![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Higher education rant
Apr. 4th, 2006 01:29 pmKitty and I had a brief exchange over in Kavi's journal that brought up some ideas that I want to flesh out here. To those privy to the exchange: it should be noted that, while I think some of this will apply to the particular situation there, this is not a specific response or analysis, but rather a general statement of thought. Also, I've got other things to do, so I'm just typing this out without great regard to organization, so sue me.
When I went looking for undergrad institutions, I ended up applying to, literally, the two largest schools in the country: University of Texas - Austin and The Ohio State University (the ones I considered but didn't apply to weren't especially small either: Washington - Seattle, USC, Boston U). For my graduate work, first time around, same sort of thing: LSU, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, Duke, U Texas. And now this last time around: U Iowa, Indiana U, LSU, Ohio State. See a pattern?
The question is, why was a looking at these schools specifically? They're all reasonably large, most are state schools, and most are public institutions. The question arises: did I pick them based on these characteristics. The answer is no. These were institutions that I looked at based on their offerings: for undergrad, I was looking for a large and varied foreign language department. For my master's, I was looking for French departments with interests in the non-traditional/-classical portions of the field of French Studies. This last round is a little less cogent, since much of my consideration was geographically and socially considered, but they're all still fine schools with fine programs.
What's missing? Yeah, the Ivies. More broadly speaking, the little private schools. I know for a fact that I am both good enough and smart enough to do just fine at an Ivy (I'm going to continue to use the term metonymically for the entire class of institutions, not just the 8 Ivy League institutions). I have, however, zero interest in attending one. It's not that there's anything wrong with them, per se -- they're certainly fine institutions that provide their graduates with both good educations and an automatic leg-up simply by being able to name-drop --, it's just that I honestly believe that they are not the loci of innovation in this country.
Too often, large state institutions are denigrated for being just that: large state institutions, whose first duty is to educate the public of their area. In many cases, this leads to their becoming 'default schools', i.e. "Oh, I can always go to <my state school> if I don't get in anywhere else." The fact of the matter is that the very 'defaultness' of the institutions is their greatest strength. First off, they are often financial heavyweights with enormous sums of money to throw around. And like it or not, research requires funds, whether you're in engineering or popular culture studies. Second, their generally large size means that the opportunities are inherently greater: more specializations available, more faculty, more possibilities of making interdisciplinary connections that are simply impossible at smaller institutions for the bare reason that they don't have the numbers. Lastly, and I think this is most important, large state institutions give people chances. Students may enter their 'default school' apathetically and then suddenly bloom and go on to great works, while they would never have gone to an Ivy, never had that sudden surge of possibility.
I'll admit that I have an ax to grind here. I'll admit I have a chip on my shoulder. Ever since my senior year of high school I've heard people saying "Oh, a state school" and "Oh, but can't you do better than that?" This entire country has bought into the notion that education is somehow improved by limiting access and restricting itself to the hallowed halls of the ivory tower, and I'm sick and goddamn tired of it. People need to wake up and realize that a graduate is only as good as what s/he puts into the program, and I don't care if it's at Harvard or Sul Ross State University. And if I want to have the vastest resources and the most possibilities at my fingertips, I'm shying away from the cloistered ivy walls and shacking up with the real providers of education in this country.
When I went looking for undergrad institutions, I ended up applying to, literally, the two largest schools in the country: University of Texas - Austin and The Ohio State University (the ones I considered but didn't apply to weren't especially small either: Washington - Seattle, USC, Boston U). For my graduate work, first time around, same sort of thing: LSU, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, Duke, U Texas. And now this last time around: U Iowa, Indiana U, LSU, Ohio State. See a pattern?
The question is, why was a looking at these schools specifically? They're all reasonably large, most are state schools, and most are public institutions. The question arises: did I pick them based on these characteristics. The answer is no. These were institutions that I looked at based on their offerings: for undergrad, I was looking for a large and varied foreign language department. For my master's, I was looking for French departments with interests in the non-traditional/-classical portions of the field of French Studies. This last round is a little less cogent, since much of my consideration was geographically and socially considered, but they're all still fine schools with fine programs.
What's missing? Yeah, the Ivies. More broadly speaking, the little private schools. I know for a fact that I am both good enough and smart enough to do just fine at an Ivy (I'm going to continue to use the term metonymically for the entire class of institutions, not just the 8 Ivy League institutions). I have, however, zero interest in attending one. It's not that there's anything wrong with them, per se -- they're certainly fine institutions that provide their graduates with both good educations and an automatic leg-up simply by being able to name-drop --, it's just that I honestly believe that they are not the loci of innovation in this country.
Too often, large state institutions are denigrated for being just that: large state institutions, whose first duty is to educate the public of their area. In many cases, this leads to their becoming 'default schools', i.e. "Oh, I can always go to <my state school> if I don't get in anywhere else." The fact of the matter is that the very 'defaultness' of the institutions is their greatest strength. First off, they are often financial heavyweights with enormous sums of money to throw around. And like it or not, research requires funds, whether you're in engineering or popular culture studies. Second, their generally large size means that the opportunities are inherently greater: more specializations available, more faculty, more possibilities of making interdisciplinary connections that are simply impossible at smaller institutions for the bare reason that they don't have the numbers. Lastly, and I think this is most important, large state institutions give people chances. Students may enter their 'default school' apathetically and then suddenly bloom and go on to great works, while they would never have gone to an Ivy, never had that sudden surge of possibility.
I'll admit that I have an ax to grind here. I'll admit I have a chip on my shoulder. Ever since my senior year of high school I've heard people saying "Oh, a state school" and "Oh, but can't you do better than that?" This entire country has bought into the notion that education is somehow improved by limiting access and restricting itself to the hallowed halls of the ivory tower, and I'm sick and goddamn tired of it. People need to wake up and realize that a graduate is only as good as what s/he puts into the program, and I don't care if it's at Harvard or Sul Ross State University. And if I want to have the vastest resources and the most possibilities at my fingertips, I'm shying away from the cloistered ivy walls and shacking up with the real providers of education in this country.
