The View From 1776

Is a College Degree Necessary?

Charles Murray advances a provocative idea.

If his suggestion were followed, fewer young people would fall into the clutches of liberal-progressive professors and fewer would be converted to the secular religion of socialism.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/13 at 05:14 PM
  1. Murray's idea is a solution looking for a problem.

    He suggests replacing college degree letters with numerical test scores(which sounds suspiciously like "No Child Left Behind for Grownups"). Instead of a BA in English Literature you would be awarded an "89" in "English Literature for Bureaucrats."

    In the fields where immediate public health and safety is at stake, rigorous examinations are already required (engineering, architecture, dentistry, medicine, pharmacy, etc.)

    In many other fields, it is nonsensical to imagine that there is a definitive way to numerically measure readiness. What subject do you test to establish ability to be a stock broker? an entrepreneur? a salesman? an author? a legislator? a graphic designer?

    And Brewton's theory that this would somehow keep our kids out of the clutches of the godless atheist secular humanist socialist professors seems to make little sense.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/13  at  06:57 PM
  2. Fact is, colleges have already glommed on to Outcome Based Education. That is, social promotion, subjective grading, and much much more. It's a total abdication of the teaching profession. Show me a college with a "rigorous examination," in public health and or safety, or any other field for that matter. Plain and simple, it just doesn't exist. Political Correctness is an anathema to scholarship of any kind and vice versa. Polar opposites. Don't be fooled. Those who know, know about the academy:
    Posted by Peggy McGilligan  on  08/14  at  05:14 PM
  3. Re Pat's pat statement : "Brewton's theory that this would somehow keep our kids out of the clutches of the godless atheist secular humanist socialist professors seems to make little sense."

    I for one must side with Brewton and against Pat and the professors. As Peggy observes, the major traditional colleges have glommed onto PC concepts that make a mockery of rational inquiry and any search for wisdom. And most of the destructive PC concepts are openly atheistic, socialistic and anti-American.
    This subject benefits from Thomas Sowell's distinction between "hard science" and "soft science." The physical sciences that are subject to rigorous testing and proofs are useful subjects and are taught primarily as science, although many science teachers are currently forced to spend a day or two a week covering the multi-cultural and gender "issues" within their specialized field-- which must be a challenge for a calculus or electrical enginneering teacher. The "soft-sciences" are different from true science in that there are no verifiable proofs of the merits of alternative points of view. The soft-science teachers in fact bow to today's mandated moral relativism and teach that all economies, all nations, all cultures, all people have been and are of equal merit--except they usually make an exception--that the United States is pretty evil--for example America tolerated slavery and invaded other territories--as if no other nation ever did such things!. In my book "Common Genius" I have examined today's academia in the course of developing the book's theory that academics and soft-science intelligentsias are the cause of national Decline--as compared to the common people who actually build prosperous societies. In order to show graphically the conclusions of that examination, I have come up with "The Radzewicz Curve:" If you make the horizontal axis represent years of soft-science schooling, and the vertical axis indicate the student's common sense or wisdom, you will almost invariably find a line steeply sloping to the right. A refinement calls for dividing student populations into two groups: those with a pragmatic, hands-on mentality vs the lovers of abstractions and vague concepts with utopian overtones. (There are such differences in the way people think) Predictably. the sloping line for the first group will for most individuals level off with time as they perceive the impracticality and uselessness of their teachers pedagogy. However, the sloping line for members of the latter group usually continues unabated, and in some cases actually penetrate the horizontal axis into negative territory. Those latter people are most at risk in today's schools because they are like blotters for PC dogmas. They are also the individuals who pose the greatest risk to the country. Ironically, it is that very ability to toss around lofty concepts and theoretical abstractions that gets the highest SAT scores and gains them admission to the most prestigious schools and colleges.
    Posted by bill greene  on  08/16  at  01:39 PM
  4. Does your book use paragraphs?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/17  at  11:25 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.