The case for making college mandatory

Another fine story-

Only about 75% of high school students graduate on schedule — so is it time to start thinking of making college mandatory? Some researchers think so.





Richard Reeves and Quentin Karpilow of the Brookings Institution wrote recently in favor of compulsory K-16 education, rather than the familiar K-12 requirement. “We need to make post-secondary education the norm for everyone, not just the advantaged,” they wrote. “In today’s economy, a high school diploma is not enough; now, more than ever, college is the gateway to the American Dream.”

This is not a pragmatic idea likely to go anywhere soon, as the two authors acknowledge. On the other hand, the American model for taxpayer-funded public education hasn’t changed in a century. Mississippi was the last state to make secondary school mandatory, roughly 100 years ago. Since then, some states have raised the age at which high-school students can drop out of school, to as high as 18. There’s also been a stronger social emphasis on finishing school, with high school graduation rates rising to the highest levels since the 1970s.

But the qualifications required for a successful career in today’s information economy are rocketing upward much faster than graduation rates, with the education gap getting wider, not narrower. At the same time, growing income inequality has focused more attention on the importance of a college degree in helping people get ahead. The unemployment rate is just 3.4% for college grads, while it’s 6.4% for high-school grads with no college and 9.8% for high school dropouts.

The economic equalizer?

The conventional wisdom about college is that it’s an economic equalizer, giving kids from low-income families many of the same opportunities as privileged kids. Not exactly. “Colleges are basically machines for the replication of inequality,” Reeves said in an interview with Yahoo Finance. “Perfectly appropriate actions on the part of parents lead to this kind of inequality.”

Since college is expensive and demanding, it favors students who come from families with the money and other resources to see their kids through all four years. Less expensive state schools and community colleges are supposed to help students who can’t afford a name-brand private university. But budget cuts have left those schools considerably more expensive as well. Some students hesitate to take out loans to help pay their way, given the iffy job market for new grads. Many students who start out at less expensive schools drop out, barely better off for their efforts and expenditures.

As the skills required to prosper in a high-tech global economy get increasingly sophisticated, meanwhile, advanced education is actually helping elite families become more entrenched, not less, as scholar Charles Murray argues in the recent book Coming Apart. Elites with a premier education are also grabbing a larger share of income in most developed countries, one reason inequality is worsening.

Making college mandatory, or extending the maximum age for compulsory education to 22 or thereabouts, would only be plausible if education through that level were funded and regulated by federal, state or local governments, as public high schools are now. There would undoubtedly be large variations in quality by institution, with many students who could afford to still opting to go private. The idea, however, is that it would boost the nation’s educational baseline and provide more of the intellectual firepower — often referred to as human capital — many economists believe is necessary if the U.S. economy is going to flourish in the future while living standards rise.

Expanding college education isn't the only way to boost economic productivity. Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel funds $100,000 fellowships for young entrepreneurs who aren't motivated by classroom learning to quit college for two years to start a business or take on other real-life challenges. Other programs help workers develop technical training needed for specific jobs, such as high-tech manufacturing, which can cost far less than a full college education yet still lead to a good job with solid income.

At the moment, there's little political support for a dramatic increase in college enrollments anyway, at least not if it costs money. It’s expensive enough funding elementary and secondary education, especially given the disappointing results we get in the United States, based on the amount of money we spend relative to other countries. With Washington in a budget-cutting mood, any proposal to suddenly ramp up education spending isn’t likely to get a happy reception.

But Reeves and others are trying to challenge a few basic assumptions about education and raise the standards some policymakers aim for. “We may think college isn’t for everyone, but 50 years ago a lot of people were saying high school isn’t for everyone,” Reeves points out. K-20, anyone?

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/the-case-for-making-college-mandatory-201126576.html

 

So, let me restate - students cannot finish high school requirement in the allotted years. The solution is to make college part of the mandatory education years.

Would that make them finish the 12 years of study in 16 years? If so... then Master's becomes the new Baccalaureate?

What I do not understand in the US the supposed cost of teaching students to 12 grade has increased exponentially compared to inflation, yet US graduates less students with such education, in percentage to population. On the surface, it appears spending more money actually makes the system worse.

Could it be that the way the money is spent, the way the student's are taught is not the most efficient? Maybe someone should do some analysis and see where the decline begun.

 

This implies the only use for a college degree is as a distinguishing factor between people. It ignores (a) the value of the learning, (b) the improved productivity resulting from a better-educated workforce, and (c) the fact that our workers now compete on a world stage.

There is certainly room to argue over what areas we should/would focus on regarding providing more higher education opportunities, and which kinds of tertiary systems we could use, but there is no argument that an increase in educational levels and technical/occupational capabilities would have a positive effect on both or economy and our competitiveness around the world. This has been clearly demonstrated in European countries with strong qualifications frameworks. Then there are the East Asian "miracle" countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan), all of whom used more higher learning to (a) increase worker skills in valued, high-impact areas and (b) shift their economies from agrarian to high-tech.

It's not even close.

 

Heck, why not just make the doctorate mandatory?

 

This little bit of reductio ad absurdum misses the point. It's not about level of attainment. The issue is what people need to be able to do vs. what they currently can do. I refer you to Robert Wade's Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization for more information on how a nation can transform itself via NHRD.

 

Yes, perhaps it is, in many cases. And four years of mandatory college - even for people who have difficulty completing high school - will fix that how? Great! Remedy for people who don't do well in school -- more school! As previous readers suggested - it will serve to completely debase the college degree, as has been done already with the HS diploma. The only people it will help are those in the student loan industry, which doesn't need help! Perhaps the "doctorate" and "Age 50" remarks were reductio ad absurdum. Mandatory college itself is more like "reductio ad nihil" - reduction (of degree value) to absolutely nothing.

As far as the "Asian Miracle" is concerned, it's two-fold. Look at the auto industry there. The difference basically relates to labour cost - in two different ways. In some countries (e.g. S. Korea) labour costs are less than here - so well-made cars can be sold for less. Conversely, In Japan, auto workers can make more than their American counterparts - presuming we have some still in the business! There, autoworkers are indeed expected and, of course, trained to do more (and maybe better) than in North America. But it's not through four years of mandatory University! You work for Toyota? Toyota will show you the way... remember quality circles, etc?

Definitely, it's "what you can do," that counts. But many valuable job-skills - ones that pay really well - - are learned and applied by people who never see the inside of a university! Try to tell your plumber -- your electrician -- your mechanic, and many more that they would have done much better to earn a four-year degree! :smile: Hey, it's OK to be a fan of all manner of extensive schooling - and thrive on it. It's just not for everybody. I think common sense will prevail - at least I hope so.

Johann

 

Just checked - S. Korean auto workers' wages aren't what I remember from many years ago, when I bought my Hyundai (1986). I read that S. Korean Hyundai workers averaged around $39K in 2010. That's good, but not spectacular -- cost of living might be a bit less than here (on average) but not spectacularly so. Also - experienced workers get more. One account had a worker of 26 years' experience earning $65k.

So I guess in S. Korea it's also about doing more (and learning more) but not (at least not for everyone) via university. Low labour costs? Well, there's still Mexico and China....

Johann

 

I agree, except for the very last part.

I'm not advocating college for everyone. Quite the opposite. I'm disappointed with the college-or-failure attitude that persists. I've insisted right here on this site that because we don't have constructive alternatives to college, parents and students are pressured to go the collegiate route, resulting in (a) many failures, (b) some graduates ill-prepared for the workforce, and (c) lost opportunities to enhance the technical capabilities of our national human resources.

But I reject the if-everyone-has-a-degree-they-become-meaningless notion. It would just make the college degree the entry credential the high school diploma now is. (Again, I don't agree with actually doing it. I'd rather focus our national human resources in other, more productive ways.)

 

Would it not be simpler just to teach children what they supposed to learn within existing 12 years?

Other nations can do it, yet in the US the general population seems to just get . . . dumber:crazy:.

 

My proposal of making the doctorate mandatory was intended to be a reductio ad asurdum and you mised my point. My point was that, even if we did like that Wizard of Id comic in Bear's Guide and decreed that, in the interest of having the most educated country of all, issue one doctorate to everyone in the land, we would still need someone to flip McDonald's hamburgers.

 

Here are good pics of Hamburger University:
Tour Of McDonald's Hamburger University - Business Insider
(scroll down)

Hamburger University website:
Our Curriculum :: AboutMcDonalds.com

The slogan should be, "More than just a career sandwich."

 

From various posts here:

(1) College-for-all wouldn't make degrees meaningless. They'd simply become the entry credential a HS diploma is now.

Assigning a college degree the same value as a present-day HS diploma? Not meaningless, perhaps, but with no meaning of its own. A drastic reduction in significance - ergo in value. OK - reductio fere ad nihil. Reduction to almost nothing!

(2) Why can't we teach people what they need to know in 12 years? Other countries do better at it.

Good point.

(3) There aren't enough constructive alternatives to college.

True - so why not build some.

In Canada, although we're perennially short of qualified tradespeople here and rely heavily on qualified immigrants, we do have significant alternatives to degree granting schools. The Community College where I'm sitting is an example. In Ontario, Community Colleges were started as a Centennial project in 1967. There were a (very) few Polytechnics before that had a somewhat similar function. (One of those, Ryerson, is now a full-fledged University.) This one has a full-bore trades campus - all trades - and also qualifies people via 2 or 3 year diploma courses in many other vocational fields - from office administration to computer networking, architectural drafting, construction, mechanical engineering etc. Many courses lead to certification at the technician or technologist level. It works!

Other colleges have (non-degree) programs in Theatre Arts, Game design, all sorts of fields. There's quite a range. Tuition is about one-half the price of University - ~$3,000 a year.

Johann

 

Also, some few of Ontario's CC programs go right to the degree level. Others that don't, have post-grad routes, perhaps 10 courses at a co-operating University to a Bachelor's. (Many B. Tech. programs). Most CC diplomas carry significant transfer credit (up to 2 years) if the grad decides that University is indeed for him/her. That provision has rapidly evolved over the last 20 years. At first, Universities didn't really want to look at CC qualifications. They've learned! :smile:

Johann

 

You've nailed the problem.

It's one of the many pernicious lies they've been told. 50-odd years ago, I wasn't told exactly that; my Dad was a tradesman, but he said to go, anyway. :smile: He even insisted I take Latin in HS, so I'd be prepared. :smile: But I'm stubborn and managed to hold off graduating from College until I was 46. I never told this monstrous falsehood to my kids -- they went to college out of their own volition and chose their own courses -- one after a while in the workforce. I firmly believe it should be punishable to perpetuate this hateful myth. I believe (and hope) attitudes are changing. They'd better!

Johann

 

The success of our CCs, trade schools etc. would indicate that the attitude is definitely changing. It's not a smooth process and I don't think it's changed fast enough, yet. The Ontario Provincial Government is sticking its finger in the pie again lately, wanting to establish a regulatory body, the "College of Trades." This would basically impose a set of school requirements for each regulated trade - and exclude many workers from licensing, who are currently proficient practitioners of their trades - workers with much skill but perhaps not all that much " schoolin'. "

-- That's a problem for another day. Meanwhile, there's bound to be an election soon and (I hope) "poof" goes the "College of Trades" idea, dreamed up by Provincial Politicos, whom I regard as (mostly) the lowest (and most disappointing) order of University grads ever produced - here or anywhere.

Johann