I have been reading a series from Charles Murray this week. He is the author of the somewhat controversial The Bell Curve, and a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. AEI is a private, non-partisan, not-for-profit institute for the study of business, government, social welfare.
Mr. Murray has been writing on the topic of intelligence, as it relates to our schools, public thought, and responsibility. Talking about intelligence makes people uncomfortable. That is a fact. All over the world, parents worry about weather their child is going to be "smart enough". Everyone wants their child to have a chance at being someone who could cure cancer, or become president. Charles Murray proposes that we come to the realization that the simple truth is, "Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon." Murray is not down on Americans - he simply wishes that we all come to terms with the abilities that God has granted us.
Why do we push the unqualified masses into the arena of higher education? I agree with Murray's stance on the matter.
Our society has devalued the four-year degree. Think of those in the generations before us. How many times have you heard a person remark, " It used to be that all you needed was a high school diploma and a strong work ethic." Colleges now offer remedial courses in subject matter more suitable for the sixth grade. College is not the place for remedial work.[I]t is safe to say that few people who are intellectually unqualified yearn for the experience, any more than someone who is athletically unqualified for a college varsity wants to have his shortcomings exposed at practice every day. They are in college to improve their chances of making a good living. What they really need is vocational training. But nobody will say so, because "vocational training" is second class. "College" is first class.
The culprit for educational deficit is often low intelligence.
Large numbers of those who are intellectually qualified for college also do not yearn for four years of college-level courses. They go to college because their parents are paying for it and college is what children of their social class are supposed to do after they finish high school. They may have the ability to understand the material in Economics 1 but they do not want to. They, too, need to learn to make a living--and would do better in vocational training.- excerpt from "What's Wrong With Vocational School?" by Charles Murray
There's a lot more to be said on the subject, and Charles Murray is much better at saying it than I. There are three short articles that he wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week. I would strongly suggest that you give them some consideration.
Intelligence In The Classroom
What's Wrong With Vocational School?
Aztecs vs. Greeks
2 comments:
Yay. I actually caught one of those articles in the Wall Street Journal this week. I'm going to pretend that means I'm smart.
And Yay for vocational school. I'd do it if there was a vocation that interested me.
I'd just like to believe that I can fall into the middle somewhere. I only hope that those who are at the top are not only incredibly intelligent, but very wise. One can only hope, when one is only average.
I wish that they would promote vocational education more in high school. A lot of people would be a lot better off if they were informed of such options at a younger age.
Post a Comment