redblueamerica.com

My friends at the Pope Center for Higher Education raise a most diabolical question today: Why go to college? Why, indeed? Too many people are going to college now. We -- and by "we," I really mean the federal government -- shouldn't encourage more of them.

This isn't an elitist argument, exactly. But the university should serve more than a mere utilitarian purpose and therefore a four-year degree simply isn't for everyone. Pope Center President George Leef points to an essay by Mark Henrie in the Spring 2008 issue of the Canon and offers some astute reflections of his own about the purpose and proper uses of a college education.

"The great majority of young Americans go to college because they’ve been led to believe that having a college degree of some kind is a necessity if they’re to have a prosperous career," Leef observes. "Even though there are some extraordinarily successful people in the business world who never earned college degrees, it’s generally assumed that most of the doors leading to success are locked to people who haven’t signaled their abilities by getting a degree."

Truth is, many of the reasons given for going to college are bad reasons. Henrie discusses them at length. Getting the "college experience?" As I recall, that's a euphemism for keg parties and cheap hook-ups. Meeting new and diverse people? A year of travel is cheaper and arguably more rewarding. Learning useful skills for the job market? Nope, not a good reason, either. "If the primary end of higher education were merely the acquisition of the skills necessary for success in our particular economic system," Henrie queries, "then would we not better occupy the years of early adulthood in some form of technical school?" Yes... but there is a long-standing stigma surrounding vocational education that will be tough to overcome. It needs to be overcome, however, if colleges and universities are going to preserve their unique mission to pursue scientific research and cultivate the liberal arts. They don't call it "higher learning" for nothing.

All of this needs to be read in the context of a rising enthusiasm for greater federal meddling higher education. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made easier access to college if not a centerpiece of their respective campaigns, then certainly prominent policy planks. (To his credit, John McCain has had little to say about higher education, beyond expending the G.I. bill for Iraq war veterans.)

Clinton proposes, among other things, a $3,500 college tax credit, investing $500 million in community colleges (further centralizing a traditionally state function), developing “a graduation fund to increase college graduation rates,” and boosting the Pell Grant’s maximum.

Obama has sponsored legislation to add billions in new federal student aid. As president, Obama promises to see Clinton's $3,500 tax credit and raise it another $500. He also wants community college to be free for all, which wouldn't be a bad idea -- if Obama were running for governor of Illinois. But as a federal entitlement -- because that's exactly what it would become -- the idea leave much to be desired. Federal subsidies make education less affordable, not more.

In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education last year, Clinton, a Wellesley graduate, said, "I believe everyone should have the opportunity I did to attain a high quality education." True enough, perhaps, but different people have different interests and is it really in the nation's interest to funnel more people into four-year colleges and universities when many of them really would be better off at trade schools? It may well be that America needs more engineers. But the policies Clinton and Obama envision would more than likely give us an army of sociologists. Better to give Americans more vocational training and put them to work.