Review: The New Education

 The New Education is a critique of the current University system and an exploration of the different ways different organizations are trying to change the University experience. It combines lots of interesting facts and lots of anecdotes to paint a picture, but nothing that's really convincing.

For instance:

The US Census Bureau report for 2014 reveals, for example, that a full 74 percent of those who graduate with a bachelor’s degree in a STEM field do not stay in STEM-related occupations. Follow-up surveys indicate that many find that the “glass ceiling” is exceptionally low in STEM, and so they move into finance or business-related careers, such as real estate, which seem to offer more opportunities for advancement and somewhat more security. Most graduates working in STEM fields commonly return for an advanced degree in a complementary non-STEM field such as business, design, public policy, or even the arts. Changes to STEM fields come so fast and unpredictably that there is a supplementary industry dedicated to career counseling for those in STEM that emphasizes that you must keep learning, you must stay networked and connected with those in other fields, and you should be taking every opportunity beyond your training to enhance and develop your portfolio—skills that the relevant, cross-disciplinary new education emphasizes. (kindle loc 2303)

This is not new. We've had statements from many people from as far back as 2006 that Science does not pay. But of course, the arts are no better:

Jack, who earned both a bachelor’s degree and a PhD from private universities, currently works as a beginning professor teaching introductory art classes at a public university in England. Older artists are urging him to do what great artists have always done—quit his job, find a cheap little studio in some tiny village in Greece or somewhere else inexpensive, and devote himself to making art while his career is hot. “Take the risk!” they admonish him. “Opportunities like this don’t come again.” They imply he’s not a “real” artist because he won’t do this. They do not understand that, having graduated from American universities, he has so much debt that he has to keep teaching to pay off steep student loans that come due each month, barely leave him enough money to pay his current bills, and prevent him from taking advantage of the chance of a lifetime. (kindle loc 2765)

The whole thing really comes down to cost. So while Davidson talks a good game about renovating teaching styles, encouraging more interdisciplinary work, or the benefits of community college, she has no good answer to reducing cost. Her only solution is to support higher education with more tax money. If that doesn't work even in Blue states, it has no chance of happening at the federal level, so I don't see how that's a good solution.

There's a chilling story in the book about Alexander Coward and the UC Berkeley Department of Mathematics. An innovative Math professor uses unusual teaching methods and gets fired. (I will note that the UC Berkeley Math department also famously denied Stephen Cook tenure, just before his theory of NP-completeness was published)  Davidson notes that the UC Berkeley Math department does not have an incentive to recognize good teaching:

Only 12 percent of the University of California, Berkeley’s total operating expenses are covered by state support. The rest must be covered by tuition and external sources—typically, by sponsored research or grants earned, in rigorous competitions in the sciences and often with less than a 5 or 6 percent acceptance rate. The professors working toward those grants might defend themselves by noting that the Math Department at Berkeley is in the top five because they work day and night to produce peer-reviewed research...Teaching more students to understand and even love math is, in a structural sense, not the objective of a world-renowned math department. Standards setting, measuring, assessing, and ranking are important to maintain not only top students but also top faculty. Measurable standards are connected to reputation, ranking, and accreditation. This approach is also about the replication of expertise. Full professors at elite universities such as Berkeley typically view their highest calling as preparing their students to become full professors at elite universities such as Berkeley. Rankings don’t track the students who flunk Math 1A, but they do encompass how many math majors go to graduate school and where. (kindle loc 3431-3446)

Overall, I thought the book made many good points and it's worth reading, if only to remind yourself that the top institutions are by far the most conservative and traditional in their approach to teaching, and that they are actually not necessarily a good fit for you if you actually are going to school to learn. Note that that tells you that parents and students don't necessarily value education --- the networking is much more important at places like Harvard (which explains its reputation as a party school --- the students there understand that those parties are more important than classes), while the folks who are there for to get a head-start on research probably don't need the education that a less renowned school might provide --- they'll learn just as much on their own or from each other. As a result, you really have to think hard about what you want out of college when selecting a school.

I started out this review thinking that the book was faulty, but by the end of the review has decided that the book nevertheless makes many good points and is worth the time to read. Recommended.