The State of California once led the country in establishing a vision for higher education and deploying resources that made college education available to millions of its residents and fostered world-class research across dozens of disciplines. Its latest move shows that this mid-20C spirit is faded, eviscerating the meaning of the degrees which are granted at both the high school and college levels. The institutions which were charged with realizing the original vision have fallen prey to self-preservation and sclerosis.
Specifically, a new law requires most California State University (“CSU”) campuses to offer admission to any California high school student graduating with at least a 2.5 grade point average (i.e., C+/B-). Now, (according to ChatGPT) the average high school GPA has inflated dramatically over the past 40 years. In the 1980s, it was under 2.4, it is now well over 3.0. This means that about 70% of graduates have at least a 2.5 GPA; i.e., below average students are now encouraged to go to college.
[I have to acknowledge that as a graduate in the 1970s from an upper-middle class environment with lots of academic support and resources, I am part of the incumbent elite in this story.]
The combination of these facts and the new law raise several questions:
1) What is the purpose of a college education?
2) How does this law help students?
3) How does this law help legislators and the CSU system?
4) Why would most students who didn’t do all that well in high school, want to go to college?
The post-WWII expansion of higher education was seen as an important means of building a strong-middle class in the US, along with facilitating the growth of the economy (especially in the service and corporate sectors). A college degree was a mark of distinction and was well compensated in the employment histories of those who achieved it. While less than 2% of the population had a college degree in 1900, by 1960 this grew to over 7% and to over 16% by 1980. Since then, the rate has again more than doubled to about 38%.
The marginal benefit of a college degree, therefore, had to fade over time. The mantra of “to get a good job, get a good education,” was tremendously effective in engaging students (and their parents) to steer their focus in this direction. But the surge in degrees necessarily means that they’re no longer so distinctive and economically valuable.
At the same time, broad social changes across the country throughout the second half of the 20C expanded the likely pool of college students and the social necessity of expanding college access. I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize the continued push for degrees to those aspiring to increased socio-economic status as some sort of deception or manipulation by elites, but there is some irony in the fact that this “democratization” of college degrees has coincided with their relative reduction in economic value.
For decades, colleges have deployed resources, techniques, and programs to enhance and accelerate graduation rates for their students. Much of this effort responds to the relative decline in student’s capabilities (for a variety of reasons) at the time they enter college. Overall, they were a modest success—at least on their own terms. The new California law continues this trend. It builds on an embedded belief that the purpose of a college is to produce college graduates. Clear thinking about the meaning and purpose of becoming one of those graduates is, however, harder to find.
I’ve talked before about the vocationalization of college education: the focus on job training and the diminution of the liberal arts. This process has developed in tandem with the “industrialization” of college education: turning colleges into assembly lines for the production of graduates with degrees.
The new law now encourages high school graduates of below average performance to go to college where they will likely struggle even more than they did in high school, to spend five years or so and about $100,000 (plus living expenses) to get a degree that will get them into the middle of the mass of job seekers.
Wow! Sounds like a great deal.
That would be tough enough in ordinary times, but the AI-induced incipient upheaval in the entry-level white collar job market undermines any confidence that this traditional scenario will continue. (See 012425, Morlocks, for a comment on the long-term societal consequences).
Besides providing more “opportunity” for young Californians, the new law also seeks to help those colleges campuses which have faced enrollment declines in the last several years. [This includes SF State, where enrollment drops led to my “retirement” in 2024 (so one might think I would benefit from this law).] In other words, let’s artificially prop up demand for a service and institution that can’t cut it in the marketplace.
This is the sort of legislation that generates a nice sounding press release and campaign PR for its supporters (it passed unanimously in both houses). It’s no wonder that most voters have little enthusiasm for our democratic institutions. Elected officials are more concerned with sound bites and demonstrating "action” rather than actually thinking about what would be useful to young people and candidly re-assess the nature and purpose of the public university systems and the extensive expenditures we all make to support them.
I’ve spoken before about the limited utility of analogizing from history, mostly in geopolitical contexts. It’s especially true here; we have no good sense of how this will play out, but the changes are likely to be deep and wide.
Specifically, a new law requires most California State University (“CSU”) campuses to offer admission to any California high school student graduating with at least a 2.5 grade point average (i.e., C+/B-). Now, (according to ChatGPT) the average high school GPA has inflated dramatically over the past 40 years. In the 1980s, it was under 2.4, it is now well over 3.0. This means that about 70% of graduates have at least a 2.5 GPA; i.e., below average students are now encouraged to go to college.
[I have to acknowledge that as a graduate in the 1970s from an upper-middle class environment with lots of academic support and resources, I am part of the incumbent elite in this story.]
The combination of these facts and the new law raise several questions:
1) What is the purpose of a college education?
2) How does this law help students?
3) How does this law help legislators and the CSU system?
4) Why would most students who didn’t do all that well in high school, want to go to college?
The post-WWII expansion of higher education was seen as an important means of building a strong-middle class in the US, along with facilitating the growth of the economy (especially in the service and corporate sectors). A college degree was a mark of distinction and was well compensated in the employment histories of those who achieved it. While less than 2% of the population had a college degree in 1900, by 1960 this grew to over 7% and to over 16% by 1980. Since then, the rate has again more than doubled to about 38%.
The marginal benefit of a college degree, therefore, had to fade over time. The mantra of “to get a good job, get a good education,” was tremendously effective in engaging students (and their parents) to steer their focus in this direction. But the surge in degrees necessarily means that they’re no longer so distinctive and economically valuable.
At the same time, broad social changes across the country throughout the second half of the 20C expanded the likely pool of college students and the social necessity of expanding college access. I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize the continued push for degrees to those aspiring to increased socio-economic status as some sort of deception or manipulation by elites, but there is some irony in the fact that this “democratization” of college degrees has coincided with their relative reduction in economic value.
For decades, colleges have deployed resources, techniques, and programs to enhance and accelerate graduation rates for their students. Much of this effort responds to the relative decline in student’s capabilities (for a variety of reasons) at the time they enter college. Overall, they were a modest success—at least on their own terms. The new California law continues this trend. It builds on an embedded belief that the purpose of a college is to produce college graduates. Clear thinking about the meaning and purpose of becoming one of those graduates is, however, harder to find.
I’ve talked before about the vocationalization of college education: the focus on job training and the diminution of the liberal arts. This process has developed in tandem with the “industrialization” of college education: turning colleges into assembly lines for the production of graduates with degrees.
The new law now encourages high school graduates of below average performance to go to college where they will likely struggle even more than they did in high school, to spend five years or so and about $100,000 (plus living expenses) to get a degree that will get them into the middle of the mass of job seekers.
Wow! Sounds like a great deal.
That would be tough enough in ordinary times, but the AI-induced incipient upheaval in the entry-level white collar job market undermines any confidence that this traditional scenario will continue. (See 012425, Morlocks, for a comment on the long-term societal consequences).
Besides providing more “opportunity” for young Californians, the new law also seeks to help those colleges campuses which have faced enrollment declines in the last several years. [This includes SF State, where enrollment drops led to my “retirement” in 2024 (so one might think I would benefit from this law).] In other words, let’s artificially prop up demand for a service and institution that can’t cut it in the marketplace.
This is the sort of legislation that generates a nice sounding press release and campaign PR for its supporters (it passed unanimously in both houses). It’s no wonder that most voters have little enthusiasm for our democratic institutions. Elected officials are more concerned with sound bites and demonstrating "action” rather than actually thinking about what would be useful to young people and candidly re-assess the nature and purpose of the public university systems and the extensive expenditures we all make to support them.
I’ve spoken before about the limited utility of analogizing from history, mostly in geopolitical contexts. It’s especially true here; we have no good sense of how this will play out, but the changes are likely to be deep and wide.
RSS Feed