Links
Archives
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
|
Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid. Let UD begin by stating that she’s proud she went to the University of Chicago. Her attitude toward the place is not - like Ben Stein’s toward Yale - fellatial (she’ll never be able to thank Andrew Sullivan enough for this felicity), but she’s proud. Nonetheless, this is the second time she’s had to deal with the fact that the U of C’s current and outgoing president writes badly. Reasons badly. As you know, plenty of sensible people are talking about the importance of beginning to measure what college students gain intellectually once they’ve graduated from a four-year school. Today’s Inside Higher Ed has a lengthy and thoughtful piece about this, which quotes one of UD’s heroes, Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (he always seems to say smart and true things about universities): “It has now been demonstrated that it is possible to measure what students learn, and we can no longer rest our case on the argument that it’s impossible.” The U of C’s president’s take on this, which appears in the latest Chicago alumni magazine, is titled Attack by “Accountability,” and those juvenile scare quotes already tell you a good deal. Subtitle: President Don M. Randel Sounds the Alarm. Cue sirens! They want to test our students! A short essay that begins with a quotation from Voltaire about fanaticism and ends with words like “shocked,” “fear,” “tragic,” and “dangerous,” is more appropriately about jihadists than standardized exams, but this is the rhetorical temperature Randel establishes and maintains for his argument that university students shouldn’t be tested. After some throat clearing about the intelligent design controversy and insufficient government funding for universities, Randel refers to “the demonstrable success of higher education.” He must not have seen the latest studies of literacy rates among college graduates. We then get more sneering quotation marks around “outcomes” and, again, “accountability.” UD’s no fan of jargon either, but bad outcomes are bad outcomes. “Alumni of Chicago ought to be shocked” -- why do some writers think it’s smart to advise their readers to be shocked, rather than to arouse their shock? -- "at the idea that any standardized examination could capture much about the most important aspects of their education [the commission, according to IHE, isn’t inclined toward a one-size-fits-all exam; and no one claims to be capturing more than basic higher educational attainment information]. Of course, even the University of Chicago must strive to be better [blahblah], and the nation’s vast higher education landscape is surely uneven [but you and I don’t have to care]. But I fear that we see the signs of an assault on higher education by people who distrust the life of the mind [the retired university presidents who make up the commission are stupidheads] and who will gladly exploit the national suspicion of precisely the best in education [No one on the commission gives a shit about the University of Chicago and the other “bests.” They know U of C’s doing a fine job. Randel’s rather like the stinky cheese man -- Catch me if you can! I’m the stinky cheese man!]. This prospect is tragic in intellectual terms [Penultimate sentence. Not a dry eye in the house.]. But in practical and economic terms, it is simply dangerous." No it’s not. |