In my Pope Center commentary, I revisit Higher Education for Business by Robert Gordon and James Howell, a lengthy study sponsored by the Ford Foundation in 1959 on the state of business education.
While it will not surprise some readers, the critiques of business education in 1959 are still valid today — there is disagreement over whether business education is supposed to narrowly prepare students for their first job, or if it should provide a broader educational experience.
Many students who are more broadly educated are better prepared for the abstract nature of their future jobs than those who have a steady diet of credentialing in vocational classes.
Your use of the terms "credentialing" and "vocational" seems a little pejorative. What would you have today's accounting and finance students take in college instead of "vocational" classes? Would they be better served in a women's studies class? Or perhaps a seminar focused on the evils of western civilization?
The argument that a broader "education" would better serve students made sense when colleges and universities actually provided a broader education. But for students today not enrolled in "vocational" disciplines like business, engineering, science, etc... the only alternative available is politically-correct indoctrination that is a poor substitute for an actual education. Frankly, the non-vocational offerings at most universities today are so watered-down and so devoid of challenge as to be a total waste of time for any student of true ability.
As I have watched my daughter navigate college, I have been interested to note that most of her able and ambitious peers prefer to double major. They take a "practical" degree (often business) and double it up with a "fun" degree like political science. Taking the "fun" poli-sci classes helps them pad their grade point averages too.
On a personal note, my undergraduate degree was in a vocational field - engineering. I basically earned two grades in college. I got C's in just about every engineering class, right in the middle of the curve. In engineering, average doesn't earn an "A." And I got A's in all my non-engineering classes. That includes the numerous theology, philosophy, and humanities courses my university required even of us "vocational" students. Then I took my vocational degree and went to law school, where I was in the top of my class, easily out-performing all those "broadly educated" students who had 3.8 gpa's in the liberal arts as undergrads.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOC,
All business classes are not created equal, nor are all liberal arts classes.
The engineering, accounting, and science courses that you correctly note are more rigorous "vocational majors," but there are also less rigorous, marketing, management, HR, and communications "vocational" majors in b-school.
Also, many liberal arts courses have certainly been corrupted by indoctrination, but they haven't been at schools like Hillsdale.
Navigating the mess of major selection takes wisdom. I'm happy to see that you know the correct questions to ask.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, the Hillsdale argument. Hillsdale is of course a darling of many conservatives, with good reason. But surely you admit that Hillsdale is the exception that proves the rule? It's one very small school of just 1,400 students. It is not even ranked in the U.S. News & World Report rankings, which renders it nearly irrelevant in the context of American higher education.
But even Hillsdale offers the following vocational majors: accounting, several science majors, exercise science, financial management, marketing management, physical education, speech, and sport management. Also offered are several "pre-professional" programs which seem to me to be quite vocationally focused.
It just seems to me that many commentators today are nostalgic for a world that doesn't exist anymore. The liberal arts education model dates from an era when only the wealthy could afford to send their children to college. Working class families never used to dream of sending their children to Ivy League schools. Today they do. And a 4-year degree will typically cost between $100,000 and $200,000 dollars, with most students graduating with significant amounts of student loan debt.
With the exception of the very wealthy, most families expect that after making this investment the graduate should be able to find gainful employment. It's tragic but true that the basements of America are full of sociology, history, and classical language majors who either can't find work or are woefully underemployed.
As society has evolved to become ever more technical and today's jobs have become ever more specialized, the argument in favor of the "generalist" is much harder to make.
I think that rather than arguing against credentialing and vocational education, the question should be: What else should the student be studying at the university while he or she pursues a "vocational" major, that will equip them with not only with good job prospects, but with a well-rounded education?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEducation is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence. NOW is the correct time to study contact your local University also check for an interesting article called High Speed Universities on web
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse