Since the inception of educational institutions, societies have grappled with developing a means to best educate our children. Despite thousands of years of work, and even the recent advent of public education, there remains a general bewilderment as to how education should manifest itself. This bewilderment is overwhelmingly clear at home in America, where, despite years of heralded progress, systemic problems remain within every level of education. And despite a vast majority of the conversation in America honing in on primary and secondary education — tertiary, or post-secondary, education suffers many of the same inconsistencies, if not more.
Over the past few months, facing the realities of the poor economy and poorer job prospects, many have posited the question as to whether or not a college degree is worth its cost. This discussion isn’t the typical example of the cost of opportunity encountered in economics textbooks, but it is made entirely more complex by the severity of college debt juxtaposed with the high likelihood of unemployment. Relying on differences in average income based on education level, most claim that the degree is still worth pursuing, with certain, impactful caveats.
Jordan Weissmann, writing for The Atlantic, claims that the solution to the fact that 53 percent of recent college graduates are unemployed is increasing the skilled components of an undergraduate education. Top U.S. education officials — President Barack Obama included — have spoken similar words.
It would seem this is a conversation this university has taken to heart. On a broad level, the university has worked to increase employment prospects by boosting the presence of employers on campus, as well as attempting to make inroads in post-graduation unemployment. Similarly, in light of its research aspirations, the university has placed an overwhelming focus and amount of resources into STEM majors and programs where job opportunities are far more abundant. This, in tandem with a variety of departments that seem to limit studies to those within the program and discourage those within from branching out on any significant level, we’re on track to become a hallmark institution of specialization.
To many, this is a positive – a representation of what college should consist of — a ‘practical’ education that can easily be translated into real-world opportunities. But this is a philosophy of education I am inherently opposed to. In fact, the notion of specialization is a keen example of the reactive policies that have dictated the course of education to little avail. It’s a notion that incorrectly blurs long-term solvency with short-term considerations.
While basic economics teaches that specialization leads to a superior utilitarian outcome, students are no longer taught how to think, but instead what to think. Students are then left with an education that is relatively limited in scope under the pretense that this training will make them more competitive in the present.
However, even the most specialized and qualified of individuals cannot predict what the economy will look like in a few months, let alone what the demand will be for workers years down the line. An education that reacts to today fails to provide sufficient preparation for tomorrow, leaving many unable to think critically and react to abrupt changes in the market — which is the kind of skill our education should be working to develop, not destroy.
Justin Dent is a sophomore government and politics and finance major and the director of student groups for the SGA. He can be reached at dent@umdbk.com.
