Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

Dan Henninger has an interesting piece in Opinion Journal. The focus is on Lou Dobbs of CNN, who has become a left-wing monster of late.

An interesting point to be made, in my ever-so-humble opinion, is that out-sourcing, the bane of well-intentioned liberals across the country, has a cause, and it has nothing to do with the federal government. That is, the availability of competent workers.

Much of the commotion focuses on high-tech jobs. That phrase has come to mean programmers. The problem is that companies cannot find enough. The standard response is that we need to provide incentives to the unemployed to get them the skills to fill these jobs.

Okay. Every community college in this country offers at least a single class in programming. Most offer associate degrees. The typical tuition rate for community colleges is around $25 per credit hour; $75 per course. $150 per year.

What keeps people from getting this degree is that there is right and wrong. Fuzzy answers don’t make the program work. Rules must be followed. Math and science are generally involved. Writing a program that works means making a A in class. Too much pressure.

The same people complaining are the very ones who cry about illegal Mexican workers, who “do jobs Americans won’t do.” The difference here is that Indian workers are doing the jobs Americans won’t get the education to do.

Thanks to Dr. Ray for pointing out this article.

Teachers in Tucson went on strike. Generally, I think teachers should exempt themselves from this kind of activity “for the children.”

In this case, what they were doing actually was for the children.

Yesterday we had a retirement luncheon at a restaurant in town. On the way there, I managed to hear a bit of Neal Boortz’s program. It was pretty good, and Neal was true to his slogan, “Somebody’s gotta say it!”

The caller wanted to complain about the economy. Boortz calmly explained all the positive data, but this man would have none of it. “We’ve lost 2 million jobs in this country!” and went on to spew about out-sourcing. Neal was having none of it, and asked where he got his numbers. “It’s common knowledge.” No, where did you get the number? Neal pressed until the man told him he could look it up on the DNC web site. Aha!

Boortz asked if the Bureau of Labor Statistics would be okay as a reference. It was. He quoted the site as saying 2 million jobs had been created in 2003. The man went histerical, and complained “I’m not talking about jobs flipping burgers. I can’t afford to pay my health insurance.”

Now we get to the real issue. Boortz wanted to know what the man was doing for a living. “Working for a patent attorney.” What did he do before? “Well, um, I was…in the product development business.” I would have asked what that meant, but Neal was more polite. What education level did he have? “I have a BA.” In what? “Psychology.”

At that point, Boortz could stand it no longer. “If I owned a company that did product development, I would be searching for someone with a psychology degree.” The caller took the bait. “Why?”

“BECAUSE I’M AN IDIOT!” He went on to deride this 50-year-old man for making bad decisions, and wanting the government to make up for it.

I’m interested in education. And Neal made a very good point about choosing a degree program with some research behind the decision.

There are many degree programs at colleges around the country that do nothing to prepare a graduate for employment. Personally, I think a Liberal Arts degree is valuable as education. Yet it does nothing for someone’s employment prospects. It is also an education someone can get on their own by reading and being involved in life. There are degrees in Gender/Women’s Studies which don’t seem like much of an education at all. In fact, Bogey has friends who have this degree. I asked what jobs they might qualify for, and he responded “Teaching, writing, or journalism, maybe.” I doubt there are recruiters signing up students for interviews every semester in the Gender Studies Department, but maybe I’m wrong. The same can be said for a degree in English Literature. Getting a PhD in one of these makes sense, if your goal is to teach at a university. Other than that, the job market doesn’t offer much. Even something like microbiology, which is not an easy program, has limited employment opportunities unless you get an advanced degree.

Now that I have my degree in engineering (which puts food on my table) I enjoy taking liberal arts classes like world literature. It’s my own version of self-actualiztion. I got my masters in International Relations because I was in Special Ops, and the world was my playground. I thought it would help me do my job better. But it also allowed me to indulge my interest in history. So there are certainly ways to get a degree with practical application while satifying your personal interests outside that program. Certainly there is no law against getting some degree with a direct job path at the same time as you take courses you simply enjoy or feel will help you intellectually. I could have taken three engineering courses and three history courses each semester.

The problem is that you won’t finish in four years. So what? If you want an education, why not take six years? But get a degree which will help you get a job doing something you want to do! Best of both worlds. Pick a program which leads to a job that interests you, and also has a good rate of hire.

I picked up a copy of Bill James’ Historical Abstract some 20 years ago. I am a baseball fan, and the book interested me enough to plop down some $5 for this tome on the bargain table. I read it cover to cover. Then I read it again. I was fascinated by the concept of “Runs Created”, Bill’s prime statistic, and one nobody really ever considered.

Now, Dan Lips has done something similar in National Review Online regarding education. Success comes from directions most of us don’t imagine.

As I read through Mike S. Adams: A reading list for high school seniors, I began thinking of what my own list would be. I’ve read too many books to really put together a list of ten without leaving out something really important, so I limited the list to five which I think are of significant stature.

Professor Adams puts his focus on religious education for students about to enter college. I think mine would be more likely to address more secular issues, although they are not more important.

1. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain. To me, this is the single most important volume on society and culture. Twain covers it all: religion, government, economics, culture, slavery, and education. Twain is the best observer of human nature, and his writing is entrancing.

2. The Federalist Papers by James Madison, Father of the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury and only New York delegate to the Convention to sign the Constitution; John Jay, the first Chief justice of the Supreme Court. What else need be said?

3. Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. A young Frenchman visits the US early in the 19th century and pens his perspective on the character of America.

4. The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Nobel Prize-winning author describes life under a totalitarian regime. There are three volumes, but the first is the most enlightening.

5. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations is not just a reference book for speakers and writers to glean “support” for their topic. Reading this cover-to-cover can be a tremendous education, following the differences and similarities in thought through written history.

There–a short list, although every one of these is substantial. Every one is valuable in ways that will, in my ever-so-humble opinion, help any student along the way to independent thought as he enters college.

Education in this country is one of my main interests. Nobody can make it in this world without it. Yes, there have been some entrepreneurs who had success without formal education (Bill Lear and Tom Edison come to mind), but theirs are percentages of success so small as to be almost unmeasureable.

I worked as Commandant at a small private military school for a couple of years. We had grades 7-12, and junior college. Many of the high school kids were intelligent, but had no self-discipline. On the other hand, the junior college students were primarily Proposition 48 football and basketball players. That is, they were talented enough to play at a major NCAA Division I school, but didn’t have the grades and SAT/ACT scores to qualify. They had no self-discipline, either. And they had never been required by their school system to accomplish anything academically. Bad grades meant no sports.

The liberal answer to this quandry might be, “getting an athletic scholarship may be his only chance to get a college education.” My response is that they have no chance of getting a college education unless they first receive a high school education.

Most of these young men failed to finish their first year. As soon as their season was over, they had no interest in attending class. I taught a study skills class, and was amazed at how little most of them knew. As it became apparent their grades would be failing, they began to ask if they could do some extra credit work to bring them up.

It hit me–So, that’s how they made it through high school. They would go to the teacher, who would give them some simple tasks to accomplish, and that extra credit would get their grade high enough to allow them to play.

When they asked if they could do extra credit work, I agreed. I told them that as soon as they completed the work originally assigned, I’d be happy to give them extra work for extra credit. I generally got a look of disbelief. I’m sorry to say, they really didn’t disappoint me. Instead of doing the work they had, then asking for extra, they simply quit doing anything.

Some people may say I failed these students. Maybe they’re right. I don’t agree. The failure took place years before when these boys were allowed to progress (not a very good word for this) through school without having learned anything.

I had two offers to teach in high schools. The administrations of both schools wanted me for my knowledge, but also for my demeanor–you know, the mean old retired GI who could intimidate any high-schooler. There was one catch: I had to get my teaching certificate within three years. I told myself “no sweat”, and submitted my transcripts and resume to the local college that had a teacher program.

They required me to take another 22 hours of credit, including Speech 101. On top of that, I needed to pass the high school exit exam. I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, and an MS in International Relations. I have taught as a military instructor both in the classroom and in flight. I have built entire curricula from scratch. I taught for two years at the Air Force Academy. I have coached kids from age 5 to college in baseball and football, including two years at one of these high schools. I have no doubt that there would be some piece of information in each of those eight classes they wanted me to take. But I just couldn’t see that the sum of what I would learn could fill even a single semester.

I’m not teaching.

I don’t think public school teachers are evil. You don’t go into that kind of job without caring. But a terrible lack of world vision hampers their personal education. Most graduate from high school, graduate from college, and begin teaching. It is hard for them to relate real-life issues, but they try. Most get some experience in the “outside world” working summer jobs, which puts them ahead of their counterparts at colleges.

It falls to them to give students an education many do not want. As a high school coach, I saw many athletes who thought colleges would just come looking for them. Their future was assured when some college coach recognized their talent. Every school in this country has twenty or thirty athletes who think they’ll get a full scholarship. The truth is, maybe one at each (on average) will. And the percentages are even smaller for being selected by the pros, let alone making a career as a pro.

I can’t criticize teachers too much because they deal with these realities.

But money is not the answer. What got me going on this is a post discussing education budgets. And there are links to stories similar to mine regarding teacher certification, as well as Professor Caroline Hoxby’s Papers on the Web which detail research into education.

In constant dollars, American school budgets have increased 300% since the 1960s. Where has that taken our education system? Down. In my ever-so-humble opinion, much of it has to do with the education level of teachers and administrators.

Teachers don’t earn a lot, but they are paid for nine months of work rather than twelve. On that basis, they are paid a fairly equitable salary. I will also say that it still isn’t enough. To progress on the pay scale, they must get continuing education credits and graduate degrees. They must move from teaching to administration. At schools of any size, the principal has a doctorate. The superintendent definitely does.

Dissertations must be based on original work. That means a doctoral candidate must find something obscure which hasn’t been done before. Once he/she does all that work, it would be a tremendous waste to not implement the results. And that’s where many new educational programs come from. And they displace solid academic effort which used to give students a basic, and useful, education.

Schools also continue to increase the number of “soft” courses with the admirable intent of broadening student interests. This would be a wonderful thing if the basic requirements of reading, writing, science, and arithmetic were being met. Apparently, they are not.

I have no silver bullet to slay this monster. But the gunpowder is certainly available: return to the core educational requirements defined in the 1950s and 1960s when students walked out of high school with a diploma that actually meant something.