In a recent three part article, Charles Murray defends the idea that university and mandatory schooling are not for everyone, and that a gifted few should be selected on the basis of their IQ to attend school and university (read part 1, part 2, and part 3). Beyond the many caveats with which IQ should be treated -for good responses see here and here- as David Kirp points out in his article, this is as much about quality education as it is about the kind of society we want to live in.
I would like to focus on why people chose to go to university in the first place. While some go because of social pressure (the high cost of US universities does a lot to limit the impact of this, as compared to Europe), most go in order to improve their preparation and hence their chances of attaining better career opportunities. Improved career opportunities mean more money, but also more opportunities that respond to each person’s interests and desires. Even if many say they prefer to work to live rather than live to work, we all know that most of our time will be spent at work. It is in our best interest to attempt to find that money-making activity which pleases us most.
It is in this process that university plays a critical socializing role. As the time of youth has extended further and further, it is at university that many –if not most– people (who attend) make the transition to adulthood, to defining intellectual interests and to overcoming one’s family background.
A survey of California university students conducted by the Center for Studies of Higher Education at UC Berkeley gives testimony of this. The 2003 survey finds that 55% of respondents had at least one parent born abroad, and 45% report that at home they also learned some language other than English. Similarly, 28% classify themselves as lower or working class. While some selection bias may be affecting these results, these numbers do speak to the importance of the California university system in integrating immigrant and lower-income children into a community of intelligent, motivated and hard-working people, where life-long relationships and professional commitments can be made that facilitate the transformation of students into productive and responsible citizens.
If IQ alone were used to select students for university, it is very likely that university would cease to play this socializing role and would instead calcify even further into an Ivory Tower dedicated to perpetuating social differences that are impossible to explain solely on the basis of genetics. The other side of the coin of excellence is elitism, and of inclusiveness is lower standards. However this is a false gamble: higher education institutions need to find the mechanisms to balance excellence and inclusiveness. While this is a challenge, the stakes for society are too high to do otherwise.
Comments
Javiera,
I have to be nit-picky for a second with you! You attributed a survey to the CSHE, and while that might have been the forum for presentation, I believe you are referring to the UC Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) which is done by a variety of people (researchers at Berkeley and LA at least) along with some of my old co-workers housed over at UCOP! I am impressed that you ran across it to get these statistics, and I intend to forward your post to my old co-workers so they can see their work being appreciated!
I totally agree with you that accessible higher education plays a hugely important role in weaving the social fabric. I personally am not convinced that University's as they presently exist should be a gatekeeping experience for every occupation in the U.S., but it seems to be going that way, especially as labor organizations, which traditionally have maintained alternate tracks become weaker and weaker.
There is a lot of literature on the fact that there are amazing correspondences between wealth and test scores. It seems unlikely that these scores are true reflections of merit, and some Universities have taken to using test scores in a relative context to students' environments to combine the ideas of a diverse and accessible system of higher education with accepting only those students who excel academically. The University of Texas and UC both have undergraduate admissions routes whereby if you are in the top x% of your graduating high school class, you are admitted to the university. Especially given the fact that American high schools are highly segregated by wealth and race, this is an extremely promising way to maintain diversity without using controversial racial quotas. I think that this program has been the best outcome of banning affirmative action in California Universities. There is a lot of evidence that "strivers", those students who are the best performers in their HS, even if that bar is set pretty low, are the type of successful and ambitious people that universities want to recruit.
Thanks for the post!
Javi - your post raises a number of interesting questions. Murray's article is provocative and was likely intended to be. I take his point to emphasize the lack of "intelligence" as a variable in measuring the effects of education on other outcomes. I agree with this general premise (that there is a dearth of these kinds of studies).
I also agree with Jameel that the admissions policies of UT and UC systems are effective tools for maintaining diversity - especially in place of unconstitutional quotas.
However, I think a major piece of the American higher-education puzzle is missing: state and community colleges. Discussions about Aristotle, Hegel, Habermas, and Ricardo are not limited to the exclusive classrooms of ivy-lined lecture halls. There are 1,186 community colleges and 430 state colleges and universities across the country. Those students who are unable or unwilling to attend the more prestigious universities are still eligible for the social experience you are talking about. In fact, these institutions are better-equipped in many ways to aid in the transition of youth from student to "productive and responsible citizen." Indeed, some have this aim as their primary goal.
I agree that some of our nation's most prestigious universities have a difficult time balancing excellence and inclusiveness. However, I am not yet ready to accept that our higher-education system as a whole is in peril