The Assertion: The drive to increase college enrollment threatens to lower standards.

We are seeing more literature that questions the worth of a college education. Books have been written on the college experience, articles have been done and there have also been studies produced on the worth of college.

You could argue that, recently, college has had competing views on what its primary goal should be. The college experience could be defined as:

1) Learning the intelligence of the student.
2) Helping the student identify career aspirations
3) Preparing the student for a career.

But, perhaps, college tries to meet all those goals and, thus, fails to meet any of them very well.

We take on a piece of the question - what is college good for - by looking at the drive to increase enrollment. What does the push to increase college attendees and graduates mean for the standards? Does it lower the academic bar overall?

Opening Statement

Pro: Peter Wood and Ashley Thorne, the National Association of Scholars
The massive expansion of higher education called for by President Obama and others will seriously undermine the quality of American college education. Students will learn less, care less, and be able to do less as they enter the workforce.

Key Points

1. To expand enrollment, colleges admit more students who are poorly qualified and poorly motivated. College thus becomes merely the easiest “next step” after high school. When getting accepted is easier, students don’t need to work as hard or do as well academically to get in. Many fewer go to college in order to become educated adults and productive citizens. They go just because they sense a cultural mandate to go, and because their friends are going.

2. To accommodate these students, college must offer more remedial courses, and remediation is seldom successful in getting students up to a genuine college level. If a student does not possess the aptitude to do college-level work, he should not be admitted to college. Students who would like to go to college but who fall short academically should catch up before they matriculate. This would better serve the students, who are often in danger of wasting time and money on a pursuit that isn’t right for them; and better for the colleges, which should focus on higher education, not hand-holding.

3. The additional students who are marginal are at greater risk of dropping out, and to keep up retention rates, college administrations then pressure faculty members to inflate grades, dumb down standards, and pass students who shouldn't pass. When retention is more important than academic standards and it’s possible to pass courses without much effort, the college degree loses its significance. A recent study by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa in their book Academically Adrift finds that a third of college students make no intellectual gains from when they enter as freshmen to when they graduate. That’s because learning in college has become optional.

4. All students, not just those who are poor performers, are affected by courses that have been diluted to accommodate weak performers. Instead of holding students to high standards, colleges cater to the lowest common denominator, bringing everyone down to that level.

5. To attract the larger number of students, colleges have to provide more and more new courses and programs of study designed around students’ "interests." Generally these student-centered courses (i.e. Tree Climbing at Cornell,Queer Musicology at UCLA) are intellectually weak. The abundance of such courses and the decline of more rigorous ones means that students often graduate lacking the command of important skills, such as the abilities to write and speak well, to analyze competing arguments, and to think beyond politically correct and self-esteem boosting platitudes.

More higher education does not mean more intellectual growth. Rather, quantity and quality have proven to have an inverse relationship. In striving to reach President Obama’s goal, American innovation and competitiveness will actually decrease, for in becoming the most-educated nation, we will have become the worst-educated.

Opening Statement

Con: Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Sector

The last half century has seen a huge increase in the number of Americans going to college. At the same time, academic standards in higher education are often lax. Some people believe, incorrectly, that the former caused the latter. This misreads history and leads to the wrong solutions for today’s undergraduates.

Fear of letting more people go to college is nothing new. When Congress was considering the G.I. Bill in 1944, University of Chicago President Robert Maynard Hutchins warned that giving returning soldiers a chance to enroll in college would turn the nation’s great universities into “educational hobo jungles.” Instead, the law helped create a thriving middle class and decades of unparalleled prosperity. When economic globalization shifted low-skill jobs oversees, America’s first-in-the-world policy of giving every student the opportunity to enroll in an affordable college helped produce the knowledge workers that kept our economy flexible and strong.

The great expansion of higher education meant that colleges had to adapt to students from diverse social, economic, and academic backgrounds. Some were better prepared than others. But the time before mass higher education was hardly an academic paradise. As Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Dean Nicholas Lemann wrote in The Big Test, “At Harvard and other leading universities...up to the start of the Second World War, rich heedless young men with servants, whose lives revolved around parties and sports, not studying, set the tone of college life.” The idea that higher education was serious and rigorous before being overrun by lesser students is the worst kind of false nostalgia.

That said, there are undeniably serious problems to address in higher education today. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s recent groundbreaking study, Academically Adrift, found that many students are spending four years of their lives and a considerable amount of money on college with little or no increased learning to show for it. The reason? Colleges aren’t doing enough to challenge their students. Student-faculty interaction is often cursory, expectations non-existent, serious reading and writing assignment all but unheard of.

This is not a case of higher education regretfully lowering its standards to accommodate students who can’t do the work. Rather, it’s a case of a higher education system that is simply indifferent to teaching undergraduates well. The entire professional incentive system in higher education focuses around money, prestige, and scholarship. Colleges compete to enroll the “best” students, charge the most money, erect the nicest buildings, woo the most famous researchers, and field the most awesome semi-professional sports teams. Student learning is an afterthought, at best. Colleges are not held accountable for how much their students learn in any meaningful way. And so, unsurprisingly, they focus on other priorities.

The solution is not a return to educational hobo-phobia that would bar the doors of higher education to needy students. That would be a disaster. Instead, we need colleges and universities that are more focused on the needs of students and more accountable for the quality of the learning environment they provide. Better colleges for more students will provide a foundation of opportunity and prosperity for years to come.

This is a timely topic for me. I recently graduated from the University of Minnesota (after a 22 year break) with a B.S. degree in Environmental Science Policy and Management, Political Science and Writing Studies. Going back as a full time student was challenging, but was in the end extremely rewarding.
I find some of the con intro painting with a broad brush. For instance, the claim faculty/student interaction cursory. Quite the contrary, in virtually every class, the professor would invite students to come talk if they were having problems,saying their door was always open. I took advantage of this, and was told over and over by these professors nobody took advantage of this benefit. Even in a class with a couple hundred students, getting one-on-one time was not difficult. These instructors cared, and wanted their students to succeed, not flounder and drop out.

Sure classes like Tree Climbing are intellectually weak. The U of M offers a wine tasting class, and though I did not take it,one of my classmates from a Con Law class (who was a senior and going off to law school next fall) did. She wanted to take a fun class before graduating. How is this bad?

I found standards with my hard science and upper division Political Science classes the most demanding and least accommodating to those who chose to sit in the back and not participate. The expectation was you were there to learn, and speak up. Did I see kids sleeping in class, sure. Did I see kids one semester and then not the next, sure (drop outs not graduates), but overall I was impressed with the level of intellectual curiosity and commitment to learning by many of my classmates.

One one side you have a huge industry with highly advanced political connections that sells to the aspirations of moms, dads and jobseekers looking to achieve the American dream on the other side you have...well people who say college isn't for everybody. Even if you buy into the idea that college isn't for everybody it certainly can work wonders for you or junior - it is the other kid that should look into trade school.

Then you have the good folks in Human Resources scoring resumes - college degree? No, then you can serve as a Customer Service rep for a manufacturing company. There is just something special learned in those 4-8 years it takes to get a bachelors degree that you must have in order to "think critically". Somehow it became easier to trust a diploma than critically thinking about the candidates for a given job.

Front your kids $80-120k for a small business doing something that they love. Teach them that work should be a way of getting what you want in life not an identity or an aspiration in itself. Tell them that they can put in 60 hour weeks to buy the required 4br 3ba in the right subdivision and let it consume their lives or spend their life doing what they want - you know - consuming life?

The worst part is once you have the degree and you have all the trappings it is sooooo hard to get off the treadmill and do what makes you happy. You create a false value structure and wish you could fish more and open a small store and interact with humans but the mortgage is there, the kids need college funds, and if you stick it out 4 more years you will get that next promotion.(can you tell I am turning 40 this year).

It is a whole lot easier to never get in than it is to drop out.

And speaking of never getting in.... how about this:

PayPal Cofounder Peter Thiel Is Paying 24 Kids $100,000 To Drop Out Of School

Talk about a statement on the worth of college. Or is it more like a delusion that defies reality?

Minnesota Public Radio has thousands of sources in its Public Insight Network. And we tap people with relevant backgrounds to comment on our debates. In this case we posed these questions to sources who work in a college setting, to parents of college students (or future college students) and the students themselves.

Among those who responded was:
Karen Bell - a Lakeville resident who just finished her MBA at the University of Minnesota. She has two teenagers who she expects to go to college.

Q: What is the primary purpose of a college education?
A: Of course students can focus on particular disciplines (e.g. engineering, medicine, law) but the bigger purpose is to immerse themselves in A) a love of learning, B) a culture of education and social consciousness (in whatever form that takes), and C) the desire to reach higher goals personally and professionally. A degree just shows that you're willing to work hard and challenge yourself beyond the normal events that show up in life's path. It shows a willingness to explore new ideas and to cope with, and work through, adversity you may not have considered before. The exposure to culture and ideas sets college apart from most other opportunities in one's life.

Q: How have your attitudes toward a college education changed over time?
A: Yes. I used to think it would prepare me and others for a particular career path but that's not the case today (see above). Now it's more of a statement than anything. Much of life is learned by doing, on the job and "in the trenches", and I used to think that came from college. Now I think that college just gets you through a door and opens up opportunity.

Q: If you are a parent or student, what economic factors are influencing your college decisions? If you work for a college, what economic factors do you see influencing the college decisions of students?
A: I want my kids to live at home (cheaper) and work their way through school. I hate the idea of them going into debt for their education. My kids still want a traditional dorm experience though, so they'll have to pay for that part of it. I'm also more comfortable with them going to community college for the first 2 years.

Q: From where you stand, is college worth the cost?
A: The value of a college education for me was driven by financials (I have an MBA but I had extenuating circumstances that sent me in this direction). On the whole, though, college cannot be measured purely through financial metrics.

Minnesota Public Radio News’ Public Insight Network gives us another voice on a college education, ( responding to these questions).

Brad Horras - A Brooklyn Park musician who received a Bachelor's Degree in Music from the University of Minnesota and a Master's in Music from Northwestern.

Q: How have your attitudes toward a college education changed over time?
A: I've grown quite cynical towards the industry of higher education. I was a musician, and most of my time in the music school was beneficial for my development. However, sitting in required liberal arts classes at the U was a very souring experience. It has become a complete cattle-call environment. Each student is income to the school, and the bigger the class, the more money there is to be made. Students can stumble in late, Google everything before the test, and generally surf their way to a college degree without learning anything. Of course such a large student body is going to yield a wide array of people, but the more serious students tend to be the engineering, business, and medical students. That no one is raising questions with so many (graduating with) psychology, mass communications, or other basket-weaving degrees is a little scary.

I think removing the stigma of technical or 2-year degree would be incredibly beneficial to our economy in the long run. A technical degree's worth at this point far outweighs a 4-year Psych or English degree.

Q: From where you stand, is college worth the cost?
A: Sadly, it now depends on what you're going to study. For engineering and medicine - of course it's worth it. No one wants to speak up on degrees that are not worth it anymore because the pursuit of "higher education" in this country is a sacred cow. Is $50k in debt for an English or psychology degree worth it? No. Our next generation is going to keep jumping off the debt cliff, and somewhere there has to be a breaking point. Higher education is eventually going to really hurt us, because there will be so many graduates locked into debt for life.

College is not just a vocational/technical training for the future job applicant. College is about enriching the intellectual landscape for every person who goes in. The Idea of Vocation is more than just a job; it is also about determining why you do something as well as what it is you do.
Also, in a highly technical world, people have to deal with things they never had to before, and a broader education will help them in whatever career they end up in.

This idea that a better educated populace is a mistake is an anti-intellectual trend that is an old, ugly part of America, but is being fostered by right-wing radicals who don't want any advice from the "so-called experts" because they themselves have no critical thinking skills. The right wants to gut education so that that the population will be more malleable, less prone to challenging received wisdom, more likely to take things literally and not challenge The Boss. These are people who believe the Civil War was about tariffs; that slavery was good for African Americans; that Mexico started the Mexican War; that boarding schools were good for Indians. As the public schools get worse and worse, a bigger college population is our only chance to keep up with he rest of the world, which pays for the education of their collegiate population. Especially, in critical thinking skills.

I speak as a college graduate and a college adjunct.

When MPR reaches out to sources in the Public Insight Network, we hope for people who have a direct knowledge of the topic. Some of those who responded to the series of questions on college had some very unique perspectives. Read this next one...

Jon Blumenthal - Director of Education for the Minneapolis Business College, which he describes as a private two-year college.

Q: How have your attitudes toward a college education changed over time?
A: The increase in access to higher education (through increased access to financial aid and the proliferation of convenient course scheduling) has afforded students more choices in how they want to be educated. Students who know what they want from an education--and know that they don't want a lot of general education--can earn diplomas and associate degrees quickly, whereas not long ago students had fewer choices.

Q: If you are a parent or student, what economic factors are influencing your college decisions? If you work for a college, what economic factors do you see influencing the college decisions of students?
A: (1) Students and their parents seem to be focused on outcomes. What am I getting for this money? If a private school costs more, but the graduation rate and job placement rate are higher than at another budget-oriented option, the additional cost of the education may justify higher tuition. (2) The availability of classes is also a key concern for students who have already been unsuccessful at an institution. They are willing to pay more for guaranteed access to the classes they need to take in order to complete their schooling.

Q: From where you stand, is college worth the cost?
A: College is what you make of it. If you have vocational goals and pursue them vigorously, it is likely to be worth the cost. If you go to college because you have nothing better to do, your individual outcomes may not justify the cost. There are other potential benefits to a college education other than purely financial, many would argue. However, I believe most people who go to college do so with vocational intent.

MPR tapped sources in the Public Insight Network, those who had a direct background in the college experience (either as educators, parents or students). We gave them a few questions on the college system. Now we share some of their comments, like this one....

Jessica Fanaselle - She lives in Reno, Nevada but attended a private liberal arts college in Minneapolis for her undergraduate degree. Now she's getting a Master's Degree in English and is a teaching assistant.

Q: How have your attitudes toward a college education changed over time?
A: I have always been a highly driven student. Until I began teaching undergraduates, I had not realized how many students resist critical thinking, and the larger idea that college ought to be challenging, that they earn their grades and are not just handed them. I think many students think that they are entitled to success in college. Going to college is taken for granted by many students, and because "everyone goes" they believe that everyone ought to pass and be successful.

Q: If you are a parent or student, what economic factors are influencing your college decisions? If you work for a college, what economic factors do you see influencing the college decisions of students?
A: I have spoken to several students who are considering attending a junior college for their prerequisites in order to save money. I am lucky enough to have been awarded a teaching assistantship which greatly subsidizes my education. Had I not received funding, I would not have attended school.

Q: From where you stand, is college worth the cost?
A: For me, it is. I believe that an English education teaches you strong critical thinking skills, writing skills and communication skills at large. I think that whatever field I eventually land in, these skills will make me a desirable employee.

@dean_seal,

"The right wants to gut education so that that the population will be more malleable, less prone to challenging received wisdom, more likely to take things literally and not challenge The Boss."

I think there is a good argument can be made that this is the entire goal of public education (See John Taylor Gatto). Listen to the bells, follow the arbitrary rules even when they conflict with common sense or your own moral code, Euorcentric history, obey the state. All of this supports the moneyed establishment that has bought both the right and the left.

And if your theory was correct we would be, as more students get college educations, throwing off these shackles right?

I speak as a college graduate and free thinker.

Wednesday Rebuttal

Con: Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Sector

Rebuts Wood/Thorne’s Opening Statement

Peter Wood and Ashley Thorne base their opposition to President Obama’s plan to help more student go to college on several broad and faulty assumptions. First they believe that “To expand enrollment, colleges admit more students who are poorly qualified and poorly motivated.” This assumes that all of the smart kids are currently going to college. And it’s certainly true that nearly all of the smart wealthy students are in college (along with most of the dumb wealthy ones, too).

But data from the U.S. Department of Education show that while less than four percent of high-achieving students from families making over $100,000 per year fail to go to college, nearly 20 percent of similarly high-achieving students from families making less than $20,000 per year fail to go to enroll. These students are college-ready. They just don’t have the financial and social capital they need.

It’s true that many students have to take remedial courses in college. That’s because many students get a lousy high school education. High schools that serve low-income and minority students routinely get less funding and fewer qualified teachers. This is a terrible societal problem that needs to be addressed. But in the meantime, Wood and Thorne believe that students who have been victimized by our troubled K-12 school system should be denied the opportunity to catch up and learn the skills they need in a public college or university. This is counterproductive and cruel.

Wood and Thorne believe that colleges need to dumb down courses in order pass underprepared students along. In fact, research suggests that the opposite is true. Data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement show that there is a significant, positive relationship between the level of academic challenge and the likelihood of students’ getting good grades, earning credits, and graduating—even after controlling for students’ income, prior test scores, and other factors.

Indeed, Arum and Roksa’s research, which Wood and Thorne cite approvingly, shows the same thing. Students fall short in college when expectations are too low. If standards and expectations are increased, graduation rates will increase, too.

Wednesday Rebuttal

Pro: Peter Wood and Ashley Thorne, the National Association of Scholars

Rebuttal to Carey's Opening Statement

Kevin Carey says we commit a fallacy of the post hoc ergo propter hoc variety. Academic standards plummeted after the huge increase in the number of Americans attending college, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the huge increase caused the decline. Point taken. It doesn’t necessarily mean that, but we do have more than half a century’s experience of watching the curriculum thin out, grade inflation become epidemic, and remedial education swell—in tight correlation with each leap in college enrollment.

So the burden of proof is on Carey. We don’t argue that enrollment growth is the only factor in the decline in quality, just the prime factor.

We agree that Arum and Rosksa’s study shows colleges demand too little of their students. That’s largely because they are full of students who are ill-prepared, unmotivated, and mismatched to the opportunity. The main thing they will get from college is substantial debt. We’re more concerned for what this means for the students than the colleges. We’re not “hobo-phobic” – we want young people to thrive.

That will require some cultural shifts: high schools that promote worthwhile alternatives to college; national leaders who recognize diverse forms of success rather than insisting that college is the only path; parents with the humility to be open to other options; and employers who look beyond the college degree to see evidence of talent.

But we agree with Carey that colleges have to change too. They need to concern themselves far more with excellence in teaching and far less with campus amenities, faddish ideologies, sports, and faculty publication.

We reached out to hundreds of sources in Minnesota Public Radio’s Public Insight Network that have a connection to college. We posed these questions and wanted to share some of those responses.

Jaime Larson - The Eden Prairie resident left college before graduating in 1999 and began working. She returned to college and will have her degree in May 2012.

Q: How have your attitudes toward a college education changed over time?
A: My parents and the adults in my life always said I needed an education. I agreed, but did not realize the true value until I worked professionally and kept running into situations where people said my experience allowed me to move up or laterally but not as much or as high as I could have because I did not have the degree. I was constantly told we could have paid you more because if you had a degree. Or, you are the point person for this team, but not the leader, because of not having the degree.

Q: From where you stand, is college worth the cost?
A: If you aggressively (pursue) your own value or interests, it is. If you go there to "find yourself" or just have four years to play, it is not. I think that having a gap year or some sort of apprenticeship/professional career exploration before going to college would make students more successful or possibly productive.

I started taking college classes when I was 16 and finished up my formal schooling at 24 with trade school and software engineering certifications so I see the value of both systems.
I find one particular arguement on this topic troubling "If a student does not possess the aptitude to do college-level work, he should not be admitted to college." On the surface this seems innocuous and might be easy to agree with, but I believe that in reality the statement is much more messy.

Does anyone believe kids of wealth or privledge would be denied college based on aptitude? Also, aptitude is often measured by a standardized test. These tests don't truely measure aptitude or intelligence, but rather educational knowledge. I have known some incredibly intelligent people that haven't spent one day in college and probably would have failed an entrance exam. I also a few people that performed horribly in highschool, failed college entrance exams, and eventually persevered.

We need to ask ourselves if it's really in the country's best interest to deny college to lower class students because they may not have received a good education when they were young and thus, on an entrance test anyway, seem like they do not have the "aptitude" for collge.

As for the downgrade of college standards, if there has been a downgrade of college standards then I'd look more closely at curriculum and the types of degrees that are being offered. It may be nice, intellectually speaking, to get a bachelors degree in many studies, but it seems to me that colleges offer a good deal of degree paths that have little chance at helping the student attain employability in the marketplace.

I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to better themselves through college and that our country would be much better off if some college were mandatory much like military service is mandatory in some countries. I'm also pro trade school, but that is an entirely different discussion.

"We need to ask ourselves if it's really in the country's best interest to deny college to lower class students."

I would say that the country's best interest would be to just stop the processes that are pumping the college bubble and let the market decide entrance standards. Grants, subsidized loans, and direct aid to public colleges is what is fueling the incredible inefficiency of the system and skewing economic calculations. Again if a person spends $80k to get a degree to do a job that does not require a college education (it may for wrong reasons require a college degree) then they have done the equivalent of buying a house with fancy marble counters in west suburbia in 2006.

College is great for nurses who want to nurse, accountants that want to be CPA's and engineers who want to build bridges. College is great for people who want education for education's sake. The increase in those persons is not what is driving the bubble.

I don't know where Wood and Thorne attended college, or who they talked to for evidence, but their assertions do not match my college experience. Since graduating high school 16 years ago, I have attended a community college and three different state universities. In no case was there ever any "handholding." Instead, what I found was that, as in life, the rewards were directly related to the engagement with people and the work involved.

No, not everyone should go to college. But by and large, I think most of those people will not enroll in college, or they will quickly drop out. I have seen that phenomenon personally. However, there are many people who could benefit from college, and who could really add something to the college environment. The main hurdle for these people is not testing standards; it is the exorbitant cost of tuition, fees, and housing that one must incur while engaged as a full-time student. That's what we should really be talking about here. It's analogous to the healthcare disparities in our country. Talented minds, hungry for formal training, should not be denied an education simply because they can't afford the price.

"Talented minds, hungry for formal training, should not be denied an education simply because they can't afford the price."

What other items should not be denied? A fast computer? A comfortable salary while they study? A chance to reflect on their education for a year before applying themselves? Society already presents ample opportunities for people with low to no income to gain higher education through student loans, work study programs and 1000's of scholarships. The problem now is the overabundance of students caused by an excess of govt intervention. Worse yet the talented minds are crowded out or provided lesser quality education due to the bubble.

Minnesota Public Radio’s Public Insight Network have given us a path to people with a background in the college experience. We posed a few questions to them and we're sharing some of those responses.

Jennifer Tuder - The Columbia Heights resident is an associate professor at St. Cloud State University.

Q: How have your attitudes toward a college education changed over time?
A: As a student, I assumed that everyone could and should attend college immediately after graduating from high school. As a professor, I see students who are wasting their time, effort, and money on an experience they don't desire or for which they are not yet ready. I wish we had more and better alternatives to immediately attending college.

Q: If you are a parent or student, what economic factors are influencing your college decisions? If you work for a college, what economic factors do you see influencing the college decisions of students?
A: Right now, we are seeing students who are continuing to take classes for purely economic reasons. Some of them are picking up classes just to maintain health coverage through their parents. Others are killing time before entering the job market. Several students have told me they want to pursue Master's degrees for just that reason.

Q: From where you stand, is college worth the cost?
A: I think the cost of college is worth it to our society, because it can help students participate more actively as citizens. However, as a society, we have decided to shift that burden on to the backs of young, economically vulnerable students rather than share the cost across the board.

Hello everyone, I'm really glad this conversation is taking place. I believe it's been a long time (too long) coming. When I was a master's student at a large public university about three years ago, I was a TA teaching rhetoric -- basically the equivalent of freshmen comp plus public speaking and critical thinking added in. I loved teaching then, and I'm still employed in the field of higher education, though not currently as a teacher.

I've always been committed to higher education, especially coming from a lower class, working class, family background. Aside from my mother, who went to college later in life as a single mom with two kids, I'm in the first generation of college students on both my mother and father's sides. For me, a 4-year college and then much later, graduate school, was the only truly appropriate path to take.

However, as a teacher I saw many 19 year olds who just did not seem like they were in the right place. For some, it had to do with lack of committment and discipline, with others, I got the distinct impression that they were only there because they "had" to be there. Many of those students acted as though college was a pay-for-service kind of set-up. Almost as though once they paid for tuition, they then expected the product -- a degree -- to be given to them with only a basic level of hoop-jumping the their part. I found myself asking the question many times: why isn't there someplace else for them to go? Why did they "have" to go to college? Their presence in the classroom drags down the quality of the education for everyone.

I saw a lot of students whose high school education was so bad that they had virtually no critical thinking skills whatsoever. For those students who were emotionally mature enough and psychologically committed enough, they might be able to just squeak by, spending their entire first year trying to catch up on basic reading and writing skills. Many simply didn't understand what was expected of them, lacked discipline, or were completely overwhelmed at the level of skills they were expected to have in order to be successful in a four year college. For these students, the problem is poor public school education. Colleges are stuck with the product of what in many places are failing public schools, and I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to rescue these students as best I could in the little time I had with them. It was extremely difficult to do that and I imagine that for many students, I failed.

There were some (emphasis on SOME) athletes on scholarships who couldn't have cared less about their studies, and yet college is their only ticket to bigger and better so that's where they go. But that's an entirely new can of worms.

I would also argue that the notion that a liberal arts education is somehow the standard by which all education should be measured is ridiculous. I had a liberal arts education and spent four years pondering metaphysics and art history, and I loved it, and many people love it and find that it leads them to meaningful lives, but it's just not right for everyone. Critical thinking skills, at least at a basic level, are essential for everyone, but art history isn't. It's very expensive to get in all those liberal arts requirements to accomplish a four-year degree. While I think the liberal arts has great value and I actually love the idea of learning for its own sake, I think this is a completely unrealistic model for many students.

I think we need to branch out in our conception of higher education to include many different varieties of post-high-school training and experiences. I even think we should start earlier -- and redefine high school for those kids for whom the cookie-cutter high school experience just doesn't work.

I agree with Nicole that the preparation of (most) high school students does not prepare them or provide them with the maturity to go to college.

Since I am not an educator and personally have no university experience I have been watching most of this discussion without feeling that I have much to contribute here.

My European upbringing did not include a college or universtity training as that was not considered to be for everyone. Mostly the children of well-heeled parents attended university as student loans were virtually unheard off and it was not inexpensive, even in the 1960's.

At the time the school system was setup in such a way as to stream students in one direction or another with very little crossover at a later time. Essentially, the decision was made around age 12-13 which direction your education would take.

My wife participated in the same system , however, continued her professional education in Canada and entered the college system a few years after we arrived in the USA. Since obtaining her Masters in Science and Higher Education she has been educating nursing students and is presently completing her doctorate.

From that perspective I have been a close observer of higher education.

There are many ways to a well rounded education that does not require higher education (at the university level). To put the discussion in perspective, only 27% of adults hold a bachelors degree or higher.

The 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau found that 19.5 percent of the population had attended college but had no degree, 7.4 percent held an associate's degree, 17.1 percent held a bachelor's degree, and 9.9 percent held a graduate or professional degree.

That level of participation and achievement suggests that more students should be encouraged to obtain higher education. However, there is nothing wrong with getting some life experience and maturation before returning to school to begin or complete a higher level of education that hopefuly is more focussed and results oriented then it would be if continued right out of high school.

At a high school graduation party this past weekend, the graduate's father expressed regret at having gone directly into the military after high school. For years, I've been regretting that I hadn't. Different strokes for different folks. Given the lemmings-to-the-sea re-labeling of MN colleges to be "universities", and the concomitant crush of master's degree granting, and even a bit of a growth industry in creating law schools, I'd say that MN has been, and remains in, an evolution of education into an industry of growth for its own sake (empire building) AND for profit and job security. Who among the contributors to this forum, can shed some light on the impact and value of the likes of Globe, and the University of Phoenix ? For SURE, educators and politicos WAY too often assert the desirability of everyone going to college. That is utter nonsense, and is an insult to every carpenter, plumber, electrician, automotive technician, big-rig driver and all the other non-college folks who enhance the life of our communities every day.

Perhaps you heard the news today at NPR that the Obama administration laid down new rules aimed at for-profit colleges and universities.

As the story puts it the rules are aimed at cutting off federal aid to schools whose students can't earn enough to pay off the loans they receive. The policy aims at making sure the for-profit schools turn out student who are "gainfully employed."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan in (MPR photo/Tim Post)

This development says two things. First, that the Obama administration continues to push the notion of greater access to higher education for all. Education Secretary Arne Duncan actually paid tribute to the for-profit schools as helping to widen access for higher education, a key administration goal (and what's behind our debate question: Will greater college access lead to lower college standards?).

And second that the Obama adminstration wants to see that access turn into results for the students, meaning jobs that come from the experience.

But there is also a third statement from this announcement, a more subtle one. The adminstration clearly sees the worth of the for-profit college experience as one of preparation for a chosen profession. As we have written about earlier, the reasons for attending college can be seen in three different ways - 1) to gauge the intellect of a student, 2) to help a student discover a career and 3) to train a student in a chosen profession. This standard has been embraced in the rhetoric around for-profit colleges. The ability to get work to pay back loans is the measure.

Is this your standard for success in higher education? Should this be the standard for all schools?

Thursday Rebuttal

Peter Wood and Ashley Thorne, the National Association of Scholars

We aren’t sure why Kevin Carey thinks we assume “all of the smart kids are currently going to college.” No, not all smart kids go to college - and that’s ok. Even for the best and brightest students, college is not always the best option.

Our fundamental disagreement with Carey appears to be over the question, “Are there students who should not go to college?” In Carey’s view, anyone who has the ability should go to college, and so should plenty who don’t have the ability. He turns a blind eye to the many students who would be better served by choosing a path other than college. This goes for students across the spectrum of academic ability – from Thiel Fellows to young people like Brian Crave.

Brian, a Wisconsin teenager, enjoys caring for baby calves and wants to be a farmer. He enrolled in an apprenticeship program where he can pursue his dream outside higher education. Many other young people, for various reasons, know college is not for them, and they work in trades that do not require a college degree. Some, like the Thiel Fellows, are entrepreneurs; some join the military; some inherit the family business.

These are legitimate career choices: it’s not fair to these young people to push them to go to college and tell them that a college degree is the only way they can be successful. It’s also not fair to the prepared and motivated students who come to college to learn and find a weak intellectual environment. Carey says that remedial education should be a place where students can “catch up” after being “victimized by our troubled K-12 school system.” But college is not a second chance at high school. It is higher education, and catching up should be done before college; Carey himself advocated this in a previous essay. And remedial education has been shown to be ineffective; a recent study found that it “does not increase the completion of college-level credits or eventual degree completion.”

Our K-12 system is indeed troubled – do we really want to model higher education after it?

Again, we agree with Carey that colleges should raise academic standards. His theory that this will correspond with an increase in graduation rates, however, is puzzling. We have seen firsthand how raising academic standards acts as a filter: some students rise to the challenge while many don’t make the cut. This is a healthy process for the students who fail out, the ones that remain, and for the quality of education at the college.

Earlier statements by Wood and Thorne:

Wood and Thorne’s Opening Statement

Wood and Thorne’s Wednesday Rebuttal

Thursday Rebuttal

Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Sector

Peter Wood, Ashely Thorne and I are largely in agreement that students aren't learning enough in higher education, and that colleges themselves are complicit in failing to educate students well. The question is: what to do about it? Whether one believes that inadequate academic standards are primarily a function of increased enrollment--they do, I do not--the fact remains that those students are in college, today.

Our society has chosen mass higher education as the primary means of public investment in adult human capital. This is a choice, I would note, that nearly all of our economic competitors have chosen to emulate. Indeed, the rapid increase in college attainment among competitor nations in recent decades, to the point that some have surpassed America's historic pre-eminence, is frequently cited as a major economic problem by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Wood and Thorne believe, I assume, that restoration of academic standards in higher education can be achieved by a rollback of our nation's historic commitment to college access. Who would be shut out of college by such a reversal? I think we all know the answer. Children born into wealth, class, and privilege will always find a place in college. First-generation families, low-income students, working parents, immigrants, and other marginalized populations will not. The American way of education has long rejected the impulse to sort and track students at an early age, elevating certain children to the enlightened path while relegating others to lives of service.

Our vibrant, productive society stands as evidence of the wisdom of this approach. There's a reason other countries are chasing our lead.

Earlier statements by Carey

Carey's Opening Statement

Carey's Wednesday Rebuttal

Wood and Thorne bring up the notion of apprenticeships which would be a wonderful choice for many students.

Sadly our minimum wage laws make it more difficult for young people to learn a profession in this manner. The cost of college for a year more than offsets the cost of forgoing minimum wage for a year and leaves the apprentice and instructor both in a better position.

But wise central planners have determined that things should be in alignment with their desires and special interests rather than common sense.

I think we are forgetting that there was a time that parents paid the blacksmith to take on their child as an apprentice.

As to the Federal Government stomping on all these 'for profit' online and otherwise 'universities' I am all in favor. These rip-off artists have done nothing to further higher education and do not deserve federal funding.

Yes, it is all about getting a well paid job so that higher education loans can be repaid.

Education for educations sake is a luxury that only the wealthy can afford - as it used to be in the time that a blacksmith was paid to take on an apprentice.

As much as I appreciate that students should have access to the higher education system, the steady erosion in government funding for both the students and the colleges/universities has made a liberal arts education a true luxury.

As you know Minnesota Public Radio has reached out to sources in the Public Insight Network who have graduated college, teach college or have some other connection to school. We posed these questions. Here is a response from someone with a different kind of college connection.

Jay Halverson - an attorney from Minneapolis who has parents who were both educators. .

What is the primary purpose of a college education?
To help a young person decide on a career path

Please explain your answer above.
Academic pursuits are the ideal. The reality of the situation is that your decree is just a stepping stone to some type of professional career. The only tangible benefit one gets from the degree immediately upon graduation is a 'network'. The rest is up to the graduate.

How have your attitudes toward a college education changed over time?
My parents were educators and it was just understood that I was to go to college and get a degree. I have since even attended law school. Unfortunately, I have yet to have any meaningful reward in the form of health benefits, retirement, savings, or even finances to service my student loan debts.

I do not think that anyone would argue that "college is for everyone"; however, I also think that the student who is undecided about his/her future should try college. Maybe it is just one trial semester at a community or technical college, but it is worth the time, energy and money to see if college might be a good fit.

If the student puts this off for, say, 10 years, suddenly there are lots of additional expenses and responsibilities that may create really difficult hurdles. (I -- along with my wife and two young children -- went back to graduate school after working for 12 years. It was incredibly challenging to juggle the budgeting of time and money.)

I also wonder about the student who hopes to be a farmer with only a high school diploma. Perhaps someone who is in farming can offer a first-hand view of that, but I cannot imagine that the vast array of skills needed to farm is something that can be mastered by an 18-year-old.

I've been following this and can't resist letting you know about the dialogue happening on the Citizens League Students Speak Out project exploring "What is Student Achievement?". A lot of the discussion there is pushing students to consider 'what else' people suggest, outside the current definition of achievement (as it's clear they know the current definition well already). Tomorrow we'll be posting the initial commentary from our teen leaders on the subject of "4-year college for all" vs. varying pathways to prosperity, including other post-secondary pursuits. Anyone is welcome to come participate.

All of our dialogues (7 major topics so far -- most relevant to what's being discussed here) can be found here: http://www.citizing.org/projects/ssoachievement/tasks/share-your-experiences-and-ideas-in-weekly-discussions

Teens are reporting their real experiences and ideas. For example, why do they learn math? For college admissions or future career use? It's the former. They don't know how they will use it in careers. Is "motivate by requiring it" the right approach, then? Are they (even at the AP level) motivated to continue learning math once they're in simply because we required it for admission? We dialogue about that too...

Especially given how this conversation started I can't help but wonder if the question is right. We've got to have standards, but will raising them fix students' awareness of careers--even at the college level? I could ask other, similar questions based on the teens' dialogue. If we want students to achieve, perhaps our solutions (better, our definition of the problem) ought to be rooted in what motivates them to do so.

That's a hard dialogue to have, especially because those asking the questions are quite limited in their own consideration of options, assuming a lot about the way school must be and what success is.

@Kim_FarrisBerg - It is great to see how well (some) students have developed and how thoughtful they can be. Thanks for providing the link.

We host a top student from each of the four local high schools as our Rotary Student of the Month. They are recommended by the school counselors. In return for a month of free lunches they are required to talk about themselves, their parents and support structure, what they participate in and what their plans are for further education.

At the end of the school year one student is selected from each school who will receive a $1,000 scholarship to a college or university of their choice.

The students are amazing - we usually wonder how we (adults) ever made anything of ourselves looking back at our much more limited activity level during our formative years.

I can't resist adding a comment.... My daughter worked at a Jennie-o plant the summer after high school. It was not hard to convince her that college was a good path to take. Sometimes I think every high school student should have an experience in a job that is very difficult during and after high school.

I was the first in my family to attend college and I did it as a non-traditional student after working at some factory and care giving jobs. My view of college is that it opens doors. You can go to college and still work in a factory... but you don't have to work in a factory... you have more choices than if you didn't have a degree.

I learned so much in college over and above the "book work". It took off many of my rough edges. It helped me see other viewpoints. It made me a better citizen and community member. It was a life changing experience.

Closing Statement

Peter Wood and Ashley Thorne, the National Association of Scholars

We remain convinced that the drive to make college the primary standard of success will accelerate the present decline in academic standards, pressure many students into wasting their time and money that could be better spent elsewhere, and inflate the value of the college degree.

As reader @nicole_erickson commented here, “Why isn’t there someplace else for them to go? Why did they ‘have’ to go to college? Their presence in the classroom drags down the quality of the education for everyone.”

We close with four points:

1. Everyone should have access to college, but not everyone should go to college. Anyone with the ability, no matter their income level or background, should be able to go to college. College must be a destination for those with special interests and abilities in scholarly subjects, not a club for the wealthy and well-connected (see Louis Menand’s "Live and Learn"). Theoretically Pell grants and institutional and independent scholarships are available for poor but competent students; perhaps more can be done to ensure that these go to the genuinely promising among the needy.

2. President Obama's call to make the U.S. the most-higher-educated nation by 2020, which will require doubling the size of the higher education industry, sounds admirable but altogether fails to understand that most-educated is not the same as best-educated. We believe that while indeed, America is falling behind the rest of the world academically, the solution lies in improving the quality, not the quantity, of education.

Kevin Carey has yet to demonstrate that the decline in academic standards over the last 50-plus years was not caused by the huge increase in the number of Americans attending college. We are open to arguments, but so far we’ve heard none.

3. If almost everyone goes to college, a degree won’t signify any particularly noteworthy achievement. Jobs that don’t require advanced study have already begun to demand a bachelor’s degree of their employees, and this generation already feels the need to attend graduate school in order to stand out. This trajectory puts students on a long and expensive treadmill and cheapens the value of college.

4. We need more pathways for young people to achieve successful adult lives. A new report, Pathways to Prosperity, published this year by the Harvard Graduate School of Education, makes the case for not restricting the American dream to college graduates; it seeks to identify an American version of other countries’ emphasis on career training. And the website www.myfuture.com is a great resource for young people – it offers help in finding a career, getting into college, and exploring the military.

A society that recognizes the laws of human nature – that each person is unique and that a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work – can then begin to help its rising generations to choose their paths. Such a recognition can also save higher education from trivializing itself into irrelevance.

Earlier statements by Wood and Thorne:

Opening Statement

Wednesday Rebuttal

Thursday Rebuttal
____________________________________________________________

Closing Statement

Con: Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Sector

Kevin Carey plans to file his closing statement later this afternoon.

Earlier statements by Carey:

Opening Statement

Wednesday Rebuttal

hursday Rebuttal

Minnesota Public Radio continues hearing from parents, students and college educators in its Public Insight Network. We posed these questions to those sources and heard some interesting stories.

Wolfe Molitor - a St. Paul resident who works for the University of Minnesota's Minnesota Medical Foundation.

Q: What is the primary purpose of a college education?
A: To train a student on a chosen career path

Q: Please explain your answer above.
A: College is about certifying you as a clever person, and getting a piece of paper that will open doors. In itself, it can be fun. One thing that always annoys me is when people say that college is not the "real world." It is the real world, just a particular, privileged part of the real world. If you're living on loans while you're there, as my sister did, it is going to have a long-term effect on your future in the "real world."

Q: How have your attitudes toward a college education changed over time?
A: I used to believe that it degraded a "pure" education to have it focused on a career path. I believed in education for its own sake - to make a person's life richer. I've come around 180 degrees. Now I believe that training for a career is the only justification for the investment, and that a liberal education (reading books, etc.) is a personal thing - a hobby.

Q: If you are a parent or student, what economic factors are influencing your college decisions? If you work for a college, what economic factors do you see influencing the college decisions of students?
A: I've been saving since my daughter was 3 in a 509 plan. I am going to push her toward getting a degree that will certify her in a profession. I don't care what that profession is. She's only 11, and contemplates engineering in one breath and zoo keeper in the next. It is absolutely expected that she will go to college of some kind. But it will be a public college or university, and I will do everything in my power to make sure she doesn't waste her life - and our money - on a liberal arts degree.

Here is another comment from MPR's Public Insight Network:

Carol Ford - A resident of Milan and an employee at the University of Minnesota system for more than 20 years.

Q: What is the primary purpose of a college education?
A: A liberal arts education is meant to teach a person to think critically and creatively by providing a breadth of education in the sciences, arts and humanities. The purpose of this education, contrary to current trends towards a focus on vocation, is to give the student a bigger picture on the world, to challenge her/his abilities and hone the skills to apply them by requiring demonstrated capabilities in reading comprehension, writing and verbal presentation. The assumption is that a liberal arts graduate exposed to these opportunities and challenges will have a broad range of skills and knowledge that can be usefully applied in any chosen career path. Given that most people do change careers through their lives, this approach to education gives a person a kind of flexibility that vocational training does not provide.

Q: If you are a parent or student, what economic factors are influencing your college decisions? If you work for a college, what economic factors do you see influencing the college decisions of students?
A: The economics for higher ed suck right now. If I can be allowed to assume that most conservatives are interested in jobs creation and economic growth, why do they ignore all the data available that clearly demonstrates the benefits to our state's economy and growth by having an educated work force?

Yes, there is great value to vocational skills and I appreciate those skills in the men and women who fix my car, plumb my house and care for my dad. But as a democratic society, we also need our citizens to have the skills to sort through the info-muck to analyze the political issues of the day and add the context of history and current world dynamics. Are we not better served as a population when everyone who wants t o be so educated can do it? We are slipping behind other states, other countries and we will pay the price for that folly, I fear. This is not just about protecting my job. It's about protecting the quality of life in the state where I live. I am ashamed at our growing disinterest and disrespect for liberal arts education.

"But as a democratic society, we also need our citizens to have the skills to sort through the info-muck to analyze the political issues of the day and add the context of history and current world dynamics. Are we not better served as a population when everyone who wants t o be so educated can do it?" That premise only holds if the education sufficiently challenges the status quo/orthodox viewpoints - mass market colleges don't do that they reinforce it and we are left with groupthink and two parties different in name and selling strategy only.

Bill Symonds -- the man behind the Pathways to Prosperity report mentioned in Point #4 -- was in the Twin Cities recently. He advocates adopting elements of the European vocational-technical-apprenticeship system as an alternative to college. It's a great idea, but I wonder whether our business culture would accept such a system. Here's just one of the posts I've written about it: http://oncampus.mpr.org/2011/05/how-we-could-revitalize-vocational-education-in-minnesota/

@Eduardm You're welcome, and thanks. And re: your last question perhaps you'll want to take a look at the dialogue topic about adolescence--teens today have a lot of supervised opportunity but you all had unsupervised ones. There are advantages to the latter that many of today's teens might never have. That is, until they start working.

@AlexFriedrich Bill Symonds is actually the "question asker" on Students Speak Out this week -- the topic is "Is there more than one Pathway to Prosperity?" The teens' initial comments are up now, and our dialogues grow throughout the week. All are welcome to join in.

Here's the link to the Symonds discussion: http://www.citizing.org/projects/ssoachievement/page/633