In the snippets of writings I collect from around the web this comes to mind:

The Problem with Making Education Market Based
Craig Barrett has a nice opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today, but you have to have online access to view it. I agree with much of what he says. The U.S. education system needs dramatic improvement to help prepare citizens for the jobs of the future. The stereotypical liberal idea is to throw more money at the schools. Yeah it might help to pay teachers more. Then perhaps we would get a better crop of teachers instead of having so many who go into it because it is easy and you get summers off. But, there are plenty of examples of schools with lower spending per pupil ratios doing better than schools with higher ratios. The conservative answer to this is to make education more market based via vouchers or whatever. While this is certainly a better idea, it doesn't address a major problem with education - there isn't enough demand for it.

A market can't fix a problem when the demand is all screwed up to begin with. Demand for education is like demand for fitness - we all want to do it, we all know we should, we all know it will help us, but it is hard and boring and we would rather watch American Idol. How many people really go to college to learn? Not very many. Most go so they can get a degree and thus get a job. It's not about education, it is about job training. How many people read to learn once they are out of school? My guess is less than 10% of the population. It might be higher if you factor in people who need continuing education credits like CPAs, MDs, etc. But when was the last time someone told you about a cool non-fiction book they read? Probably never.

Bloggers may be a little different. I know most of you blog and read blogs because you are interested in ideas and are probably above average in intelligence and education. But I can tell you that in a place like this (Kentucky), most people really don't care. Most people I know haven't bought a book since college. A few weeks ago, I had a a friend tell me he had picked up a popular science book on string theory, just to see what it was about. I remember that event because he is one of two people I know who would ever consider reading something without being forced to do it. Most people want to expand their knowledge, just not enough to put forth the effort that it requires.

That said, I don't see where there is any hope for improving American education. There will always be a small percentage that love to learn and can push things forward. Everyone else will just follow. Long-term, the lack of education will probably destroy the democracy (via public choice theory). People aren't educated in economics, so they want protectionism. They aren't educated in science, so they want to ban stem-cell research on moral grounds. They aren't educated in money management, so they have to rely on the government for their retirement. I could go on and on and on, but I think you see my point. What is needed is underlying cultural change, and I don't know if that can happen.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

I found p0157 and thefadd's dialogue in the subq interesting. I think p0157's observation is probably quite accurate, and thefadd certainly makes good points as to why state colleges, as opposed to "the university of" schools, have more minority students.

But isn't it also pretty simply a matter of entrance requirements? Traditionally, many minorities have lagged behind when it comes to GPA and test results. Unless things have changed, the more numerous state colleges are usually much easier to get into than are the fewer public "university of" schools (private ones are a different matter). At least, that was the case in California way back in my time.

The questions on the poll are rather curious.  The choices given are between "meritocracy" and "open enrollment," but the populations of the flagship universities seem to be biased toward family money being one of the major qualifications.  I wasn't aware that being born into money was a sign of merit, but who am I to argue?

Good evening.

Having attended, or worked at, or both at one school in each category (Private 4-yr University, a public "University of," and a generic "... State University.") in my short professional career I thought it would be somewhat interesting if I commented on this topic. For the sake of brevity (which is the soul of wit, therefore I shall bloviate no further) I shall dictate this in bullet point format:

* Private 4 Year University: ½ the student body came from parents with more money than Yahweh, and knew it. The other half, myself included, came from less than upper class families but did not know want, usually. Class strata was somewhat evident, and the parking lots were an eclectic mix of old beaters and parental funded H2s painted obnoxiously loud colors. Of course, the school accepted a small of minorities (one of whom I roomed with who was quite frank about the fact that if it was not for the school football team he would not have been allowed to grace the campus without somebody calling the cops on him) and frequently hosted bus overnight trips of kids from inner city schools to encourage them to attend small lily white schools in rural america which they had no hope of ever affording, even with an absurd amount of loans. The university did the best it could to encourage critical thinking skills and independence through mandated general requirement courses and nanny-state-on-crack administrators, but many of its charges were there simply to enjoy the nightlife and get the required C+ average on the B-school required coursework then move on to various jobs pre-arranged by family (if I had a dollar for every time I heard how somebody's ancestor had arranged them a killer job/co-ownership/medical school slot when they graduated, I'd have... some money) or to fill low level management "trainee" jobs.

Talking points: $20,000-$30,000+ a year tuition, coupled with rural location subtly touted as a way to guarantee an education free of "undesirables." Underpaid faculty with absurdly low student ratio (where else would you find a tenured PhD teaching introductory non-major science labs?) --- some faculty genuinely care about students (why else wouldn't they be making more money in a research based state school?) and it is possible to make some of those "connections", 90%+ of the students finish in 4 years.

Public "University of": Usually the crown jewel of state public education systems these institutions grant undergrad and graduate degrees. Bigger than an Ohio State linebacker, and it seemed quite easy to get lost in the mix. Tuition was easily affordable and in state students got quite a good deal and state funded assistance. While you would have to put up with larger lecture halls and the like a student who wanted to apply themselves could make contacts with faculty (though not without running a gamut) and easily earn a top flight education, if they were willing to work for it. Although these were publically funded institutions the one I was at definetely appeared to not be representative of its urban setting and the students were from a higher economic flight.

Talking points: Easily ½ as much in tuition as a private school, probably less so having to stay an extra year not that big of a deal. Also, easier to make a transition into an appropriate graduate program and some credits may transfer. Easier to get lost in the shuffle but a high quality education could still be had if one is willing to work. I'd say 80%+ of the folks graduated in 4 years or so.

So-and-so State: Large. Part timers outnumber the full time students. Around town it seemed that half the population had university ID cards because they would attend sporadically whenever they could scrape the ~$2,500 for tuition together each semester (yes, this did occur in this current decade). Hugely disproportionate amount of elderly and disabled attending classes, although some cynics suggested they only did it for the cheap cheap cheap student insurance. Students appeared, as a whole, to be from poorer backgrounds, and were sorely lacking basic skills (I noticed writing [and I am talking they physical ability to manipulate the pen or pencil] and spelling errors I would expect from 4th grade pupils. I wish I was joking). While the university did seem to serve a good purpose in allowing students to lift themselves out of a crappy situation in life any student who could economically afford a better school (who was also qualified and had the means to attend) usually attended private or the state "University of..." Most of the faculty were "in transition" (eg doing a professorship right out of grad school themselves until they got tenure/got that first grant/made a big discovery and could transfer to some place better) or, if there long term, had some connection to the area.  Not  a bad thing, just meant undergrads wouldn't be learning from any big names in the field like they would at a top flight school.

Talking points: The place I was at had an undergrad finishing in 4 years rating of 5%. I am not joking. The poor quality of many of the undergrads, combined with their limiting economic options (many of them had multiple children without child-care options, army reserve/national guard commitment which plucks them out of class in the middle of the semester, or had to work several jobs) made the university a virtual gravity well that they could never escape with a degree. However, if a person is motivated and wants a good, cheap, education from a school that will not be their terminal degree (Eg wants to go on for an MBA, MA, MS, PhD, etc) this may be a good choice as the few bright and gifted students I encountered were noticed by myself and other instructors.

Now that I have gone completely off topic with my random anecdotes: Which would I suggest to a particular person? Hard to say. I would tend to tell my kids' not to go to a private 4 year school to avoid saddling them with all that debt unless they knew they needed the structure and discipline that comes from having a full professor grade your ditto homework assignments. For many, especially those who can keep themselves on track and who may be planning on continuing to graduate school I'd probably suggest one of the cheaper schools because it does not matter what your non-terminal degree says, just that you have one. In addition, the GPA will be higher and it will be easier to get noticed by the faculty leading to a glowing letter of recommendation which will lead to better jobs and a starting point than simply relying on "connections" from elderly relatives who will take your mojo to their grave with them.

Spread it on!

Full disclosure: I'm a graduate student at the University of Delaware, and I approved this message.

I'm not sure if this applies as a general rule for all south-of-the-Mason-Dixon states, but in Delaware the "University of" was restricted to whites-only until the 1950s (or even early 1960s, not sure of the exact date), while Delaware State was blacks-only until roughly the same time. Although U of D has made an effort to diversify, it's ethnic/racial makeup still favors whites (compared to their percentage of the state population). U of D has higher entry standards that Del State, and since Delaware's public school system is pretty terrible, white students, whose parents are better off on average and can thus afford to go to private high schools, tend to be better qualified to gain entry than minorities. Thus, even now more minorities end up at Del State.

I'm not sure what the solution is - affirmative action is a good step, but even that only goes so far if the students admitted fail out in the first semester. U of D has a lot of support programs for minority students and a nice program for students of any race who are the first in their family to go to college, but they only work if the students are willing to take advantage of them. I think the key is to fix the public school system - if students haven't learned basic writing, logic, and study skills by the time they're entering college, freshman year provides a pretty steep learning curve. I've been a teaching assistant for two freshman-level classes so far, and the students coming in are often woefully under prepared for the level of work that is required at the university level. Unfortunately, this isn't something universities have a lot of power to change, but it's a key component to solving the problem.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

This study is amazing to me, because during both my Undergrad years @ the State University of NY and my grad education at NYU, I hardly even met any people who were born in this country, much less belong to the elites. Granted I studied Computer Science, but damn - I was at SUNY for 4 years and there were like 3 Americans living in the whole dorm.