Dear Harvard, we have a problem. The educational system is broken. Surely you can help fix it?
Dear Harvard,
We have a problem.
Look, the educational system is broken. It isn’t even an argument. It is unfair by race. It is unfair by socioeconomic class. It is unfair by gender. It is unfair by the amount of innate intelligence a child is born with. The current educational system unfairly dictates how much you will earn the rest of your life, whether you’ve got a shot at getting out of poverty, or whether you’re going to continue being rich. It starts at a the base level, at a small school sprouting up from the ground in Alabama to a 6th grade science lab in Harlem with no lab equipment. It starts with the way some school systems get money, and some don’t. Some kids get to go to private schools who openly flaunt the number of graduates that get into the Ivy’s. I don’t need a degree from your university to understand that, in this country, it is the luck of the draw that allows a child to go to attend a good school system or not. And try as I might to see how this is “justice for all,” I simply cannot see it as anything but unfair.
And, Harvard—(I’m picking on you, Harvard, but it could also be your good brothers Yale, Dartmouth, MIT, Princeton, etc.)—you do understand, don’t you, that this is elitism, and you do everything you can to foster being elite?
Your very being, the core of your soul, is designed to keep people out. To only allow the cream of the crop in. Give the people who come to Harvard an education that they simply cannot get elsewhere. Hoard your professors, hoard your resources so that only a select few will get the topmost education. A show of hands, please, by all those who think that maybe, just maybe, this may be unfair as well.
♦◊♦
At one point in my life I wanted to be a geologist. I had the finest rock collection a nine-year-old could ever have. Mica, quartz, topaz, limestone, geodes. Organized and labeled and categorized. I knew the color, the weight, the physical properties of all of them. Years later, all grown up and with a nine-year-old of my own, I walked into my son’s public school classroom with my rock collection.
And the teacher said, “Oh, look class, wasn’t it nice that Ms. Hickey brought in her collection. Now we can study rocks.”
Now we can study rocks. It wasn’t until I thought to share my rock collection that the school system thought that studying rocks was even a possibility.
Sure, a lack of geological knowledge might not be enough on its own to keep a kid out of Harvard. But a lack of a thousand-dollar tutoring system to get those SAT scores up? That will probably do it.
♦◊♦
Harvard, I have to ask this. You’re smart. You’re rich. You’re powerful. Who better to fix this broken education system than you? Who better to help make this work than the very institution we hold up in esteem as the finest in the land, the colleges and universities that gave our country the reputation it has now? Who better to innovate widespread, systematic, educational change than the universities who are now producing some of the finest innovators we’ve ever seen? Who better to spread out the educational resources that you believe make the best students in the world?
The solution is not really all that complicated. What I am asking for is equality.
If you wake up each morning, thinking, “How can we make Harvard a better place?” then perhaps you’ve got it wrong. Wouldn’t it be better to wake up and say, “How can we make the educational system inherently fair for our children?”
Harvard, what if the only thing left to do is to stop worrying about being so elite? What if the only thing left to do is to share?
After all, look what happened a few years ago when a bunch of colleges and universities got together and decided to share information with each other.
Y’all invented the Internet.
—
Photo: Boston Public Library / Flickr
About Lisa Hickey
I think it is absolutely correct to call out institutions when they sort students on an irrelevant basis such as socioeconomic class and so on, but there are relevant factors that I am happy to see used to promote elitism if it is about actual merit. I think it is important for there to be places where people are encouraged to reach their maximum potential without their educational experiences being dumbed down for the sake of absolute equal opportunity.
How is it “fair” for someone who is not at all motivated to work hard, or is not talented in particular areas, to get the same educational opportunities handed to them as those who can truly excel? There are only so many places open at Julliard, and it would be ridiculous for me (trust me on this- you do not want me to belt out my rendition of Love Shack to prove it) to have the same shot at getting in as an Itzhak Perlman or a Nina Simone. And I’m very happy to see a Jim Gates or a Richard Feynman or a Limor Fried be given priority to get into MIT over someone who can’t think logically or do math. (That said, props to MIT for MITOpenCourseware! http://ocw.mit.edu .)
In short, I think it is more fair to eliminate arbitrary factors as best we can from consideration for these limited places, but I think it is less fair to remove highly relevant factors from consideration for the sake of equality. Even if we could somehow eliminate all manner of arbitrary bias, we’d find out in the end that we’re simply not all equal.
I’m not actually advocating that we have an open door admission policy at every school. Certainly schools should specialize, and there should be places where people who have passion, talent and guts can go to have those passion, talent and guts fully realized.
But before they get there — in the high school and grade school level — the education system is a broken as it gets. The problem is that the distribution of education follows the same basic pattern as the distribution of wealth in our society. The smart get smarter. The disadvantaged have no way to keep up.
All you have to do is watch a kid — for years and years — struggle to do everything right. Do every bit of homework, extra credit, volunteer, excel at multiple things. Get straight A’s. Work as hard as they can to do well on SAT’s. And *still* not be able to go to a school that will give them the same educational opportunities as a school with a better name. That happens over and over and over again, every day in this country. What can you tell me is fair about those kids?
My point is that there simply aren’t enough elite schools to go around for all of the kids who work as hard as they can and *want* it as bad as they can. These kids are being told that if they just work as hard as they can, they have just as good a shot at getting into the elite colleges and universities as anyone else. But that is a flat-out lie. And that is not fair to anyone.
But before they get there — in the high school and grade school level — the education system is a broken as it gets.
I agree, but how is Harvard, MIT, Dartmouth or Yale responsible for that? I think we’re calling out the wrong schools on that problem here.
@Kirsten: I think her point wasn’t that Harvard is responsible, so much that Harvard might be able to do something about it.
@Lisa: That said, sorry, but it wasn’t very clearly written. I definitely came away from it with the feeling that the point was to to let everyone in regardless of ability.
The point you were trying to make (and clarified in the above post) was good though, it’d be nice if someone made the US education system more merit based.
Elitism is the enemy of fairness for sure. And having been around Harvard and the like all my life it makes me sick to my stomach. Given the chance to hire someone from HBS and pretty much anywhere else, I am with Clarence Thomas (just this once), screw HBS because all they teach you is how to look down your nose at everyone else which is really bad in business. It is of course ironic that Harvard has a school of Education which has done very little to solve the nations education problems (its probably the weakest graduate program at the University).
So my question here is share what and how? How do we take the education received by some tiny percentage of the population and spread it out to the masses who are getting screwed?
Here are some thoughts on how:
1) Have each teacher at the top elite college or university spend a semester teaching at the top worst / most impoverished high schools as a condition of tenure.
2) Whatever it is that they teach in those tutoring courses for the SAT’s – teach them in every school in the country. Don’t make access to information and knowledge dependent on money.
4) Allow teachers who teach in any public school system in America to virtually audit any class Harvard (etc) offers.
5) When my oldest daughter was struggling in high school, she had to pass Latin and almost couldn’t do it. She got the most amazing tutor from Harvard – a student who was a top student from Harvard – to tutor her so that she was ultimately able to pass. But most people in the public school systems don’t even realize that an opportunity might exist – get the top student at Harvard to tutor me – are you kidding?
So what if you made those sorts of tutoring opportunities virtual, widespread, and well-publicized – the top students at these schools could *tutor whole classes* through a combination of free video conferencing tools available online. How hard would that be? If those schools don’t have the same access to technology as others do – give them access to technology. An investment of a few thousand dollars in really specific, helpful resources would mean the world to those schools.
6) Have the top people from the top education departments of elite schools everywhere band together and together figure it out. Don’t ask “How can fix our schools” have them ask “How can we stop the inequality of educational opportunities for children everywhere.” Have them come up with recommendations of the top 10 things they think need to be done. Now. Easy, actionable, specific solutions. And make those top 10 things public knowledge – everywhere. Then invite everyone who wants to help to help make those things happen. Let’s get some leaders who will tell us what actions need to be taken, and I bet there will be a whole bunch of people who will step up and help make it happen.
Agree to all. My other suggestion is that if you go to an elite school (defined as any college that doesn’t have open enrollment) you must do two years of national service focussed on improving the educational system in some area where it is broken. In Medical school you learn, you teach, you do. I think the same applies here.
I think if you’re looking to Harvard for leadership in this area, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Stay in Cambridge though. Again I’ll point as another of your respondents did to MITOpenCourseware! http://ocw.mit.edu. This is an extraordinary effort. I can’t imagine a similar effort coming forth from Harvard.
Love the idea of national service to improve the educational system everywhere!
Frank — thanks for the MIT link. GREAT idea — and exactly what I meant about sharing.
I honestly was just using Harvard as an easy way of referencing “all elite schools everywhere.” If we can’t even see them as a leader, then that is really troubling — but you’re right — let’s look to those who are really solving the problem.
Lisa, there are hundreds of institutions of higher education around the world- elite ones, even- with open learning opportunities:
http://www.jimmyr.com/blog/1_Top_10_Universities_With_Free_Courses_Online.php
Including not only MIT, but also Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Oxford, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Duke, and yes, what is this? That’s right- Harvard.
Google “OpenCourseWare Consortium” to find out more. I’d link to it myself, but then I think my post would get stuck in the moderation queue.
1. The entire point of having professors at research schools is for them to do research. Unless I’ve been lied to (possible…) they’re not there particularly because of their pedagogical gifts but because of their talent or knowledge for their subject. Having some theoretical physicist from MIT stop doing research so that he can try to teach almost-certainly non-compliant teenagers basic math which they could learn from anyone with a bachelor’s degree is a fancy gesture with no likely positive results. The problem at these terrible schools — aside perhaps from funding — is terrible parenting which devalues education and, perhaps, a terrible lack of accountability for all involved in the system. Lousy teachers can’t be fired; lousy students can’t be flunked; lousy parents can’t be forced to model good life habits. An inadequate teaching talent pool is not the issue at hand.
2. Access to the best of nearly everything is dependent on money. It’s the point of money. While most of my friends who did exceptionally well on the SAT did study, relatively few of them went to fancy SAT prep courses. They simply had parental support (by which I mean death threats in the event of failure), studied hard, and succeeded.
3/4. There is a huge amount of information which any motivated teacher can acquire online.
4/5. The problem with most children with no educational opportunities is not that they can’t pass Latin; it’s that they can’t pass English. How many terrible schools have Latin classes which are a graduation requirement? Even if it’s a cool pedigree, there’s no reason anyone needs grad students from the best universities in the world to teach them basic sentence structure and vocabulary. Anyone who is marginally educated can do this. Again, big fancy gesture with no real purpose. I don’t mean to discourage graduate students from tutoring should they so choose; I just don’t see how “more MA-level Latin tutors!” can even be argued as a viable broad-scale fix to our educational failings in math, history, science, and English.
5/6. I simply reject the idea that the educational system is broken because, God forbid, dumb kids don’t have as many opportunities as smart kids (or poor kids as rich kids). I think it’s broken because it’s churning out far too many semi-literate people who couldn’t tell you the decade in which WWII occurred. And it’s broken because formal education to bachelors level is now a near-total requirement for a job not in the trades (which for some insulting reason are considered less desirable). The problem is that we’re trying to over-educate and waste time keeping people in school who shouldn’t be there, which makes it that much harder to focus resources on bright, talented kids who have lousy circumstances. And, of course, the insane competition dramatically reduces accessibility for all economic classes.
And Tom, I think the idea that somehow one owes it to the world to serve in education for two years before one is allowed to proceed with higher education at a top-tier institution is pretty ridiculous. Forcing everyone who does succeed to postpone adulthood and entry into the workforce (and economy) just to make them “fix” the education system does no one favors. And talk about a chilling factor: “Hmm, I can go to a top-level school but have to spend two years doing nothing productive for my future or I can go to a second-tier school and actually go straight into work/graduate study/the Peace Corps/etc.”
I agree with you. I come from a family where if your grades are below A, you get this 1 hour lengthy lecture that you’re lazy and didn’t try hard enough from each parent. Therefore, I tried hard (simply just to avoid these annoying lectures) and in the process I’ve found many things.
I see no reason to pull people away from the field that they’ve worked so hard to get into just to teach basic rudimentary skills to students below post-secondary education level. They can get tutored by someone who’s aced to course (who’s still in high school or some undergraduate student who needs the money badly enough to be patient with the “tutoree”).
As for the *lack* of teaching materials, well I find that quite “surprising”. I’ve come across many websites that offer teaching materials, because they want to help improve the quality of learning. I find this to be an excuse of the teacher who I suspect didn’t have their heart in teaching from the beginning. I’ve had great teachers in high school where they would actually look stuff up that the students asked about and talk about it the next day.
Furthermore, I’ve come across many free learning resources made just for students in all areas (math, science, literature, social science) on the internet. It ranged from material for 3rd graders all the way through to undergraduate first year levels. It’s impossible to miss them. Not only that, some authors have even put up their (science and math) textbooks online (for free) for the very purpose of SHARING. With those resources, I see no way that students can’t succeed and get into good institutions of higher learning. I myself used youtube to view videos that addressed different areas of calculus which helped a lot. See? The internet has everything you need to succeed below undergraduate level.
While in high school (while looking for references for my science research papers) I’ve discovered that I was allowed to check out a very small number of books from the university libraries. While I was there looking for the book I needed I’ve discovered that they had so many books (decades old) that you could teach your self from (there were a bunch that even high schoolers should understand). Now, why shouldn’t a truly enterprising young student not succeed and be the very best?
The only problem I truly see, is if there is a lack of internet. Then, that is truly the education system’s fault. If the quality of learning was inadequate to begin with, then they really should provide internet access to students who wish to succeed so that they can do independent learning on their own. I see no way that higher learning institutions can help with that. This problem should be addressed by the board of education and the citizens. If you didn’t vote for someone who promised to do something about the education system (i.e. provide more funding) and described a concrete plan, then there’s nothing you can say.
Going back to my little rant about students with internet access, a issue that the article pointed out was that students with potential who work their hardest and still are unable to get adequate scores. Did they really use every resource? I’ve listed many and I see no reason they couldn’t succeed. You can’t point fingers at institutions (pushing the blame on them). If the student didn’t try everything, then they are to blame. If someone doesn’t understand a concept then all they do is ask the question on the internet. With enough time and patience eventually you get a really good answer.
All I see is that equal funding should be enforced in schools. Teachers should have office hours where students could ask questions. That is what I think. There is plenty of sharing on the internet for educational materials, one just doesn’t really try to look and expects it to be handed to them on a silver platter.
I know I’ve repeated things many times, but thanks for taking the time to read my comments.
Tom, I’m noticing a pattern wherein your “solutions” to social problems involve forcing people to do or not to do things. Why is this?
You agree to all of that Tom? You think that institutions and students and faculty should just do what Lisa or any other egalitarian wants them to just for the sake of their arbitrary definition of justice?
What kind of world are we living in? I hope that you’re just saying you agree with her here because she is the CEO of this joint and not because you actually agree with her.
I think one of the erroneous assumptions here is that a place like Harvard “makes the smart smarter” whereas other lesser-known are less capable of doing so. Harvard does have a number or resources that other universities may lack, but most state schools still have solid libraries, collections, etc. From my experience, the quality of professors at top schools—and their ability to impart information to their students—varies enormously (especially at the undergraduate level). Rather, I’ve found the teachers who have had the most impact on my intellectual development were those from high school. In fact, a professor’s role and position at an “elite” university may have nothing to do with his or her ability to teach, but is instead correlated to his or her fame, publications, awards etc. (also, the grade inflation at the nation’s top universities has been well-documented). Ultimately at these elite schools, you’re paying for a degree and the prestige that accompanies it; however, the amount you learn there and the extent to which you take advantage of its resources is entirely up to you, and is hardly unattainable at lesser-known schools. A student with low SATs—but possessing drive and is a hard worker—can flourish at a state school.
And finally, to truly be great—well, a degree from a place like Harvard can only take you so far. Sure, you may have a leg up in getting a middling job working in finance or consulting right out of school, but to advance in your field—whether it’s finance, the arts, education, public service—takes guts, drive, passion, and intelligence: something no degree can offer.
Well said.
Totally agree in this: “to advance in your field—whether it’s finance, the arts, education, public service—takes guts, drive, passion, and intelligence: something no degree can offer.”
I just think without an equal education from the very beginning, it’s very hard to get a job where you can show that off. Not impossible. But a lot, lot harder.
Oh Lisa, what a timely piece! Can’t wait to read through the comments and suggestions on my commute home. Much love, T
Interesting thoughts, Lisa. I would like to share that I’ve had some very positive experiences with the California public school system and its priorities. I think some of the programs and incentives instituted by the University of California campuses in the past couple decades have served as good examples of egalitarian-minded leadership. I know the California school system gets a lot of flack for its failures, and I can’t argue that the budget cuts have affected every level of education in the state. Still, as someone who has spent his entire life navigating the California school system – from preschool through undergraduate applications, and then graduate school – I have learned about an almost overwhelming number of programs that target underrepresented groups for educational opportunities. And they’re not just in relation to college admissions and scholarships (though these are huge incentives that are ubiquitous in the application system). They also do outreach and try to give grade school students of all ages, SES backgrounds, family structures, and races/ethnicities opportunities to (a) learn about college and (b) acquire skills that would make them competitive for selective colleges. As a graduate student in a department that focuses on child development, I get so many emails per week about upcoming activities for the various outreach programs, I can’t even remember all of the programs. I
Harvard thrives on “perceived” educational inequality. If Harvard got rid of that there would be no point in Harvard. So is ridiculous for you to write a letter to Harvard advocating that they get rid of their competitive moat.
The solution is not to make every university like Harvard. It is to realize that a Harvard graduate is not superior in anyway and State schools are just as good. The real question is why anyone places extra value on a Harvard degree?
Harvard has over a $25 billion dollar endowment. They have brilliance to spare. Of course it’s not ridiculous for me to write a letter asking them to share.
Have you ever actually seen the difference between a school with money and a school without? This can be colleges, universities, high schools grade schools.
Here’s the difference money in a school system buys you:
In a school without money there is swear words written on the bathroom stalls.
In a school with money, there is poetry.
In a school without money, they teach astronomy by showing a movie.
In a school with money they have a giant scientific telescope, and the students track the stars and build a website to show their finding to the world.
In a school without money, they sell candy and wrapping paper to people who can’t afford it to raise money for afterschool activities.
In a school with money, they have afterschool activities so well structured they can count as jobs on a students resume.
In a school without money, the concepts are taught abstractly, sometimes with outdated textbooks.
In a school with money, the students build their own working robots; create business case studies instead of reading about them, learn by doing. Money buys concrete things that moves learning from conceptual to applied. Learning becomes applied for everything from mathematics to statistics to economics to physics through computers, scientific equipment, performance centers. Applied learning is easier, more interesting and more directly transferable to job skills.
A school without money gives you a letter a reference from a teacher no one heard of.
A school with money gives you networks of people with money.
I would like to believe that an education is the same everywhere. But it’s not – and that is why it’s patently unfair. So let’s start top down and make it fair.
Absolutely love this post!!!!
What “school with money” have you been to with sonnets in the bathroom stalls?
I’d also add that as someone in the military who regularly encounters the half-educated detritus who tend to write those things, the problem is simply that they’re entitled assholes with no sense of good manners or respect for the property of others (or of all). They’re the same people who urinate in the corner of their guard post and then stand in their own urine for eight hours because they don’t have the manners or common sense or dignity to walk three feet away and urinate there instead. The problem is not that the poor obscenity-writing dears just aren’t given a fair shake and have inadequate access to the finest professors in the country; it’s that they’re wallowing in their own filth and not bothered by it. This is a cultural rather than educational problem.
I don’t see why we need to worry that kids in some high schools don’t have giant telescopes or whatever. That’s just silly. You don’t need million-dollar classes to become a reasonably educated person; you need someone to teach you to read and you need access to Wikipedia. And you need a culture and family and peers who will support you (or, failing that, will at least not actively discourage you).
The “school with money” that had sonnets in the bathroom stalls was Milton Academy. They promote themselves as having one of the highest percentages of students go on to attend Ivy League schools. Public schools simply don’t have as many students going on to the best colleges and universities. Period.
If you are arguing that a “reasonably educated person” is good enough, that’s a different argument than I’m making.
Lisa,
Above you pointed to inadequate K-12 education as the root of the problem. I’m still not clear how this is the fault of Harvard or any other elite institution of higher education. How exactly are they responsible for this?
Beyond responsibility for the problem, how are they supposed to fix that? Let’s grant that many children are unprepared for elite level advanced education through no fault of their own, but due to lack of good educational opportunities in K-12. But what good is it going to do for Harvard to admit students who can’t write a complete sentence or for MIT to admit students who can’t get past freshman algebra in high school?
I went to an all-girls, Catholic, college preparatory high school- fair to call this a school with money. I would also like to know what “school with money” has poetry on the bathroom walls. We did not have poetry on our bathroom stall walls. We had “Mrs. Meyer is a slut” and “Jenni ♥ Ian” and “Mike Rogers is gay” on our bathroom stall walls.
Neither did we have a telescope, or even an astronomy class, nor did we build robots. Our entire science program was a joke. I took every math and science class I could there, except physics which was taught by a French teacher. (Did I mention what a joke our science education was?) Instead, I gave up the summer after my junior year of high school to spend four days a week to take 2 semesters of intensive, college level (though not calculus-based) physics at the local community college in 2 months.
In my senior year of high school I got accepted to Purdue but elected to go to the University of Arizona instead so I would not be starting off my adult life deep in debt. Amazingly, with just a public college education and a degree in mechanical engineering, I still managed to (a) get an internship in reliability engineering at a local missile manufacturer while in school, (b) get hired there upon graduation, and (c) get promoted 4 times in 10 years during my engineering career there. All without an Ivy league education.
Having an astronomy class or awesome telescopes or a fancy lab would be AWESOME!!! In a world with unlimited resources, every kid would have the same access to an unlimited array of tools and toys. If I could snap my fingers and make that happen, it would be done. But the fact is that this isn’t a world with unlimited resources, even among elite institutions.
Demanding that Harvard or MIT or whoever fix the mess that has been made outside of their areas of expertise or even their control- well, I just don’t get that. They are not the root cause of the problem. They do not have control of the budgets or policies in the educational hierarchy where the root cause of the problem. Why not address the root cause of the problem instead of demanding fixes from institutions that have only incidental influence on the root cause of the problem? It makes more sense to me to bring the level of education offered to disadvantaged students up in K-12 so that they can more effectively compete for those elite positions instead of mediocritizing the most talented individuals with petty bureaucratic edicts that they do things they are neither qualified for nor have a passion for.
I’m not saying Harvard should fix the problem of inequality because they caused it.
I’m saying they should fix it because they *can*.
I don’t understand. How can Harvard and the other elite universities change the educational policies of schools in hundreds (or thousands? not sure how many there are) of school districts in fifty states? How can Harvard and these other schools revamp governmental funding schemes that provide unequal funding for education from district to district? Or…?
First and foremost, it seems like these (mostly) private, elite universities lack the authority to go in and revamp K-12 education. For starters, a lot of what is done is done by law which Harvard, etc. cannot simply go in and overrule.
I stand by the last statement of my post: “The last time colleges and universities got together to share, they invented the internet.”
I think the solution is different than what you think it is. I think it’s bigger, more innovative, simpler. I don’t think the laws need to be changed to help underprivileged schools. I think underprivileged schools can be helped by making the problem a priority, and having the leaders of our educational systems — the ones who have studied for decades how to give students one of the best educations on the planet — let those leaders figure it out.
Okay, how?
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but you seem to be saying:
1. There is a problem with (mostly government run) K-12 education.
2. Somehow, (mostly private) elite universities are to blame for item 1.
3. (Mostly private) elite universities should go fix item 1 in spite of government control over that system by somehow being sufficiently Harvardy and MITish about it.
4. Being Harvardy and MITish is not our problem. Let them go figure it out. We’re sure they can some how even though we have no idea how they should do that.
Actually, what I’m saying is this:
1. While there are certainly things that are working about our educational system, the fact that there is such a wide disparity in the quality of education that a child will get based on their location, race, socioeconomic status, family financial situation, gender, and innate intelligence is unfair. The gap in education that someone gets from the poorest schools to the wealthiest schools, and the where that gets them in life, is huge. This starts in K-12 but continues into the educational system after that.
2. I am not saying that elite universities are to blame, other than the fact that they continue the systematic elitism started early on.
3. Elite Universities should fix them not because they are to blame, but because it is the right thing to do. They have the intelligence, the money, the resources and the power to do so. They don’t have to change government controls (although that might be one way to start). They merely have to publicly acknowledge that the current system is unfair, put their heads together and come up with a way — as a unified force — that will help solve the problem of inequality.
4. I put some ideas forth in response to Tom, above. But understand — these universities are the ones who can create change — because they are the ones who have spent hundreds of years figuring out how to give the best education in the world to people. Why is it not comprehensible that they could help give that type of education to everyone?
I already listed 6 ideas in a response to Tom, above (currently the 5th comment down from the top.) They are 6 ideas which could easily be implemented.
It simply takes someone with the power, the money, the resources and the intelligence to step forward and create change.
What better solution is there — to shrug our shoulders and say “sorry kids. sorry you were born in the wrong place with no money and have no hope of getting out of that situation” and walk away. I’m certainly open to other ideas. But it is patently unfair to give some children such and advantage and some a disadvantage right from the start — and not even acknowledge this is a problem.
Harvard can’t fix this problem… the problem is ultimately cultural.
Everyone has a right to a basic education, but that shouldn’t include college. Less than half of all people who start college acquire a degree, because these are people that shouldn’t be going to college to begin with.
I believe that we should only have required schooling through age 16, then that would end mandatory schooling. There should then be a whole host of options… college preparatory programs, skilled trade schools, etc. If you are 16 and don’t want to continue with schooling, then you’re done. By making these schools optional, most of the people who go there would actively want to be there, and like college, you can fail out due to not completing your work, disciplinary issues, etc.
I attended high school with people who had absolutely no interest in being there, and so consequently had no business being there… all they did was distract the 90% of us who wanted to be there, disrupted classes, and generally wrecked the place. Yes, those kids who leave school may not be making the best decision, but at some point, you have to WANT the opportunities you’re offered for them to mean anything.
Technology has made our society evolve. The output per worker is higher due to technological achievement, but that means we need fewer workers. As automation has displaced manual labor, we need millwrights and electricians to repair the manufacturing equipment as opposed to assembly line workers to actually build things.
We need lawyers and doctors and teachers and engineers, and they need traditional college educations and then maybe graduate school. But we don’t need hundreds of thousands of kids with sociology and history degrees that qualify them to pour coffee. Liberal arts colleges should be elitist institutions, so only the best of the best can get in and get history degrees, and then go on and actually be historians. Historians are important, and we need a few, but most kids who get history degrees aren’t suited to research, and so the degree is basically useless to them. (This applies to classical pianists, archeologists, sculptors, physicists, etc).
(I hope this formats lol)
Lisa, fine idea. although youve started at too high a level. it is not the best uni’s that need to franchise out their formula – but the best high schools.
they should be encouraged to franchise out their teaching methods, organisational structures like mcdonalds does.
Whether that achieved by the best schools sharing their methods, seconding their teachers out to underperforming schools for part of the term or the best schools taking over and directly managing a group of schools.
i would hope the differential between the teachers at the best high and primary(grammar) schools and the rest is only modest. if it is, then those teachers should be able to incorporate the teaching methods of the best schools.
In the uk, to educate a pupil it costs the state the same as a parent paying for their child to attend a private school. (Though Eton charges about £20k a yr from memory). So why children going to private schools are more likely to go to uni, does not appear to be an issue of dire finances.
His claims come as research for the Independent Schools Council found state school education cost at least £9,000 per child per year. The average cost of putting a child through private school is £9,069 per year, but some charge less. 2008 figures
H ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3090528/Cheaper-to-educate-a-child-privately-say-headteachers.html
Now if the differential between the best and the rest of the teachers is great. Then we could look at also realtime teleteaching lessons from the best teachers to schools all over. With teaching assistants in the individual classrooms to aid any pupil difficulties.
So, we should look into:
1. franchising out the best schools educational methods. 2. In dangerous schools we should also have a security guard (they are quite cheap to employ) in every classroom or in every hallway.
3. paying high students to learn, get over it really. Most people go to work not for love, but for MONEY
jameseq, I really like your idea of franchising out the best education methods. That’s exactly the kind of game changer needed. And it means the educational system can be run more like a business, which might ultimately be the best thing at all.
I like to your UK stat that says “to educate a pupil it costs the state the same as a parent paying for their child to attend a private school.”
In “Waiting for Superman” they talk about how in the worst of the worst schools only 3% of students graduate — and the dropouts are 8x more likely to go to prison. The cost of keeping someone in prison is, at least $50,000 more than educating that same person. It’s phenomenal when you think about the statistics and their economic implications.
Yes lisa it is amazing how those who are hawkishly bottom line cant see it costs less to heavily support vulnerable students, than to pay $150k a yr to lock them up for decade after decade later in life (according to my prime minister in a recent interview).
In the case of vulnerable students it’s not just about them receiving better education. But that they also need extra funding to replicate the educational benefits that a stable home gives. Thats why id eg. pay them, or encourage a kibbutz(sp) feel
*get over it folks, really
It was this mom’s dream for her boy to attend Harvard; job losses and lay-offs in first decade of 21st century dashed those hopes. He’s a pretty smart kid too; should have started college this Fall. Instead he’s working part-time at B&N to help put food on his family’s table.
P.S. You book-learned people have loads to say!
I realize I am very late to the discussion, but this post was so delightfully foolish, I had to comment. I suppose I am one of those “book-learned people” with “loads to say”. I am a Harvard graduate and it’s interesting to see how you “street-learned people” are quick to blame without knowing the full picture.
My personal story, which I will make very quick, will show you that I am not in some kind of super privileged group from which Harvard selects their pool. My parents are both immigrants who came to the country with a couple thousand dollars. My father gained citizenship by joining the army during the Vietnam War. He then had his education paid for to attend a public college (keep in mind, this opportunity is available to almost anyone) and eventually became an engineer for a government-related company. He always told me that compared to other countries, America is the land of multiple chances. He stressed the importance of work ethic to me. I maintained straight As in high school, graduated as a valedictorian, and volunteered in a lot of local political campaigns. I like to think that it was the work that I did and the drive that I had that had a lot to do with my admittance to Harvard.
As for your friend, surely, you cannot say that because of a family layoff, his chances of going to Harvard were depleted. (My father went through one as well.) For any student whose family income is less than $50k, Harvard offers a full-ride and by that, I mean, a free education, not tons of loans. Now if you are to argue that because his mother did not have a job and could not support him financially to take SAT classes and do extracurricular activities, as one poster mentioned, there are PLENTY of public free resources available whether or not they are offered at school. If he had the grades and the resume that Harvard found apt for their student body, cost should not have been issue. I specifically can name over 20 very close friends (but will not for obvious reasons) who grew up in similar, if not harsher, circumstances and still got into Harvard. I had a friend who grew up on welfare in a family of 5 with a single mom, a secretary who got laid off many times. He grew up in rough area of DC where attended a public school his entire life (yes, the kind where curse words were written on bathroom stalls and dropout rate was very high), studied hard to get good grades, took advantage of public programs and free lectures/seminars offered at local colleges, and became a star athlete from practicing his sport at least 3 hours a day. He got into Harvard and never had to pay a dime for it. His story is like many others I know and far from the “worst” that I’ve heard.
As much as people want to argue that the American education system is not based on meritocracy, it is more so than you think. Yes, having money makes things a LOT easier, but in this country, motivation and diligence can get you very far. Anyone should understand that Harvard, as good as a school it is and as much as I loved my experience there, is no better at creating successful graduates because of its resources or endowment. There are plenty of state schools and transfer programs that allow students to become very successful without an Ivy education.
Now, a question to the author. How is Harvard or any other “elitist” institution for that matter able to fix this situation? How is opening their doors of admission going to alleviate the situation? Aren’t basic parenting skills and self-motivation far more influential proponents?
This article is a joke. Harvard has one duty–to provide a good education to the students that are qualified enough to get into the school. The reason they are elite is because they excel at this duty. Maybe with their large endowment they should fund health care for all because they “can” or buy school lunches for kindergarten children because they “can”.
This is so wrong, at so many levels, that a single comment can’t begin to address it. So I will leave you with a tale of two schools.
The first was a public middle school in which the students just didn’t care one whit about learning. Neither did their parents. Violence was such that armed police patrolled the halls. The highest badge of honor among these middle-school girls was to have a baby. And the teachers were, by and large, substandard. Why? Because any good teacher than fell into that environment fled as quickly as possible.
The second was a public middle school in which parents were proactive and took an active role in their children’s education. Thus, the kids didn’t have much choice but to care, at least a little, about what they were doing. Good teachers sought to work there. Standardized test scores were well above the state norm.
My ex taught at both. Same city. Spending per student was 20% higher in the first school. Teacher salary was 10% higher at the first school. The only difference was racial mix; the first school was mostly black; the second, mostly white. How do you fix the “inequity” in education in that situation?
You fix inequality by caring about inequality and making it a priority.
Most of the comments that are against my idea seem to be arguing that there is nothing really wrong with inequality, it is not only a part of life, but we should strive for a world in which some people can excel and some people can’t. It’s not a sentiment I agree with, but it is one I can understand.
So it seems to me that in your tale of two schools, the answer might lie in this “the parents were proactive and took an active role in their kids education”. If the parents aren’t doing that in school #1, how can you either incentivize them to do so, or provide some sort of surrogate role models to take their place? In addition, if you want kids to graduate and do well, they need hope that they can actually accomplish something when they do. Helping them believe they can actually get into a college when they graduate would be a start.
A major problem is that the education establishment resists change. Many administrators and teachers desperately want to maintain the status quo, which keeps minds closed to improvement that involves change. This includes many of the worst school systems in the country, which is why the are the worst school systems in the country.
Well, there are lots of things that need to be fixed in K-12 education in America, but these would be my two top priorities (neither of which is up to Harvard):
1. Public education is a right and a privilege. It should not be a legal mandate. Instead there should just be social pressure to stay in school. If people think “Yeah, I can drop out and be successful,” they’ll drop out. If people have to be legally forced to be in school, they’ll be less inclined to think of school as something they want to go to. How did we go from disallowing most people from getting an education to forcing everyone to go to school (and not necessarily get an education)?
2. Funding for public schools should not be on a city/town level but solely on a state or federal level. This would revolutionize all of America. Wealthy parents would no longer move to a town or neighborhood with a “good school system” for their kids, because all school systems would get the same funding. This would fundamentally change both the schools and the populations of each school.