Disturbed by the turmoil at his university’s “Occupy” movement, where students are protesting rising tuition fees, Justin Chan sees America’s identity eroding along with its universities.
Americans love stories about people who made it to the top. The country’s numerous rags-to-riches tales encapsulate why America enjoys being known as the Land of Opportunity.
But what leads to opportunities nowadays? A university education plays a large role. The jobs and salaries a diploma brings can undoubtedly raise someone’s standard of living. Yet despite its ability to helping people climb the social ladder, state governments are funding universities less and less.
Some people might argue that if students demonstrate the will and perseverance which characterize the American spirit, money should be no barrier to success. Take the archetypal “impoverished girl from the ghetto,” who works three jobs to afford going to college. To some, that is an American story of defying odds worth framing.
To me, that story makes no sense. Why does there need to be such odds? Can’t a person work hard and pursue ambitions while being helped along the way? The world’s richest country should have the means to do so.
Instead, rather than fully subsidizing education, the American government supports a system which rewards only talented youth with scholarships. Most other students must depend on a messy combination of their own money, loans, and financial aid. Some argue that this is a sensible education system befitting a developed nation.
Forgive me for not being impressed. In Sweden, every student has the chance to prove themselves at a university, free with no questions asked. A dishwasher’s son can attend the best school as long as he qualifies.
Do these differing education systems lead to different chances of improving one’s life?
Perhaps. As it turns out, Sweden has higher social mobility than the USA. In other words, a disadvantaged youth who yearns for a respectable living might want to take his chances in Scandinavia rather than the Land of Opportunity.
America thus has an identity crisis. It can continue putting education out of reach, but only by stifling the very opportunities it so proudly claims to cherish.
1 Comment
Anonymous
Meritocracy is good, and letting everyone have the opportunity to prove themselves is probably a good idea. But it seems to me that doing that by university funding is very problematic.
Many people say “Not EVERY dishwasher’s son is academically unfit. And not EVERY professor’s son is a genius. Hence we must give everyone the same opportunity.” But this is, as with so many other things in life, not a matter of necessity, but probability. I don’t have any statistics, but in Lund I see heaps of people desperately trying to stay in the game, but eventually they drop out. Is the funding really worth it?
And what will the university do when it notices that most people fail and drop out, and the government has put so much money and effort to escort hordes of youngsters into university for the sake of equal opportunity? Well, in order to make that effort NOT a failure and NOT a waste of money, I can only see that they’d be forced to lower the standards and demands on students in order to make them pass their grades. Not to sound apocalyptic, but that would probably make our universities rot from within.
And if they don’t lower the standards and the dishwasher’s son (and many like him) doesn’t pass his grades? He’ll be left only with debt and shame, and the government will have made an awfully bad investment. I don’t think anyone wants this result. Again, this scene will not happen by necessity, but I think it probably will be the result. And that’s bad enough.
Empirically, I hope I’m wrong. I hope the funding in Sweden IS worth it, that in ten years we have a lot of successful students that also can compete internationally, and that, most importantly, the standards are not low and are not getting lower. I doubt the equation adds up though. And what worries me is that we may not even notice the lowered standards. Quality can be a very subtle animal.