This is a thought provoking article. Compliments to the authors for writing the book and engaging in this discussion, but it must be recognized that the topics addressed here are only a small piece of a very large puzzle. There are many things that are "wrong" with higher education in this country, but they cannot be viewed in isolation from the other components that drive the dynamics of this our society. I am a professor in an engineering department at one of the Golden Dozen/Ivy League institutions that is repeatedly mentioned by name in the article. I am not a native of the United States though, and all my schooling through secondary school was in the British system, so we had 'O' and 'A' level exams and the whole bit that some folks here may be familiar with. I came to the US as an undergraduate student and stayed for graduate work before doing post-doctoral research and starting as an assistant professor in my current position. All of my education/training in the US was at institutions that again are repeatedly mentioned in this article. That said, given my background, I think I can comment somewhat objectively on the issues at hand.
LIBERAL ARTS/LIBERALISM
I believe that Hacker and Dreifus are very much on point in the value that they place on the "liberal arts" education of college students. I could perhaps rephrase that to say that the value to society and the student in the long run is in liberal education, *broadly defined*. The gap between American high school students and many of their foreign counterparts in capability in subjects such as mathematics and physics (and many others) is simply glaring. Yet, somehow, as if by magic, when one compares the products of American institutions at the MS and PhD level especially, but also too at the BS/BA, that gap has narrowed tremendously or even disappeared altogether. More importantly, in the "things that matter", in the creation of new knowledge and capabilities as a society, few places can compete with the US for its dynamism. All of this is a reflection I believe of the creativity of US students/society. I believe that US education eschews rote learning in favor of open ended learning. This was certainly more the case 50 years ago than it is today with the excessive focus on things like SATs, achievement exams in high school, No Child Left Behind etc., but certainly by comparison with many other countries, particularly "Old World" nations, it is undeniable.
GETTING THINGS DONE
While liberal/more open ended education is great, the benefit to society must be balanced against the need to just get things done. If you want a bridge built, or a circuit board designed, or accounts balanced, on the basis of existing and well established knowledge, you need vocational training to prepare 'workers', dare I use that word, to accomplish those tasks. Companies like Caterpillar and Goodyear don't go looking to MIT and Stanford for the bulk of their BS level engineers when they go hiring, and for good reason. The liberal education of a workforce or society (or military) is in general a luxury, but I would argue that it is a luxury that this country can afford, one that would serve it well on the societal level (awareness, enlightenment...they improve the human condition), and one that would also serve its interests economically, given how much of the US economy is based on 'cutting edge' activity, as opposed to simply pumping out large volumes of low value goods. In some areas, though, the rapid entry of vocationally trained individuals into the workforce is required (think nursing, for example), and there the society must act in its interest, for example, by making such training available without a liberal education prerequisite. I would argue (and many foreign educated people tend to agree) that already the US system places a very heavy emphasis on liberal education, even within the confines of a 4 year engineering degree, and to me that's perfectly fine and acceptable. I would argue, as many have and as I think the authors support, for the broa
Slashdot Mirror
This is a thought provoking article. Compliments to the authors for writing the
book and engaging in this discussion, but it must be recognized that the topics addressed here are only a small piece of a very large puzzle. There are many things that are "wrong" with higher education in this country, but they cannot be viewed in isolation from the other components that drive the dynamics of this our society. I am a professor in an engineering department at one of the Golden Dozen/Ivy League institutions that is repeatedly mentioned by name in the article. I am not a native of the United States though, and all my schooling through secondary school was in the British system, so we had 'O' and 'A' level exams and the whole bit that some folks here may be familiar with. I came to the US as an undergraduate student and stayed for graduate work before doing post-doctoral research and starting as an assistant professor in my current position. All of my education/training in the US was at institutions that again are repeatedly mentioned in this article. That said, given my background, I think I can comment somewhat objectively on the issues at hand.
LIBERAL ARTS/LIBERALISM
I believe that Hacker and Dreifus are very much on point in the value that they place on the "liberal arts" education of college students. I could perhaps rephrase that to say that the value to society and the student in the long run is in liberal education, *broadly defined*. The gap between American high school students and many of their foreign counterparts in capability in subjects such as mathematics and physics (and many others) is simply glaring. Yet, somehow, as if by magic, when one compares the products of American institutions at the MS and PhD level especially, but also too at the BS/BA, that gap has narrowed tremendously or even disappeared altogether. More importantly, in the "things that matter", in the creation of new knowledge and capabilities as a society, few places can compete with the US for its dynamism. All of this is a reflection I believe of the creativity of US students/society. I believe that US education eschews rote learning in favor of open ended learning. This was certainly more the case 50 years ago than it is today with the excessive focus on things like SATs, achievement exams in high school, No Child Left Behind etc., but certainly by comparison with many other countries, particularly "Old World" nations, it is undeniable.
GETTING THINGS DONE
While liberal/more open ended education is great, the benefit to society must be balanced against the need to just get things done. If you want a bridge built, or a circuit board designed, or accounts balanced, on the basis of existing and well established knowledge, you need vocational training to prepare 'workers', dare I use that word, to accomplish those tasks. Companies like Caterpillar and Goodyear don't go looking to MIT and Stanford for the bulk of their BS level engineers when they go hiring, and for good reason. The liberal education of a workforce or society (or military) is in general a luxury, but I would argue that it is a luxury that this country can afford, one that would serve it well on the societal level (awareness, enlightenment...they improve the human condition), and one that would also serve its interests economically, given how much of the US economy is based on 'cutting edge' activity, as opposed to simply pumping out large volumes of low value goods. In some areas, though, the rapid entry of vocationally trained individuals into the workforce is required (think nursing, for example), and there the society must act in its interest, for example, by making such training available without a liberal education prerequisite. I would argue (and many foreign educated people tend to agree) that already the US system places a very heavy emphasis on liberal education, even within the confines of a 4 year engineering degree, and to me that's perfectly fine and acceptable. I would argue, as many have and as I think the authors support, for the broa