By Austin Padgett
Progressives believe that restricting individual liberty permits better social outcomes. In truth, it is individual liberty that allows societies to function best.
pull down to refresh
related posts
pull down to refresh
By Austin Padgett
Progressives believe that restricting individual liberty permits better social outcomes. In truth, it is individual liberty that allows societies to function best.
A great demonstration from history that I never knew:
I am glad Padget points out how college has been made nonsensically compulsory. It's an issue that pisses me off daily.
I did a stint as a substitute teacher and amongst the things that disturbed me about that experience was the extent of college propaganda. It particularly bothered me to see teachers and councilors pushing it on kids with severe learning/cognitive disabilities. They were getting those kids' hopes up for something they knew would end in frustration and failure. It struck me as extremely cruel.
I'm in a position where every week I am working with such students. They struggle hard, and sometimes they make it to graduation. The efforts to dumb down the curriculum, pile on support, and provide many allowances through petitions certainly help them, but it leaves a trail of professional complacency and complicity.
The value of a degree and grade are not only inflated; they are structurally compromised.
The very sad times are when they express some other interest that does not require a college degree, something they are capable and passionate about pursuing.
Parents can be as guilty as councilors and teachers in putting on the pressure. They are hearing the same vaguery as the students--"you have to go to college if you want to success." Shrugging off Mr. Johnson, the college counselor is one thing; shrugging off Mom is another.
I have even more criticism of colleges that take tuition money from these students who they know full well are not going to graduate. Unfortunately, I've also seen how that sausage is made.
Open enrollment policies sound nice, but those schools structure their courses and prerequisites to make sure unprepared students expend all their financial aid before they get to the point where they learn college isn't going to work out for them. Then you have instructors fudging their grading to ensure financial aid keeps flowing in, schools saddling homeless people with student loans, and a whole host of other sinister behavior.
Preach!
I can see the monetary incentive to string a student along as long as they can, but obviously, no one in the administration is going to admit that except in a James O'Keefe style drunken conversation.
We might be able to calculate the likelihood that upon entry a student won't graduate. As far as I am aware, we have plenty of indicators but nothing that creates a holistic score (I would love to see that forumula). Even if we had a score like that, I am unsure how to reconcile that with a student's determination.
I actually do like the open enrollment concept, because it gives people a chance to succeed. As you indicate, determination can overcome a lot.
What bothered me at both levels that we're talking about (high school and college) is the total lack of honesty with the students. The university knows all the graduation rate information for people with each level of preparedness.
If they were honest with students that would at least give people a fair shot. Of course, they won't do that because many people won't go to college if they know people like them only graduate 10% of the time.
I worked with the underprepared student body for years. It's deeply rewarding when you get to help someone overcome major obstacles and achieve a difficult goal. It's also inspiring to see people dedicate themselves to achieving their goals. It's just too bad how few such cases are.
A distinguishing factor seems to be view on humanity. The advocate for freedom is confident that free individuals will make rational choices to the extent information is available to do so, while information will be most freely available and decision-making most rational, where there is freedom to choose. The inherent good of humanity will shine in a market where ideas are given equal opportunity.
The advocate for authoritarianism fears the choices of others and does not trust people to make decisions for themselves. He believes that the worst of humanity - man's inherent wickedness - will flourish, if adequate controls are not in place. He wants trusted experts and arbiters of morality to guide and enforce the way for the lessers, who are always his political adversaries.
Well put