[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
Academic Double Standards
In last week's column, I concluded by saying that this
week's column would be devoted to the controversies over
education courses. The fact that last week's column evoked
considerable reader reaction -- most of it negative --
illustrates one of the points to be made this week.
Nothing affects a professor's career more than the
treatment accorded the courses he or she teaches. If the
course is required, there is a steady student clientele for
the course; if the course is an optional requirement (you
must take course A or B), those who teach it are usually in
good shape. If the course is elective, and must compete
against scores of other courses for students, there may be a
problem.
On campuses, the criticisms of education courses do not
necessarily emanate from disinterested scholars concerned
only about better education for the students. Frequently,
the criticisms are made by academics who want a bigger piece
of the academic pie; a convenient way to justify a larger
portion is to cite the superficiality of education courses.
Thus, the first point to be made is that we should be
careful not to draw any firm conclusions about the worth of
education courses from the charge that the courses survive
only because they serve the employment needs of professors
of education. The same point is applicable to many of the
critics. As Pareto said, "It is easy for people to convert
their interests into principles."
Note also that the institutional arrangements in higher
education reinforce the departmental and division tendencies
to expand by reducing courses outside of the department or
division. If a history professor criticizes a course taught
by someone else in the history department, there is a risk
of retaliation and the certainty of greater scrutiny of the
courses taught by the critic. Furthermore, face to face
confrontation is very unpleasant. These points are fully
applicable to professors of education; they are much more
critical of the courses offered outside of the school of
education than of courses offered by their fellow professors
of education.
Of course, not all of the critics are motivated by self
interest, and even if they were, that would not be
justification for dismissing their criticisms. The fact that
you have a personal stake in an issue doesn't mean that your
recommendations about it are not justified on policy
grounds. It does, however, suggest that caution is called
for in evaluating the recommendations, and in avoiding
double standards of evaluation.
I thought it interesting that none of the respondents
reacted to my argument that the study of education should be
part of a liberal education. After all, education is one of
our major social institutions, like our political
institutions, our economic institutions, our judicial
institutions, and others that help us to understand what is
happening and why. Nobody seems to challenge courses devoted
to these institutions -- and nobody tries to explain why
education should be an exception. Note that I have made an
argument based strictly on content; obviously, everyone
agrees that whatever is taught should be taught by someone
competent to teach it. But while my argument was based
purely on content considerations, there was no response to
it. Needless to say, it would be futile to introduce such a
recommendation to college faculties, even if Plato was
available to teach the courses.
The factual errors and logical errors in the responses,
coming as they did from individuals likely to have
repeatedly made these mistakes in the past, were also
interesting. One respondent made a statement about
certification requirements in his home state, where
presumably he has had ample opportunity to know the facts.
One call to his state revealed that his comment was
erroneous on a key point. When this sort of thing happens,
we have to wonder whether the critics have a double standard
in discussing the issues.
At any rate, my basic point was not that most education
courses are good ones; it is that the critics have a double
standard, as evinced, inter alia, by their failure to come
to grips with the educational results of the time devoted to
non-education courses; also by their to take affirmative
action to establish state tests on knowledge of the subjects
taught, even as an option, for state certification. And when
we do apply a single standard, or the same standards, what
do we find? In my opinion, that most college courses whether
labeled "professional education," "general education," or
courses in "the arts and sciences," aren't worth very much.
In this connection, it is useful to look at the numbers.
There are about five times as many teachers than doctors
(M.D.'s) in the United States. If we tried to graduate five
times as many doctors (setting aside how the numbers are
affected by immigration), what would happen to the standards
to practice medicine? They would be lower, just as they are
for education, history, English, and many other
non-education courses. The notion that we can get higher
quality teachers by shuffling the courses around merely
shows how little most critics have to offer on the problem
of teacher quality. When I was a graduate student fifty
years ago at the University of Illinois, the campus was in
turmoil over Arthur Bestor's The Educational
Wastelands -- a book that was as critical of
education courses as any published in recent years. My heart
sank -- had I stepped aboard a sinking ship? It turned out
that Bestor's book had very little practical impact, as can
be said about others of the same ilk that have followed it
for fifty years. The irony is that for the past twenty years
at least, my major professional objective has been to
replace our educational monopoly with a competitive
education industry.
Based on my experience to date, I would have to say that
most of the arts and sciences academics are as afraid of
this solution to the problem of lousy courses as are the
professors of education. To my knowledge, not a single
professional organization of academics has raised any hard
questions about our mindless expansion of higher education
-- another hint that the controversies over education
courses are a battle of interests, not of ideas or testable
propositions. This comment may not apply to the persons kind
enough to respond to last week's column, but as I said then,
I'm discussing central tendencies, not individuals.
|
Building a Competitive Education Industry
