Add Degree Inflation to the Other Forms of Malignant Inflation

Sproul Plaza, UC Berkeley, June 2019.

One evening I received a call from one of my students in my community college Physical Geography class.  He was disappointed in his grade and begged for a higher one.  This was his second time around but couldn’t show much improvement.  I told him that I couldn’t in good conscience raise his grade as it would be unfair to the other students.  He pleaded, “If I don’t get a higher grade, I won’t graduate and I won’t rise to anything in my life.”  My heart sank after hearing this.  I proceeded to dispel him of the crazy notion.  It may be crazy but it is instilled in the young from pre-school on.  How did we get to this place?

Somehow, going to college has become our society’s default path to personal advancement.  Call it degree inflation.  The relentless drumbeat of “college, college, college” has warped public policy with its plethora of taxpayer subsidized financial aid, degraded entry and instructional standards, and produced new “soft science” degree fields that have little bearing on real learning and improved abilities and does much to produce alienated and disgruntled students with a bent for political activism.

Oberlin College students protest a bakery for alleged racism. Later, the college incurred a $44 million judgment for defaming the owners and an employee.

And it fabricates a raft of “disparate impacts”, that old bugbear of civil rights warriors since the 1960’s.  College degrees aren’t distributed evenly among social groups, and some groups have protected status in law and court decisions (the Civil Rights Acts and the Griggs decision).  As the college degree becomes a de facto test for employment, the brunt will fall disproportionately upon these groups.  A new college-industrial complex has taken shape to provide new barriers to job entry and advancement, whose relevance to work performance is more hypothetical than real.  The case is laid out beautifully by Frederick M. Hess and J. Grant Addison in National Affairs, “Busting the College-Industrial Complex” (see here).

I suspect that a social bias is at work in this call of “college for all”.  Most people making the push come from social strata who predominate in college admissions.  It’s how they did it; it’s how their parents did it; it’s how everyone in their well-to-do neighborhood does it.  When they get into positions of influence, it’s their preferred prescription for everyone to reach elevated levels of esteem.  For them, anything else is for the hoi polloi.

Pres. Obama with daughter Malia, who attends Harvard, and Pres. and Mrs. Clinton with Chelsea who attended Stanford.

Illogic abounds in the process.  On the one hand, they complain about the escalating cost of college; on the other, they push as many people as possible into it.  It’s as if college advocates want to suspend the relationship between demand and price.  You can’t, and when you try, the disjunction will show in other damaging ways.

To put it bluntly, college isn’t for everybody.  Nor should it be.  Anyway, the heralded thing is debased beyond recognition.  Many of our young would be better served if they looked elsewhere for personal growth.

RogerG

Comments

comments