High School 3.0
or
I Screwed Up
[Prior to December 22, 2016]
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
On various occasions when conversing with certain youths, Yours Truly has referred to Ivy Tech as high school 2.0 and Indiana State University as high school 3.0. These designations numbers with full stops are commonly applied to updated versions of computer software, and there is no doubt that my audience is bewildered by my unexpected usage of this terminology transferred from technology to the supposed educational sphere.
One must understand that at the beginning of the 20th century, elementary students were required to master English and mathematical skills that, depending on today's school district, may be or not be required for high school graduates. At that time, it was not uncommon for Latin or Greek to be taught in high school. Regardless of the reasons why, a typical public education at the end of the century was inferior to a typical education when compared to the beginning of the century. When one reads that a great number of people did not advance beyond a certain grade, for example, during the Great Depression, one must be cautious in assigning undue significance to these statements of fact, as the former expectations exceed today’s guidelines.
We observe that never in recorded history was primary education concerned with research, its sole concern, or purpose, was teaching students the “basics”. We now know that the “basics” is a plastic term that has no definitive value without extensive clarification.
The historical hierarchy was understood to be college, high school and elementary school. Today, we know that remedial education is common to all higher education, except, perhaps, for the elite or private universities. As private institutions, these universities can, and rightly so, discriminate, if only to uphold their perceived value among their peers or like minded educators.
When I refer to vocational schools and certain universities as updated versions of high school, I do so with some insight into the historical role of most colleges. Of course, my statements should be understood as a scathing, yet subtle, commentary on the plateau, retardation, and decline of higher education, so called.
Some years ago, Yours Truly unexpectedly became embroiled in a certain online controversy when an article claimed that ISU exceeded Duke University. As I could not conceive of a metric where ISU students were on par with, let alone exceed, Duke students and, in uncharacteristic haste, responded. I could not imagine the possibility of ISU besting Duke, since I thought colleges were for education, and now I duly admit my error in thinking, or assuming that education is the primary goal of universities.
The standard that ISU exceeded Duke, and every school in the country, was in hours of community service per student. Yours Truly admits difficulty in understanding what, if any, pertinence this standard has with academic performance and national rankings. Due to our enjoyment of crime drama, we inevitability associate “community service” with misdemeanor crimes. We do not suggest a correlation between ISU students and criminal behavior; we only imply this relationship and we leave it to the Gentle Reader, who enjoys local history, to make this inference. We note a more interesting and revealing statistic: the majority of ISU students do not graduate within six years.
As “familiarity breeds contempt”, so it might be alleged that we are not unbiased with our assessment of ISU and its legions of former attendees who lack degrees, and we do not dispute the possible validity of this observation. To leave the cave, only to return, to experience an acknowledged world class institution (“Can you say Nobel Prize?” “I didn't think so, ISU.”), only to informed class credits are nontransferable, is part of our long and painful experience with mediocrity, generally, and ISU, specifically.
Yet, we suggest that our low opinion is shared by others who are more experienced with unending frustration that is inherent in dealings with ISU. We must rely on objective metrics, or numbers, as our standard of unbiased inquiry. To this end, we suggest using per capita alumni donations. The per capita donations of living alumni can either be discovered or be calculated by the Gentle Reader, or alternatively, ascertaining the percentage of alumni who “give back” to their alma mater each year. If alumni giving is less than spectacular, or less than most public universities in Indiana, then we can possibly attribute this reluctance to donate in no small part to their ongoing attending, up to seven, or more, years. In conclusion to this part, collective alumni actions speak louder than Yours Truly’s solitary words.
We recall the conventional wisdom that one needs a college degree to succeed. If this statement were true, then it was applicable only to a minority of the population, where success was understood to be “white collar” positions. If this belief is true today, then it is due entirely to the fact that colleges prepare people equally well as high schools did in the previous century.
We suggest that only one metric has been valued during the previous quarter century: the percentage of high school graduates. The only possible method to consistently achieve this goal is to lower the standards for graduation. If those graduates are not adequately prepared, then that responsibility of education will be passed from said high school to the college, hence the rise of remedial classes. Even with ever lower standards and “teaching to the test”, one third of students still do not graduate from high school. Although we lack evidence, we would not be surprised to learn that today's high school dropouts have an equivalent understanding corresponding to second or third graders of the previous century.
When I engage teenagers, as I am apt to do, it is rarely to determine what they know, for I would always be disappointed due to their limited experiences, our engagement is to ascertain how they reason. If I deride youths as “boxes of rocks”, then this appellation is not without merit.
We doubt that Hoosiers who attend ISU could be unaware that either Purdue University or the school to the south are world class institutions. If they are unaware of these facts, then they are deserving of high school 3.0, and we wish them the best of luck.
As always, the Gentle Reader will reach his own informed, and unbiased, conclusions regarding the merits, if any, of this essay.
One must understand that at the beginning of the 20th century, elementary students were required to master English and mathematical skills that, depending on today's school district, may be or not be required for high school graduates. At that time, it was not uncommon for Latin or Greek to be taught in high school. Regardless of the reasons why, a typical public education at the end of the century was inferior to a typical education when compared to the beginning of the century. When one reads that a great number of people did not advance beyond a certain grade, for example, during the Great Depression, one must be cautious in assigning undue significance to these statements of fact, as the former expectations exceed today’s guidelines.
We observe that never in recorded history was primary education concerned with research, its sole concern, or purpose, was teaching students the “basics”. We now know that the “basics” is a plastic term that has no definitive value without extensive clarification.
The historical hierarchy was understood to be college, high school and elementary school. Today, we know that remedial education is common to all higher education, except, perhaps, for the elite or private universities. As private institutions, these universities can, and rightly so, discriminate, if only to uphold their perceived value among their peers or like minded educators.
When I refer to vocational schools and certain universities as updated versions of high school, I do so with some insight into the historical role of most colleges. Of course, my statements should be understood as a scathing, yet subtle, commentary on the plateau, retardation, and decline of higher education, so called.
Some years ago, Yours Truly unexpectedly became embroiled in a certain online controversy when an article claimed that ISU exceeded Duke University. As I could not conceive of a metric where ISU students were on par with, let alone exceed, Duke students and, in uncharacteristic haste, responded. I could not imagine the possibility of ISU besting Duke, since I thought colleges were for education, and now I duly admit my error in thinking, or assuming that education is the primary goal of universities.
The standard that ISU exceeded Duke, and every school in the country, was in hours of community service per student. Yours Truly admits difficulty in understanding what, if any, pertinence this standard has with academic performance and national rankings. Due to our enjoyment of crime drama, we inevitability associate “community service” with misdemeanor crimes. We do not suggest a correlation between ISU students and criminal behavior; we only imply this relationship and we leave it to the Gentle Reader, who enjoys local history, to make this inference. We note a more interesting and revealing statistic: the majority of ISU students do not graduate within six years.
As “familiarity breeds contempt”, so it might be alleged that we are not unbiased with our assessment of ISU and its legions of former attendees who lack degrees, and we do not dispute the possible validity of this observation. To leave the cave, only to return, to experience an acknowledged world class institution (“Can you say Nobel Prize?” “I didn't think so, ISU.”), only to informed class credits are nontransferable, is part of our long and painful experience with mediocrity, generally, and ISU, specifically.
Yet, we suggest that our low opinion is shared by others who are more experienced with unending frustration that is inherent in dealings with ISU. We must rely on objective metrics, or numbers, as our standard of unbiased inquiry. To this end, we suggest using per capita alumni donations. The per capita donations of living alumni can either be discovered or be calculated by the Gentle Reader, or alternatively, ascertaining the percentage of alumni who “give back” to their alma mater each year. If alumni giving is less than spectacular, or less than most public universities in Indiana, then we can possibly attribute this reluctance to donate in no small part to their ongoing attending, up to seven, or more, years. In conclusion to this part, collective alumni actions speak louder than Yours Truly’s solitary words.
We recall the conventional wisdom that one needs a college degree to succeed. If this statement were true, then it was applicable only to a minority of the population, where success was understood to be “white collar” positions. If this belief is true today, then it is due entirely to the fact that colleges prepare people equally well as high schools did in the previous century.
We suggest that only one metric has been valued during the previous quarter century: the percentage of high school graduates. The only possible method to consistently achieve this goal is to lower the standards for graduation. If those graduates are not adequately prepared, then that responsibility of education will be passed from said high school to the college, hence the rise of remedial classes. Even with ever lower standards and “teaching to the test”, one third of students still do not graduate from high school. Although we lack evidence, we would not be surprised to learn that today's high school dropouts have an equivalent understanding corresponding to second or third graders of the previous century.
When I engage teenagers, as I am apt to do, it is rarely to determine what they know, for I would always be disappointed due to their limited experiences, our engagement is to ascertain how they reason. If I deride youths as “boxes of rocks”, then this appellation is not without merit.
We doubt that Hoosiers who attend ISU could be unaware that either Purdue University or the school to the south are world class institutions. If they are unaware of these facts, then they are deserving of high school 3.0, and we wish them the best of luck.
As always, the Gentle Reader will reach his own informed, and unbiased, conclusions regarding the merits, if any, of this essay.