+ reblogged from lareviewofbooks

The Educational Lottery

lareviewofbooks:

STEVEN BRINT

on the four kinds of heretics attacking the gospel of education.


Felicity Allen, ed.
Education

Whitechapel/MIT Press (Documents of Contemporary Art), August 2011. 240 pp.

Philip W. Jackson
What Is Education?

University of Chicago Press, December 2011. 136 pp.

John Marsh
Class Dismissed: Why We Cannot Teach or Learn Our Way Out of Inequality

Monthly Review Press, July 2011. 328 pp.

Professor X
In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: Confessions of an Accidental Academic

Viking Adult, March 2011. 288 pp.

Education is as close to a secular religion as we have in the United States. In a time when Americans have lost faith in their government and economic institutions, millions of us still believe in its saving grace. National leaders, from Benjamin Rush on, oversaw plans for extending its benefits more broadly. In the 19th century, the industrialist Andrew Carnegie famously conceived of schools as ladders on which the industrious poor would ascend to a better life, and he spent a good bit of his fortune laying the foundations for such an education society. After World War II, policy makers who believed in the education gospel grew numerous enough to fill stadiums. One by one, the G.I. Bill, the Truman Commission report, and the War on Poverty singled out education as the way of national and personal advance. “The answer to all of our national problems,” as Lyndon Johnson put it in 1965, “comes down to one single word: education.”

The American education gospel is built around four core beliefs. First, it teaches that access to higher levels of education should be available to everyone, regardless of their background or previous academic performance. Every educational sinner should have a path to redemption. (Most of these paths now run through community colleges.) Second, the gospel teaches that opportunity for a better life is the goal of everyone and that education is the primary — and perhaps the only — road to opportunity. Third, it teaches that the country can solve its social problems — drugs, crime, poverty, and the rest — by providing more education to the poor. Education instills the knowledge, discipline, and the habits of life that lead to personal renewal and social mobility. And, finally, it teaches that higher levels of education for all will reduce social inequalities, as they will put everyone on a more equal footing. No wonder President Obama and Bill Gates want the country to double its college graduation rate over the next 10 years.

The advance of the education gospel has been shadowed from the beginning by critics who claim that education, despite our best efforts, remains a bastion of privilege. For these critics, it is not that the educational gospel is wrong (a truly democratic, meritocratic school system would, if it existed, be a good thing); it is that the benefits of education have not yet spread evenly to every corner of American society, and that the trend toward educational equality may be heading in the wrong direction. They decry the fact that schools in poor communities have become dropout factories and that only the wealthy can afford the private preparatory schools that are the primary feeders to prestigious private colleges. The higher education Establishment recognizes critics like these as family. They accept the core beliefs of the education gospel and are impatient only with its slow and incomplete adoption.

¤
Other heresies are more radical, and thus more disturbing to settled beliefs about the power of education. One currently growing in popularity we might call “the new restrictionism.” According to the new restrictionists, such as the economists Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks, co-authors of the 2008 paper “Leisure College USA: The Decline in Student Study Time,” access to higher education may have gone too far. Our colleges and universities are full to the brim with students who do not really belong there, who are unprepared for college and uninterested in breaking a mental sweat. Instead of studying, they spend time talking on the phone, planning social events, chitchatting about personal trivia and popular culture, and facebooking. Faculty members demand less of these students, according to Babcock and Marks, both because they are incapable of doing more and because they will punish faculty members with bad evaluations if they are pushed to try harder. The students often consider courses that require concentration “boring” and “irrelevant.” They argue and wheedle their way into grades they do not deserve. The colleges, out of craven financial motives, do not squarely face the fact that not all of their students are “college material.” Worse, they cater to ill-prepared and under-motivated students, dumbing down the curriculum to the point where a college degree is worth less, in terms of educational quality, than a degree from one of the better high schools. Institutions at the tail end of academic procession are, as David Riesman once put it, “colleges only by the grace of semantic generosity.”

Read More

+ reblogged from
+ reblogged from textsfromfutbol
textsfromfutbol:

submitted by yellowsweatshirt
A little too much good stuff.
Dog Fort Versus the Dark Side
via http://thisisdogfort.com
+ reblogged from funktionality
+ reblogged from inspirationfeed
inspirationfeed:

Nelson Dániel

Gozilla!!!!
+ reblogged from designersof
designersof:

This one’s for the Call of Duty addicts out there!
After doing a fair share of minimal movie posters I thought I may try  some game based one. Seeing as the phrase ‘friendly care package  inbound’ is drilled into me after playing on COD for way too long, it  only seamed right to based one on a care package. I know the care  packages in the game don’t actually have parachutes but it looks better  like that.
For those interested A3 prints are now available from the Picmix Store. You can follow me on tumblr and/or twitter :)