…that sums up my reaction to this: “you get what you pay for.”
Blogroll
- A Don’s Life
- Acephalous
- All Ravens, Some Crows
- ALSC News
- American Airspace
- Art History Diva
- Australasian and Pacific Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies Blog
- Blographia Literaria
- Cleese Blog
- Coffee Shop Office
- Critical Mass
- Delicate Consitution
- Dr. Boli’s Celebrated Magazine
- Dr. Doom
- Early Modern Notes
- Early Modern Online Bibliography
- Easily Distracted
- Fill His Head First with a Thousand Questions
- Fretful Porpentine
- Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog
- George Scialabba
- If: Book
- Les Pages aux Folles
- Loose Canons
- Maitzen Reads
- Margaret and Helen
- Mercurius Politicus
- My Life and Thoughts
- My Pet Walrus
- News for State Colleges and Universities
- Not Even Wrong
- Not of General Interest
- Novel Readings
- Of Windmills and Labyrinths
- Otherwise, Lightning
- Patrick Spedding
- Professor Zero
- ProfHacker
- Proper Words in Proper Places
- Relevant History
- Remaking the University
- Seminario Permanente de Teoría y Crítica
- Slawkenbergius’s Tales
- Textual Studies, 1500-1800
- The Daily Dish
- The Little Professor
- The Long Eighteenth
- The One That Got Away
- The Reading Experience
- The Salt Box
- The Scientific Curmudgeon
- The Scriblerus Memoirs
- The Valve
- themikedubose
- Unabgeschlossenheit
- University Diaries
- WordPress.com
- WordPress.org
Disturbingly Funny
Eighteenth-Century Blogs
Periodicals
Scholarly Journals
Perplexed with Narrow Passages 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Mike Stacey
My first reaction was to make a point-by-point commentary of the article, but as I thought about it my eyes glazed over and I felt somewhat listless. I then realized that your label of “you get what you pay for” is pretty much the most reasonable thing to say about this piece, because it might not be worth it to give the article any more of your time.
I do, however, want to look at the article and suggest places where the author misses the point.
First, Carey doesn’t seem to grasp the complexity of the issue, lapsing into extreme generalizations that contemporary periodical readers like to lap up like sweet nectar (oops, I made one too). For example, he makes it seem like the teaching in all introductory level classes at 4-year institutions is woefully bad. The anecdote about Solvig’s daughter having a less than stellar community college instructor is suspect because Carey wants to stretch it to begin his diatribe about bad introductory level teaching.
Yet, that’s not what I find most troubling. While Carey seems to want to make students have more control over their education as consumers, and while Carey’s understanding of higher education as being big-business is correct, he fails to understand that education is not just having professors filling student’s buckets at some set monetary rate. What I’m trying to say here is that Carey does not want to place the educational onus on the student, rather with Carey’s consumer based model, the onus is solely on the institution (think, snack machines…or a cafeteria).
Carey also has a vendetta against adjunct level classrooms suggesting that they “can be educational deadzones,” which I read as “they ARE educational deadzones, but I’m trying to hide my generalization by saying ‘can’ so it softens my rhetoric.” I mean, adjuncts are poked fun at, and that can be really funny, but it’s not fair to lambast them when it comes down to being serious about education. Also, Carey never mentions the droves of not-so-stellar students who are major de-motivators in introductory level classes…I kid.
There is also a slight hypocrisy afoot in this article as well, because online institutions are trying to grab at the same dollar as traditional institutions. Even if the online institutions are trying to offer a cheap product, they still have the great ability to become really wealthy (e.g. Wal*Mart). So while Carey seems to paint traditional institutions as money hungry, he fails to see the potential of that happening to online intuitions, or at least I didn’t see it in the piece. I mean, let’s face it, everyone is trying to make money—that’s one generalization that I can get behind.
I’m also still chuckling about Carey’s inclusion of a quotation that mentions the stories found on ratemyprofessor.com—which is as credible as…well, you can be the judge. In addition, Carey adds a quip about how traditional institutions don’t provide information about what students learn in introductory classes. I’m sure if he dug deep enough, he would find some clues. Especially if he were to conduct a study—looking at course materials &c. Yet, that might not give him the data of what is actually learned. I’m still not sure if anyone know what is actually “learned” in college outside of content data—due to the fact that the traditional experience is SO subjective—no two experiences are alike, even with the same course choices.
Coming back, for a moment, to the idea that a degree is a consumer product, Carey’s car analogy works to a…degree. Yet, I’m not entirely sold on the idea that a college degree is a product like a car is a product, or like a 15-pack of chewing gum is a product. While we can suggest that the college degree is a type of consumer product, there seems to be more to it than the idea of getting your card punched and getting a piece of paper. If online institutions are about this card-punch, push as many people through as we can (to collect our cheap-flat-rate-that-will-accumulate-into-fortunes), then the fall of the traditional university will not be purely economic. Rather, it is the sterilization of the non-product aspect of the traditional degree (whatever it may posited to be–it’s spirit–the institutional culture–I’m waxing idyllic).
Of course, Carey’s piece does make the reader think about the idea that the BA is the new High School diploma (flooded market of degrees holders). And it seems that Carey thinks everybody should be able to buy one, to the extent where it doesn’t seem like the issue at hand is about real learning or education at all. (Does that sound elitist?) All I have to say is show me the money! But no, I really like the idea of you get what you pay for. Although, I have found some cheap things to be really nice like antiquarian books at Church book-sales…I digress.
October 29, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Mike Stacey
Ah damn! Embarrassment! it’s…its…Bad typos, maybe I should have gotten an online degree.
October 29, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Christopher Vilmar
Not at all. In fact, the idea that adjuncts and graduate students are bad teachers is laughable, and you’re right to take this article to task. I’ve observed my fair share of our graduate student teachers and always been impressed with the skill and the energy they bring to the classroom. Don’t worry about the typos as far as I’m concerned. But at this rate, you should start a blog of your own!
I’ll try to respond to your comments in greater detail later. Right now I’m rushing around trying to finish up a few things before dinner.
October 29, 2009 at 9:18 pm
undine
This made me go on a rant a little earlier this year, but your comment really says it all.
October 31, 2009 at 7:37 am
Christopher Vilmar
I hope this rant is on your blog, because I’m about to go over there and look for it!