Now that it's graduation season, the press can't help but write articles like this one that discuss the terrible job market and how recent college graduates don't feel prepared to enter the work force.
To that I say, welcome to reality.
College
is not job training; it's academic training, and any university worth
its books will operate on that premise. Graduates who think that they
are now ready for the working world are living under a false assumption
that's been sold to the public for decades. High school guidance counselors, college consultants and many teachers peddle this connection as if it was always true and that the main reason one should go to college is simply to get a job. Institutions of higher education have bought into this line of illogic and are even going to far as to tailor their recruiting messages to highlight the terrific jobs their graduates have found.
What the colleges don't tell you is whether those jobs are related to what you majored in. That is sometimes an inconvenient measure, akin to the one your high school used to keep property values in your town elevated. The school highlights the wonderful colleges its graduates attend, but does zero follow-up to see who's staying in school, who's graduating, and where they're working. And all it costs is a zillion dollars, most if it in indebtedness that's crushing the wannabe middle class.
So back to the question: Do you want job training? Find
an apprenticeship or a school that focuses on technical skills. Don't go
to a pricey university and then complain that you don't believe that you are ready for the working world.
A university degree confers upon you the affirmation that you've
studied an academic discipline, thought about it, questioned its
assumptions and come out the other side a more EDUCATED person. Along
the way, perhaps you took that odd course that had nothing to do with
your major or making money simply because it was interesting or the
professor was exceptional or the guy/gal you liked was also signed up.
A university is not a job factory, and people ignore that fact at their peril.
When I graduated in the early 80s,
all full of myself for having gone to the premier Communications school
in the country, I was asked the same question on every interview:
How fast can you type?
Mazel tov to all recent graduates. Your work education begins now.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
The Worst Political Era Ever. Except For All The Others
After two weeks of not writing, a function of both intellectual blockage and a terrifically busy work schedule, I find myself confronted with the same news and political reality as existed 14 days ago, only more so. Stories about how dysfunctional our political system is litter the websites, newspapers and social media outlets we visit.
Is it true that we live in the worst of all possible worlds? That our system has become so mired in petty squabbles that it qualifies as the most terrible atmosphere in United States history? Depends on your definition.
Ask Thomas Jefferson, who was accused of hating religion so much that the opposition, John Adams of all people, spread rumors that Jefferson was going to outlaw it. How about "King" Andrew Jackson, who was supposed to be all-powerful and who ignored a Supreme Court decision prohibiting him from moving Native American tribes from Georgia, where there was gold on their land, to Oklahoma, where the land tended to dry up and blow away. Or Andrew Johnson, who was impeached and almost convicted in 1868 for violating a law that was probably unconstitutional to begin with, and had numerous vetoes overridden by a Congress that treated him as an afterthought. Or Harry Truman, who was thought to be harboring Communists in his government, Johnson and Nixon, who were hated for the Vietnam War, violations of civil liberties and the Watergate scandal, and Bill Clinton, ignored, impeached and politically impotent in the face of a concerted Republican majority. Each of these presidents were the targets of opposition slings and arrows who squawked that the end of the republic was at hand.
The genius, and the curse, of our political system is that it's based on three competing political branches, each of whom is forever concerned about maintaining its power. Cooperation is rare and mostly occurs when one party has a significant majority in both houses. FDR was able to get major New Deal legislation through Congress with large Democratic majorities, and LBJ did the same with the Great Society programs. Both Nixon and Reagan were able to work with Democratic majorities and that's why their successes were less ideological than they otherwise would be. GW Bush had Republican majorities in the middle of his term, but Social Security reform was anathema to the left, and immigration reform died because of right wing opposition. As I recall, these were all pitched battles with ruin promised by both sides if their legislation wasn't passed.
Thus it is today. President Obama had great success in his first two years with Democratic majorities and an important 60 votes in the Senate. After the 2010 elections? Not so much. Yes, the right has an irrational opposition to him and successfully fought back on guns. We'll get an immigration bill this year because the political stakes for the Republicans are too high for failure. We might even get tax reform. But it would take Democratic majorities in the House and Senate to finish the work that Obama was elected to accomplish, including energy, environmental and bank reform.
So let's all calm down a bit and understand that while our era is contentious, it's not the end of the political world. The events of the past four years will reach an endpoint with one party breaking out and leading a new push in their direction. My hunch, and hope, is that it will be the Democrats, but it will probably take a couple of election cycles to achieve.
Until then, the media machine will crank out apocalyptic pronouncements about how bad things are. Don't you believe it.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
Is it true that we live in the worst of all possible worlds? That our system has become so mired in petty squabbles that it qualifies as the most terrible atmosphere in United States history? Depends on your definition.
Ask Thomas Jefferson, who was accused of hating religion so much that the opposition, John Adams of all people, spread rumors that Jefferson was going to outlaw it. How about "King" Andrew Jackson, who was supposed to be all-powerful and who ignored a Supreme Court decision prohibiting him from moving Native American tribes from Georgia, where there was gold on their land, to Oklahoma, where the land tended to dry up and blow away. Or Andrew Johnson, who was impeached and almost convicted in 1868 for violating a law that was probably unconstitutional to begin with, and had numerous vetoes overridden by a Congress that treated him as an afterthought. Or Harry Truman, who was thought to be harboring Communists in his government, Johnson and Nixon, who were hated for the Vietnam War, violations of civil liberties and the Watergate scandal, and Bill Clinton, ignored, impeached and politically impotent in the face of a concerted Republican majority. Each of these presidents were the targets of opposition slings and arrows who squawked that the end of the republic was at hand.
The genius, and the curse, of our political system is that it's based on three competing political branches, each of whom is forever concerned about maintaining its power. Cooperation is rare and mostly occurs when one party has a significant majority in both houses. FDR was able to get major New Deal legislation through Congress with large Democratic majorities, and LBJ did the same with the Great Society programs. Both Nixon and Reagan were able to work with Democratic majorities and that's why their successes were less ideological than they otherwise would be. GW Bush had Republican majorities in the middle of his term, but Social Security reform was anathema to the left, and immigration reform died because of right wing opposition. As I recall, these were all pitched battles with ruin promised by both sides if their legislation wasn't passed.
Thus it is today. President Obama had great success in his first two years with Democratic majorities and an important 60 votes in the Senate. After the 2010 elections? Not so much. Yes, the right has an irrational opposition to him and successfully fought back on guns. We'll get an immigration bill this year because the political stakes for the Republicans are too high for failure. We might even get tax reform. But it would take Democratic majorities in the House and Senate to finish the work that Obama was elected to accomplish, including energy, environmental and bank reform.
So let's all calm down a bit and understand that while our era is contentious, it's not the end of the political world. The events of the past four years will reach an endpoint with one party breaking out and leading a new push in their direction. My hunch, and hope, is that it will be the Democrats, but it will probably take a couple of election cycles to achieve.
Until then, the media machine will crank out apocalyptic pronouncements about how bad things are. Don't you believe it.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
Sunday, May 5, 2013
But Zero Percent Confidence: Teacher Reform Gets Squishy
Imagine what would happen if the so-called education reformers knew what they were talking about. Could actually articulate a meaningful program that would improve teaching and learning. Didn't have an agenda that blamed unions and teachers, and relied on privatizing the public schools.
Imagine.
Unfortunately, that's not the kind of reform movement we have in this country. What we have is a reactionary movement of right wing ideologues who want to impose market-based principles on a system that must serve all children in the United States. They also want to thin the ranks of union membership and rely on self-selecting administrators to run the schools without input from the very people who have been trained to educate its students. The worst part, though, is that these reformers seem to be making this all up as they go along.
Consider.
This past week, the New Jersey State Board of Education agreed to lower the percentage by which standardized tests will be used to evaluate teacher performance from 35% to 30%. They also raised the amount of time a student would need to be enrolled in a particular teacher's classroom for their tests to count for that teacher's evaluation from 60% to 70%. Impressive numbers that show a marked concern for teaching, learning, effective evaluation and a nod towards the science of educational assessment, no?
No. Emphatically, no.
These numbers mean absolutely nothing. There is no research to suggest that 30%, 35% or any other numbers will accurately measure the teacher's role in a student's learning. It's being made up. In fact, about the only number that would accurately measure the student-teacher learning relationship would be zero percent, because standardized tests should not be used for that purpose.
Further, the State Board did nothing to raise the student level of concern for these tests. They mean very little to the children, but everything for the teachers, and I'm sure that parents, and the students themselves, understand that it's OK for them to not do well on the tests especially if the student has test anxiety or simply doesn't care. Thirty percent of nothing still means nothing.
The larger point, though, is that Governor Christie, Commissioner Cerf, and the true believers in the Department of Education see this as a negotiable percentage. It proves that there isn't a percentage that's tied to effective teaching and lowering it by 5% in New Jersey is a political decision, not an educational one. They are simply making it up as they go along. Any teacher who did that wouldn't last two months in the classroom. The Governor wants another four years.
Fail.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
Imagine.
Unfortunately, that's not the kind of reform movement we have in this country. What we have is a reactionary movement of right wing ideologues who want to impose market-based principles on a system that must serve all children in the United States. They also want to thin the ranks of union membership and rely on self-selecting administrators to run the schools without input from the very people who have been trained to educate its students. The worst part, though, is that these reformers seem to be making this all up as they go along.
Consider.
This past week, the New Jersey State Board of Education agreed to lower the percentage by which standardized tests will be used to evaluate teacher performance from 35% to 30%. They also raised the amount of time a student would need to be enrolled in a particular teacher's classroom for their tests to count for that teacher's evaluation from 60% to 70%. Impressive numbers that show a marked concern for teaching, learning, effective evaluation and a nod towards the science of educational assessment, no?
No. Emphatically, no.
These numbers mean absolutely nothing. There is no research to suggest that 30%, 35% or any other numbers will accurately measure the teacher's role in a student's learning. It's being made up. In fact, about the only number that would accurately measure the student-teacher learning relationship would be zero percent, because standardized tests should not be used for that purpose.
Further, the State Board did nothing to raise the student level of concern for these tests. They mean very little to the children, but everything for the teachers, and I'm sure that parents, and the students themselves, understand that it's OK for them to not do well on the tests especially if the student has test anxiety or simply doesn't care. Thirty percent of nothing still means nothing.
The larger point, though, is that Governor Christie, Commissioner Cerf, and the true believers in the Department of Education see this as a negotiable percentage. It proves that there isn't a percentage that's tied to effective teaching and lowering it by 5% in New Jersey is a political decision, not an educational one. They are simply making it up as they go along. Any teacher who did that wouldn't last two months in the classroom. The Governor wants another four years.
Fail.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)