Charles Murray sums up his Opinion nicely:
First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn't meet the goal. We will call the goal a "BA."Instead of just leveling a criticism of the uselessness of the BA, 2/3s of which fall into the categories "criminal justice, social work, public administration and the many separate majors under the headings of business, computer science and education," he proposes a solution: competency exams. He uses the CPA exam as the model. It's a 14 hour exam that comprehensively covers a range of topics, insuring that the person passing it has some measure of expertise in the subject.
It's a good thought. As a member of the legal profession, I'm certain I could have passed the Bar after a year of law classes, and would not have needed any of my undergraduate classes. Not only could I have saved money, I would not have wasted time in loads of shit classes. (I was an engineering undergrad, and even in the sciences, I had lots of useless classes.)
I would only append to Mr. Murray's proposition an apprenticeship model. The competency exam measures a person's capacity to do a job; the apprenticeship measures their desire to do it (ever met a lawyer who likes their job? Me either; maybe an apprenticeship would weed the profession.). The average college BA measures neither of these.
PS. Here's a related speech about the state of education and how it kills creativity, by Ken Robinson.
0 comments:
Post a Comment