![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)
![[dot]](/archives/cmdot.gif){kind=small}
February 17, 2008
![[feather]](/archives/feather.gif){kind=small}
Politicizing the padding
We all know the grades on college transcripts are suspect. Between rampant grade inflation and rampant cheating, they don't tell us much. Add to that employers' frustration at not being able to tell much from transcripts -- they are complaining loudly that students don't bring adequate knowledge, essential skills, or disciplined habits with them to work; they also don't reliably bring the humility required to survive--and thrive--in low-paying, less-than-thrilling entry level jobs.
But a solution being considered in Wisconsin--and backed by the AAC&U--sounds like it will only make things worse. University of Wisconsin professor Donald Downs explains:
In recent days, the president of the University of Wisconsin system has risen to the occasion by proposing to the Board of Regents that students have two transcripts upon graduation. The first transcript would be the traditional one, which would list the classes the student took, and the grades that he or she received. The second transcript would depict what the Wisconsin State Journal described as "the student's personal development during college, such as whether the student interned for a company, directed a play, or edited the student newspaper." The University of Wisconsin system would be the national pioneer in this movement. This effort is supported by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, whose vice president recently said that companies seek graduates who can work "with diverse groups and have a sense of social responsibility and ethics," according to the State Journal story.According to Reilly, the university needs to institute this policy because business leaders want "workers who can work with diverse groups and have a sense of social responsibility and ethics," according to the State Journal story. The second transcript would involve more than a typical resume. It would have to be approved by a faculty member, and show how the student's experiences outside the classroom represented a meaningful application of the student's classroom work. "We know when students get to the end of their time with us, employers and graduate school admissions officers want to know what you did besides get and A or B in philosophy," Reilly told the State Journal. "We think this will capture some of the educational experience."
Given the potential importance of extracurricular work, who but a curmudgeon could object to this brave new policy? Well, let this curmudgeon count the ways. First, students already have ample opportunity to make their extra-curricular work known to employers through the use of resumes and interviews. What would be gained by making the engagement in outside activities a formal part of the pedagogical process? Not much.
The first problem is something that all observant faculty members have witnessed in recent years: student padding and building of resumes in order to impress authority figures. To be sure, many - perhaps most - students are sincere about their outside work, and perform it because it is good to do so or because they need the money or experience, not simply because it builds a paper record. But no one should be so naive as to think that insincere inflation of resumes will not occur. And just how is a faculty member supposed to properly evaluate and substantiate this work? Such evaluation presents a fertile opportunity for subjectivity - and, therefore, favoritism - to run amok. And if you think that grade inflation is a problem in higher education today, just wait until you witness the fruits that "second transcripts" would bear.
Another problem is that second transcripts will probably favor those students who enjoy wealth or good connections. Many students today have to work hard outside of class in order to pay for their stunningly expensive educations, and simply do not have the time or the resources to excel in the types of activities second transcripts encourage. The last thing we need in higher education is a policy that exacerbates class advantage.
A third problem is that such transcripts will only further higher education's drift away from its core fiduciary responsibility: to provide knowledge to students, and to make them critical, responsible thinkers. Study after study has shown that college students are ignorant of basic political and historical facts. To pick just one example among many, a 1999 survey of students at 55 elite colleges and universities showed that 40 percent did not know in what half-century the Civil War took place. Why are we encouraging the use of second transcripts when it is evident that we are doing such a poor job of performing our primary duty?
Fourth, a second transcript movement threatens to further politicize the pedagogical process and the university. Recall the Association of American Colleges and Universities' desire to encourage students' "sense of social responsibility and ethics." Given the political orientations of many faculty members today, the "sense of social responsibility" is often a code word for a political or ideological persuasion. Will students feel free to work on activities that challenge the governing political and ideological orthodoxies of the campus? And what about students who are philosophically and ethically opposed to performing works of "social responsibility" in the first place? Will their moral resistance lead to negative and therefore damaging "second transcripts?" Or, more poignantly, what about those who believe in such work, but are opposed to performing it under the gaze of the paternalistic university that has now made such work more or less mandatory?
Second transcripts should be viewed as what they are--paperwork designed to sidestep a problem in the name of solving it. The Wisconsin Regents should know better, and so should the AAC&U.
Employers have real concerns about whether a college degree means what it needs to mean in today's work force. But trustees, administrators, and faculty members are going to have to return to the basics if they want to address those concerns. Introducing new, deflecting hoops for students to jump through won't do it--both students and faculty will just game them to serve their own ends. And when they do that, do we really want a third transcript?
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1402
Comments:
Why does an employer need the university to tell him whether a student "interned for a company, directed a play, or edited the student newspaper?" If the student thinks these things are relevant to the job he is seeking, he can put them on his resume. If the hiring manager wants to know more about them, he can ask the applicant during the interview. If he thinks the applicant may be lying, he can investigate turther.
It's true that there's a lot you can't tell about a person from a degree and a transcript. One of solutions to this is for people who do hiring to improve their interviewing skills, which are often pretty mediocre. Another solution is to realize that you don't have to hire people for life, and--if they're not working out--can them or move them to another job.
The search for a credential-based system that will lead to flawless hiring, without human skill or judgment in the process, is certain to fail.
So, if the transcript is suspect and what really counts is what the student does outside of class, why college at all? How about the first thing we do is burn all the colleges and replace them with glee clubs and drama clubs and drinking clubs and ethnicity clubs... Oh, sorry, that is a college. My bad.
A transcript also shows what a student did at one particular time. For example, a student may work really hard to get a 'B' in a comp class and then not write much in other classes or outside of school and their writing ability will atrophy (substitute any college course and the same would be true). As far as adequate knowledge goes, I would say that classes intstruct what they're supposed to instruct and that may not teach students what manager Schmuckatelli thinks the graduates should know. They may not have the humility to survive those low paying entry level jobs because the jobs are LOW paying and may not offer adequate advancement for the average graduate. I agree that new types of transcripts aren't needed, but a vague "let's get back to basics" doesn't say much either. I see the loud complaints of employers as a smokescreen to hide other issues: They offer mediocre jobs, lackluster benefits, and grim growth potential and in exchange they want dedication, devotion, and a committment to excellence. To the employer's I would say, "You get what you pay for." Of course, I'm sure there are some cases where employers' complaints are legitimate.
If Schmuckatelli wants a higher quality of employees, he of course has the option to pay more and offer better benefits, and thereby get people who would otherwise go to work for some other employer. But this doesn't work for the economy as a whole. Paying people more doesn't make them more intelligent, knowledgeable, and literate.
I don't hear a lot of people talking vaguely about "back to basics," rather, I hear more specific issues. For example, manufacturing managers would like employees who know how to make and understand a graph, and maybe even know some basic algebra, so that they can use Statistical Process Control concepts. And people hiring MBAs would really like it if said MBAs were able to give an intelligible, interesting, and persuasive presentation.
of course it doesn't work for the economy as a whole; we have a disappearing middle class--we don't want to stop that, do we?
You tend to speak as if the business world were some utopia where everyone were supremely competent--I think Dilbert is a more accurate view. That said, I agree with your original post, David. Better interviewing skills would prevent the hiring of mediocre employees. Then those manufacturing managers and MBA hirers will get what they want. Wait a minute--I didn't know business schools and engineering schools were the problem in academia. Isn't it the humanities? :)
"You tend to speak as if the business world were some utopia where everyone were supremely competent"...obviously not, or I wouldn't be pointing out how many people in business have poor interviewing skills. But in this comment thread I'm responding to a post about academic policies, on a primarily academic blog.
Jason, in the past few years I've been involved in several rounds of hiring for a small business that frequently needs people to do all-around editorial work, including research, copywriting, fact-checking, and proofreading. When new batches of resumes come in, I despair, especially when they're from recent graduates, because competently written resumes and cover letters are surprisingly rare. It's not uncommon to find misspellings--of my name, my boss's name, the company name--as well as misused words, sentence fragments, and hilariously overconfident jargon--and nary a sign that the applicant spent even a minute on Google to find out what it is our company does. We see kids from big-name schools, ambitious kids who were obviously organizers and campus leaders, whose cover letters demonstrate that they don't know the difference between "its" and "it's." Many of them don't even follow the simple application instructions in the job ads we post. In 2003, after screening 100 resumes, we didn't hire a single entry-level editor. Last year, when we found two competent candidates in a batch of 50 resumes, we were so happy we practically danced the hora in our office.
If you read and comment on blogs, keep in mind that you're moving in atypically literate circles. The truth is, a disturbing number of college graduates--particularly kids who aspire to be "editors" and work in publishing--don't even know basic grammar, punctuation, and style. That doesn't bode well for companies looking for employees who possess the specialized skills David is talking about.
Even mediocre employees have to live.
I second David and Jeff. I am always pleasantly surprised when one of my direct reports, who actually has a degree in chemistry, doesn't wince when I introduce a stoichiometric calculation. I don't need them to have directed plays. I need basic laboratory skills and some familiarity with the periodic table.
Been saying for years that college is the new high school.
i guess i'll rephrase part of my initial point: how much of this is the responsibility of colleges and how much of it is just poor students or good students with poor application skills? we tend to treat education as some mere hurdle--memorize for the test, rinse, repeat. is it any surprise that some students turn out incompetent? are colleges perfect? no. are they gigantic failures? no. (of course this view isn't popular for readers of this blog.)
Laura: don't hire drama majors. hire competent chemists.
Jason: I'd like to assume that a degree in chemistry means that the degree holder can do certain things related to laboratory work.
The second transcript isn't only for drama majors.
Actually, in one of my workplaces, I developed a quiz for prospective hires. Basic calculations, and a chromatogram to look at. We found this to be necessary even though our interviewees all had science degrees.
Someone I used to know hired mechanical engineers. He found two interview questions to be useful:
1)"What is a spring?" (The right answer is not "a metal coil-y thing") Lots of the ME graduates were unable to give an intelligent answer.
2)"I see you know (name of computer-aided design package.) It's installed on that workstation over there--could you just step over and design something--something very simple is fine." Apparently, many interviewees reacted with indignation, feeling that this was an unreasonable thing to request in an interview.
Post a comment:
