The Learning Curve
What are the aims of education—and reform?
Mar 3, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 24 • By JONATHAN MARKS
Cortney Munna must be one of America’s most famous young debtors. A religious and women’s studies graduate of New York University, she was working as a photography assistant when the New York Times discovered her. Munna was 26 and still $97,000 in debt for her bachelor of arts degree. She became a symbol for those who blame colleges and universities for luring students into deep debt for educations that do not prepare them to pay the loans back, much less succeed.
Memorial Church in Harvard Yard
dewitt / sipa / newscom
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, who teaches law at the University of Tennessee and blogs as Instapundit, refers to Munna in The New School. He thinks that people are now paying close attention to stories like hers and are on the lookout for alternatives to traditional education. And while those who make a living providing that kind of education “will do their best to marginalize and neutralize” new competition, change “is coming, and it is unlikely to be modest or gradual.” Reynolds does more than take a swing at the education establishment, however: His arresting theme is the irrationality that pervades our thinking, especially as parents, about education—and not only at universities but also K through 12.
Reynolds asks us to practice the “critical thinking” that is sometimes said to be the aim of education. His daughter, for example, “did most of her high school online.” Her flexible schedule allowed her to gain valuable work experience on the side. Why don’t more parents encourage their children to do what she did, or to attend a community college before transferring to a more expensive school, or to learn a trade?
While there are good answers to such questions, one bad answer that probably plays a role in many cases is that the people in one’s circle, or the next circle up, don’t do such things. Indeed, Cortney Munna’s mother regretfully told the Times that she let her daughter get into so much debt because “all I could see was college, and a good college and how proud I was of her.” Reynolds quotes The Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson on how college “entangles our deepest yearnings, our vanities, our social ambitions and class insecurities, and most profoundly our love and hopes for our children.” Such motives explain why, from the moment we purchase our first Baby Einstein video to when we make our campus visits, we are suckers for people and products that promise to improve our children.
Reynolds looks to channel the good intentions of parents, and other concerned citizens, into scrutiny of an educational system too many of us cannot imagine being any other way. We should ask why the highest-paid state official in most states is a college coach, or why a university system in the midst of a budget crisis would add to its roster of six-figure diversity administrators, or whether students should “leave school for the real world sooner,” since “isolation from the adult world” promotes irresponsibility and because much of the knowledge schools now convey is already obsolete. Perhaps we should initiate a “broad based popular movement for higher education reform” and for the reform of education altogether.
The “new school” sought by such a movement would use new technology to make education more flexible, with online courses that can be completed on a student’s own schedule. It would be more customized, with the help of adaptive learning technology, and would make education cheaper, because we can expect “information technology to drive costs and prices down” in some areas. It would also promote equality by separating good K-12 education from exclusive neighborhoods.
But to ensure that the movement is armed with questions rather than pitchforks, Reynolds should rein in his polemics. First, it would be difficult to come up with a less representative example than Cortney Munna. In 2012, the median debt among borrowers—a third or so don’t borrow at all—was $12,800. Philosophy and religious studies degrees constitute about .007 percent of degrees awarded. Degrees in the combined areas of ethnic, cultural, gender, and group studies are about half of 1 percent of the total. A religion and women’s studies major with $97,000 in debt was, for the Times, a lucky find. If we want to do the kind of clear thinking Reynolds wishes to encourage, we should retire Cortney Munna.