“Are Too Many People Going to College?” is the question author and self-proclaimed libertarian, Charles Murray, proposes when addressing the common issue of higher education and its overall benefits for a society. No! Of course not. This is the answer most people immediately give when reviewing the question. Often times, critics of this statement argue the direct opposite and say not enough people are going to college. When further observing Murray’s argument, he seems to be making sense in his idea that college isn’t for everyone. Murray makes a point to mention the most fitting alternatives for certain students and their unique circumstances. He even makes the assumption that virtue, maturity, and appreciation of the value of a liberal education has nothing to do with students’ inability to complete a college career. With these ideas in place, he is under the impression that academic ability is a key feature and that not everyone who possesses these abilities should be encouraged to pursue a liberal arts degree, seeing as though it covers such a wide variety of subjects, when most students really have interests in specific fields they hope to have jobs in. However, I would have to disagree. Virtue, maturity, and appreciation for knowledge are the tools that make up for a lack of intrinsic capability. Furthermore, a liberal arts education is a route of intellectual exposure that requires these characteristics to overcome the difficult task of grasping new yet enriching concepts.
Let’s look at Murray’s very own example of the student in the 80th percentile for linguistic ability who wants to be an attorney. She is faced with a 200 level math course at some small private Liberal arts college she attends. This course surpasses her quantitative ability, and more importantly, she does not enjoy it. Are we to tell her that a liberal arts degree is not in her reach because she lacks enthusiasm for this subject matter? Or should we suggest that she just take all the courses structured around law and go straight to law school after that? We do neither of these things. Instead, she will have to overcome this bump in the road to become a better attorney and individual. Why? Because she won’t be a lawyer all her life. In fact, her career choice will only take up a small portion of her life span. To make matters even more ambiguous, she may find a new interest that furthers her career as an attorney. Who knows, she could be a tax attorney. The key point here is that her liberal education is actually a way for her to get more bang for her buck. She can be well versed in many subjects, even the ones she wasn’t initially drawn to while exploring her options and taking on any career throughout her life because of her well-roundedness.
In many instances like our pre-law student scenario, struggle is due to a lack of knowledge or concentration in a topic so polar opposite to the favored subject of interest. But this initial struggle is only temporary. Students will need to work harder in particular areas and as they improve they will enjoy their newly built skill. Determination will drive individuals to do more and subsequently, increase their ability. Though scholars will come across many more difficult courses like it, they must be mature enough to realize a need to persevere. On the other hand, immaturity will tell young people to quit because the work is too difficult which makes the class less intriguing. Without a mature and virtuous outlook, a student will be one track minded, only equipped for one career path that only lasts but so long and ill-equipped for career paths unexplored that may indeed nurture undiscovered talents. Also, let us not box our citizens’ in. Murray has great intention to nurture natural gifts but he runs the risk of permanently placing students in a career field that may not truly be for them. We also miss the chance of creating people who are proficient in an array of studies and who could contribute even more to our society.
To question whether too many people are going to college, an institution that John Stuart Mill believes is ‘“to make …capable and cultivated human beings”’ (Murray 234), counts many students out of the opportunity to do so. We should be fostering natural gifts while developing the unexposed ones. After all, college is still an institution for learning and students attend college to gain knowledge and experience. This gain turns into a loss when applying Murray’s philosophy of primarily depending on already attained intelligence for collegiate success. He over emphasizes the importance of academic ability and gives no one credit for potential improvement. Clearly no one is born winning court cases, reciting famous literary works or predicting stock market activity. These are learned skills. Murry is really pinpointing a separate issue, which is exposure. It is not that students don’t have these abilities, it is more so that they haven’t been exposed to a certain echelon of knowledge. But that is the purpose of a liberal college, to expose you to the unknown and expand your thinking. Murray claims that “…for most students, the place to provide those basics are elementary and middle school” (Murray 235). While this statement is great for acquiring breadth necessary for fluency in North American culture, it neglects the expansion of fluency in many cultures. This too is vital, especially since we are no longer a secluded nation but a global community connected through technology.
Murray also points out the concept of “college readiness” and how “30 percent of 18-year-olds go to college when only 10 percent of American 18-year-olds are ready” (Murray 238). But we are in extreme need of clarification of what exactly “readiness” is. How do we measure a student’s readiness to move onto the next level? For so long we have used the SAT as a tool to determine overall knowledge and skill. However, the SAT is a standardized test that has been a topic of debate for many years now. A Time magazine article quotes the psychologist who runs the University of California, Richard Atkinson when he says “The SATs have acquired a mystique that's clearly not warranted. Who knows what they measure?" (Cloud, Content.time.com). This is just one statement from a well-versed educator who doesn’t see the usefulness of the SAT. Not only do many experts find the test to be flawed, but they also find it to be biased and not legitimate enough to measure everyone’s ability equally. To give everyone the same test is like testing a monkey, a giraffe, and a bird on their ability to climb a tree. Birds fly to the top, while the giraffe is naturally tall to already reach the top and monkey’s live in them. College may be a tree climbing experience but there is more than one way to climb a tree but the SAT test only examines one way of doing so.
Murray doesn’t completely miss the mark but never the less he is not accurately on point with his claims. College is not for everyone for many reasons, but to prioritize academic ability above all the others is not appropriate. Statistics show that “60% of college dropouts had no help from parents in paying for tuition” (Collegeatlas.org). Thus, it is not necessarily due to a lack in academic performance but more so economic state. It is one thing to speak of the financial burden of college or the struggle within misaligned ambitions, but when it comes to intellectual ability, one cannot use this as a key feature of inadequacy. Once again there are far too many variables that control this factor, like the traditional resource allocation of intergenerational occupational transfer or inadequate public schools that don’t prepare students. These are all limiting factors to students opportunity cost of college.
A mature mindset that births hard work and virtue, while fostering a greater appreciation for knowledge plus an extent of scholarly ability are all keys to success in college and life. One does not work without the others and the others don’t work with one missing. Murray is on the right track when he says the four-year college is not a one size fits all program. We must factor in finances, ambitions in areas that don’t require that much schooling and the opportunity cost for specific students. However, college is not an institution for the elites who are not only born with monetary funds for success but graced with the intellectual fundamentals. College is for the willing and able individuals who wish to work hard and learn because hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.
