This week we reviewed the article “Young People Remember Your Grand Creator Now” from the April 15 2008 Watchtower.
Page 4 par 10 says:
“What though of higher education received in a college or university? This is widely viewed as vital to success, yet, many who pursue such education end up with their minds filled with harmful propaganda. Such education wastes valuable youthful years that could best be used in Jehovah’s service. Perhaps it is not surprising that in lands where many have received such an education, belief in god is at an all time low. Rather than looking to the advanced educational systems of this world for security, a Christian trusts in Jehovah.”
This week’s article (page 14 par 11) talks about how a basic education is good (high school). Then footnote says “In regard to higher education and employment, see the Watchtower October 1 2005 pp26-31”. In this article is a box on page 29. This box is telling us that educators now believe that a college education isn’t necessary to get a good job.
What Is the Value of Higher Education?
Most people who enroll in a university look forward to earning a degree that will open doors for them to well-paying and secure jobs. Government reports show, however, that only about one quarter of those who go to college earn a degree within six years—a dismal success rate. Even so, does that degree translate into a good job? Note what current research and studies have to say.
Going to Harvard or Duke [universities] won’t automatically produce a better job and higher pay. . . . Companies don’t know much about young employment candidates. A shiny credential (an Ivy League degree) may impress. But after that, what people can or can’t do counts for more.”—Newsweek, November 1, 1999.
(#2) “While today’s typical job requires higher skills than in the past . . . , the skills required for these jobs are strong high school-level skills—math, reading, and writing at a ninth-grade level . . . , not college-level skills. . . . Students do not need to go to college to get a good job, but they do need to master high school-level skills.”—AmericanEducator, Spring 2004.
“Most colleges are seriously out of step with the real world in getting students ready to become workers in the post college world. Vocational schools . . . are seeing a mini-boom. Their enrollment grew 48% from 1996 to 2000. . . . Meanwhile, those expensive, time-sucking college diplomas have become worth less than ever.”—Time, January 24, 2005.
(#3) “Projections from the U.S. Department of Labor through 2005 paint the chilling scenario that at least one-third of all four-year college graduates will not find employment that matches their degrees.”—TheFuturist, July/August 2000.
In view of all of this, more and more educators are seriously doubting the value of higher education today. “We are educating people for the wrong futures,” laments the Futurist report. In contrast, note what the Bible says about God: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.”—Isaiah 48:17, 18.
The above make it appear that these authorities agree with the Watchtower Society’s view that a college education is not necessary, and in fact a waste of time. I found it very hard to believe that these people would be saying this.
Now look at what we’ve learned from the Watchtower about taking things out of context. The School Guidebook page 155 par 11 says “A word of caution. All evidence must be used honestly. Do not take a quotation out of context. Make certain that what you say is exactly what the authority you are quoting had in mind to say. Be specific in your references.” Also see Awake June 22, 2000 pp 9-11.
So – look at what these articles actually say. The above quotes are highlighted so you can see how they’re taken out of context. Read the articles below in their entirety and ask yourself “did the author have in mind to say that education was not necessary”?
#1 – Newsweek November 1, 1999
The Worthless Ivy League?
It's no guarantee of success. Podunk's competent grads will beat Princeton's incompetentsBy Robert J. Samuelson
We all "know" that going to college is essential for economic success. The more prestigious the college, the greater the success. It's better to attend Yale or Stanford than, say, Arizona State. People with the same raw abilities do better and earn more by graduating from an elite school. The bonus flows (it's said) from better connections, brighter "peers," tougher courses or superior professors. Among many parents, the terror that their children won't go to the "right" college has supported an explosion of guidebooks, counselors and tutoring companies to help students in the admissions race.
The trouble is that what everyone knows isn't true. Going to Harvard or Duke won't automatically produce a better job and higher pay Graduates of these schools generally do well. But they do well because they're talented. Had they chosen colleges with lesser nameplates, they would (on average) have done just as well. The conclusion is that the Ivy League--a metaphor for all elite schools--has little comparative advantage. They may expose students to brilliant scholars and stimulating peers. But the schools don't make the students' success. Students create their own success; this makes the schools look good.
Evidence of this comes in a new study by Alan Krueger, an economist at Princeton, and Stacy Berg Dale, a researcher at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Until now, scholarly studies had found that elite colleges lifted their graduates' incomes beyond their natural abilities. The bonus was about 3 percent to 7 percent for every 100 points of difference in SAT scores between schools. Suppose you go to Princeton and I go to Podunk; Princeton SAT scores average 100 points higher than Podunk's. After correcting for other influences (parents' income, race, gender, SAT scores, high-school rank), studies found that you would still earn a bit more. If I make $50,000, then you might make $53,500 (that's 7 percent).
But Dale and Krueger suspected that even this premium--not huge--might be a statistical quirk. The problem, they write, "is that students who attend more elite colleges may have greater earnings capacity regardless of where they attend school." Characteristics important for admission "may also be rewarded in the labor market." What might these be? Discipline. Imagination. Ambition. Perseverance. Maturity. Some exceptional ability. Admissions officers may detect these characteristics from interviews or course difficulty (different from grade average). But earlier studies didn't capture these factors.
To do so, Dale and Krueger examined the 1976 freshmen of 34 colleges. They ranged from Yale, Bryn Mawr and Swarthmore (highest in SAT scores) to Penn State and Denison University (lowest in scores). The SAT gap between top and bottom was about 200 points. Dale and Krueger knew which colleges had accepted and rejected these students as well as their future earnings. By 1995, male graduates with full-time jobs earned an average of $89,026; women earned $76,859.
Dale and Krueger then compared graduates who had been accepted and rejected by the same (or similar) colleges. The theory was that admissions officers were ranking personal qualities, from maturity to ambition. Students who fared similarly would possess similar strengths; then, Dale and Krueger compared the earnings of these students--regardless of where they went. There was no difference. Suppose that Princeton and Podunk accept you and me; but you go to Princeton and I go to Podunk. On average, we will still make the same. (The result held for blacks and whites, further weakening the case for race-based admission preferences. The only exception was poorer students, regardless of race; they gained slightly from an elite school.)
The explanation is probably simple. At most colleges, students can get a good education if they try. "An able student who attends a lower tier school can find able students to study with," write Dale and Krueger. Similarly, even elite schools have dimwits and deadbeats. Once you're in the job market, where you went to college may matter for a few years, early in your career. Companies don't know much about young employment candidates. A shiny credential (an Ivy League degree) may impress. But after that, what people can or can't do counts for more. Skills grow. Reputations emerge. Companies prefer the competent from Podunk to the incompetent from Princeton.
If you can't (or won't) take advantage of what Princeton offers, Princeton does no good. What students bring to college matters more than what colleges bring to students. The lesson has relevance beyond elite schools. As a society, we've peddled college as a cure for many ills. Society needs more skilled workers. So, send more students to college. College graduates earn much more than high-school graduates. So--to raise incomes--send more students to college. In that, we've succeeded. Perhaps three quarters of high-school graduates go to college, including community colleges.
But half or more don't finish. A new study from the Department of Education ("College for All?") reports that these students achieve only modest gains in skills and income. What determines who finishes? In another report, Clifford Adelman--a senior researcher at the Department of Education--finds that the most powerful factor is the difficulty of high-school courses. And the finding is strongest for black and Hispanic students. Not having enough money (inadequate financial aid) explains few dropouts. Tough courses do more than transmit genuine skills. They provide the experience--and instill the confidence--of completing something difficult.
How to motivate students to do their best? How to make high schools demanding while still engaging? How to transmit important values (discipline, resourcefulness, responsibility) to teenagers, caught in life's most muddled moment? These are hard questions for parents and society as a whole. If the answers were self-evident, we'd have already seized them. But going to college--even Harvard--is no shortcut.
Is this saying that going to Harvard or Duke won’t provide a better job than a high school diploma? NO. In fact it says college graduates earn “much more” than high school graduates. The point of the article is that the Ivy League schools aren’t necessarily better than regular colleges if students are really working hard.
#2 - American Educator Spring 2004
All Good Jobs Don't Require a College Degree
But getting a good job without a college degree depends a lot on high school effort--and the support a high school provides.
By James E. Rosenbaum
Encouraging students to attend college despite their poor academic preparation is a practice based in part on the premise that all decent jobs require a college education. Although average earnings are higher for those with college degrees (Carnevale and Desrochers, 2002), it is easy to misread these numbers.
First, these averages conceal much variation. College degrees do not always have payoffs. And, college degrees are not required to enter many rewarding jobs, including construction trades, clerical and administrative support, auto and airplane mechanics, printing, graphics, financial services, and many government and social services. Union electricians, machinists, tool and die makers, and sheet-metal workers, for instance, have high-demand skills, excellent benefits, good working conditions, and annual salaries that often exceed $45,000 by age 28 (and are much higher with overtime).
Second, researchers who analyze jobs and talk to employers find that while today’s typical job requires higher skills than in the past (when many jobs required only physical strength),the skills required for these jobs are strong high school-level skills—math, reading, and writing at a ninth-grade level (Murnane and Levy, 1996), not college-level skills. Similarly, new research on the skills needed for many good jobs (meaning those that pay enough to support a family and have the potential for advancement) are also high school-level skills, such as four years of English and mathematics through Algebra II (American Diploma Project, 2004). Unfortunately, over 40 percent of high-school seniors lack ninth-grade math skills and 60 percent lack ninth-grade reading skills (Murnane and Levy, 1996). So students do not need to go to college to get a good job, but they do need to master high school-level skills. Research shows that greater mastery of these skills in high school leads to higher earnings over time: For youth who get no college degree, a rise of one letter grade in their high school grade point average (from C to B) is associated with a 13 percent earnings gain at age 28! That’s almost as much as the pay differential associated with a bachelor’s degree, which is just over 14 percent more than students without a college degree (Miller, 1998; Rosenbaum, 2001). Solid high school skills prepare students for entry-level positions and keep the door to promotions open (Rosenbaum, 2001).
Third, employers report that for many jobs, non-academic skills (like timeliness, diligence, and social competence) are key (Shapiro and Iannozzi, 1999). Analyses of a national survey indicate that students’ educational attainment and earnings nine years after graduating from high school are significantly related to their non-cognitive behaviors in high school--sociability, discipline, leadership, homework time, and attendance--even after controlling for background characteristics and academic achievement (Rosenbaum, 2001). High schools can provide these skills just as well as colleges can.
Fourth, for some low-achieving high school students, getting a good job after high school can be more lucrative than trying to earn a college degree. As we saw in the main article, only about 14 percent of students with C averages or lower in high school earn a college degree (B.A. or A.A.). Of these low-GPA high school students, those who do complete a B.A. will typically earn 4.3 percent more than students without a college degree--but this is less than one-third the extra earnings that the typical college graduate enjoys. Those with low high school GPAs who earn an A.A. will typically earn 7.2 percent less than high school graduates with no college degree (Rosenbaum, 2001).
So the vast majority of students who don’t do well in high school would be better off, in terms of future income, finding a good job than going to college. But their ability to find out about these jobs, prepare for them, and get placed in them depends a lot on the support they get from their high school. Indeed, vocational teachers report that they are able to help students get jobs, even students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with disabilities. They can accomplish this because they provide employers with trusted recommendations about students? social skills and work habits.
Currently, about 9 percent of work-bound high school graduates get jobs after graduation through school-based job placement (mostly from vocational teachers). These students have 17 percent higher earnings by age 28 than students who find their own jobs after high school (Rosenbaum, 2001). Moreover, school-based job placement helps more blacks and females than white males (Rosenbaum 2001), so it helps students who normally have the greatest difficulties in the labor market.
The true lesson of the new labor market is this: For many of the skilled jobs in the new economy, what students really need is to acquire good work habits and solid high school-level skills. But, employers argue that they cannot trust that the high school diploma certifies knowledge of these high school-level skills. As a result, employers report using college degrees to signal that applicants possess high school skills. If, instead, the high schools provided trusted signals of high school competencies, the pressure to send all students to college could diminish. And let’s not forget that high schools can do a lot to help their non-college bound youth find productive jobs and lead fulfilling lives.
The introduction of the article says that it is a mistake to encourage students to attend college despite their poor academic preparation. The theme of his article is that “The vast majority of students who don’t do well in high school would be better off, in terms of future income, finding a good job than going to college.” (and doing poorly in college). Because employers cannot trust that a high school diploma certifies competency, they would rather use “college degrees to signal that applicants possess high school skills. The proposal is that if instead, the high schools provided trusted signals of high school competencies, the pressure to send all students to college could diminish.” In no way is he saying that a college or university degree does not translate into a good job like the watchtower was saying.
#3 – The Futurist – July August 2000
We are educating people for the wrong futures. Most young Americans expect to have high-status and high-paying jobs. Almost one in three expects to have a professional career. Ten percent expect to work in the sports or entertainment industry. Another 10% think they will be doctors.
The reality is that traditional societal high-status jobs are in decline. The American Bar Association Journal reported that, of the law school class of 1988, 84.5% had full-time legal jobs six months after graduation. In contrast, only 69.6% of the 1994 class did, and 15.3% had no jobs-part time or otherwise.
Projections from the U.S. Department of Labor through 2005 paint the chilling scenario that at least one-third of all four-year college graduates will not find employment that matches their degrees. For those with graduate degrees in virtually all professional fields, graduates will exceed employment opportunities by at least 50%!
Meanwhile, few young people imagine themselves working in service, craft, or technical industries. Yet government labor and economic indicators predict these business sectors will create most new jobs over the next 10 to 15 years. Many economists believe that 70% of the good jobs in the current and future American economy will not require a four-year college degree; rather, they will require some form of additional training and education, such as an associate degree or technical training certificate. More than 190,000 professional technical jobs are now vacant, as employers search in vain for qualified applicants. By 2005, U.S. business will need more than one million new high-tech workers. Not only does America have an educational shortfall for a large part of its population, it is also schooling too many in its better-educated segment for the wrong occupations.
What is needed is a new definition of "career" that focuses less on a progression up a career ladder in a profession or corporation and more on recognizing opportunities and adapting. Rather than focusing on a one-career preparation path, current and future workers need a higher quality of education that integrates general knowledge in both the arts and sciences with emerging technology.
What Companies Are Doing
Nearly seven of 10 employers surveyed in 1998 said that high-school graduates lack the skills to succeed at work. The National Association of Manufacturers reported that 40% of all 17-year-olds do not have the math skills, and 60% lack the reading skills, to hold down a production job at a manufacturing company.
These gloomy surveys point to the basic reasons for the unrelenting competition for skilled labor. If businesses are to get the work force they need to succeed in the future, they must become more active in at least two ways: (1) by partnering with their local community and education system to create realistic career-preparation programs and (2) by investing in training their own employees-and developing them by encouraging lifelong learning.
We are educating people for the wrong futures. Most young Americans expect to have high-status and high-paying jobs. Almost one in three expects to have a professional career. Ten percent expect to work in the sports or entertainment industry. Another 10% think they will be doctors.
The reality is that traditional societal high-status jobs are in decline. The American Bar Association Journal reported that, of the law school class of 1988, 84.5% had full-time legal jobs six months after graduation. In contrast, only 69.6% of the 1994 class did, and 15.3% had no jobs-part time or otherwise.
Projections from the U.S. Department of Labor through 2005 paint the chilling scenario that at least one-third of all four-year college graduates will not find employment that matches their degrees. For those with graduate degrees in virtually all professional fields, graduates will exceed employment opportunities by at least 50%!
Meanwhile, few young people imagine themselves working in service, craft, or technical industries. Yet government labor and economic indicators predict these business sectors will create most new jobs over the next 10 to 15 years. Many economists believe that 70% of the good jobs in the current and future American economy will not require a four-year college degree; rather, they will require some form of additional training and education, such as an associate degree or technical training certificate. More than 190,000 professional technical jobs are now vacant, as employers search in vain for qualified applicants. By 2005, U.S. business will need more than one million new high-tech workers. Not only does America have an educational shortfall for a large part of its population, it is also schooling too many in its better-educated segment for the wrong occupations.
What is needed is a new definition of "career" that focuses less on a progression up a career ladder in a profession or corporation and more on recognizing opportunities and adapting. Rather than focusing on a one-career preparation path, current and future workers need a higher quality of education that integrates general knowledge in both the arts and sciences with emerging technology.
What Companies Are Doing
Nearly seven of 10 employers surveyed in 1998 said that high-school graduates lack the skills to succeed at work. The National Association of Manufacturers reported that 40% of all 17-year-olds do not have the math skills, and 60% lack the reading skills, to hold down a production job at a manufacturing company.
These gloomy surveys point to the basic reasons for the unrelenting competition for skilled labor. If businesses are to get the work force they need to succeed in the future, they must become more active in at least two ways: (1) by partnering with their local community and education system to create realistic career-preparation programs and (2) by investing in training their own employees-and developing them by encouraging lifelong learning.
This is paragraph 9 from the main watchtower article:
When we think of cost, we usually think of financial expenditures. In some countries, higher education is government sponsored and qualified students do not have to pay fees or tuition. In most places, however, higher education is expensive and is getting more so. A New York Times Op-Ed article observes: “Higher education used to be regarded as an engine of opportunity. Now it’s certifying the gap between the haves and the have-lesses.”In other words, quality higher education is fast becoming the domain of the rich and influential, who put their children through it to ensure that they too become the rich and influential of this system. Should Christian parents choose such a goal for their children?—Philippians 3:7,8; James 4:4.
Another indication that going to college might not be something that Christian parents would want to do. So – Here’s the New York Times article from April 30, 2004
Yet another string of studies confirms what any high school senior or parent who has just weathered the college admissions mating dance already knew -- it's a cutthroat competition where money matters more than ever. Teenagers from wealthy families are beating out middle- and working-class youngsters, both at top private colleges and flagship state universities whose historic mission of broad access is receding into memory. The trend means that ''smart poor kids,'' as the educator Terry Hartle bluntly puts it, ''go to college at the same rate as stupid rich kids.''
A lot of not-so-secret factors are at play in this market. In pursuit of competitive advantage, well-off parents spend thousands of dollars on test prep courses, college admission summer camps and ''dress for success'' counseling. They are more adept than their less well-heeled rivals at working the system; that brings results, especially at prestigious universities.
At the other end of the spectrum, the inequity is worsening as cash-starved state schools are forced to raise tuition -- an average of 14 percent last year. For fall 2003, for example, community college fees in California rose to $18 a class hour from $11. Though that typically amounts to only about $100 a semester, enrollment was more than 100,000 below the state's projections. Why? Sticker shock scares away poorer students from even applying.
The one bright spot is that academic leaders are now discussing this wealth gap. William Bowen, the former president of Princeton, made headlines when he assailed elite colleges -- presumably including his own -- as ''bastions of privilege'' and urged putting ''a thumb on the scale'' for poor students. Amherst's president, Anthony Marx, has made the same argument. Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, announced that parents who earn less than $40,000 a year will no longer be asked to contribute financially to their offspring's education. That's a start, but much more is needed if such students are going to be a presence in Harvard Yard.
Those who run universities bear considerable responsibility for creating these inequities -- and not only in admissions. These trends are just the most visible sign of how much the market ethic has come to dominate higher education. To be sure, dollars have always greased the wheels of academe. What is new and troubling is the raw power that money exerts over all of higher education, including the emphasis on research that adds less to the storehouse of knowledge than to the institutional coffers, and the shift from liberal arts to the ''practical arts.'' While competition has strengthened some colleges, embedded in the very idea of university are values the market does not honor: the belief in a community of scholars and not a confederacy of self-seekers; in the idea of openness and not ownership; and in the student as an acolyte whose preferences are to be formed, not a consumer whose preferences are to be satisfied.
The operations of admissions offices display the marketers' handiwork. Consider the reliance on early admissions. That practice has no academic justification, just a market rationale -- the crucial U.S. News & World Report rankings stress selectivity, and colleges favor early decision because those accepted are expected to enroll. Going this route improves a student's chances by as much as 50 percent, but only those whose families don't have to shop around for the best aid package can afford to take advantage of this version of affirmative action.
Admissions decisions are, more and more, based on statistical models that leave little room for hunches about character and potential. The paper credentials of students -- A averages and high SAT scores -- don't necessarily translate into intellectual fireworks. Many top-performing high school students are burnt out by the time they're freshmen, while working-class teenagers and community college transfers with less sterling records arrive with a hunger for learning and often fare at least as well.
These new models are also intended to increase revenues by shrinking scholarships -- what the new breed of ''enrollment managers'' calls the discount from the tuition sticker price. In an environment where admissions offices are sometimes referred to as profit centers, the ''full payers,'' students from wealthy families, are in greatest demand. In addition, aid, which has historically been based on need, is increasingly being granted on academic merit. A dozen states have also adopted this approach, awarding millions of dollars a year in merit scholarships to students who would have attended college anyway, instead of helping those who otherwise can't afford an education.
The bottom line is that five out of every six qualified seniors whose families earn more than $75,000 -- but fewer than half of those whose families earn less than $25,000 -- enroll in a four-year college. Higher education used to be regarded as an engine of opportunity. Now it's certifying the gap between the haves and the have-lesses.
What's to be done? An infusion of need-based aid is critical for public universities. The market would be fairer if rivals committed themselves to recruiting at working-class and inner-city schools; to democratizing access to good college advising; and to making need, not market savvy, the basis for financial aid.
The current focus on admission inequities provides an opening for a long-overdue public discussion about what's wrong with market-driven higher education -- a discussion that identifies the spheres where money shouldn't be the coin of the realm. Paradoxically, market-based concerns -- anxiety about the outsourcing of jobs for knowledge workers -- may be the Sputnik crisis of this era, prompting changes in higher education that make it easier for teenagers who don't come from affluence to get the education needed to compete for those jobs.
Was this article saying that greedy wealthy people are choosing college for their kids so that their kids can be rich an influential like themselves? Does it indicate that sending your kids to college is somehow violating some Christian ideal? That’s how the watchtower summarized it. But the article is merely saying that more aid needs to be made available so that everyone can get a college education. The problem is the price is too high and not everyone can afford it.
Do you think these quotes were deceptively used? Were they used to convey the ideas the author’s intended?
You can read the entire Newsweek article from their website here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/90037/output/print
The American educator article is here: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2004/collegedegree.html
