for that interview, that "professional entry level" first position.

Read the McPherson and Shulenberger op-ed, folks. Read it while keeping in mind the points I've made. Consider your own experiences. Take no assumptions for granted. What their argument comes down to is, "Hey, this boat with a hole in it is taking on water; what we need to do is build a bigger boat with a hole in it and get more people aboard!"

Me? I say plug the hole, start bailing, get to shore, and the next boat to be built... no holes, please!