Mon 23 Nov 2009
Whack Essay
Posted by David under Wick Sloane '76 at 12:29 pm
Fun interview (mp3) with Wick Sloane ‘76 at The Story.
Community colleges are experiencing record enrollments in the recession. Some have responded by adding classes at all hours of the day. Wick Sloane teaches English at Bunker Hill Community College in Boston – at midnight.
As he tells Dick Gordon, Wick thinks students in community college are among the most energized and inspiring he’s ever met. He pointed us to Tremare James, a 19-year-old woman who has made back into the classroom despite debilitating sexual assaults. Wick and Tremare talk with Dick about the 12 a.m. to 3 a.m. class, and what they’re liking about the experience.
Highly recommended.
I never got around to answering Vicarious’s ‘83 question about community college enrollment. (The census data I was looking at was both dated and tough to work with.) Fortunately, this article tells the story. Key graphic:
Basic point: Lots of people go to college, both 4-year and community. Lots more go now then have gone in the past. Whatever small up and down movements we see this year or in future years will be almost imperceptible in this chart. The interviewer in this story pushes the line on exploding enrollments. Don’t believe the hype.
Too many people go into too much debt to go to college. They would be better off doing something else. Background reading here.
Tremare James was mentioned, without being named, in our previous discussions as the “Dunkin’ Donuts cashier who wants to be a homicide detective.” What odds would you give on James achieving her dream?
Becoming a detective starts with becoming a police officer. Here is how you do so in Boston. No college degree required. Perhaps someone could let James know.
Print • Email| « The Houses of Williamstown: Knitting Club (Kappa Chi) … | Here’s your weekly Brzezinski post » |
19 Responses to “Whack Essay”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
PCE says:
That’s one way of looking at it. Or maybe we should increase access and not privatize student loans [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/opinion/22wed3.html]
I’m curious, as someone who finished a PhD — what you called the “union card” to the professoriate in your dissertation acknowledgements — and then didn’t “do all [you] ever wanted to do … be a professor, argue philosophy and play intramural soccer” do you really think that higher education is only a means to an end? Or might the journey itself possibly have some value on its own?
Just asking!
PCE
David says:
You read my dissertation acknowledgements?! Excellent! How about posting them in context rather than just snippets? Our readers might enjoy them . . .
To answer your question: Education is fun if that is what you want to do. So is playing the lottery or watching the sunset. The issue is that people (like you?) tell 18 year-olds that going to college, even if it requires them taking on tens of thousands of dollars of debt, will make them better off, at least on average.
That may be true for people with high IQ. For people of average intelligence, it is doubtful, at best.
But misleading them makes you feel better, so keep at it!
If you have a substantive reply to the Forbes article I link to, please make it.
Here are two other ways to think about it.
1) Most Williams student do not go on for a masters or Ph.D. Do you think they are making a mistake? Would you urge them to stay in school for longer, even if they don’t want to? I hope not! I feel the same about the 18 year-olds that you are urging to go to college.
2) Around 40% of people in the US goes to college. I suspect that this is too much. What number would you think is too much? 60%? 90%? Or is the ideal world one in which everyone gets a Ph.D. because more education is always a good idea for everyone.
The tragedy here is not that Tremare James wants to be a detective. Dreams are good! The tragedy is that you and others seem to believe that misleading her about what going to Bunker Hill will do for her is a good idea.
Her sitting in Wick’s class and talking about being a detective is like me playing pick-up soccer this Sunday and planning my debut with the US national team. Precious, but ultimately unproductive.
rory says:
again with the accusation that wick is misleading his students! for shame.
David says:
Rory: Did you listen to the interview? Probably not.
I never said that Wick misleads his students. Can’t you read?
Wick is a buddy of mine and we have, on several occasions, discussed these topics. Wick has a nuanced and reasonable view. He certainly does not think (and has said so on EphBlog!) that everyone should go to college.
Wick tells his student that, if they work hard in his class and do what he tells them, they will become better writers. I am sure that this is true.
It is people like you who tell students like James that going to Bunker Hill is a good idea for someone who wants to be a homicide detective. You really think you are doing her any favors?
A huge percentage of the students that start college in the US, at places like Bunker Hill and elsewhere, never get a degree. But they still have the student loans. Are you going to help them with the payments?
rory says:
is wick part of this tragedy you describe or no: “The tragedy here is not that Tremare James wants to be a detective. Dreams are good! The tragedy is that you and others seem to believe that misleading her about what going to Bunker Hill will do for her is a good idea.”
if there’s a specific part of the interview that explains that comment away, point me to it.
or is Tremare James’ teacher not claiming that going to class is helpful?
rory says:
also, assuming (reasonably), that the upshift in your graph from 2006-present continues and that the total population in college has grown as well (both reasonable assumptions), then yes, we are facing record enrollments and using a graph of percentage of 18-24 year olds in college really says nothing to dispute the statements made by the reporter of exploding enrollments.
for shame.
David says:
1) If that graph says “exploding” to you, well, then I guess we will have to just disagree what what that word means.
2) You think that Wick is responsible for how/why people come to Bunker Hill? I don’t. Wick is responsible for turning his students into better writers. He does a fine job!
rory says:
re 1: are you really not following the basic logic?!?!*
Let’s do one of your charming hypotheticals: 1 million people go to college a year (to make this easy numbers). so, if in 2007 5% are at 2 year schools, that’s 50,000. If the next year 6% go to school, that’s an increase to 60,000 (assuming the totla number of students stays the same). What if the total number rises by 1% as well? Well, now we’re at 60,600. a jump over over 20%!!!! Except, in your graph, it looks like a tiny little blip. 20% is skyrocketing enrollment change. Imagine if williams suddenly added 400 more students! HUGE!
you are a quantitative researcher, right? this is the first couple of weeks of stats 101 here about how stats can appear one way but mean something else. this is legitimately mindboggling that you don’t get this.
re 2: no. But the person who teaches them even when they shouldn’t be wasting their money is a part of this misleading conspiracy. shouldn’t he instead be teaching them why they shouldn’t be there, if you’re correct about the purely economic reasons for going to school (which no one agrees with except for yourself)? Wick should, in your world, quit his job because he’s doing such economic harm to his students.
*in addition, a graph of 18-24 year olds will skew the percentage towards 4 year schools and away from 2 year schools. so there’s another way in which your graph is wholly inadequate for the claim you’re making.
JeffZ says:
Why is it that the same people who trust that individual decisions are more effective and efficient than government action don’t seem to think individuals can make up their own minds about what course of action, educationally speaking, is in their own best interest?
rory says:
btw, from the article that supplied the graph david and i are arguing about: “In October 2007, some 3.1 million young adults, or 10.9% of all 18- to 24-year-olds, were enrolled in a community college.1 A year later, that figure had risen to 3.4 million students, or 11.8% of all 18- to 24-year-olds. By contrast, enrollments at four-year colleges were essentially flat from 2007 to 2008.:”
and from the expanded article: “College enrollment estimates based on the September 2009 CPS suggest that enrollment among 18- to 24-year-olds has not decreased from its 2008 peak. In September 2009, 39.9% of 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in college. In comparison, 38.6% of 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in college in September 2008. Hence, early indications suggest that 2009 college enrollment for 18- to 24-year-olds at a minimum continues at the high levels of college enrollment measured for 2008.”
combine the two statements and the claim of “explosive growth” (3.1 million to 3.4 million is about 10% growth! 200 more students at williams in a year!) is looking mighty reasonable. the early indications, coupled with the countercyclical nature of community college means this recent year might see and even more dramatic growth in community college enrollment rates. it’ll be interesting to see if those rates also lead to a revival of the community college -> 4 year college that was the intention of many of the two year colleges or if that continues to be relatively underutilized/unsuccessful. If more of the people @ community college were able to get into 4 year schools and normally would have, will that create more transferring than we’ve seen in the past?
Derek says:
I don’t understand why we continue to allow to go unchallenged this myth that IQ is a particularly sterling barometer of . . . well, anything. Furthermore, iq can change over time. One of the factors leading to changes in iq? Education. And so asserting that only people with high iq’s will benefit from college might get it exactly wrong.
But more importantly with these discussions about who would or would not benefit from college, my question is: Who is going to make these decisions? Who is going to decide who does and does not go to college? Who is going to then tell employers hiring (and paying) college grads that a college degree is not that important that they should not worry about hiring college grads?
In other words: What’s the endgame here? And since all of us who went to or are going to Williams would presumably still be among those gong to college, and thus to graduate and professional school, and reaping all of the benefits, how are we going to explain this to, say, my students, many of whom presumably would not meet the artificial criteria we’re setting up?
dcat
David says:
Rory: I think that we are having a semantic dispute over the use of “exploding.” Consider the changes in total enrollments over various time periods:
2007 to 2008
2006 to 2007
2005 to 2006
or, if you like looking at longer time horizons,
2003 to 2008
1998 to 2003
1993 to 1998
And so on. Whatever time slice you look at, growth in total enrollments have been fairly constant. I expect, and the preliminary data for 2009 that you quote suggests, that the data for 2009 (and 2010, I bet) will show the exact same pattern.
Now, if you want to define the growth in enrollments over any of these periods as “exploding” then the same term could be used for this current period. But the tenor of much of the coverage is that right now is significantly different from 2005 or 1995 or anytime back to 1973. Since I would not use “exploding” for those periods, I don’t use it for current enrollments.
But reasonable Ephs might differ on this.
Derek says:
I’m not sure how this all fits in to Rory’s and Dave’s debate, but we keep hearing that by about 2015 texas will have to absorb 500,000 more college students. (More than what/when as a starting point is unclear — I first heard the stat in the last year or two when it became a standard talking point whenever admin and state officials were around). The Community Colleges are a central part of the state’s largher conception.
Whether any of this materializes/is materializing, I have no idea.
dcat
David says:
Who are you talking about? Like most believers in a free society, I think that people should be free to make their own decisions. D’uh. But, unlike some, I recognize that people sometimes make mistakes. Moreover, mistakes are especially likely when people don’t have access to accurate information.
Now, obviously, if Joe wants to spend money to go to college, then that is his choice. And if the College X admits him, that is there choice. Freedom rocks. But, as the Forbes article makes clear, a lot of Joes are, having wasted tens of thousands of dollars, realizing, after the fact, that college was a mistake. This does not mean that I or you or the Federal Government should pass a law forbidding Joe from going to college, or preventing College X from admitting him. But I do think we have a moral obligation to let Joe know all the facts. That is my main point.
A secondary point is that federal meddling in higher education via student loans (and not allowing the discharge thereof in bankruptcy) is going to do as much harm as federal meddling in home financing.
David says:
Derek: Wikipedia provides an excellent overview of IQ.
Your employer, right? Doesn’t the state of Texas decide who gets into UT Austin, who gets into Texas Tech and so on throughout the academic hierarchy?
Derek says:
Wait — did you just cite Wikipedia? And — are you kidding me? Do you really think I’m not familiar with IQ? But the point is that iq is not immutable — education can impact it, and so deciding who gets to continue their education based on iq is absurd. Plus: None of what Wikipedia (seriously: Wikipedia?) pronounces actually addresses the point: Since when did we establish that as the end-all and be-all? Your precious Wikipedia article doesn’t address that. [Want a few citations from academic studies showing some of the flaws in iq? I'll happily pass a few along.]
Right — my employer makes those decisions as to who gets in, but presumably if fewer go to college that changes the dynamic, and goes against the idea of allowing every Texan educational options. Are you shutting down components of the system? Which ones? Are you really saying that one’s record of accomplishment from the ages of 14-18 is going to determine whether thay can go to college at all?
And again: is it really appropriate for a bunch of Williams folks to start telling the masses that college is not for them? I’m proud of my current university’s mission. I’m not clear that there is not a place for thousands of students such as mine to be able to go to college.
dcat
Wick Sloane says:
I am baffled at the loop Ephblog so often gets into. Not just David.
1.) The odds of students like mine achieving their dreams are low.
2.) Therefore, somebody — perhaps me — should tell them to get real and, what, grab a mop?
As to the odds, I agree. The odds against community college students — and the poor in general in the U.S. — are overwhelmingly against. Give my students a bit of credit. My students do understand this. They have no delusions about what life probably holds for them. Pretty much all of them are terrified of loans. These are not the cohort running up debt.
Massachusetts Commissioner of education Rich Freeland (an Amherst grad) made some statement a year ago that the economy wasn’t a problem because of all the new federal loans available. One of my students hit the roof. She wrote Freeland and invited him to class (at 7 a.m.). We have no certainty of getting the job we want, she wrote. We’d be crazy to take out loans.
Sadly, Freeland blew it off, sent a deputy, Clantha McCurdy, who came to the class and spoke with them as though they were all ignorant people who were not invested in their educations. The students made credible proposals for improving student aid. She made promises to follow up. She never did and blew off reminders of her promises. The students are still furious not that they didn’t get everything they wanted but at how they were treated — repeatedly.
Now, back to Ephblog. Pollyanna I am not, for my students or otherwise.
Should everyone go to college? No. I don’t think that’s necessary, though I leave the decision up to the individual. Does the U.S. have a lot of smart people who, in spite of their own motivation, need more education than they have to be contributing members of society. As noted in my Common Sense, I vote for writing — as a proxy for thinking — and more math, again as a proxy for analyzing and thinking. How much more is a question for debate here. The Gates Foundation calls the need Post Secondary Plus — less than college, more than high school.
Will all my students reach their dreams? No. My practical credo for sanity is this: “Never stop trying to fix the whole system and never miss a chance to get one student over the wall at a time.”
What would happen if everyone in the U.S. had a Williams degree? I know of studies that show that educating more people does not lead rising wages. Even lower wages. OK. Those studies assume that the economic pie is static while the number of skilled people increases. I have asked and looked. I would love to see a study looking at the tipping points here. OK, perhaps 1 million more people with a Williams B.A. will decrease wages. How about 5 million? How about 10 million? I am trying to find out. An economist friend sent me a book on economic growth. It’s all Greek formulas. So far, I am stuck.
In this holiday season, a suggestion: Table the debate on who and how many should receive how more Williams-level educations. Go find one student and help him or her over the wall.
David says:
1) I agree with Wick!
2) I thank Wick for all his excellent teaching and for the three Bunker Hill students (all veterans) that he has kindly introduced to me over the last few years. Talking with them was a humbling experience.
3) I agree with Wick that the too-much-in-loans issue is much less likely to affect Bunker Hill students. See the Forbes article for more details.
rory says:
for someone who agrees with wick and thanks him and works with him and considers him a friend, you don’t paint that picture in your posts.
the substantial growth in enrollments in community colleges in earlier years led to reconsiderations of what role they should/can play in the education sphere. Today’s growth will likely lead to an even greater reconsideration because even that crappy graph shows a more dramatic upswing than in previous years. Today is different from 2005 because the growth in 2005 pushed community colleges to their max. They’re now way beyond that.
anyway, wick’s right. this isn’t iterating to agreement, tho.