The result of this “party pathway” is more than just a substandard education for those students, whose significant family resources and connections — which set them up for jobs after graduation, regardless of credentials — allow them to take easy majors and spend as much time if not more drinking as they do studying. It also deters those on the “mobility pathway,” as those low-income students seeking entry into the middle class are both poorly supported and distracted by the party framework. As a result, many of these students struggle to succeed — meandering through college for six years or more — or drop out altogether.
Read the whole thing. It might be the most damning article ever on higher education (and makes me curious to read the book).
Maybe I misunderstood the article, but it seems to me the problem is with dorm life. A student who lives off-campus and only comes to campus to take classes, write exams, study at the library, etc., should be fine. I lived off-campus and was aware of a big party scene, but never affected by it.
Eh, didn’t much care for the piece, blaming the party atmosphere and calling for, surprise, surprise, more govt funding. There’s some truth to the notion that colleges are an expensive finishing school that cater too much to partying kids, but that complaint has been made by faculty for ages. When I attended one of these large midwestern universities in the ’90s, I was told that one of the physics professors went out on a typical friday night and videotaped the kids doing the usual party scene, then played the video at a faculty meeting and exclaimed that it would be impossible to teach such kids. However, there’s no critical self-examination of what’s being taught from these very same professors, how these kids are forced to attend a college simply to get a valueless credential to land a job and, in the process, forced to regurgitate his physics class or various other subjects that are of no use to them whatsoever. The fundamental problem here is that the authors of the piece are too stupid to realize the fundamental worthlessness of a college education, or simply don’t care and want to line their pockets by calling for more state money.
Whatever the problems with partying or college athletics- and I agree that athletics are way overdone on campus, as Nick Gillespie just wrote about after the recent Rutgers firing– at least students choose and pay for those themselves, rather than all the tax money, ie other people’s money, that goes to rivers of useless academic research and worthless classes and departments. The real boondoggle here is run by the academic bureaucrats and professors, who imagine that simply by getting rid of “the easy party pathway majors” they can set things straight. Rather, the real solution is the complete destruction of all these universities and that is what is coming with online learning.
As usual, the comments on the linked article were better than the article itself. As “Bob at State U.” notes, while he’s surprised how well colleges have done during this downturn, “Once online courses become established and accredited and a reasonable alternative, and are priced at, say, $100 per credit, almost everyone will be vulnerable, except the Harvards, whose name is what is valuable, and very low cost community colleges. So, everyone will have to change to survive.” I’ll only add that he’s dead wrong about the order: it’s the low-liers and name brands that will be killed off first. The large state schools will go last, for a variety of reasons from state funding to hordes of brainwashed parents, but they won’t last much longer.
I think the greater problem is a general lack of curiosity. Most people just don’t really care that much about the natural sciences, history, philosophy, economics, &c.
I have no idea how to fix that, but I think it goes much deeper and starts much earlier than college culture.
I came from a working class family and went to a “Midwestern U” type school. I joined a fraternity and enjoyed the party lifestyle. I certainly could have benefited from an atmosphere that prioritized academics to a greater extent. However I don’t think such an atmosphere would have been worth the trade off if I had to forego the socializing I learned through the fraternity and party system. I met my wife and dozens of lifelong friends and later business contacts through this fraternity/party scene.
I later went to a competitive graduate school and saw what a more “sterile” academic environment was like. I sure learned a lot more, academically, but I got none of the practical education that the fraternity/party scene provided me.
There’s a reason why fraternity alumni are more likely to be donors.
As an aside, the party scene seemed to be a gentleman’s excuse to drop out of college. “I partied too hard,” for some reason, leaves the drop-out with more dignity than “I can’t pass calculus.”
@Russell: This begs the question, why are fraternities linked to universities? Why couldn’t young men and women who have just started working aim to join one of various fraternities/sororities/other clubs as a means of socializing, sharing common values, networking, and improving their career paths?
Assuming your experience is typical and not exceptional, brick & mortar colleges will survive longer thanks to this connection that Online U cannot replicate (in addition to the brand-name and signaling advantages of brick & mortar)
Commenters: note that the main argument *for* college, especially for non-STEM majors, is that it gives young adults the “college experience”. As such, I think it is right on target to talk about the “party atmosphere”.
The flip side of the party atmosphere, though, is that students experiment with a quite broad array of ideas. I concede that that sounds valuable to me for society. I’m less sure that it is worth the tremendous expense of taking a large chunk of our citizens out of circulation for four years. That’s a massive cost; for comparison, most countries with obligatory military service only require half a year or a year of your life.
For STEM majors in particular, I confess sympathy with ThomasL’s comment on curiosity. I lived in the dorms, and people were chugging 40s and emptying vodka bottles right next to me. I just thought they were strange. I learned a ton as an undergrad. Even the side classes like literature were vastly more informative than in grade school. For the right people, a traditional 4-year degree is extremely helpful.
Having read the article more closely, it is dinging universities for forgiving its friendliness to Greek life.
I’m not sure this is the wrong strategy for universities. The students taking part in the party lifestyle are the ones who just aren’t interested in learning much. To put a finer point on it, the article alleges that universities are giving way to student demands to have a more party-filled experience. For students that aren’t there to learn, I’m not sure it would be worth taking a hard line with them. Part of the college experience, everyone seems to agree, is that young adults have tremendous freedom.
Of course, it is kinda questionable whether those students should be in college at all….