Next Generation Uncertainty: No, Dorothy, there is no magic wand.
What do Walt Disney, Bill Gates, Abraham Lincoln, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs all have in common? They do not have a college degree. Some may say the lack of college degree is a sad statement on leadership. Others may say that a person’s achievements must be seen in context with the rest of his or her life. And that’s what Charles Murray and Sanford Ungar discuss in their essays. Murray claims that college is not right for some people, but it may be for some. He says that while some have would benefit from higher education, others would do better, doing the rest of the work – being a “blue collar worker. Ungar, on the other hand, tries to shed new light on many misconceptions people have on a liberal arts education. Not only he says that the liberal arts is very much alive, he argues that a liberal arts education should be available for everyone. Although they might have different views about education and who would benefit from it, both authors believe that education can still be valuable. Education is crucial. College might not be. While it is true that a bachelor’s degree can still be a good investment, it is still possible to succeed in America without a college degree.
In his essay “Are too Many People Going to College,” Charles Murray makes the argument that the concept of college we know is slowly changing and, because of that, too many students are entering college unprepared and unable to do the work. He suggests that, due to the best interest of students and students only, maybe school counselors and parents, should not encourage every student to pursue a B.A only. Students decisions to go to college or not, should not be looked upon down, and he insists that there is a place for almost all students in some sort of post-secondary education.
On the other side of the argument, with a more progressive approach, Sanford argues in his essay “The New Liberal Arts,” that everyone should go to college and receive some form of liberal arts degree. He believes that a liberal arts education not only goes above and beyond to educate and provide the necessary tools to students to get a job, but also it leads to a more meaningful, profound existence. While his essay tries to identify, and rebut seven misconceptions about liberal arts degree, his opinion comes from the perspective of a president of a liberal arts college.
In a more semantic way, I’d say that a misperception is something that has was observed from a flawed perspective. Which make one wonder if, calling the points “misperceptions,”
not only provides the mean
Ungar and Murray agree that a college degree is beneficial. However, they disagree on who can benefit from a college education. In his essay, Murray argues that only smart people, those really on the top 90 percentiles, should go to college because “liberal education in college means taking on the tough stuff” (237). He believes that students at the lower percentile wouldn’t benefit from a college education, less a liberal education because they would not be able to deal with the complex intellectual material and the overwhelming workload. As a result, they wouldn’t enjoy the experience. Instead of going to college, these students should invest in their capabilities in a two-year community college vocational education, and work in jobs that match those aptitudes. Many will disagree with Murray on the grounds that his notion is way too prejudiced even to become practical. But Is it so unrealistic to think that not everyone is made for college? Why push students down educational paths that will likely result in them dropping out? People's hyper-credentialed experiences and credos are blinding the way to alternative ways to middle class. Its doing more harm than good.
In contrast to Murray, Ungar argues that a liberal education would benefit anyone and everyone, not only those on the top of the ability ladder. In fact, he disagrees with claims that liberal arts are only for the wealthy because “the rich folks are the ones who do the important thinking, and the lower classes simply carries out their ideas” (229). Unlike Murray, he believes that a liberal arts education may be the best form of career education because it prepares students for a variety of tasks and careers they are likely to encounter. There is no doubt that liberal arts would benefit some students. But to claim that it would have the same results for everyone is in a way, naïve. It seems that education is being passed off as the way to easy street. Ungar fails to knowledge that education as a means to success does not absolve one from working hard. And smart. So why is Ungar advocating the belief that if someone who works with their hands, is not thinking?
Both authors talk about the usefulness of a B.A degree. Murray, for example, argues that our system of education is failing because our society is based on the wrong idea that everyone “should aspire to college no matter what” (251). That is why the amount of people going to college, who probably should not be there, is high. On the other hand, Ungar, with a more liberal approach, believes that anyone who pursues a B.A. will maybe show the ability to think critically, innovate, and increase in creativity. While Ungar has a valid point, that people would benefit from a liberal education, Murray’s argument is more convincing. While it may be true that people with college degrees have a “better chance” than those without higher education, he says that “of those who enters a four-year college, only 58 percent get their B.A” (252). In other words, many students dont have the academical base necessary to thrive in college. To send those same students to a four-year university, only to drop out a few semesters later, is a waste of human and financial resources, that lowers the quality of life for those involved. It goes back to Murray’s argument that college today is being watered down to accommodate those who should not be there in the first place. Not everyone is college material and even a more exciting liberal education, would not necessarily create opportunities for students to genuinely explore their interests and connect with their passion for learning. Unlike Ungar Murray does offer a solution. He says that schools should not just abandon these kids to fend for themselves. They should be offered other options, a path to develop their talents, whatever it is. In other words, the entire issue of "college readiness" needs to be unpacked and explored rather than taken for granted, because a B.A. education is not a guarantee of success, and everyone should “not at least have it.”
But who really cares? Who should care? Parents, school counselors, educators all should; but students should specially care, since this debate, it’s about their future. Everyone should read Murray’s essay because it illustrates how the emphasis on four-year college degrees has, in a way, obscured more technical, hands-on, high-value career paths that often does not come with the prestige of a bachelor’s degree. Anyone can, and would, benefit from any form of education: liberal arts or not. And it’s unfortunate to think that, children from wealthy families or any family for this instance, who could have fulfilling careers aligned to their interests, will not pursue those options because of the stigma of blue-collar jobs. They see those jobs as dirty jobs, not worth of a career. I can understand this pressure because I went through it myself. According to my family, all the careers I was interested in “would not make good money;” and not even once I was asked if I was ok with that. I guess I was just one more unprepared, unmotivated st
udent doing what I was supposed to do: getting a higher education. And you know what? It did not get me far because I ended up dropping out after a few semesters. In my opinion, if improving the k-12 system was the focus, higher education wouldn’t be used as a remedial education, especially for those who are not ready. What some people need may not necessarily be college, but maybe some broadening of experience beyond their boundaries. It is in a way elitist to advocate that the only way to make a good living and have a prosperous life is through college. What people should understand is that college is not some magic potion that will make everything ok. It will not.
Education is crucial. College might not be. However, like Abraham Lincoln, Walt Disney, or Bill Gates, success depends on the person’s effort no matter the path chosen: being an electrician, a doctor, or an artist. What I can say is that I am absolutely no denying that a B.A. is related to a higher income across the life span and I am, by no means, belittling the value of a liberal education. On the contrary, I think very few people today is fully exposed to what liberal arts can offer. But since not everyone is college material, a liberal arts education would neither be freeing, nor enabling, or enlightening, if the person is not ready for it. Some may say that Murray is complaining that too many people are getting an education after high school. However, by analyzing his argument, it is clear he is in favor of education after high school. Just not necessarily a B.A. education. If we, as a society, start to recognize that each person is unique and that one-size-fits-all approach does not work, the next generations can start to choose their own paths successfully. Such recognition can save higher education from trivializing itself into irrelevance. I guess Ungar would disagree with that.