Graduates Unprepared?

I read an op-ed piece by Kathleen Parker in this morning’s newspaper. It was one of those that gets me talking to the TV, so to speak; (“duh” as some might say). Her points and facts are correct. It is the fallacies underlying assumptions that ruin the piece for me. Worse, these underlying fallacious assumptions are shared by many if not most people. That they are not challenged, especially by today’s thinkers and writers will trigger the response every time. Her piece Our unprepared graduates may be found HERE at the Washington Post website.

The facts of her piece are correct.

• American college graduates are not prepared for jobs that exist in the marketplace
• Colleges don’t teach basic skills for the jobs in the marketplace
• We are mistakenly wed to the notion that more people going to college means more people will find jobs.
• Most cannot express themselves in a grammatically way.
• The writing skills of most are deficient
• There are practically no gains in critical thinking or complex reasoning

I think these are facts but are complaints of two completely separate problems: 1) The notion that colleges are properly seen as trade schools, and 2) Colleges have themselves responded to the marketplace measuring their success and progress by counting sources of revenue.

Following World War II the influx of GIs to the jobs market coupled with the unprecedented number of women drafted into the workplace during the conflict promised terrible disruption. There would be immense oversupply of labor and a promise of civil unrest common after the conclusion of wars. The GI Bill was the remedy applied. It created a building boom and increased demand for labor. It encouraged the so-called nuclear family persuading many of the Rosie Riveters to take up the June Cleaver model. It made attending college so affordable that any ambitious young GI would feel foolish not to spend four more years out of the labor pool. That coupled with the universal focus on the Cold War managed to keep the post WWII period “manageable.”

The GI Bill worked well for all the immediate goals. Its long-term effects were not well anticipated. A college education had always been for studies beyond those necessary to maintain oneself in the work force. After the GI Bill the bachelor degree was denigrated to that level. With market forces working as they always will, colleges adapted to the market producing pedestrian results. Politicians are usually vetted by demonstrating purity of ideal to their constituents; meaning extreme views on every issue. Political support for higher education has led to vacillation between programs to guarantee access and those to produce viable workers. The notion of real education takes a back seat to securing grants and other incentives.

The results are expressed in the facts Ms. Parker cites. Universal access and attempts to prevent esteem damaging failure has led to graduates who cannot speak or write. Equating the college education with vocational school has led to the public asking why graduates don’t get work. If one tries to assemble pieces from a refrigerator, a plough, a television and a sofa, don’t be surprised when a fine car doesn’t result.

Perhaps we’ll talk (to the TV?) about some effects of the GI Bill on our concepts of ownership and stewardship of the land and property rights in general in the future.