Three weeks ago, when the Emerald editorial board sat down and discussed the series concerning higher education we’ve been providing on the Perspectives page, I chose to play the role of Disillusioned Student. My opinions on the subject were harsh, ranging from the notion that university attendance was nothing more than 13th through 16th grades, to the complaint that a four-year degree today isn’t much more prestigious than a high school degree was 20 to 25 years ago.
While the froth at my mouth has dried a bit, especially after reading Carol Rink’s commentary extolling the virtues of higher education in Monday’s Emerald — part of being an educated person is understanding that your opinions aren’t always set in stone and can be complemented by a convincing argument, right? — I’d still like to throw in my two cents.
Wait, make that my $20,000 worth.
Of course, that’s where any beef with higher education begins: the cost.
Ten years ago, the average undergraduate resident paid $1,965 in tuition and fees to attend the University, according to the Oregon University System Budget and Fiscal Policies Division. This year, the tuition is $3,819, a 194 percent increase. Sure, University of Oregon students were lucky to see a tuition freeze for several years, but state legislators in Salem are getting ready to jack it up again.
And if Mom and Dad aren’t paying for your college, then you are, or will be eventually.
In an Oct. 27, 2000 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, it was pointed out that loans are continuing to displace grants as the primary source of student aid. Borrowed money now represents 59 percent of all aid, compared with 41 percent in 1980, according to the story. Terry Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education, said that “it is not uncommon for a student to graduate with a bachelor’s degree and $20,000 worth of debt.”
That’s a lot of pennies for just a few thoughts.
Which brings me to my next gripe about college: grade inflation and the dumbing down of education.
I’m far from the smartest apple in the barrel, yet somehow my cumulative grade point average for nearly four years of schooling hovers well above pi. (That’s 3.14159265 for you freshmen; don’t worry, you’ll learn all about it again in one of your college algebra classes.) How I have attained such a GPA is a mystery to me; “slack” doesn’t even begin to describe my study habits.
Grade inflation is nothing new, though. The topic has been controversial for decades, with its genesis dating back to the Vietnam War. Professors dished out higher grades then to keep their male students from falling below a magic line that would eliminate their deferment and likely send them off to war.
Nowadays, the whole point of a generous grading system is that “education must make students feel good about themselves,” Harvard University professor Harvey C. Mansfield recently told The Associated Press.
Mansfield has taken it upon himself to straighten out the curve and hand out a few C’s and D’s, but he still has a heart. Mansfield is using a two-grade system in one of his current philosophy courses, with an official grade to go on students’ transcripts and also an unofficial mark the professor thinks they really deserve. Hmm, I’d hate to see my “unofficial” transcript.
So, should I be complaining about grade inflation, or should the 4.0 student who busts his or her butt every night to keep that perfect score be trumpeting this theme? Both of us can moan a little, I guess.
The straight-A students should be pissed off that students who put in less effort are staying right behind them on the track. And the slackers should feel a bit shortchanged by a system that cares more about herding them through classes — and racking up their precious tuition dollars in the process — than actually motivating them with tougher curricula and a stricter grading structure.
This doesn’t mean that my experiences with professors at the University have been a total waste. I’ve passed through several entertaining and challenging classes, taught by Cheyney Ryan, Eleen Baumann, Clyde Bentley and Marion Goldman, among others. For every respected professor, however, it seems as if I’ve had to put up with my share of blowhards.
Insufferable are the days when you should be learning about the development of sociology, but have to instead endure stories about personal protest actions during the Vietnam War, the Kosovo crisis and beekeeping. All admirable subjects, yes, but mostly irrelevant to the class syllabus.
Apparently I’m not the only dissatisfied student on campus. As of 6 p.m. Tuesday, the Emerald online poll shows that 62 percent of 149 respondents believe “There is no satisfying aspect” to their education at the University. That highly unscientific sample could be an aberration or a prank, or maybe they’ve all had to endure lectures on beekeeping.
All in all, I can’t say that there has been no satisfying aspect to my time at the University. I did, however, enter college with great expectations and feel as though I’m walking away with just a tad more awareness than I had four years ago, a decent GPA that somehow materialized and a degree that is allegedly worth more than your standard high school diploma.
Oh yeah, and $20,000 in debt. Oh well, live and learn.