Gas station without pumps

2015 March 15

Bruni opinion column on college admissions

Filed under: Uncategorized — gasstationwithoutpumps @ 10:58
Tags: , ,

In How to Survive the College Admissions Madness, Frank Bruni writes consoling advice for parents and high school seniors wrapped up in college admissions and set on going to elite colleges. Although the obsession with elite-or-nothing is more a New York thing than the American universal he treats it as, it is common enough to be worth an opinion column, and he does as nice job of providing a couple of stories that counter the obsession. (No data though—his column is strictly anecdotal, with 5 anecdotes.)

He recognizes that he is really talking to a small segment of the population:

I’m describing the psychology of a minority of American families; a majority are focused on making sure that their kids simply attend a decent college—any decent college—and on finding a way to help them pay for it. Tuition has skyrocketed, forcing many students to think not in terms of dream schools but in terms of those that won’t leave them saddled with debt.

But the core of the advice he gives is applicable to anyone going to college, not just to those seeking elite admission:

… the admissions game is too flawed to be given so much credit. For another, the nature of a student’s college experience—the work that he or she puts into it, the self-examination that’s undertaken, the resourcefulness that’s honed—matters more than the name of the institution attended. In fact students at institutions with less hallowed names sometimes demand more of those places and of themselves. Freed from a focus on the packaging of their education, they get to the meat of it.

In any case, there’s only so much living and learning that take place inside a lecture hall, a science lab or a dormitory. Education happens across a spectrum of settings and in infinite ways, and college has no monopoly on the ingredients for professional achievement or a life well lived.

The elites have some resources to offer that colleges with lesser financial endowments find difficult to match, but any good enough college can provide opportunities to those who look for them.  For some students, being one of the best at a slightly “lesser” institution may result in more opportunities, more faculty attention, and more learning than being just above average in an elite school.  (And, vice versa, of course—moving from being the best in high school to run-of-the-mill at an elite college can also be an important wake-up call.)

Currently, the American college landscape is very broad, offering a lot of different choices with different prices and different strengths.  Unfortunately, many of our state legislatures and governors have decided that only one model should be allowed—the fully private, job-training institution—and are doing everything they can to kill off the public colleges and universities that have been the backbone of US post-secondary education since the Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890.

The colleges established by the land grant acts were intended as practical places, not primarily social polish for the rich (as most private colleges were then, and most of the elites are now).  The purpose of these public colleges was

without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactic, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.[7 U.S.C. § 304, as quoted in Wikipedia]

Although agriculture is no longer as large an employer as it was in the 19th century, research in agriculture at the land-grant universities is still driving a major part of the US economy, and engineering (quaintly referred to as “the mechanic arts”) is still a major employer and a primary route for upward social mobility in the US.  The land-grant colleges were explicitly not intended as bastions for the rich to defend their privilege (as our legislators want to make them, by raising tuition to stratospheric levels), but for “liberal and practical education of the industrial classes”—colleges for working-class people.

I think that it would benefit the US for legislatures to once again invest in the “education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life” and for parents and students to look seriously at the state-supported colleges, before the madness of privatization wipes them out.

(Disclaimer: I teach at one campus of the University of California, and my son attends another—neither of them land-grant colleges, but both imperiled by the austerity politics of the California legislature, who see their legacy in building prisons and making sure the rich don’t pay taxes, not in providing education for the working class.)


  1. As a reminder, the California Legislature that “imperils” California education via “austerity politics” has been ruled by the same political party for nearly every year since 1959. That same party presently controls both chambers of the California Legislature and holds every major statewide office.

    That same party pushed to raise California’s already-high sales and income taxes to the nation’s highest levels to benefit “education.”

    That same party filled the California Regents with other party faithful and cronies, including the husband of one of California’s U.S. Senators. The California Regents pushes for tuition hikes. The president of the University of California system is, herself, a member of the party faithful, who most recently served at the national level.

    That same California Legislature, emboldened by new riches from their giant tax hike, proceeded to give $330 MILLION PER YEAR (PER YEAR!!!) to their cronies and major party donors in Hollywood. These same cronies also helped fund support for the tax hike in the first place.

    Comment by prevailingtech — 2015 March 15 @ 12:04 | Reply

  2. Thanks for pointing this out – that states are putting money into mostly community colleges now for the “trades” you mention, but that won’t yield a professional level position alone. What I think the majority would like to see (at least in NC) is the state also dedicating funds to support the 4-year state-supported schools. As a parent, there isn’t enough affordable choices in the middle ground. I see that trend getting worse, not better.

    Comment by Cindy Hamilton — 2015 March 16 @ 11:50 | Reply

    • I’d like a pointer to data showing that NC community colleges get more dollars per undergrad student FTE than does UNC or NC State. I know that, in my state, CCs get less than half of what the universities get per undergrad student.

      I suspect you are confusing high tuition with low state support.

      Comment by CCPhysicist — 2015 March 17 @ 19:15 | Reply

      • I agree—I don’t think that any state supports community colleges at the same per-student rate that they support 4-year colleges and research universities. Certainly in California, UC gets more per student than CSU and CSU gets more per student than the community colleges. UC costs a lot more per student to run than CSU or a community college, largely because faculty are expected to do a lot of research, not just teach. Only a small part of the research is paid for by outside funds, and then not completely. The community colleges in California have very tight budgets, because they are hit by the double whammy of low tuition and low state support.

        Even so, the California community colleges are in better shape than the Arizona ones: according to Arizona is completely defunding some community colleges, privatizing big chunks of the system. (I wonder who got bribed into making that anti-public-education decision.)

        Comment by gasstationwithoutpumps — 2015 March 17 @ 21:03 | Reply

  3. Hear Hear!

    Especially the part about getting out of your education what you put into it. I was helping an adjunct deal with the “is it me or are they just less interested in learning” complaint, increasingly common at my CC but not unheard of elsewhere, when another prof came by and added a similar perspective from his discipline. There just seems to be less curiosity coming out of HS today, although it could be that it just isn’t cool to be interested in what you want to do for the rest of your life.

    For the record, I graduated from a land grant institution, and would ascribe only part of its tuition hikes to the legislature shifting funding away from education. The rest results from its move toward near-elite status by advancing the graduate research part of its educational enterprise while still maintaining some of the features that made it a wonderful place to learn several decades ago. Despite the shift of undergrad tuition to the research enterprise, undergrads WHO WANT TO LEARN can really benefit from those research programs when they aspire to go to elite grad schools.

    Comment by CCPhysicist — 2015 March 17 @ 19:12 | Reply

  4. Just read the entire article from the Times, and found myself saying “Yes, University of Waterloo!” It sounds like it still has students as interesting and motivated as the ones in a small group I met at a party I attended with my brother MANY moons ago. I can see one, in particular, being just the sort that a startup group would fund.

    Comment by CCPhysicist — 2015 March 17 @ 19:24 | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: