This article is technically a response to an earlier article in The New Republic damning Harvard et al for their admissions process, but can be read stand-alone.
So much to quote. Pinker presciently points to research implicating Harvard's admission process in Asian discrimination four years before the shoe dropped. He cites Adrian Wooldridge, who "pointed out [here in The New Republic ] two decades ago, test-based selection used to be the enlightened policy among liberals and progressives, since it can level a hereditary caste system by favoring the Jenny Cavilleris (poor and smart) over the Oliver Barretts (rich and stupid)." And the piece hits hard:
- What about the rationalization that charitable extracurricular activities teach kids important lessons of moral engagement? There are reasons to be skeptical. A skilled professional I know had to turn down an important freelance assignment because of a recurring commitment to chauffeur her son to a resumé-building “social action” assignment required by his high school. This involved driving the boy for 45 minutes to a community center, cooling her heels while he sorted used clothing for charity, and driving him back—forgoing income which, judiciously donated, could have fed, clothed, and inoculated an African village. The dubious “lessons” of this forced labor as an overqualified ragpicker are that children are entitled to treat their mothers’ time as worth nothing, that you can make the world a better place by destroying economic value, and that the moral worth of an action should be measured by the conspicuousness of the sacrifice rather than the gain to the beneficiary.
What is a higher education then?
- This leads to Deresiewicz’s second goal, “building a self,” which he explicates as follows: “it is only through the act of establishing communication between the mind and the heart, the mind and experience, that you become an individual, a unique being—a soul.” Perhaps I am emblematic of everything that is wrong with elite American education, but I have no idea how to get my students to build a self or become a soul. It isn’t taught in graduate school, and in the hundreds of faculty appointments and promotions I have participated in, we’ve never evaluated a candidate on how well he or she could accomplish it. I submit that if “building a self” is the goal of a university education, you’re going to be reading anguished articles about how the universities are failing at it for a long, long time.
I think we can be more specific. It seems to me that educated people should know something about the 13-billion-year prehistory of our species and the basic laws governing the physical and living world, including our bodies and brains. They should grasp the timeline of human history from the dawn of agriculture to the present. They should be exposed to the diversity of human cultures, and the major systems of belief and value with which they have made sense of their lives. They should know about the formative events in human history, including the blunders we can hope not to repeat. They should understand the principles behind democratic governance and the rule of law. They should know how to appreciate works of fiction and art as sources of aesthetic pleasure and as impetuses to reflect on the human condition.
On top of this knowledge, a liberal education should make certain habits of rationality second nature. Educated people should be able to express complex ideas in clear writing and speech. They should appreciate that objective knowledge is a precious commodity, and know how to distinguish vetted fact from superstition, rumor, and unexamined conventional wisdom. They should know how to reason logically and statistically, avoiding the fallacies and biases to which the untutored human mind is vulnerable. They should think causally rather than magically, and know what it takes to distinguish causation from correlation and coincidence. They should be acutely aware of human fallibility, most notably their own, and appreciate that people who disagree with them are not stupid or evil. Accordingly, they should appreciate the value of trying to change minds by persuasion rather than intimidation or demagoguery.
I believe (and believe I can persuade you) that the more deeply a society cultivates this knowledge and mindset, the more it will flourish. The conviction that they are teachable gets me out of bed in the morning. Laying the foundations in just four years is a formidable challenge. If on top of all this, students want to build a self, they can do it on their own time.
Shared for your efforts in parsing it, not for Pinker's piece nor the piece he's responding to. A lot of academics, in their attempts to defend academia, fall prey to the same fallacy: presuming that the merit of their credential is related to education. It's not. It's signaling. I mean, here's Pinker: If you're going to take a swing for the intellectual rigor of the Ivys, maybe don't launch into a hackneyed stereotype about different areas of study. Particularly when you're attempting to take down another author for his hackneyed stereotypes. The Ivy League isn't "broken." It just isn't what Pinker thinks it's for. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*rDB6d3vGEY6UrqO36B6i-Q.pngStill, there are no grounds for the sweeping pronouncements about the virtues of non-Ivy students (“more interesting, more curious, more open, and far less entitled and competitive”) that Deresiewicz prestidigitates out of thin air. It’s these schools, after all, that are famous for their jocks, stoners, Bluto Blutarskys, gut-course-hunters, term-paper-downloaders, and majors in such intellectually challenging fields as communications, marketing, and sports management.
I agree with you that education's value is in its signalling (I'm excited for you to read The Case Against Education). But signalling isn't 100% of the value of the education--maybe more like... 70%? hard to quantify--and I believe that's where there's room for ideas about what that education should consist of. After all, if we're gonna make them jump hoops for four years, they ought to be doing something socially useful during that time. I like Pinker's articulation. It's concrete, for one (get out of here with that "the purpose of college is to find yourself." I don't like the federal government subsidizing something so vague). I agree it ought to impart humanism and intellectualism.
Okay but let's break it down further: I can go to community college for about $100 per credit per quarter around here. If I were to go full 180 credits, I'm looking at $18k for an education. Fuckin' shitballs crazy for community college - when I got my undergrad the rack rate was about $110 for a PAC-10 university. But it's a fair shake less than the rack rate of $270k Harvard gets if you aren't one of their financial aid cases (in fairness to Harvard, they give out a lot of financial aid). So. What's the value of $270k of Harvard vs. $18k of South Seattle Community College? I would argue it's 100% signaling. Yeah - you're going to have an overall better education from Harvard. But my grandparents got within a year of graduating Harvard and Radcliffe (and then had my uncle, who got into Harvard and committed suicide the first semester there, thereby blackballing my family from Harvard forever) and a Harvard education without a Harvard sheepskin was good enough to make my grandfather a union shop foreman. A Radcliffe education without a Radcliffe sheepskin was enough to make my grandmother a librarian (not head librarian) at a state school. So somewhere between three years and three and a half years at Harvard - even back before the GI bill, when going to college wasn't all that common - was worth about as much as going to college anywhere. My grandfather's brother finished Harvard. He helped invent LORAN and had a long and illustrious career at EG&G. My grandfather's uncle finished Harvard. He helped invent heart transplants. My grandfather's niece finished Harvard. She's an executive at Morgan Stanley if I recall correctly. But because my grandfather was a semester shy, he learned to operate a lathe.
I left 30% room for non-signaling value because, ya know, literacy and numeracy. But yea, it's sheepskins, baby. Consider. No one would stop me from walking into a classroom at Cornell or Princeton and sitting in a classroom and listening to the professor everyday, all semester. Hell, they'd probably be flattered. Furthermore, a world class education exists a few clicks (or a library pass) away. But try slapping that on your resume. I spent five years as a college dropout variously partying, traveling, working, and volunteering in all manner of places (alpaca ranch, elementary school, summer camp, to name a few). Made a lot of friends. Had a lot of fun. Had the formative experience living by my own decisions chasing my fancy, scraping my knee, and gaining some perspective. An employer sees a five year gap in employment. It was only because I had an (ongoing) degree at Tailgate State that Morgan Stanley offered me an internship. Non-conformism, no matter how ennobling, just does not look good.