American Education

[estelwen]

Nietzsche says, "'Higher education' and huge numbers--that is a contradiction to start with. All higher education belongs only to the exception: one must be privileged to have the right to such a privilege. All great, all beautiful things can never be common property... our 'higher schools' are all set up for the most ambiguous mediocrity, with their teachers, curricula, and teaching aims. And everywhere an indecent haste prevails." (Excerpted, Twilight of the Idols)

In Hardy's "Jude the Obscure", Jude Fawley strives to enter the sacred halls of Christminster University, spending many lonely hours attempting to teach himself Greek and Latin in order to merit acceptance to the university. He applies for a scholarship but is turned down. Ultimately, combined with his disappointed love for his cousin Sue and grief from the death of his children, his academic disappointment kills him.

Now we have a different scenario, at least in the United States, which is the system I am most familiar with. Anyone can 'go to school' and although certain schools may not be accessible to all, employers, parents, and especially the federal government will pay for the education of anyone who desires it. The American Ideal that "All men are created equal" seems to have carried over to our educational system, at least in theory.

And yet the quality of education has suffered greatly. According to the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) assessment, 1994-98, Americans with bachelor's degrees fall fifth internationally in literacy. (Sorry, couldn't find more current stats. Would welcome some.)

We are a culture unable to think individually and unaware of historical events that may have a bearing on current ones.

Is this trend positive? If most people are satisfied with their level of education, does that provide a satisfactory excuse for mediocrity? What would happen to Jude Fawley now? I myself am attending university using government money and know many others doing the same. Should wealth determine who recieves higher education? If merit or aptitude determinesinstead, how could these attributes be judged? And does any individual or group of individuals have the right to decide what benefits another recieves?

I am hoping that others with more experience and other points of view will comment. Thank you!

[OrphanPip]

I think Americans have relatively low portions of their population with post-secondary education compared to Canada and Europe. What I think is interesting about the American education system is the huge variance in quality. You have some really terrible universities in the USA, such as Jerry Falwell University, but you also have some of the greatest, Harvard and Princeton for example

Americans seem to fall behind in overall education ratings. Although, they are still producing some of the greatest scholars in the world. Depending on what you think the goals of post-secondary education are, the Americans do seem to be doing quite well in science, engineering, and medicine. Those literacy statistics may be reflective of the trend of decreasing interest in the liberal arts. We also have to consider the number of non-native speakers entering university. Most Finnish university students are Finnish born and raised, while many Americans are speaking English as a second language.

Finally, I disagree with Nietzsche, I don't think education should simply be reserved to the elite. Rather, education should be given to the capable and willing.

[estelwen]

You have several points, OrphanPip. Definitely the quality of higher education varies madly in the United States. Also the number of students for whom English is a second language is rising, which seems likely to contribute to a decrease in literacy.

I observe a massive decline in interest in the liberal arts; I know few individuals who actually read literary literature when not required to do so, even among those considered well-educated. Perhaps that may be seen anywhere in the world. Thoughts anyone?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Some interesting questions there. I can't really speak in terms of American education but I'll give a few general thoughts.


Finally, I disagree with Nietzsche, I don't think education should simply be reserved to the elite. Rather, education should be given to the capable and willing.

I don't know if that is what Nietzsche is fully saying. When he says higher education and huge numbers being contradiction in terms and commenting about privilege, I don't think he is making a value judgement, just observing. Privilege will always buy privilege, which is why the 7% of those who attend the best private schools in the UK take something like 65% of the best jobs. I think he is echoing this sentiment, though of course he is speaking of a different time and place.

Taking the "all men are created equal" quotation and I think we have to be careful about the meaning of this too. Clearly all people are not created equal because we don't live in an equal society and biologically we are all very different. This difference includes intelligence. If you take a normal distribution graph (the one shaped like a bell) then there is always going to be a small minority at the top range because this is just natural variation. This is also what I think Nietzsche is getting at in a way too.

When talking about mediocrity I think you can link this to the natural distribution graph too. There will always be the bulk in the middle and for most parts this perhaps represents mediocrity, the mediocrity that rules most things by ruling the market, which probably leads your point:


We are a culture unable to think individually and unaware of historical events that may have a bearing on current ones.

Which is probably right, but I can't see that such has ever really been that different in the past if I'm honest.


Is this trend positive? If most people are satisfied with their level of education, does that provide a satisfactory excuse for mediocrity? What would happen to Jude Fawley now? I myself am attending university using government money and know many others doing the same. Should wealth determine who receives higher education? If merit or aptitude determines instead, how could these attributes be judged? And does any individual or group of individuals have the right to decide what benefits another recieves?

I'll not address every point just to say that I think that people with an aptitude for education will find a way. The doors are not as closed as they were in poor old Jude's day, it might be a difficult slog for those not born into privilege to always compete at the highest levels on equal terms, but at least Jude gets a fighting chance.

You talk about funding from the government, but it is not free money. Think of it as a long term investment for them. I'm also studying because of government funding, i don't pay a penny, but they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts (if you believe politicians even have them) no, they expect a return in the long run, via an increase in skills and employability with the return on taxes etc.

You could also take a cynical view of education and ask if the powers that be are interested, I mean really interested, in giving everyone the very best education, there are only so many university places available. Besides the more people that have degrees the weaker the merit of that degree, which is what is partially happening in the UK anyway. Record numbers of people are entering universities, so now people really need post grad degrees in order to get one step ahead of the crowd.

Personally though, I don' really worry about it all. I just focus on my own education, which I really enjoy, and have done with it.