Here is an article that I penned for theRoot.com on the question, "Is college for everyone?"
About a year and half ago, I was in a conversation with a 17-year-old about college, and she said to me, "My aunt has a master's degree, and she delivers pizza for Domino's. What's that say about going to college?" I hesitated for a minute and responded, "No offense, but it doesn't tell me much about college, but it tells me a lot about your aunt." While I am sure there are some grocery baggers with Ph.D.s and there are engineers-turned-janitors, in the long run, most people who attend college, of some sort, get better access to jobs, housing and other things that are central to getting ahead in America. We know that continued education beyond high school strongly increases income, is related to better health and improves the chances of being employed. Now this doesn't mean that everyone will experience the same successes, but that's because college is a gateway to opportunity; it's not an "ace in the hole," a guaranteed fix or a magic bullet.
Also, this piece is part of a roundtable with pieces from Melissa Harris-Lacewell and John McWhorter.
5 comments:
one thing you didnt touch on in your article as a possible contributor to this question bubbling up the in pre-college type's minds is that "you cant go home again" feeling...
obviously, i cant comment on how things are in black communities, but i know in the native community, going to college is hardly something that wins you esteem among your peers.
If you leave, if you have the opportunity or willingness to return at all, you wont be going back to the same place.
I have seen this foreknowledge cause promising students to question thier path, some even to divert entirely. Others with ivy league potential settling for community college comfort. I doubt this is a reservation phenomanon.
Maybe this is an entirely different topic all together...
community college (cc) is not as comfortable as people might think that it is. a number of cc students begin with the intention of transferring in two years to a four year institution. unfortunately the two year time table is not realistic.
there are a number of factors surrounding the decision to travel the cc path rather than the four year. finances, educational background, familial duties. in a perfect world there would be more spaces for "promising students" at college period.
Andrew and Pirtle Turtle,
You both bring up excellent points. I can't count the number of times I've had conversations with Black college students about their transformed relationships to the neighborhoods they came from. When college isn't a norm, going away to a different place, taking on new cultural forms isn't always applauded, hell to be honest, often it isn't. The one thing I always stress to folks is that relationships change. Whether they are personal, professional or local. The thing that should not change is who you are and your ability to meet folks where they are. That means, you have to be you and you can't allow others to box you in or vice versa put yourself in a box. In the same vein as PT put it, community college is whole nother ball of wax. While CC's on their face seem like they'd be the road to a lot of progress, in reality they are often institutions that that further stratify young people who are attempting to get ahead. I had a chance to attend a panel with a set of scholars who were doing research on stratification re-enforced by CC's, really interesting stuff. Since we're on the topic, how do we create that more "perfect world" for college goers? To me it's ironic that the doors for some have been widened (those who get a kajillion scholarships and get recruited by every school)while the doors for others have been quietly closing (those who are "average" or "below average" students with great ambitions and goals but meager resources? Ya feel me?
im certainly not bangin on c.c.
my point is that those who are not affected by finances, educational background, familial duties etc. or in whom these road blocks (which exist for all of us to some extent) are not insurrmountable, are choosing a LOCAL school (sometimes not a CC) so that they can remain in the comfortable neighborhood that they are used to.
i attended a "respected" 4 year university and i can tell you, aside from the teachings of a few faculty members that really believed and were excited about what they taught, the biggest learning experience was getting away from the rez. and it was also the most difficult part.
you wanna level the playing field? trash this system or revamp from the ground up. the traditional way that a person learned thier place in society was to OUT IN SOCIETY. not imprisoned in one of these brick bullshit institutions for 12 years, and, if they are lucky, another 4 after that, and, if they got the dough or the ambition, another 2 or MORE after that.
basically, i think a high school and college level mentoring/on the job/volunteer/internships should be REQUIRED.
if high school meant spending a few days a week assisting an auto mechanic, learning accounting software, holding a post for a surveyor etc etc etc. or learning how much you hate those things, then you can be sure that the students will stay involved. with "book smarts" only being a part of your learning experience, I can be sure that my fiance isnt going to be working with vet interns that faint at the sight of blood, or are afraid of dogs...
with a student being judged not soley by anonymous arbitrary test scores but actual performence in working situations, you can start crushing stereotypes based on where people grew up. (i dont care if somebody grew up in auburn hills or in SW detroit, if they can file without making a mistake and reconcile a credit card account then they get an A in my class) a more realistic version of peoples merit can be measured.
teachers would be more involved in educational facilitation and the bestowing of basic knowledge rather than regurgitation of state bullshit curiculum. businesses would be resistant to losing valuable staff time and taking on additional liability, requiring laws to be passed to protect them and subsidies paid to make the idea attractive. partnerships would emerge between schools and local governments, businesses and other organizations where they would recieve free labor and the students would learn real skills.
holy crap, blah blah blah. sorry, that idea has been rattling around in the old noggin for awhile. It cant be original, i must have heard of it before and just cant place it. I am not a complete cynic, something is certainly better than nothing, but there is something fundamentally wrong with the way our educational system works and the problem isnt going to be solved for minorities or anybody else until they are addressed.
anyway, you want ideas? I got em, but if you really want to try to fix this busted system (ie make the unfair, fair) then your on your own. if you want to talk demolition and reconstruction im wit ya. and apparently i will post 875239875302 pages on your blog about it :)
Andrew and please know I love you for posting a kajillion responses. You are correct that the education we offer in too many, if not all, of our schools in antiquated. There are a number of great folks doing work to change this in places like Detroit (check out the Boggs Center) as well as around the country. Interestingly enough, I just read a report for the NYC public schools that argued your same point about the education, though they certainly didn't come to the conclusion of trash it. You should know, I'm down for the revolution and not just revision of schooling, but we have to be sure of what we're going into and how to make it the most successful for the most vulnerable. For too many years, bright, smart, engaged students of minority backgrounds (ethnic and economic) got pigeon holed into vocational training when they could have been the next great political leaders. But I hear what you're saying, I'll get to a post about educational revolution soon, then you and pirtle turtle can kick my ass, it's great to keep me thinking!
Post a Comment