Last Friday, I reported on a debate, moderated by PBS economics reporter Paul Salmon, at the National Press Club that will be aired on PBS. (Story at www.press.org/wire.article.cfm.id?=1934). The question was whether the United States needed more college graduates. The "pro" side (former education secretary Margaret Spellings and United Negro College fund CEO and president) argued that expanding college enrollments would assist minorities who are now under-represented among graduates. The con side, George Leef, of an education policy think tank, and Richard Vedder, Ohio State University economics professor, argued that the costs are too high, that quality has declined and many graduates take jobs that do not require college educations. (They don't deny the need for good colleges and universities and the need for doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. to have education.) The issue is adding more to what we already have.
What I couldn't say in a news article is that the two sides are consistent provided one argues the politically unacceptable point that it is the composition of college graduates, not the number, that concern Spelling and Lomax. More minorities could graduate if fewer majority did. This gets to the conundrum affirmative action programs have reached in many contexts.
Is there an answer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If we had more college educated people, we would more often avoid electing people like Spellings's sponsor - W.
ReplyDeleteThe question is less one of whether college is a worthy investment from an economic standpoint than is it an essential preparation for a 21st century responsible life. And if so, how should it be financed? Start perhaps with a free ride for anyone serving in the armed forces for four years.
Expanding college capacity won't help minorities if they can't qualify for entry. Do we know that college capacity is the dominant problem with minority education?
We don't know that capacity is the main problem with minority education. I suspect it is a combination of financial barriers, lack of preparation and limited aspirations.
ReplyDeleteThe debaters did not go beyond advocating "more."