American Liberal Arts Blog

Teaching the Liberal Arts in the American Context
Charles Murray Rethinking the BA
Print
By David C. Innes, August 14, 2008 in Uncategorized

Charles Murray suggests directing most undergraduate study toward certification rather than degrees. Many people, though they have degrees, don't know anything close to what they should know in their field. I think very highly of Charles Murray. He's brilliant and bold.

What the BA offers that certification cannot provide, among other things, is training in writing and speaking. But many colleges have given up on this.

What I like about this proposal is that it would challenge the complacency of the college industry in the same way that school vouchers challenge the complacency of the government school system.

For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time

By CHARLES MURRAY
The Wall Street Journal August 13, 2008; Page A17
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121858688764535107.html
Imagine that America had no system of post-secondary education, and you were a member of a task force assigned to create one from scratch. One of your colleagues submits this proposal:
First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn't meet the goal. We will call the goal a "BA."
You would conclude that your colleague was cruel, not to say insane. But that's the system we have in place.
Finding a better way should be easy. The BA acquired its current inflated status by accident. Advanced skills for people with brains really did get more valuable over the course of the 20th century, but the acquisition of those skills got conflated with the existing system of colleges, which had evolved the BA for completely different purposes.
Outside a handful of majors -- engineering and some of the sciences -- a bachelor's degree tells an employer nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance. Even a degree in a vocational major like business administration can mean anything from a solid base of knowledge to four years of barely remembered gut courses.
The solution is not better degrees, but no degrees. Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews. That measure should express what they know, not where they learned it or how long it took them. They need a certification, not a degree.
The model is the CPA exam that qualifies certified public accountants. The same test is used nationwide. It is thorough -- four sections, timed, totaling 14 hours. A passing score indicates authentic competence (the pass rate is below 50%). Actual scores are reported in addition to pass/fail, so that employers can assess where the applicant falls in the distribution of accounting competence. You may have learned accounting at an anonymous online university, but your CPA score gives you a way to show employers you're a stronger applicant than someone from an Ivy League school.
The merits of a CPA-like certification exam apply to any college major for which the BA is now used as a job qualification. To name just some of them: criminal justice, social work, public administration and the many separate majors under the headings of business, computer science and education. Such majors accounted for almost two-thirds of the bachelor's degrees conferred in 2005. For that matter, certification tests can be used for purely academic disciplines. Why not present graduate schools with certifications in microbiology or economics -- and who cares if the applicants passed the exam after studying in the local public library?
Certification tests need not undermine the incentives to get a traditional liberal-arts education. If professional and graduate schools want students who have acquired one, all they need do is require certification scores in the appropriate disciplines. Students facing such requirements are likely to get a much better liberal education than even our most elite schools require now.
Certification tests will not get rid of the problems associated with differences in intellectual ability: People with high intellectual ability will still have an edge. Graduates of prestigious colleges will still, on average, have higher certification scores than people who have taken online courses -- just because prestigious colleges attract intellectually talented applicants.
But that's irrelevant to the larger issue. Under a certification system, four years is not required, residence is not required, expensive tuitions are not required, and a degree is not required. Equal educational opportunity means, among other things, creating a society in which it's what you know that makes the difference. Substituting certifications for degrees would be a big step in that direction.
The incentives are right. Certification tests would provide all employers with valuable, trustworthy information about job applicants. They would benefit young people who cannot or do not want to attend a traditional four-year college. They would be welcomed by the growing post-secondary online educational industry, which cannot offer the halo effect of a BA from a traditional college, but can realistically promise their students good training for a certification test -- as good as they are likely to get at a traditional college, for a lot less money and in a lot less time.
Certification tests would disadvantage just one set of people: Students who have gotten into well-known traditional schools, but who are coasting through their years in college and would score poorly on a certification test. Disadvantaging them is an outcome devoutly to be wished.
No technical barriers stand in the way of evolving toward a system where certification tests would replace the BA. Hundreds of certification tests already exist, for everything from building code inspectors to advanced medical specialties. The problem is a shortage of tests that are nationally accepted, like the CPA exam.
But when so many of the players would benefit, a market opportunity exists. If a high-profile testing company such as the Educational Testing Service were to reach a strategic decision to create definitive certification tests, it could coordinate with major employers, professional groups and nontraditional universities to make its tests the gold standard. A handful of key decisions could produce a tipping effect. Imagine if Microsoft announced it would henceforth require scores on a certain battery of certification tests from all of its programming applicants. Scores on that battery would acquire instant credibility for programming job applicants throughout the industry.
An educational world based on certification tests would be a better place in many ways, but the overarching benefit is that the line between college and noncollege competencies would be blurred. Hardly any jobs would still have the BA as a requirement for a shot at being hired. Opportunities would be wider and fairer, and the stigma of not having a BA would diminish.
Most important in an increasingly class-riven America: The demonstration of competency in business administration or European history would, appropriately, take on similarities to the demonstration of competency in cooking or welding. Our obsession with the BA has created a two-tiered entry to adulthood, anointing some for admission to the club and labeling the rest as second-best.
Here's the reality: Everyone in every occupation starts as an apprentice. Those who are good enough become journeymen. The best become master craftsmen. This is as true of business executives and history professors as of chefs and welders. Getting rid of the BA and replacing it with evidence of competence -- treating post-secondary education as apprenticeships for everyone -- is one way to help us to recognize that common bond.
Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, "Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality" (Crown Forum).

Tags: No subjects

7 Comments
Kelly M. Hanlon on Aug 15, 2008 at 11:55 am

Charles Murray lectured at ISI as part of our annual Independence Day lecture series. The event may be viewed online by visiting the link below:

http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?EMail=1&SBy=lecture&…;

Lee Trepanier on Aug 17, 2008 at 11:56 am

Murray's proposal is interesting but entirely unrealistic to implement, given the entrenched interests of higher education. You also have the problems that plagued colleges and universities would spill over to such certification-type programs. Students in such programs wouldn't have to take general education courses and concentrate on their specific field, but it doesn't guarantee that the problems that Murray listed would be replaced in a certification-type school.

Generally speaking, I agree with his suggestion of a certification-driven educational program for the illberal disciplines; and actually would advocate that his ideas be implemented at the high school level and/or create vocational type schools geared towards certification. This would leave the pursuit of a liberal education and research in the realms of universities and colleges. However, as I stated before, I think such a program to be implemented is politically impossible.

David Kidd on Aug 17, 2008 at 1:11 pm

This article is very interesting, especially in light of the previous posts about general education. I think Murray is right to point out that earning a BA is not a very efficient way of acquiring the practical knowledge required to master a craft. He's also right about the mistaken popular obsession with the BA as an indicator of competence (and therefore excellence). However, I think his idea amounts to a rejection not only of perversions of education but the very ideal of liberal education as well. Surely he is wrong to treat competence in a particular craft (or “field”) as the highest good education has to offer!

Murray does note that colleges “evolved the BA for completely different purposes” than the acquisition of “advanced skills for people with brains.” But he offers his proposal as a solution for the problems of contemporary academia as a whole. So, what about the “completely different purposes?” It appears that Murray thinks either a) that they aren’t worth preserving, or b) that they are the proper concern only of an aberrant minority in higher education. Neither option allows that there might be something really worthwhile in “useless” inquiries (like the things Socrates was concerned about).

I'll grant that higher education might benefit from some measure of accountability of the sort Murray describes, so long as it is confined to measuring what can appropriately be measured. But the excellence a liberal education should aim at cannot adequately be tested by an exam. No exam can distinguish between the slave and the free, the just and the unjust, the sophist and the philosopher. And surely any certification exam unable to test the examinee's ability to live well must assume an at best incomplete standard of excellence.

If exams are to be more strongly embraced (and perhaps they should), they must be embraced as a means to a higher end, or the highest good of a liberal education will be lost.

Phil Hamilton on Aug 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Quite frankly, I found Murray’s proposal somewhat silly. First of all, it is entirely impractical and would be intellectually stultifying, especially in the liberal arts disciplines. Does anyone really think, for instance, that a test modeled on the CPA exam can measure one’s competency in philosophy? And who is going to write the exams? In history, what if the test-writers determine that Elizabeth Cady Stanton deserve more focus on the examination than George Washington (remember the controversy several years back when the national standards for history were written and announced). Do we really want to go down that road? While I agree that we want accountability in higher education, I doubt that this proposal will do much to improve education – just the opposite.

And as David states in his original post – Murray gives up on students training in writing and speaking. While many colleges have given up on this as well, can we have true reform in higher education without these essential skills being taught again in a serious manner?

Perhaps Murray is attempting here to engender a discussion about higher education’s shortcomings by “thinking outside the box”. But I just wish he had written a more thoughtful and workable proposal – one that could have a real impact on the public debate.

Patrick M. Ford on Aug 18, 2008 at 10:28 am

I agree that the proposal Murray presents in the posted article is overly homogeneous. Everyone here seems to agree that a standardized certification-style exam for the truly liberal disciplines is untenable precisely because it misjudges the purpose of a traditional liberal education; Lee and David Kidd articulated the problem clearly enough.

I, with Lee, will second Murray's proposal insofar as it applies to the illiberal disciplines; but, while I agree that many entrenched political/higher education interests would resist a move to push the illiberal disciplines out of the four-year college or university, I am not yet convinced that it is totally infeasible. After all, I think we all agree that there is a market-based incentive already in place, namely, that employers are well aware that a B.A. currently means very little about a person's ability to perform a particular job. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing political interest in the role community colleges can play in alleviating perennial concerns about college cost and productivity. As the cost of four-year schools continues to increase and the market value of their "product"--the B.A. student--continues to decrease, the hunt for alternatives is heating up; community colleges are ideally situated to provide relatively cheap and effective training in the illiberal disciplines.

One thing more deserves mention. Murray's main intention, I think, is to increase the quality and accountability of colleges and universities; the question is how best to achieve that end. Murray's proposal raises serious questions about his vision of the purpose of liberal education.

On the other hand, the basic message of his work--that, quite simply, a college degree is not for everyone--seems so obvious to me as to be self-evident. Yet quite the opposite premise is guiding attitudes about higher education in America. The assumption that a university education should be available to everyone is, as every professor well knows, virulently harmful to liberal education--it is, along with a basic corruption of philosophical vision, one of the root causes of its deterioration, being intimately related to lowered standards and inflated grades. Even if Murray's proposal is a bit misguided, the basic premise of his work--that people are not all the same, and that some are natively capable of a rigorous, traditional liberal education, and others are not--must be a part of any conversation about reforming higher education. That is manifestly not the case at present, and Murray is to be commended for his boldness in proclaiming his message in the face of massive resistance.

Lee Trepanier on Aug 21, 2008 at 10:18 am

One quick and small observation. The push for more education for everyone in the United States - that everyone needs or deserves as bachelor degree - confirms Tocqueville's statement that the conditions of social equality are the defining feature of democracies. Besides the political problems that Murray's proposal would face, the philosophical mind-set of democratic America would make such a proposal to implement.

about the author

David C. Innes
David C. Innes

I teach politics at The King's College in New York City, a unique Evangelical Christian college centered around a Politics, Philosophy and Economics program, and committed to the three liberties: political, economic and spiritual. My research interest is Francis Bacon and the politics of technology. I spend too much time blogging at Principalities and Powers.