I know all kinds of plumbers and electricians in Miami who make much more than the people their age with college degrees. In addition, they have satisfying jobs, with tangible results every day, fixed hours and a decent amount of autonomy. So, if my kids have an aptitude for working with their hands, I will have no problem being supportive if they decide not to go to college. The college experience is way, way over-rated. I think we will see a lot more people doing home study and becoming apprentices, etc, in the years ahead.

To be an electrician or plumber, you still have to have “higher education” through being a Journeyman for a union, or a trade school, etc.

President Kimball had very little post-high school education. He appreciated and encouraged education, and sometimes wondered if his lack disqualified him for the callings that came his way. Of course his native intelligence and abilities carried him far in life- he was doing very well when he was called to be an apostle. But sometimes I wonder if that very lack of formal education is at least partly what gave him his extraordinary capacity for love and compassion and his ability to be equally at ease with the poor as well as the mighty.
( And I don’t mean to say that the educated can’t be kind . . .)

The college experience is way, way over-rated.

It depends on your rating system. If the point is to “make much more than the people their age with college degrees” then of course you can find some wealthy plummers and poor teachers to compare, but I don’t think that’s the rating system we want, is it? To make more money than others? I would imagine that “suffient for our needs” should be the yardstick, not measuring ourselves to others.

While you’ll be able to find anecdotal evidence that education isn’t always the answer, I can’t imagine that the Lord wants us to get an education solely because it helps us get a good job.

I attended college at what is considered a “selective” state school (avg ACT 28/SAT 1280). Even so I remember sitting in classes and being teamed with people who had no business being in college because they lacked the basic aptitude to grasp higher-level concepts. In math-centric classes (stats, biology, chem, physics, economics) it was my experience that at least 20% of the class could not competently apply the appropriate mathematical principles to the class material. It frustrated me to no end that these people would still end up with Cs or Bs in the classes thanks to instructors with low expectations when they had no business there in the first place. When I read the Murray articles I couldn’t help but think, “Here, Here!” College should be for the intellectual elite otherwise the acomplishment becomes diluted and resources are wasted on those who will never provide a return on the invested resources. Mormons and the Church should be placing less of an emphasis on eduation and more emphasis on career preparation. For some that preparation will mean college and university. For others it will mean vocational school.

My daughter sent me two of the three articles from her online subscription. The articles struck me as a bit elitist, but perhaps I am too much of an egalitarian American.

The analysis in the article on vocational education persuaded me, though, that law school should be a two year community college program immediately following high school. Medical school might need to be a three year community college program, before the decade or so of internships and residencies. As far as I am concerned, the only people who should go for four years are those who want an academic degree in order to teach other schleps who want to go four years.

I have to agree with his assessment of what is done with gifted children prior to college. They are not challenged and are often ignored in public schools because they require so little attention. Seminary was interestingly the worst offender in this regard. Possibly worse than PE, which itself is entertaining given how many seminary teachers had PE degrees. It seemed that the goal was to entertain and make sure that everyone kept coming back rather than to offer any serious study of the scriptures, gospel, or church history. At the time I advocated creating a two track seminary program. One for kids who wanted to be there and wanted it to be taken as seriously as any other class and one for those who were there because their parents mandated it. My guess was that the more serious class would become more popular over time. Unfortunately it seemed that the goal of CES was to give everyone the same mediocre experience rather than acknowledging the obvious distinctions in the level of students.

It was the same way in the pre-mortal existence and it will be the same way in our post-mortal existence. There will always be someone brighter, smarter, prettier, stronger, faster or better-looking than you. It does not excuse you from doing the best with what you have. That being said, society and the church do seem to strive towards mediocrity instead of allowing various strata wherein everyone can excel. I don’t know if it is an American/Canadian thing or if it is worldwide.

I’m going to upset everyone who attended seminary in Utah, but …

Release-time seminary is bad on two levels — one, students have to sacrifice very little to attend. Second, it takes away from the school day (you could add a science class in that slot).

Seminary should be early-morning and not taught by paid “professional” ministry (who aren’t any better than the amateur early-morning seminary teachers, anyway).

queuno,

I attended seminary in Utah and I enthusiastically agree with you. The problem is the volume of kids. There were over 1,200 kids going to seminary at my high school. You could make it ward/stake based but there would still be difficulties. Students that wanted or needed to take additional classes could opt to go to seminary before school. Swim practice prevented me from doing that.

I think I have to agree with #6. America is still stuck on the whole liberal arts education–well-rounded individual model. In most the rest the world you graduate and if you did well–start law or medicine without all the inbetween. I think cutting out the middle 4 years would really help out a lot of people.

I’m going to upset everyone who attended seminary in Utah, but …

Release-time seminary is bad on two levels — one, students have to sacrifice very little to attend. Second, it takes away from the school day (you could add a science class in that slot).

I mostly agree with you, but release time people do sacrifice. They’re wasting their time at a poorly taught/poorly attended seminary cas instead of earning credits that could help them in their education. My wife skipped release time seminary and her last semester in high school earning college credit for no cost at Weber State. After not getting much out of it, I wish I would have skipped it as well.

I had a great comment that got eaten, so I’ll retype.

I recognize that seminary teaching is a CES appointment, not an ecclesiastical calling, but do bishops in Utah have the option of creating their own early-morning seminary class (a real early morning seminary starts at 5:45 or 6:00, not at the “zero-hour” at 7:20). Does the bishop even have that option in Utah?

I dated a girl whose dad was a professional LDS minister in Tempe, and I have a cousin who works for CES. I weep for the youth of America who have to attend professional LDS seminary as opposed to those who teach for the love of it.

I was under the impression that bishops have the authority to create all kinds of alternate seminary options for their youth. Usually that’s in the context of home study (our current ward has had home study kids who were in athletics, ones who had missed a year or more due to inactivity or late conversion, and at least one 17-year-old who graduated high school early but wanted all four years of seminary.) I’d imagine that still applies in Utah.

I detested having to get up early for seminary, but that’s probably because it was the only day of the week I had to get up before nine — I was homeschooled, and our branch met at 11am on Sundays. We only had early morning seminary once a week due to the small number of kids: I was surprised to be told that it was actually counted as “home study” seminary, seeing as how I’d gotten up at 5am every Wednesday for two years to attend it (and, actually, got into my very first car accident… winter plus country roads plus 6:45 in the morning equals bad news.) Also, my teacher was my YW president (and she was the only person with a YW calling, and there was only one other YW besides me,) and our other seminary classmate was called to be our Sunday School teacher due to a shortage of adults, so for me, the entire church essentially boiled down to my family and three other people. Wednesdays made me feel sorry for myself, because we all said “good-bye” at 6:45am, and then “hello” again 11 hours later for Mutual. I felt even more sorry for the other YW though, as our classmate and Sunday School teacher was her younger brother. I would have paid money to get to go to seminary after lunch (seminary held on high school property was a whispered fantasy when I was a teen; my classmates both had to walk 2 miles to school after our meeting.)

Anyway, Seminary always seemed quite academic to me, and it was especially nice compared to regular church as we never talked about crafts or dating, and no one ever wandered off to play basketball. But I had to do all the written homework, and I gather you don’t have to do it if you go every day.

Dude. I just realized, my not-really-early-morning-though-it-felt-early-to-me-seminary stories are the closest thing I’m likely to have to an “uphill both ways in the snow all year round” story. I’m going to have to change it to starting at 4:45 just to make it more tragic (our branch held seminary at 7am in semesters where no one had early-morning athletics — my sister was a beneficiary of this policy her freshman year.) This combined with my tales of the much-more-work-and-paper-pushing Personal Progress program and eight-hour drives to the temple in DC will seal my “I am so a pioneer” legacy with the kids.

The problem with early morning seminary is that everyone is so tired that I have a hard time believing anyone is learning much. I don’t know much about release-time seminary. Honestly though I don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s largely oriented around getting the kids to read the scriptures by testing them with stupid questions. (Much like most CES classes at BYU when I was there) But while this seems pointless to those interested in the gospel, for many people it forces them to actually read and think a little. Sure, not as much as they could. But more than they would have. It’s largely the same process used for most classics of literature. Yet most seminary teachers aren’t great. And yes, you’ll hear odd things about some clueless folks teaching quasi-doctrine or false doctrine. But honestly that’s not much worse than the averages of what is taught in their regular classes I suspect. You hear, if anything, more horror stories about some clueless English or science teachers.

As to the central question, I guess I’m still committed somewhat to the old classic idea of an university. I think we’re so focused on “practicality” in the sense of “get me a good job” that we stopped carrying. But I think that University, even a low quality one, on average gets people to think more and expand their horizons. Yes some manage to get through it, sometimes even with good grades, but having learned nothing. But on average I think it really gets people to think in such a fashion that they become better citizens.

Rather than simply streamline folks to say a vo-tec education or a college I think they should be more merged. i.e. have a bit of liberal education (which the “practical” look down their noses at and have some more of the practical in the university (which the “intellectuals” look down their nose at. The divide is silly. I personally think learning shop skills is just as good a class to take at college as is Shakespeare. Ideally the GE requirements should include practical classes. Heaven knows many need them.

Clark, what you describe sounds like a proper high school education. Advanced students would be well served with a few high school shop classes instead of AP classes because they’ll get plenty of college-level courses when they’re in college. And every high school student should read Shakespeare.

I’m also reminded of when Utah Technical College changed into Utah Valley State College. There was a poster early in that transition promising that a person could still get his hands dirty at UVSC; that is, courses in things like diesel mechanics hadn’t been eliminated. Twenty years later, I hope that promise is working out. A factor in good technical education is that there are capital expenses for equipment, so it is tempting to shift to programs where people talk, talk, talk, read, read, read, and write, write, write at lower cost to the school. You see the same thing with science labs where cost-cutters want to shift from demonstrations of scientific phenomena to computer simulations of those phenomena.

UVSC, from what I can tell, still has most of the Vo-Tec classes. They have a catologue that goes out for ones the “public” can take that seems on par with 10 years ago. They are attempting to change the name though.

To be fair though BYU had three auto-shop classes although because they were all around 9 I never could fit it into my schedule.

Note I wasn’t saying one shouldn’t read Shakespeare. Quite the contrary. I think folks should learn both practical and the classic liberal arts.

You expressed yourself clearly, Clark, that everyone ought to receive some measure of liberal arts education.

I will go on record as saying that a good liberal arts education need not include Shakespeare.

#19 -

perhaps not an in-depth study of Shakespeare, but that’s like saying a good liberal arts education needs no knowledge of World history, the Bible, Baroque music, World War II, or Plato/Socrates/Aristotle.

But I guess it depends on what one means by “liberal arts.” It seems to me that one would need to gain at least a familiarity with the great ideas and works of history, and Shakespeare is in there.

Interesting thread. Here are some thoughts on this…my Dad is both a certfied electrician and a certified refrigeration mechanic (Yea, two trades, pretty good). I have a M.A.Sc. in Operations Research. My son just does not have the smarts to go to University but will definitely be fine with a trade or working through something like a Pharmacist technician in his life, and to which I have problem with because he might find that suitable to having “sufficient for his and his family’s needs” in the future. I find it ever interesting also that my Dad and I are both Hight Priests and have both served in Bishoprics and on High Councils and yet our training and education are completely different and yet we both seem to be surviving well on our independent worldly career paths as church members. The one advantage that my Dad does have over me is that he can fix almost anything around the house and I don’t have a clue with regards to those things and so in the end how useful are my years of post-seconday studies if i can’t even fix my own taps or even change light bulbs?

BTW, if Geoff B. lives in the Stake in Miami that I am thinking of, a member of the Stake Presidency there is a Bell Telephone phone installer and repairman with a Physics degree! Career definition has nothing to do with salvation of having a good life!

So what’s a minimal prescription for a liberal arts education? I would say that if you’re going to include Shakespeare, that you also include Neruda and Paz and Garcia Marquez. How about Turkish writers? Indian writers?

Why must every discussion of liberal arts education include only so-called “classics” and dead white males?

My perception, after listening to the rantings of many of a liberal arts shill, is that what we call “liberal arts” is a VERY NARROW education.

queuno
[Who has a BA in Spanish and a BS in the sciences and who loves the NFL, so I can mix and mingle with everyone at parties...]

queuno -

Hmmm - you seem to be ascribing views to me I don’t have. There is limited time, so there have to be some things left out and other things glanced over quickly - so perhaps Shakespeare would only get a mention - but students should at least know who he was and when he wrote plays.

And there should be some coverage of Indian, Arab, Spanish, etc. But at the same time, there’s not world enough and time to cover it all. The Koran should be covered along with the Bible along with the Upanishads along with the Bhagavad Gita etc. etc. etc.

There’s really nothing all that wrong with dead white males per se - though focusing on them exclusively would be wrong - but just as the historically narrow focus on Western culture was wrong, I don’t see how the current trend towards excluding/demonizing the “dead white males” is any better.

But it seems you have some major chips on your shoulder and would rather spout cliche talking points (the phrase “dead white males” is so overused as to be laughable).

I would be curious as to what your version of a liberal arts education would look like.

Sorry Ivan, I wasn’t trying to ascribe anyone’s views to anyone.

And I’m not saying I have a solution to what a liberal arts education should look like, nor did I attempt to present myself as an credible expert on that; just offering an opinion.

And I have no chip — not sure where you conceived that.

I was just opining that I think you could have a good undergrad liberal arts education without (OK, or at least, with only a minimum of) Shakespeare. I’m also not trying to completely eliminate dead white English-speaking males. I’m just trying to expand past the usual suspects. I have relatives with English degrees (one with a PhD). They are not very well-read *outside* the Shakespeares and Austens and the like. Very narrow. Never read anything outside the usual suspects.

Ideally queuno a liberal education would include exposure to a few of the greats who have so influenced our civilization as well as a few more obscure (to most) figures. I actually think BYU does pretty good in this regard in their GE requirements. You’re given a fair degree of flexibility in what kinds of classes to take, but I suspect most are exposed to at least a few of the greats. But likewise I was exposed to several I’d never have read on my own. (i.e. several Japanese authors, Zen koans, Greek thinkers I’d likely have not read, etc.)

In defense of ethnocentrism, a person who isn’t well grounded in his own culture probably has a superficial understanding of other cultures. John Derbyshire and Mark Steyn are a couple writers who have pointed out that the old imperialists were more deeply acquainted with the world’s cultures than current anti-Western Westerners. If you can’t sing your own state song, aren’t part of your own community, don’t know your own literature and culture, then how far can the ways of another people penetrate?

There is also the argument that Charles Murray put forth in the third of the essays linked above: “The gifted should not be taught to be nonjudgmental; they need to learn how to make accurate judgments. They should not be taught to be equally respectful of Aztecs and Greeks; they should focus on the best that has come before them, which will mean a light dose of Aztecs and a heavy one of Greeks.”

Great point John. It’s hard to understand what is significant in other cultures without understanding your own. Without that you tend to read other texts (including western texts further removed from our own culture) in terms doing violence to the text. That is you tend to read it as if it was written within your culture.

John and Clark: agreed, generally. Although I think it’s possible to avoid the problem of “read[ing] it as if it was written within your culture” if the teacher knows how to handle it. I’m a bit more inclusive in what I consider necessary for students to know, I’m guessing.

On another point:

Here’s an interesting corrective to Murray’s elitist point: (I don’t like all of this article, but do agree with some of its criticisms of Murray).

http://www.tcsdaily.com/printArticle.aspx?ID=012207B

Excerpts:

Murray’s analysis reflects IQ-ism. That is, it reduces human talent to a one-dimensional measure, IQ.

If the jar metaphor is correct, any resources devoted to trying to teach calculus to an average-IQ student are wasted. However, if the car metaphor is correct, and it is really important to teach calculus to the average-IQ student, then we should be putting more resources into doing so.

I think Jarvis Cocker addressed this fairly succinctly in his recent song, “Running the World.” Murray is an apologist for a class society and he uses bunk science to naturalize man-made economic and social systems.