Grim read the New Criterion article by Peter Thiel that I recently linked to and had additional thoughts about student life as a con. He upended the golden narrative by redescribing on-campus life (and some of this applies to nearby off-campus life as well) as a gigantic real-estate scam, where because of student loans, the government owns a great many pretty good apartments in nice locations, with entertainment, gym memberships, pre-installed potential dates, cafeterias and even restaurants. The Feds thereby guarantee themselves decades of income from the graduates - and if the scheme is actually losing money, who cares? It's cash flow with no accountability.
In that telling, the education is mostly there for decoration.
Grim considers what this does to the attitudes of the "customers" over time - encouraging them to become spoiled, and later disillusioned, both of which play into the government's hands in perpetuating the con. It's hard to get out of the system.
I wondered if things were better under the Northeastern University model of education. In simplest terms, the student goes to classes for six month, then to an internship in the field for six months. Rinse, repeat, and in five years you have a degree and 2.5 years experience in your field. The school does a lot of the finding of the internships. If you are good, you likely have an offer from one of the places you interned at upon graduation. The pay for the internships is often not that great (though sometimes they make bank in certain fields, as their salary is comparatively far less as a student than as a graduate). It is a much admired, but seldom-imitated arrangement. I think Drexel used to do something similar. I don't know if they still do.
Are NU students as spoiled and then disillusioned as the others? I have no idea. The graduates I know are all in my generation and speak highly of how it all fit together. But maybe it is not imitated because it interrupts the cash flow for too many who work for government or college.
I haven't watched enough movies to be in a position to estimate this.
ReplyDeleteWe have college students in movies and TV (and YouTube and..). How are they generally depicted? Studying, or in class, or on the quad, or partying, or ?
The smallish Midwestern quasi-directional university I went in the early 1980s was trending this way but not quite there. The dorms were largely 1960s vintage and not posh (shotgun style for 2 people, communal bath and showers). Cafeteria food service. It's history as a teacher's college showed, and often felt like a trade school. I haven't been back for years but leafing through the alumni magazine indicates it is headed in the con direction.
ReplyDeleteGrim's observations also fit with the concept that 'students' are buying a credential not an education.
The English university where I did grad study operated on a "sandwich" program for my department's undergrad course: Students were in normal classes and labs for years 1 & 2, had a placement in a business in the real word for year 3, and then returned for year 4 classes/labs on-campus again.
ReplyDeleteThose returning from placement were much improved in attitude and seriousness compared to how they'd been as year 1 and year 2 students.
I'll note a big advantage for sandwich programs and industry-co-op programs like northeastern's: The mere fact that the faculty and admin can convince enough employers to participate in the program each year is a strong indication that the university is doing a good job of preparing its graduates for gainful employment.