/uploads/1/3/7/2/13722163/eng_111_intro-edu.docx
Alice L Erickson
M. Wentworth
English 111
20 October 2012
Pay Up: An Exploration into Student Value in Higher Education
Students strive for educational success, but not all are able to meet strict guidelines that have been provided by today's educational institutions. Unfortunately, students are not given equal opportunities to succeed; socio-economic factors, educators, and learning environments all differ from student to student. Does success derive solely from the responsible, self-motivated student? Society tends to rely on the individual to succeed, but, as Malcolm Gladwell points out in his analogy Teachers and Quarterbacks, “what matters more than anything in predicting professional success is the quality of the learning environment that the quarterback is drafted into, not the quality of the experience he was drafted from” (5). Students must be allowed an opportunity for reimbursement from the costly universities they pay for. It can be said that with a decreasing job market, universities must reform to produce successful students because societal success relies on student success.
To make all students successful, multiple learning approaches need to be offered; few students are able to demonstrate acquired knowledge with one central approach to learning. One major issue seems to be strict standards within the classroom. Obviously, some structure is necessary for educational progression, but there comes a time when too much structure causes regression; worse yet, causes a poor learning environment. Without a flexible learning environment, students grow apathetic because they aren’t able to learn in the way that adheres best to their learning needs. Like former professor at Harvard University, Louis Menand states, “...by generalizing instruction with prerequisite requirements students are forced to conform, and sacrifice genuine educational interests”, and as Paulo Friere puts it, “knowledge becomes a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing” (Freire 239; Menand 254). What student is honestly motivated to progress when the learned material seems so irrelevant, and the environment so inflexible that they cannot mold a positive path? This is what universities appear to want because they must “keep out unqualified practitioners (...) by monopolizing both instruction and scholarship”(Menand 254). It seems clear: students grow lethargic in school because they are so often forced to tighten their learning approach, but instructors rarely are willing to loosen their standards. So by indifferently delivering knowledge to students schools are discouraging student growth, and if they constantly feel inferior to their instructor they are unlikely to motivate themselves to further pursue an education.
Realistically universities are able to manipulate the unconfident student to adhere to a vague education because they are paying for tuition; and unfortunately, unconfident students are unlikely to question how their money is being spent. These tuition increases have caused universities to adopt an egocentric philosophy. Colleges are now more focused on revenue, and status rather than student well being, and a thorough education seems to be an idea of the past. This is evident by analyzing the CMU Budget report which states “tuition rates at CMU have more than tripled over the last decade,” and “since 1982 students at public four year colleges have seen a 257% increase in the cost of their education”(Tuition and Fee). –Sad considering the monopolized education students are offered, and shouldn’t increase tuition costs not come with a better education? The opportunity to see student value is lost when educators disclose budget information, yet another way to make university success a top priority instead of student success.
Many experts say tuition increase is caused by solely by “administrative bloat” (Greene). An interesting budget report offered by Jay Greene, a researcher at the University of Arkansas states he believes that the “expanding of resources devoted to administration significantly faster than spending on instruction research and service” is the source of tuition increases at universities (17). Greene reveals that there has been “a 62% increase in administrative cost per student in the past ten years, compared to only 39% in instruction, and overall there has only been a 34% increase in expenses per student”(17). The most interesting factor of tuition cost increasing being that no justifications need to be provided by universities on where tuition money is spent, and most certainly the increased cost is not benefiting students. However, many students will drop out of college when more students begin questioning increased tuition rates; they are literally and figuratively being robbed the opportunity to succeed.
If colleges do not make changes to better prepare the student for life beyond college they risk not only individual student success, but also societal stability (forget societal success). The real world does not ask that the individual be generalized, but diversified. Sure, students must be held accountable for personal success to some extent, but guidance helps root this. Like John Tagg points out in “Why Learn” there will always be students who “have little faith in their capacity for cognitive change and development (and they) will tend not to set learning goals” (6), again though if the individual was never given the basic fundamentals to achieve success to begin with; how are they able to achieve greatness after attending school?
By distributing a “one size fits all” education along with spending more than ever within universities, students should be guaranteed their value is reimbursed. At least, it would be thought that with a “flawless” curriculum, and increases in college spending, a job surplus would follow suit, but this is unlikely. Reality is that students are inadequately prepared for the future, and this is the greatest risk of all for society. To see how little education is valued is disappointing when considering a high level education was once very rare, but worse yet, to compare how little universities push for intelligence compared to how much society demands is disgusting. Howard Gardner once labeled intelligence as “the ability to create an effective product or offer a service that is valued in a culture; a set of skills that make it possible for a person to solve problems in life; and the potential for finding or creating solutions for problems, which involves gathering new knowledge” (3). Adjustments must be made to make curriculum standards more flexible so that students can be motivated to learn because as of right now nothing is for certain after graduation besides a piece of paper, major debt, and perhaps a place to sleep on mama’s couch. Reforms are needed immediately to demonstrate that students are getting something out of a high level education; if reforms are not made society will suffer, and most likely colleges will suffer because students will see no point in receiving a high level education if they won’t benefit from a degree.
Works Cited
Cmich.edu. "Tuition & Fee History." CMich.edu. Central Michigan University, July 2011. Web.
06 Nov. 2012. <https://iframes.cmich.edu/Documents/OIR/tuition-history.pdf>.
Freire, Paulo. Composing Knowledge Readings For College Writers,
“The Banking Concept.” Ed. Rolf Norgaard. Bedford/ St. Martin’s. 2007. Print.
06 Oct. 2012
Gardner, Howard. Educational Resources: Multiple Intelligences Theory.
New York: Basic Books, 1999. Web. 6 Oct.2012.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Composing Knowledge Readings For College Writers,
"The Talent Myth: Are Smart People Overrated." Ed. Rolf Norgaard.
Bedford/ St. Martin's. 2007. Print. (409). 06 Oct. 2012
Gladwell, Malcolm. Teachers and Quarterbacks. Malcolm Gladwell. Web. 17 Dec. 2008. 04 Oct. 2012
Greene, Jay P. "Administrative Bloat at American Universities." Goldwater Institute. N.p., 17
Aug. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2012 <http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Administrative%20Bloat.pdf>.
Menand, Louis. Composing Knowledge Readings For College Writers,
"What Are Universities For?" Ed. Rolf Norgaard. Bedford/St. Martin's. 2007. Print. 12.Oct. 2012
Tagg, John “Why Learn? What We May Really Teaching Students.” ABOUT CAMPUS/
March-April. 2004. Print. (6). 28 Sept. 2012
Alice L Erickson
M. Wentworth
English 111
20 October 2012
Pay Up: An Exploration into Student Value in Higher Education
Students strive for educational success, but not all are able to meet strict guidelines that have been provided by today's educational institutions. Unfortunately, students are not given equal opportunities to succeed; socio-economic factors, educators, and learning environments all differ from student to student. Does success derive solely from the responsible, self-motivated student? Society tends to rely on the individual to succeed, but, as Malcolm Gladwell points out in his analogy Teachers and Quarterbacks, “what matters more than anything in predicting professional success is the quality of the learning environment that the quarterback is drafted into, not the quality of the experience he was drafted from” (5). Students must be allowed an opportunity for reimbursement from the costly universities they pay for. It can be said that with a decreasing job market, universities must reform to produce successful students because societal success relies on student success.
To make all students successful, multiple learning approaches need to be offered; few students are able to demonstrate acquired knowledge with one central approach to learning. One major issue seems to be strict standards within the classroom. Obviously, some structure is necessary for educational progression, but there comes a time when too much structure causes regression; worse yet, causes a poor learning environment. Without a flexible learning environment, students grow apathetic because they aren’t able to learn in the way that adheres best to their learning needs. Like former professor at Harvard University, Louis Menand states, “...by generalizing instruction with prerequisite requirements students are forced to conform, and sacrifice genuine educational interests”, and as Paulo Friere puts it, “knowledge becomes a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing” (Freire 239; Menand 254). What student is honestly motivated to progress when the learned material seems so irrelevant, and the environment so inflexible that they cannot mold a positive path? This is what universities appear to want because they must “keep out unqualified practitioners (...) by monopolizing both instruction and scholarship”(Menand 254). It seems clear: students grow lethargic in school because they are so often forced to tighten their learning approach, but instructors rarely are willing to loosen their standards. So by indifferently delivering knowledge to students schools are discouraging student growth, and if they constantly feel inferior to their instructor they are unlikely to motivate themselves to further pursue an education.
Realistically universities are able to manipulate the unconfident student to adhere to a vague education because they are paying for tuition; and unfortunately, unconfident students are unlikely to question how their money is being spent. These tuition increases have caused universities to adopt an egocentric philosophy. Colleges are now more focused on revenue, and status rather than student well being, and a thorough education seems to be an idea of the past. This is evident by analyzing the CMU Budget report which states “tuition rates at CMU have more than tripled over the last decade,” and “since 1982 students at public four year colleges have seen a 257% increase in the cost of their education”(Tuition and Fee). –Sad considering the monopolized education students are offered, and shouldn’t increase tuition costs not come with a better education? The opportunity to see student value is lost when educators disclose budget information, yet another way to make university success a top priority instead of student success.
Many experts say tuition increase is caused by solely by “administrative bloat” (Greene). An interesting budget report offered by Jay Greene, a researcher at the University of Arkansas states he believes that the “expanding of resources devoted to administration significantly faster than spending on instruction research and service” is the source of tuition increases at universities (17). Greene reveals that there has been “a 62% increase in administrative cost per student in the past ten years, compared to only 39% in instruction, and overall there has only been a 34% increase in expenses per student”(17). The most interesting factor of tuition cost increasing being that no justifications need to be provided by universities on where tuition money is spent, and most certainly the increased cost is not benefiting students. However, many students will drop out of college when more students begin questioning increased tuition rates; they are literally and figuratively being robbed the opportunity to succeed.
If colleges do not make changes to better prepare the student for life beyond college they risk not only individual student success, but also societal stability (forget societal success). The real world does not ask that the individual be generalized, but diversified. Sure, students must be held accountable for personal success to some extent, but guidance helps root this. Like John Tagg points out in “Why Learn” there will always be students who “have little faith in their capacity for cognitive change and development (and they) will tend not to set learning goals” (6), again though if the individual was never given the basic fundamentals to achieve success to begin with; how are they able to achieve greatness after attending school?
By distributing a “one size fits all” education along with spending more than ever within universities, students should be guaranteed their value is reimbursed. At least, it would be thought that with a “flawless” curriculum, and increases in college spending, a job surplus would follow suit, but this is unlikely. Reality is that students are inadequately prepared for the future, and this is the greatest risk of all for society. To see how little education is valued is disappointing when considering a high level education was once very rare, but worse yet, to compare how little universities push for intelligence compared to how much society demands is disgusting. Howard Gardner once labeled intelligence as “the ability to create an effective product or offer a service that is valued in a culture; a set of skills that make it possible for a person to solve problems in life; and the potential for finding or creating solutions for problems, which involves gathering new knowledge” (3). Adjustments must be made to make curriculum standards more flexible so that students can be motivated to learn because as of right now nothing is for certain after graduation besides a piece of paper, major debt, and perhaps a place to sleep on mama’s couch. Reforms are needed immediately to demonstrate that students are getting something out of a high level education; if reforms are not made society will suffer, and most likely colleges will suffer because students will see no point in receiving a high level education if they won’t benefit from a degree.
Works Cited
Cmich.edu. "Tuition & Fee History." CMich.edu. Central Michigan University, July 2011. Web.
06 Nov. 2012. <https://iframes.cmich.edu/Documents/OIR/tuition-history.pdf>.
Freire, Paulo. Composing Knowledge Readings For College Writers,
“The Banking Concept.” Ed. Rolf Norgaard. Bedford/ St. Martin’s. 2007. Print.
06 Oct. 2012
Gardner, Howard. Educational Resources: Multiple Intelligences Theory.
New York: Basic Books, 1999. Web. 6 Oct.2012.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Composing Knowledge Readings For College Writers,
"The Talent Myth: Are Smart People Overrated." Ed. Rolf Norgaard.
Bedford/ St. Martin's. 2007. Print. (409). 06 Oct. 2012
Gladwell, Malcolm. Teachers and Quarterbacks. Malcolm Gladwell. Web. 17 Dec. 2008. 04 Oct. 2012
Greene, Jay P. "Administrative Bloat at American Universities." Goldwater Institute. N.p., 17
Aug. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2012 <http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Administrative%20Bloat.pdf>.
Menand, Louis. Composing Knowledge Readings For College Writers,
"What Are Universities For?" Ed. Rolf Norgaard. Bedford/St. Martin's. 2007. Print. 12.Oct. 2012
Tagg, John “Why Learn? What We May Really Teaching Students.” ABOUT CAMPUS/
March-April. 2004. Print. (6). 28 Sept. 2012