The evolution of college over the
years has been significant. Unfortunately, for most students who hoped to go to
college pre-1940, the thought of attending was a mere dream. Looking from the
outside in, those not born into significant family wealth had virtually no
chance of being able to attend Universities.
 |
http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/activities/images/AKM%20date%20unknown.jpg
College pre-1940 was largely about social connections, such as fraternities. |
Most likely, these people ended up
working relatively low paying jobs in poor living conditions, as they didn’t
have the “education required for any higher paying jobs, because they simply
couldn’t afford college. On the flip side, however, life could have hardly been
easier. For the rich, attending college was simple. Most took advantage of the
wealth of their families, and attended college not because they were the most
talented, or intelligent, but because they could afford it.
Once
there, while most of their high school was likely off working in factories,
college students pre-1940 were having a great time. Not to say that school was
non-existent, but it was pretty close. The most beneficial factor of attending
college for these students was the connections they made with other wealthy
people there. Joining fraternities and clubs were great ideas, as they expanded
peoples networks. It wasn’t about what you knew but who you knew.
 |
http://educationmatters.blogs.newmanu.edu/files/2011/03/chart1-2.jpg
The GI Bill caused an increase in four year college degrees, noted by the
upward sloping red line. |
Unfortunately
for some of the wealthy, in the 1940’s changes occurred that made college
similar to what it is today. The implementation of the GI Bill allowed many
more people to be able to go to college, as well as becoming the first and
largest affirmative action program ever created. Suddenly, attending college wasn't just a place to meet people, and create connections. Students had to prove themselves also. The first theory of higher education, as defined by Louis Menand, stated college was a sorting mechanism where the best students would get the best grades, therefore college classes would weed out the good and bad students and show who had the most potential in the workforce. Meanhwhile, Menand's Second Theory, claimed college wasn't about grade pointe average, but about what students actually learned. With this newfound knowledge, students could benefit society in great ways. No matter what theory is more dominant, the end result is the GI Bill made college more accessible, and more relevant to the majority of society. So great, now theoretically
everyone gets a fair shot to attend college. If this is the case, the playing
field should be fair for everyone right? Wrong. While meritocracy and hard
work will almost always make one successful today, the case still hasn’t
changed where those with hereditary connections don’t make it to the top
despite a lack of effort.
 |
http://keviviano.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/bernstein.png
Sometimes the business runs in the family, as seen by the
Bernstein law firm. |
Having
seen this first hand, unfortunately some people still make it through life
without pulling their fair share or putting in the necessary effort it takes
for those who want to be successful. Many internships for undergraduate college
students, for instance, are given out not based on accomplishments that student
has achieved, but who his dad knows, for instance. Unfortunately, the student
with the 3.5gpa doesn’t always get the job over the less qualified student with
the 2.8 gpa. Most like to think that this isn’t the case anymore, that people
have to earn everything they receive, but it simply isn’t. Has time changed
that much? While the government can try and even the playing field as much as
possible, and society can frown upon those who take the easy way out when given
the choice, the reality that grades don’t always matter, that hard work isn’t
always necessary, may never change. As much as college has changed from what it
was 75 years ago, some things remain the same.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post and while it is unfortunate, I have to agree with you. The reality is, is that not much has changed since the 1940's and some people will undoubtedly rise to the top, be it through attending a particular college or obtaining a certain job, because of who they know as opposed to what they know. This concept of social capital (connections that are made) is extremely important in our current economic state because of the job market that is available. Kids who work hard during college and earn the grades are not always getting the jobs. Other kids have Dad make a phone call and boom, the next few years of your life is taken care of.
While this is unfortunate, it is the truth and it is inevitable that certain people will have access to better opportunities because of their social and cultural capital (a persons interest and ability to hold intelligent conversasion about art, music, etc.). Because this is a fact, i think that schools should start to invest time in teaching social and cultural capital and make it apart of the schools curriculum. Teaching kids how to form connections and expand a network and educating kids in becoming cultured individuals would benefit them late on in life.
We as a society need to adapt and start to come to the realization that who you know offers more opportunities than what you know.
Overall very interesting post.
-Jake
Ben,
ReplyDeleteI liked your article.I definitely agree with Menand's second theory of higher education.I just wish that college was really about how much you learn, rather than getting the grades you need to get. The whole purpose of education is to prep students to be productive members of society. In high school, even for me, it was all about getting an A. It didn't matter if I crammed on a test and forgot the material if I got the grade I wanted. It shouldn't be like that even in college. It should be about learning as much as you can about a lot of different things. I know it would be tough to change the system, but we could make tweaks to make learning more of a priority.
The one thing that I don't agree with that you discussed is Affirmative action. Affirmative action was necessary in the 60s and 70s when racism was more evident in our society. We don't need it today. The kids that get into college should be the best, regardless of race, minority or gender. I understand that kids come from different backgrounds, but if they work hard and get the right grades they should be able to get into some form of college. I feel personally slighted by this issue. The best students should get into college. This shouldn't be based off gender, race or minority. It should be based off the students qualifications.
-Matt McCool
Ben,
ReplyDeleteOverall, I thought this was a great article and you supported your points with valid evidence. I would have to agree with Menand's second theory of higher education. I believe in this theory because society has no longer been made for those who have the renowned "book smarts". The word has taken a drastic change to help out the less talented students and has allowed for students to learn/know the most will be successful. A particular individual might have the most incredible book smarts and not ever have to study for a test, but where does that get them in life? If they are just getting by in life and not putting in their outmost effort then they will eventually be surpassed by those who work hard and learn things along the way.
It is a great theory that Menand discusses, because I do agree that students in todays day and age are capable of getting into college strictly through who their father knows. It is unfair for those students who work hard every single day and put an effort into their studies. By accepting a student whose dad knows the President does not help 1. the student and 2. the college. This is an attribute that colleges need to change because it is getting ridiculous. The best student with the best grades and the best work ethic should get into college over the President's friends son or daughter. Overall great argument.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post. I am glad that you decided to address this issue. I agree with Menand's firth theory of education. I support this theory because the sorting mechanisms filter out the best students. I think it is important to earn your spot through hard work and effort rather than having connections and knowing people.
I strongly support Menand's second theory but I do not think it applies to all situations. I am all about learning new things but at the end of the day, my G.P.A is more important. In the end result, when you're applying to graduate school, the schools are going to look at you're G.P.A and not how much you learned as a whole. A G.P.A has more concrete evidence. Some people are very knowledgeable, but not good test takers. Unfortunately, for colleges the tests have a number for the end result.
Humans are competitive and a G.P.A reinforces the nature of competitiveness. Moreover, students appreciate a G.P.A more than actually learning because a G.P.A has proof of all the hard work they put in.
Benjamin,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post and even though I don't want to, I have to agree with you. Your main point is that as much as college has changed from what it was 75 years ago, some things remain the same. I think the most dramatic change we have from the 1940s is who gets accepted into college. It is no longer just those born into significant family wealth. Now, we see a diverse array of students getting accepted into college and being able to attend college. You do stand corrected with the fact that some things remain the same. Getting into college and/or networking is usually still a matter of who you know. You provide a great example with the fact that many internships for undergraduate college students are given out not based on accomplishments that student has achieved, but who his dad knows. This completely shows how students are not judged on hard work and merit as they should be. They are seen as better through connections. This example shows how some things still remain the same.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a valid point; unfortunately not much has changed from 1940s to now. I have seen some brilliant minds forced to attend community colleges because of their lack of financial capital. For those who argue that loans can help students through school keep in mind that being buried in debt and a having a terrible credit score are not enticing to many. Some of the most reputable schools cost around $50,000 per year for undergraduate programs. Graduate programs can be even worse, costing upwards of $70,000 per year for law degrees from top tier schools. While these examples are extreme, they are still expenses typically affordable to only the most well off families, just like higher education was back in the 1940s.
My Grandparents were all fortunate enough to attend college. My Grandpa, for example, originally attended the University of Illinois before being taken out by his parents for being too focused on social gatherings rather than his education and was instead place at Northwestern University. It is just ironic how times have really not changed, which you bring up very clearly, in terms of higher education.
After receiving higher education, connections are critical to employment. A student with family at high-level positions at Accenture, for example, will have a much easier time finding employment than parents who work at a local elementary school because the parents (at Accenture) can put them into touch with those who can give good paying jobs. So they are given an opportunity that others (like the student with parents working at an elementary school) do not have. Many look on this difference as an unfair advantage, and indeed I can agree with them. But why would you not take an opportunity like this? Locke would view this as a reflection of Man’s selfishness and aggression.
But returning to the idea of education, we really need to embrace the second theory of Menand. I think an approach like this would more effectively level out the playing field and change the way higher education is conducted. Because what we are able to learn and remember from school should really determine our place in the world, not how one can take advantage of the system and achieve the highest G.P.A. Unfortunately, at the moment the only easy way for businesses and others to view students’ level of learning is by the crude number known as the G.P.A. This needs to change, as the blog responders above me agree, because giving everyone equal opportunity to succeed could prove crucial to the advancement of our society.